Talk:William Shakespeare

From Wikinfo

Jump to: navigation, search


Template:Talkheader Template:GA-writers Template:Todo priority Template:WPCD Template:WikiProject E-theatre Template:FAOL Template:Oldpeerreview Template:V0.5 Template:WPBiography Template:Past AID

Image:Vista-file-manager.png
Archives

Contents

Continued talk: Most quoted writer

Comment after reading the discussion in archive 2: Personally I think 'Most quoted writer' is a hard thing to say. It seems that the source draws from various categories. IMO though Shakespeare being a 'Most quoted writer' is a commonly agreed thing it is impossible to prove that. We don't know if there's a secret anti-Shakespearean group somewhere speaking non-Shakespeare quotes everyday just to destroy this claim. All in all the claim cannot be verified. We might need to specify some categories that we can easily prove, such as 'Most quoted writer in dictionaries', 'Most quoted writer in books', etc., or just simply 'One of the most quoted writers'. Aranherunar 09:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The claim is supported by the Oxford English Dictionary which actually surveys literature for quotes, and also accounts for everyday usage of famous phrases Bwithh 14:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Translations into other languages

When Shakespeare is translated into other languages, to they tend to translate him into a pseudo-16th century version of that language, or a modern one? Does anyone have any examples? TharkunColl 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Into modern language, usually, as I understand. I don't have any examples, but presumably you'd find plenty on amazon.fr or amazon.de etc. AndyJones 12:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Was Shakespeare gay?

I though he was.

Dfrg.msc Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg 01:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of writers believe so. There's no way of knowing for certain. It was Oscar Wilde who popularised the idea. The strongest evidence is in the passionate poems addressed to the young man in the Sonnets, especially sonnet 20.
The search for "certainty" can obscure something much more meaningful - the significance of suggestive evidence. If Shakespeare was running for office today and the sonnets surfaced, he would be hounded out of town. If the subject could be identified as a particular youth even one day under age, he would be subject to arrest in some jurisdictions. Shakespeare expressed emotions that many perceptive readers over the centuries have identified as same-sex desire and love. They are thought to be a window into his heart. Haiduc 11:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I forgot to mention we've got a whole article on the subject: Sexuality of William Shakespeare. AndyJones 12:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
How interesting, thanks guys. Dfrg.msc Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg 07:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is rather anachronistic. Th eidea that men are gay or not comes from the ninettenth century. Before that in general it was considered that anyone would quite like to have sex with anyone except that their moral rules, very strong ones in this religious time, stooped them from doing so . 193.51.150.20 10:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Later Years

There are claimed descendants of Dr John Hall and his wife daughter of William Shakespear.

And other descendants claimed via his other daughter.

Writeups about this are weak by non experts in genealogy.

Speculation/Identity

Francis Bacon being William Shakespear is supported by computer studies esp of shared word usage esp words from the early dictionary by Thomas Cooper.

No it isn't. Paul B 11:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a really insane argument. Those that ever accuse Shakespeare of being the same person as Francis Bacon are not exactly too intelligent. So what, what a computer writes. A computer is not a human being and can never understand an idea. The program is also only so good as the programmer. This idiocy should be stopped. If you wish to base some argument on the claim that Bacon was really Shakespeare, study history as science and you will see that this is impossible. Bacon was an agent working against the republican element and Shakespeare was a patriot, through and through. Study history and see for yourself. Look also at Shakespeare's teacher, Sir Thomas More. You will learn some interesting things. For more on this thread, leave a note and I will leave some references. --194.97.160.53 20:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC) (not an anonymous user, but didn't log in. The username is nemesis1981.

Muse, Enlightenment, BUrnout

New section ?

Little is understood by academe about enlightenment, taught in the old colleges of Greece, Egypt & Rome, to engender that white heat of extraordinary creativity and abilities that a Shakespear surely had, and less of the potential resulting burnout from that heightened energy.

Muse or direct selection by heaven as Saul / Paul struck blind then enlightened, or manic madness - rude jackanapes chant on.

Illuminating. Please feel free to keep future similar thoughts to yourself. Paul B 11:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Young Paulie, please review the listing at top now before you, of etiquette - Talk page guidelines Respect etiquette Assume good faith No personal attacks Be nice Don't bite the newcomers! 

  ~Bard Still Alive~

Shakespeare's works

There absolutely needs to be a sentence at the beginning of the article stating that it is not proven whether he did write the works actually.

It is proven. Those who believe otherwise are in a minority and have yet to provide conclusive evidence. The burden of proof is on them. And there is a sentence in the introduction saying "many people have speculated about ... the authorship of his works". The Singing Badger 11:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the first comment. The inquisitive visitor is entitled to an accurate representation of the facts. To begin with, I challenge this uncritical view that Shakspere wrote 38 plays. To begin with, he did not write The Tempest see Shakespeare Authorship. QBrute
It should be noted that the preceeding comment is from an anonymous editor who vandalized a number of pages here.--Alabamaboy 20:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

To guard against being misrepresented, I added to the top of the article that some of the facts were not correct. For example, The Tempest could not have been written by Shakspere (see cited Wiki article). I can fully justify this claim. Am I correct in anticipating a policy of free speech in this forum? QBrute

If you can gain consensus for your changes on this talk page, then more power to you. But you must gain consensus for such controversial changes before making them. --Alabamaboy 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What does "gain consensus" mean? Is this a vote amongst Stratfordians or is it an analysis of an argument? QBrute

See Wikipedia:Consensus. Also consider creating an account here to make it easier to have discussions.--Alabamaboy 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Equally logically, please send me a �20 postal order, or I will take it as a personal attack. AndyJones 21:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a joke here somewhere? I don't get it. barryispuzzled 00:49 2 September 2006

Don't worry, you didn't miss much. AndyJones 09:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a joke here, but it has been told better by a thousand other people, some seriously, like Freud, and some as an easy gag, like Joyce. Unfortunately, most like Freud, who feel threatened and will never be able to understand how a normal man from a provincial town was the biggest genius ever.--192.232.30.80 12:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

New link for external links section

A new site about Shakespeare's works has recently launched. It's located at:

http://www.playshakespeare.com

This site should be added because it's a free resource for the plays which differs from other online resources. All other online versions are based on the Globe Edition of his works which is an outdated (by almost 150 years!) and contains many errors. The texts are based on the Riverside Edition (the most authoritative edition blessed by top Shakespeare scholars today) and are more compelte than those of the Globe Edition due to later discovery and examination. Therefore, the quality of the content is HIGHER than on other sources freely available online (though there are PAID sources which are comparable in quality).

Additionally, the site provides other facts and figures about the plays (lines, lengths, chronologies, etc.) as well as a forum providing expert analysis by university professors and the dramaturg of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, OR. (the most popular Shakespeare festival in the the US). The site has a performance-related focus and on the interpretation of Shakespeare's plays for performance.

The site is (and always will be) free and fulfills the Wikipedia requirements for external links. Template:Unsigned

  • No, it is SPAM. We only accept the best quality external links for major articles on Wikipedia (At least, we aspire to, but don't get me going on that subject). This site is largely a wikipedia mirror. Look here and you find mainly sentences I wrote myself. We do not want this SPAM here. AndyJones 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

++++ The only information from Wikipedia on this site are the play synopses (Full credit and GPL listed on the "About the Texts" page). Once all the plays are up, it WILL be the "best quality" link (not article as you've mentioned) because of the reasons stated above. How can you scream SPAM about a site that's free, requires no registration, and has a higher quality content than other sites?

Since your aspirations are so high, why would you allow a site like opensourceshakespeare.com to be added when you forbid personal projects? (which his is by his own admission on the site).

  • Personally, I'm not happy about opensourceshakespeare either. Whatever its merits, though, yours is still SPAM. We have a guideline on the subject, here. AndyJones 17:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

++++ There's that word again... SPAM. Can you please be more specific on why you think it fits that description? According to the Wikipedia spam link you referred, spam is defined as something that is a solicitation for a business, product or service or is a PR piece for a comercial website. Does it need to have a .ORG TLD in order to be considered non commercial? There are no comercial aspects about the site and the content is all free and provided by university professors in the SF Bay Area.

If, by your own admission, you're not happy about opensourceshakespeare.com then why is it even listed? It would seem obvious that it's a personal project (it even says so on the site) and the rules are the rules, right? I would imagine that if you follow the guidelines to the letter when considering playshakespeare.com, you'd measure other sites with the same yardstick.

  • I'm sorry, I cannot really find anything to engage with in this debate. This kind of discussion might be appropriate in a borderline-type case, but playshakespeare.com is so far away from being an appropriate external link that really there's nothing more to say. If it takes off in a big way, come back again to discuss it in a year. AndyJones 12:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

++++ Can't find anything to engage? Then please answer my previous questions. You keep reiterating your observations about playshakespeare.com without giving any reasons to support or explain them. The single reference you've given is the Wikipedia spam page and the site complies with those guidelines. You also basically admit that another page which is listed is not quite up to the standards and it clearly goes against a Wikipedia guideline by its own admission. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Believe me, opensourceshakespeare.com hasn't "taken off in a big way," so why are you using that as a critieria for re-evaluating playshakespeare.com "in a year"? Does quality information mean a popularity contest all of a sudden?

Genealogy of Shakespeare's History

Somewhere in Wikipedia, is there a chart of the relationships of all the characters in the histories? Something graphical would really help one to understand who's killing whom.

63.224.201.110 06:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC) alice

  • I don't think there is. You could look at List of Shakespearean characters but I'm not sure that will help you much. Several of the third-edition Arden Shakespeare books have family trees, and so (I think, from memory) do Saccio's "Shakepeare's Kings" and Norwich's "Shakespeare's Kings". AndyJones 13:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • PS Have checked this. I was right about both books having genealogical charts. I was wrong about the title of Peter Saccio's book, though, which is "Shakespeare's English Kings". AndyJones 21:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

NECDOTES ON NAMES

MR. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARES GAMES..

OK.. WILLIAM DERIVES TO WILL I AM BUT I WONDER IF IT DOES 

    SHAKE
    SPEARE
 LEADS TO....
 SHAKE_SPEAR_E : OR WHAT DOES IT MEAN. DONT TELL ME ONLY A NAME.

Cause of death

As if there's anything else I can ask...what was it? Any clues throughout the ages? Any hard fact? VolatileChemical 22:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the historical researcher Graham Phillips, on the evening of his death Shakespeare was out celebrating his birthday with fellow playwright Ben Johnson (which, incidentally, confirms his birthdate as the 23rd). He was later, supposedly, murdered by Sir Walter Raleigh. TharkunColl 23:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
According to tradition he was out boozing with Jonson and Drayton, and caught an infection, but there's no proof of this. His relative inactivity suggests that he may have suffered a lingering illness of some sort, but it's all speculative. I don't know how Raleigh fits into this, or what Sir W's motive would be...unless he was the REAL SHAKESPEARE. Paul B 23:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A few years ago a German historian claimed to have found Shakespeare's death mask and it had a lump on one eye which looked like an eye cancer. But I believe the death mask was later proven inauthentic. The Singing Badger 00:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

a dark day

The French Shakespeare article is longer and better than ours. Disgrace, friends. --192.232.30.80 12:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Why is that a bad thing? Shakespeare has crossed virtually every language barrier. It's hardly surprising. If you're fluent in French, then by all means bring from the French version what you think is missing in this English version. --Durin 12:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Revenge The English Joan of Arc article is better than the French article. ;) Durova 16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of William Shakespeare

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. I see Shakespeare on film runs something along those lines and would like to suggest this model for Shakespeare references - perhaps a good approach would be to have separate branching pages for straight adaptations of his works and for cultural refrences to Shakespeare - such as paintings and Shakespeare in Love and the infamous Gilligan's Island episode. I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The infamous Gilligan's Island episode???? Well, there'd certainly be enough to go in it, perhaps too much. Numerous works of art, and many many films. Paul B 16:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
"The Producer" originally aired October 3, 1966. "Hollywood producer Harold Hecuba lands on the island for some rest and solitude. The castaways convince him to return to civilization by staging a musical production of Hamlet." They slaughter nearly every major scene with hokey lyrics. Hilarious!
Seriously though, would anyone mind if I culled some material and started a cultural page? Durova 03:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. You may want to give some thought to how best to divide up such material between Shakespeare's reputation and your new cultural page, too. That page (which I've edited extensively) is a little ill-defined and hazy at the edges, and I for one certainly wouldn't have any objection to whatever you think best there. Bishonen | talk 04:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

How many plays?

Regarding this edit summary and this edit summary I just thought I'd mention that Henry VIII is part of the canonical 37. It's The Two Noble Kinsmen that brings the currently-accepted number up to 38. However, PLEASE don't lets start edit warring about the number of plays. There are all sorts of POVs on that: those who say The Tempest or Titus Andronicus or Henry VI Part 1 (etc. etc.) are NOT Shakespeare, and those who insist Edward III and Cardenio and Woodstock (etc. etc.) ARE Shakespeare. 38 remains the best number IMHO, so long as we say "about". AndyJones 07:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course you are right. My slip. Plus there's the Love's Labour's Won issue and others. Paul B 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare not original

Barbara Shack 13:27, 1 Nov 2006 (EST)My conribution is, Shakespeare was not entirely original. I put my contribution here into the Wikipedia article,
Shakespeare's Reputation
I wasn't surprised when it got deleted.
Wikinfo now is the only Wiki that carries it. I wrote it but I think it's good and original.
I imported a new piece from Wikipedia, Shakespeare's plays This demonstrates the lack of originality in Shakespeare's plays.

References

Retrieved from "http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Talk:William_Shakespeare"
Personal tools