| Revision as of 20:32, 9 April 2012 editMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 31d) to Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 21.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:36, 6 January 2025 edit undoKJP1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers77,323 edits Undid revision 1267776904 by [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:1726:CD01:DCE0:BB5A:C868:8EA0 - rubbishTag: Undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1=FAC|action1date=03:52, 31 October 2005|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare/archive1|action1result=not promoted|action1oldid=26921282 |
|
|
|
|action1date=03:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|action2=PR|action2date=12:44, 1 November 2005|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/William Shakespeare/archive1|action2result=reviewed|action2oldid=27056972 |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare/archive1 |
|
|action3=GAN|action3date=01:03, 5 April 2006|action3result=listed|action3oldid=46996708 |
|
|
|
|action1result=failed |
|
|action4=WPR|action4date=19:20, 24 November 2006|action4link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/William Shakespeare|action4oldid=89866456 |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=26921282 |
|
|action5=WAR|action5date=6 June 2007|action5link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/William Shakespeare|action5result=failed|action5oldid=136378885 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=PR|action6date=13:57, 19 June 2007|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/William Shakespeare/archive2|action6result=reviewed|action6oldid=139189320 |
|
|
|
|action2=PR |
|
|action7=FAC|action7date=16:57, 28 June 2007|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare/archive2|action7result=not promoted|action7oldid=141179300 |
|
|
|
|action2date=12:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|action8=FAC|action8date=15:06, 14 August 2007|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare|action8result=promoted|action8oldid=151178496 |
|
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/William Shakespeare/archive1 |
|
|gacat=writers |
|
|
|
|action2result=reviewed |
|
|
|action2oldid=27056972 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=GAN |
|
|
|action3date=01:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|action3link=Special:Diff/46792066 |
|
|
|action3result=passed |
|
|
|action3oldid=46996708 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=WPR |
|
|
|action4date=19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/William Shakespeare |
|
|
|action4result=reviewed |
|
|
|action4oldid=89866456 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=WAR |
|
|
|action5date=16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/William Shakespeare |
|
|
|action5result=failed |
|
|
|action5oldid=136378885 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=PR |
|
|
|action6date=13:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/William Shakespeare/archive2 |
|
|
|action6result=reviewed |
|
|
|action6oldid=139189320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=FAC |
|
|
|action7date=16:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare/archive2 |
|
|
|action7result=failed |
|
|
|action7oldid=141179300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action8=FAC |
|
|
|action8date=15:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare |
|
|
|action8result=passed |
|
|
|action8oldid=151178496 |
|
|
|
|
|aciddate=20 June 2006 |
|
|aciddate=20 June 2006 |
|
|topic=Langlit |
|
|topic=Langlit |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|maindate=October 10, 2007 |
|
|maindate=October 10, 2007 |
|
|
|otd1date=2018-04-23|otd1oldid=837924350|otd2date=2019-04-23|otd2oldid=893807301 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes |living=no|class=FA|vital=yes|listas=Shakespeare, William|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject E-theatre|class=FA|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Elizabethan theatre}} |
|
{{WikiProject Theatre|class=FA|importance=top|attention=no}} |
|
{{WikiProject Theatre|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject London|importance=high|class=FA}} |
|
{{WikiProject London|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject England|class=FA|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject England|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Poetry|class=FA|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Shakespeare|class=FA|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Poetry|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Folklore|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=FA|a&e-priority=Top|core=yes|A-Class=fail|old-peer-review=yes|a&e-work-group=yes|listas=Shakespeare, William}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Warwickshire|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Shakespeare|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-priority=top |a&e-work-group=yes |A-Class=fail |old-peer-review=yes |core=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|class=FA |importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=FA|importance=top|category=Langlit|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Warwickshire|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages|William Shakespeare (Spoken Article).ogg}} |
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
|
{{All time pageviews|77}} |
|
|
{{Annual report|]|6,648,475}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Apr 17 2016 (10th)}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> Anchor ] links to a specific web page: ]. The anchor (#Letterpress era) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Letterpress era","appear":{"revid":32112587,"parentid":31020152,"timestamp":"2005-12-20T16:10:06Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":535278057,"parentid":535079345,"timestamp":"2013-01-28T03:08:44Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->\ |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot|age=30|dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 21 |
|
|counter = 23 |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|minthreadsleft = 10 |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 3 |
|
|algo = old(31d) |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|archive = Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Move to "Shakespeare" == |
|
== Royal patent versus letters patent, and wikilinking same == |
|
|
|
{{Archive top|result='''Consensus against the proposed move''' – It doesn't seem like a formal ] was actually begun here, but in any case there is clearly a consensus against the proposed change. ] – '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">]]</span>''' 22:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Shakespeare is a name associated with William, arguably the best to ever do it in multiple realms. Several writers of the same era, and previous ones, with a less known body of work, only have 1 name on their articles. The redirect is already his, no (disambiguation). I understand both reasons against and in support, just want to test the waters to see where we stand on this. It seems a reasonable move: |
|
The article refers to a Royal Patent, but searching wikipedia brings up Letters Patent instead. So which is correct? In either case, shouldn't the term be linked to the appropriate article? I'll leave it to people who are more versed on the topic to decide, but I thought it should be mentioned and discussed. ] (]) 07:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
---- |
|
:The ], sealed on 19 May 1603, was the official document permitting Burbage, Fletcher, Shakespeare "and the rest of theire Assosiates" to perform in public "for the recreation of our lovinge Subjectes", but the real point comes later: "for our ]] Solace and pleasure when wee shall thincke good". Here "royal patent" seems equivalent to a royal order and, uncapitalised as at present, seems to fit quite well. On the one hand: the document; on the other: the command conveyed in the document. Is that any help? --] (]) 07:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A new wikilink . == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can I add a new link to the words in this page ? I'm new here , so I want to ask permission 27 October 2011 {{unsigned|Naveen Badri}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:What link? ] (]) 15:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::A link to Elizabethan Era and if ican some more too ] (]) 14:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Sure, go ahead and do what you want as long as it's ] and improves the article. If it's not, have no fear; someone is sure to point it out for you. ] (]) 15:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Authorship == |
|
|
|
|
|
The text mentions that "Only a small minority of academics believe there is reason to question the traditional attribution" which I thought was ambiguous and subjective (how much is "small"), so I replaced it with what I felt was a more accurate sentence reflected by the source. However, the sentence is restored on the grounds that "the source is misleading". In which case: |
|
|
*In what way is the source is misleading? |
|
|
*How do we judge the accuracy of once sentence over the other? --] (]) 13:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Previous discussion ], to save re-plowing an old furrow. --] (]) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:It was also addressed at ]. Essentially, the survey is presented as a summary of the views of "Shakespeare professors", but it is not. In fact it is an arbitrary survey of teachers in private and public colleges. ("The professors teach Shakespeare in the English departments of public and private four-year colleges and universities, which were selected randomly." ) Since Shakespeare is taught in virtually all English courses, this does not mean that the "professors" had any special expertise in the subject beyond being English teachers. They were chosen at random - so Shakespeare specialists were ''not'' the subject of the survey. The question as asked is deliberately misleading (see RS discussion for details) and it was framed by a journalist who notoriously promotes the anti-Strat cause and has been heavily criticised for misleading and distorted reporting. See . ] (]) 16:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks for the links (if only Misplaced Pages had a means of searching a single article talk page). In which case by the same reasoning, I content that the summary sentence is also unreliable on two counts (1) the source is unreliable (2) the summary sentence is subjective in its use of the word "small". It seems to me that it the sentence should be either (a) removed (b) should sumarise the survey without being subjective in quantity (c) should just note that there was a survey. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Personally I don't think the is unreliable. It is irrefutable that there was a NY Times Survey, and they have made some attempt to summarise and described the data, so it is not a worthless piece of "research". It is only how we summarise the survey that is at issue? --] (]) 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The last bit is a remarkable ''non sequitur''. The fact that it's irrefutable that there was a survey has no bearing on it reliability. It's irrefutable that there was a book called '']''. Its irrefutable existence does not make it reliable. Its worth or worthlessness as a survey is determined by its academic reliability, which is pretty much non-existant, since there was a misleading question and the respondents were self-selecting, chosen arbitrarily without any evidence of expertise on Early Modern English culture. If the results of the survey are presented in the text then it gives it legitimacy as a "true" representation of opinion. Including it as a footnote is different, since it merely refers the reader to the report, though I'd prefer more footnotes making the main point. ] (]) 21:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It surely depends on what facts we are describing. If I'm stating a bold-faced "fact" that there is bloodline descended from Jesus, and referencing ''The Holy Blood'', then of course the book is not reliable. If I'm claiming that some authors have claimed there is a bloodline, then the book is irrefutable evidence of that fact. Of course it doesn't support the bloodline claim. |
|
|
::::Likewise I have no claim on the veracity of authorship of Shakespeare. My only criticism is the use of the word "small" in the statement "a small minority of academics". Small is subjective. My first thought was that it perhaps meant one in a thousand. Which academic had been asked? Does include English teachers? Historians? Either way, the survey ''does'' contain some hard figures which are not subjective: i.e. irrefutable facts, if correctly attributed and described, and wholly reliable. |
|
|
::::Where in the do I confirm "small minority", as I can't find it reliable sourced? --] (]) 22:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Look at the next three sources. IIRC, before the NYT survey those sourced the entire sentence. After the survey was done, it was added after the first clause of the sentence, since the survey doesn't speak to the last clause. And one in a thousand would not equal "small"; it would equal "almost unanimously". We use words in their usual meanings; "small" means "Of a size that is less than normal or usual; little." 6 percent is certainly a small percentage by anyone's standards. ] (]) 22:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::So I assume that the source is Q15 of the , in which case I interpret the result differently: indeed 6% specifically questions Shakespeare's authorship, BUT an additional 11% also ''possible'' question it, making 17% that question it. That is still smaller than the 82% who specifically don't question it, but is 17% small? It is definitely ''smaller'', and definitely a ''minority'', but who draws the line of what percentage represents small? I'd favour removing the subjective word "small", in which case the sentence retains its conclusion, and without using the subjective and vague "small". --] (]) 23:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Sorry. "Possibly" doesn't qualify as "believ there is reason to question the traditional attribution". Possibly means just what it says: perhaps yes, perhaps no. "Small" is also a word with a clear-cut definition, and 6% is well within the parameters of that definition, and the term "small minority" is an accurate description. This has already been hashed out, discussed, dissected, and the consensus of the editors of this page have agreed that the wording is accurate and not misleading. If you want to pursue it yet again, I suggest you follow the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution process. ] (]) 02:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::And "possibly" does not qualify as ''not'' believing, so I contend that the number is between 6-17% (up to 22% if we consider the NY Times estimate that data is ±5%, which brings the total possible figure over a fifth) which the subjective word "small", and the sentence does not make clear. When my salary was cut by 6%, I did not consider it "small". I am sure that when the Merchant of Venice was told that he would lose 6% of his flesh, he would not consider it small. So I am happy for you to disagree, but (a) I disagree with this use of "small" (b) the sentence could easily be change to remove any ambiguity and subjectivity. --] (]) 09:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::The size of your salary cut is not relevant to this use of the word. Again, I suggest you follow the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution process and notify all interested editors when you do so. ] (]) 16:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Dispute resolution won't be necessary, we're allowed to disagree, and in my opinion, "small" does not cover "up to 22%". I shall drop the suggestion. --] (]) 17:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::No, but it's not "up to 22%", since "up to" is not a meaningful statistic. The 'possibly' answer may even refer to the entirely mainstream view that Shakespeare was not the principal author of several plays, or it may be a generic statement that ultimately anything is just about ''possible''. ] (]) 18:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
A man for whom 1 pound is 6% of his total weight would weigh about 17 pounds... ] (]) 02:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Media suggestion == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the section about plays, would it be appropriate to add this media as an example performance? ]] 10:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{listen |
|
|
|filename=20090512 James Earl Jones - Othello (I. iii) at the White House (trimmed).ogv |
|
|
|title="Othello" |
|
|
|description=The American actor ] performs ]'s Act I, scene III monologue from ] '']'' at the ] Evening of Poetry, Music, and the Spoken Word on May 12, 2009. |
|
|
|filename2=20090512 James Earl Jones - Othello (I. iii) at the White House (trimmed).ogg |
|
|
|title2="Othello" |
|
|
|description2=Audio only version |
|
|
|filetype=]}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Don't think so. It would open the gate to the article being packed with hundreds of these. ] (]) 19:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
OK. ]] 07:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request on 28 November 2011 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
|
|
|
There is currently vandalism on the wikipedia page for William shakespear in the first line. I would like to be able to fix this vandalism. |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 20:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. If you want to sort it yourself you need to be ]--] ] 20:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== SAQ == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think we should add more discussion on the authorship dispute. Will Shakspere of Stratford could barely write his name. He did not speak English of the variety understood in London, and he left school at 14. He was a drifter, a fugitive, and a greedy land-grabber. It should be obvious to anyone who looks at the facts that Will Shakspere did not write these plays, that "Shakespeare" was a pseudonym, and that we've been honoring the wrong person for 400 years. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is mentioned here, but there is a long established consensus that it be only briefly noted. There are many other articles in which it is discussed, principally ]. All of your assertions are disputed by Shakespeare scholars, but this is not the proper place to discuss the issue in detail. ] (]) 18:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, we know what you think by all your other edits. ] (]) 23:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In 1600 there was a consensus that the sun revolved around the Earth. I'm not sure we should always go with the consensus. It might also be noted that this "consensus" you constantly talk about is not really a consensus. It's a manufactured "consensus." Plenty of Shakespeare scholars do not agree with it. What is the proper place to discuss these things in detail? If you go into other articles on the authorship question, these issues are deleted off the discussion page, and changes made to the article are deleted. No one by the name of "William Shakespeare" wrote these plays. Will Shakspere did not write them, either. Most likely most of the writing was done by Edward de Vere. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:]. While some scholars may think that Shakespeare was a pseudonym, ]. As the majority of reliable sources assume that Shakespeare was not a pseudonym, that is what this encyclopedia will report. Attempts to crusade for ] will not end well for your account and will only be a minor inconvenience to this site (at most). ] (]) 02:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
Surely Galileo could have published his ideas in the discussion section. You would allow that, wouldn't you? Where exactly should a present-day Galileo speak out, if the consensus favors suppressing his view? There is a conspiracy among Shakespeare professors, most of them anyway, to bury the Oxfordian authorship theory. They will not even discuss it. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:No, no one can publish ] on any page. There are thousands of people wanting to add individualistic interpretations of issues in Misplaced Pages, yet this is an encyclopedia, not an opinion forum. Particularly for a topic like this, which has been ''extensively'' studied, only the best reliable sources are acceptable. Misplaced Pages cannot be used to ]. ] (]) 06:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
Who decides what the "best reliable sources" are? What is reliable? What is good? You're just using self-reinforcing criteria to perpetuate a viewpoint you have no desire to change. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Ok, you're obviously Carolduncanshusband getting around your block, but as I explained on your old talk page before, we have guidelines for reliable sources, which you can read ]. ] (]) 02:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Do you, MF, honestly believe there is a willful deliberate conscious conspiracy by scholars to "suppress" the truth about DeVere?--] (]) 05:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks to Ian.thomson for going to the trouble of launching an SPI, the new editors (including MillardFillimore) have been indef blocked (see ]). ] (]) 07:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Disputed edit ref "curriculum dictated by law" == |
|
|
|
|
|
First of all my appology for posting this at the bottom without a headline. Please disregard that posting if it shows up on the "saved page". |
|
|
Regarding my recent edit to Misplaced Pages, William Shakespeare, Early life (second paragraph) which was undone by Reedy: |
|
|
Original text: “Grammar schools varied in quality during the Elizabethan era, but the curriculum was dictated by law throughout England, and the school would have provided an intensive education in Latin grammar and the classics.” |
|
|
Text as edited by me: “Grammar schools varied in quality during the Elizabethan era, however the school would have provided a substantial education in Latin grammar and some exposure to the classics.” |
|
|
Noting that Misplaced Pages policy is “verifiability, not truth”, and that “secondary sources” are preferred over “primary sources”, I point out, nevertheless, that the primary sources (that is the government “statutes” or Royal Injunctions) that Baldwin and Cressy rely on, do not prescribe anything remotely approaching a standardize curriculum of literary “classical” texts. To be absolutely clear, the relevant Royal statutes and injunctions, which are wonderfully brief, make no provision with regard to specific literary texts. And, to clarify what may be an underlying source of confusion, the term “statute” or “statutes”, as it appears in Baldwin in reference to curriculum, always refers to statutes for individual schools (such as Eaton or Westminster), that is, internal statutes and not Royal or Government “statutes” applicable “throughout England”. |
|
|
However, since, as matter of Misplaced Pages policy, the issue here is “not truth”, but “verifiability”, the challenge I present to Mr. Reedy is to verify, from Baldwin, the claim that: “curriculum was dictated by law throughout England”. I believe that the closest Baldwin comes to such a claim is his own claim of “essential uniformity”, which (putting aside the questionable nature of that claim) can hardly be equated to, “curriculum was dictated by law throughout England”. Therefore, unless I have missed something, if Baldwin is to be used accurately, the statement “curriculum was dictated by law throughout England”, is not verifiable by that source. Nor, by the way, is it verifiable by Cressy. |
|
|
With regard to the second claim that the Stratford grammar school would have “provided an intensive education in Latin grammar and the classics”: that would indeed coincide with Baldwin’s opinions and statements (as I read Baldwin), though, clearly, without a “curriculum...dictated by law”, such statements stand exposed as conjecture. |
|
|
] (]) 12:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've cut your earlier posting of the same comment. I for one, don't feel strongly about the exact wording, though the word "intensive" is certainly used by Baldwin. The extent to which curricula were prescribed by law is more complex. 13:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::It would be nice to know who I’m talking to and what precisely is being proposed. If the intent of Misplaced Pages policy would be, in effect, to cite a source such as Baldwin without regard to the accuracy or verifiability of his statements, indeed disregarding the fact that he contradicts himself, then it hardly seems important to me that his “exact” wording is used. Though it may be beside the point for Misplaced Pages, the claim for intensive literary training at the grammar school level, as made by Baldwin, is not supported by the evidence he provides or by evidence provided by Cressy or any other authority I’m aware of. Be that as it may, the claim of “intensive” literary training is based on the claim of standardized literary curriculum (“dictated by law”). If you look at the curriculum information provided by Plimpton, for Zouch, Rotherman, Harrows, and St. Bees, it is clear that, not only was there no notable standardization of literary texts, at grammar schools of the “lowest class” (like Stratford or Rotherman) there were often few total texts available. Clearly, with a very limited number of literary texts available, Rotherman would not have provided “intensive” literary training. There is no reason (in Baldwin or Cressy) to assume that Stratford was different from Rotherman, etc. So where are we? Should the article say what is true (based on fact) or should it be left as it is making two blatantly false claims by a generally accepted source? ] (]) 14:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You are talking to anyone who reads this page, and anyone of those readers can reply to you to discuss the issue. I have not had time read the whole of the relevant sections of Baldwin or Cressy. I was just registering a response. Your comments seem to contravene ] since you are choosing to interpret the historical evidence and to disagree with an accepted source on the basis of your own personal views. Obviously what is or what is not "intensive" is not something that can objectively be proved, but it is what the source says. Do you have any evidence that there were a "limited" number of texts available in Stratford? Find another source on Tudor grammar school teaching that disagrees with Baldwin and quote from it. ] (]) 14:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::There was no signature on the post I was responding to. Clearly “anyone” may read what is posted, but I was responding to the previous post and not to “anyone”. So, in both cases, I am presumably talking to Paul B. I was really looking to have this discussion with Mr. Reedy who undid my edit. However, if criticism of an “accepted source” by pointing out factual historical inaccuracy on a critical point or points, is Original Research than I am guilty of Original Research, though I think that is a bit of exaggeration. My personal investigation into these questions does not go beyond the well known sources and the primary sources they cite. Putting aside my objections to Baldwin, and my interpretation of the facts, the problem here is that people here are attributing claims to Baldwin that he did not make. My primary specific objection is that the claim, “curriculum was dictated by law throughout England”, is not supported by Baldwin (or Cressy). If there is language approximating such a claim in Baldwin or Cressy it should be easy to provide it. In response to your question, and direction regarding “Tudor grammar school teaching”, Baldwin is contradicted by Stowe and Plimpton. However, I am under no illusion that arguing the case against Baldwin (no matter how powerful the arguments) would gain me anything more than additional claims of Original Research or irrelevancy or whatever. Lastly, to your statement, “Obviously was is or what is not "intensive" is not something that can objectively be proved, but it is what the source says”: some may find it remarkable that an acknowledgement that something cannot be “objectively proved” should be followed by the admonition that it be accepted as “proved” because “it is what the source says”. Is it Misplaced Pages policy to be indifferent to truth and factual contradiction of sources? I think I understand the policy here on sources and I more or less agree with that policy but I think you are in danger of violating other Misplaced Pages policies if you turn common sense upside down. ] (]) 16:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:You can tell who is writing by looking at the edit history. There was a signature, but I'd accidentlly typed five rather than four tildes, which leaves off the name, making only the time stamp visible. I'm rather prone to typos, as you may have noticed. of course "intensive" does not have a rigid definition. It's the term that a specialist chose to use because he thoufht it was most appropriate. You will not be guilty of OR if you quote what Stowe and Plimpton say that contradicts Cressy. But if you extrapolate from what they say to create your own argument it will be ]. You need to provide details rather than just make assertions. Will reply to other points when I can. ] (]) 16:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I’m prone to typos also, and I don’t know my way around here very well. But, how about we not make this overly complicated? I’ve attempted an edit to correct what I claim is a false attribution to Baldwin and Cressy. Reedy undid my edit saying that citing Baldwin was sufficient. I’m saying Reedy’s rationale misses the point. The point, I assert, is that the claim in the paragraph in question, that “curriculum was dictated by law throughout England”, is not supported by Baldwin or Cressy, and moreover, that it is not supported by national statute or royal injunction or any “law” of England at the time. However, staying with the matter of what Baldwin and Cressy said, if I am wrong it should be easy to quote the passages that support the claim I am disputing. ] (]) 17:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I do not have Cressy to hand. See pp. 179-80 and 183 in Baldwin. ] (]) 12:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I am quite familiar with the pages from Baldwin you cite. The royal injunctions quoted there apply to grammar, not to literary texts. That is quite clear if one takes the time to read the injunctions. Furthermore, the statutes of individual schools contain lists of authorized texts with wide variation, thus contradicting the notion that literary text curriculum was standardized or, more specifically, “dictated by law”. Specifically, the “law” quoted by Baldwin does not standardize literary text curriculum and Baldwin does not state that literary curriculum is “dictated by law”. You will not find that in Cressy either. You could go look for another source to cite, however, since the statement “dictated by law” has no foundation in actual “law”, any citation that supports the claim would simply be specious. Now, you appear to be threatening me with sanctions, or have sanctioned me (I’m not that familiar with the system here), and you have undone four edits that I’ve made in good faith, all designed to simply correct fallacious or misleading statements. You also are intent on maintaining the fiction that the Groatsworth attack “on Shakespeare” is a historical fact. All of this strikes me as “gamesmanship”. But, prove me wrong. Quote something from Baldwin that says that literary “curriculum was dictated by law throughout England”, or words to that effect, and show us something that proves Shake-scene was Shakespeare. ] (]) 15:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}}Baldwin does not use that exact phraseology. Here are the relevant extracts: |
|
|
|
|
|
:The way in which these cathedral schools of the new foundation were leveled up to the Eton-Winchester curriculum is typical of the standardizing efforts which were being exerted at this period by authority. As we have seen, King Henry had by 1540 moved to standardize the grammar. … Henceforth, this by royal command was to be the only Latin grammar used in grammar school. Despite many scholarly assaults upon in and attempted modifications, it remained in use till about the middle of the nineteenth century. (179-80) |
|
|
|
|
|
:So in the reign of Henry VIII the ideal of essential uniformity determined by proper authority has been attained. And for the re-founded cathedral schools the Eton system as evolved from Winchester is the favored one, while Paul's grammar becomes the authorized basis of the grammar curriculum everywhere. Henceforth, this authorized system will receive minor modifications; but the modifications will, for the most part, apply uniformly to all schools. For every regular grammar school at a given period in the century the curriculum will be essentially uniform, though there might be slight variations in organization, routines, and teaching methods. (183) |
|
|
|
|
|
A royal command during this period was just that: dictated by law, the King being the ultimate authority, and objecting to the exact wording is merely quibbling. As to your objection, "The royal injunctions quoted there apply to grammar, not to literary texts", you do know we're talking about a ], don't you? Exactly what do you think a grammar school of the time taught? There is a reason it was called a grammar school. If you read Baldwin, you will learn that the students did grammar exercises by translating the classics, such as ] and ], the very same authors that were major sources for Shakespeare. In short, the sentence you object to is an accurate summation of Baldwin as it reads, but if you believe that changing "dictated by law" to "standardised by royal decree" is warranted, I would have no objections. |
|
|
|
|
|
As to Groatsworth, this article, ], reflects the current scholarly consensus. When the consensus changes, the article will follow suit. ] (]) 22:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::We’re at the point where we need to take this to a higher level for adjudication. Kindly tell me what the next step is. ] (]) 07:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There is no clear next step, although you can ask for assistance with procedures at ]. They would probably point to ], which isn't terribly helpful in a case like this. Asking for opinions at the talk page of the relevant wikiproject is always worthwhile, although sometimes you won't get a response (see the projects listed at the top of this talk page—OMG I see that LGBT has got added here as well). Generally there needs to be more engagement with the arguments presented by the other side before anyone would want to consider the case. For example, is there anything that Tom said above that you think is ''wrong''? What/why? Or are you saying that while what he said is correct as far as it goes, it does not address some point? What/why? What about the suggestion to change "dictated by law" to "standardised by royal decree"? Re the sanctions business: that's standard; all new editors are provided that warning on their talk page. The effects are a bit vague, but in essence it means that editors must be even more scrupulous than normal—see ] for an overview, but ignore "ignore all rules" as it does not help if each side in a dispute does that. ] (]) 09:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Okay, I will press on a bit further. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::In the case of Groatsworth I’m simply arguing that the distinction between fact and scholarly consensus should be respected in the article. But, let me elaborate. The text I attempted to change treats the interpretation of “Shake-scene” and “upstart crow” etc, as “Shakespeare” as historical fact. Jay Hoster (a Stratfordian) for example, argues that Greene was referring to Ned Alleyn. Clearly there is room for disagreement on the identity of Shake-scene. Tom says the article “reflects the current scholarly consensus”. This is true. But the consensus regarding that interpretation does not convert interpretation to fact. That interpretation is no more factual than the interpretation of Sogliardo as Shakespeare in Jonson’s Everyman Out of His Humour. By comparison, the reference to “Mr. Shakespeare” in Return to Parnassus is clearly a reference to “Mr. Shakespeare” and is, therefore, a historical fact. So, to summarize, I am simply saying that the language in the article referring to Groatsworth should respect the difference between “consensus” and “fact”. That is all I attempted to do with my edit. Otherwise I added nothing and took nothing away. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Regarding the statement, “curriculum was dictated by law throughout England”, the case for my argument is underscored in the quotation from Baldwin that Tom quoted. Baldwin says, “As we have seen, King Henry had by 1540 moved to standardize the grammar.” Note the word “grammar”. This is critical! The Royal Injunctions speak of “grammar” and specific texts for teaching “grammar”. They do not speak of “curriculum”. Royal Injunctions were “law”. Thus it is fair to say that “grammar” or “instructional texts for grammar” were “dictated by law”. That clearly was the intent of the Injunctions. However, the Injunctions clearly do not speak to “curriculum” which, obviously, is much broader, and is taken to be inclusive of classical literary texts such as those of Ovid. To be very specific, while it is generally understood that literary texts (such as Ovid and Terence) were used for the purpose of teaching Latin grammar, there is nothing in any of the relevant injunctions that sets forth a prescription to use the works of Ovid or Terence or similar purely literary classical texts. A simple solution that would be satisfactory to me would be to replace the word “curriculum” with “grammar”. That would be consistent with both the letter and the intent of the Injunctions. ] (]) 13:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::You are incorrect. Please acquaint yourself with ] in the grammar schools of the time. And the curriculum of a grammar school of the time ''was'' grammar. |
|
|
:::::As to Groatsworth, this is a general encyclopedia article and not a venue to discuss the pros and cons of any particular point. The scholarly consensus accepts that Groatsworth refers to Shakespeare for several reasons. Chambers, Schoenbaum, and Wells refer to it as an allusion to Shakespeare, and the '']'' volume 263, titles the section about it "Allusion to Shakespeare in ''Greene's Groats-worth of Witte''", while others are introduced with "Possible Allusion". If you want the standards of Misplaced Pages to be changed to accomodate your view, this is not the venue in which to fight that battle. |
|
|
:::::As an aside, I would also like to say that anti-Stratfordian editors probably have the highest consumption ratio of bandwidth to constructive edits of any group of Misplaced Pages editors. It grows very tiresome to address the same concerns over and over, and it would be nice if other editors could be allowed to spend that time working on other, more constructive projects. Before spending your time and that of others in fruitless pursuit of righting a great wrong, take a few minutes and search the archives using key words to see if the topic has already been discussed and addressed. I think you'll find that more often than not you're ploughing a field that has been harrowed to dust. ] (]) 16:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I hope other unbaised editors are paying attention here. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::No, I am not “incorrect”. I assume that by the “text book” you are referring to is Lily’s Grammar. In any case, that is irrelevant to my argument. You now want to construe “grammar” (as referred to in the injunctions), as the “curriculum” used “at the time”. The term “curriculum” is not used in the injunctions. So, why not simply use the term “grammar”? The answer, I believe, is that you want to sustain the myth that the “law” dictated a broad “curriculum” that included purely literary works such as those of Ovid and Terence. Anyone who takes the brief time necessary to read the injunctions will know that there was no such dictate. But, if you want to use the word “curriculum”, I propose that article refer to “grammar curriculum”. That would clarify the matter to my satisfaction. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::When you say this is not a “venue to discuss the pros and cons of any particular point”, I have to ask: what is the “point”? I don’t dispute the degree of scholarly consensus on Groatsworth. I can list over 30 biographers who treat the matter as historical fact. I’m not asking Misplaced Pages to “accommodate” my POV. I am simply preceding on the assumption (possibly false) that Misplaced Pages policy intends to distinguish conjecture from fact. If I’m wrong I ask you, as an experience editor, to explain the policy. |
|
|
In response to your “aside”, you seem to be saying that those who disagree with you should not bother. Why not go ahead and post a notice, lock the article down, and stop all discussion with outside editors? Who cares about the “five pillars”? And, as an aside, if this work tires you, maybe you should take a break.] (]) 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::To further clarify the problem, I provide below, in quotation marks, two excerpts from the related Misplaced Pages article on the ‘Shakespeare Authorship Question’. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::“Grammar schools varied in quality during the Elizabethan era, but the curriculum was dictated by English law; the school would have provided an intensive education in Latin grammar, the classics, and rhetoric.” |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::“Instead, his classical allusions rely on the Elizabethan grammar school curriculum. The curriculum began with William Lily's Latin grammar Rudimenta Grammatices and progressed to Caesar, Livy, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Plautus, Terence, and Seneca, all of whom are quoted and echoed in the Shakespearean canon.” |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::As currently written, both Misplaced Pages articles construe “curriculum” as something broader than “grammar”, when in fact, in term of specific texts, the Royal Injunctions refer only to texts for grammatical instruction (such as Lily’s Grammatices), and make no reference to literary texts such as those listed above (“Caesar, Livy, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Plautus, Terence, and Seneca”). Clearly, if one construes “curriculum” to includes such texts, one cannot say that that “curriculum” was “dictated by law”. If one intends to understand the "curriculum at the time" and understand what would 'for certain' have been taught in the Stratford grammar school, this distinction is critical. ] (]) 12:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::If you would read the links I provided, you would learn that the grammar school curriculum ''was'' grammar. That is not conjecture: there was no band practice, no reading instruction, no music, no geography, no social studies, no history, no physical education—it was all Latin grammar. And the school would have provided an intensive education in Latin and the classics, because the text that was mandated by royal decree used the classics for instruction. And no, this is not a "critical distinction", nor is this a big problem. |
|
|
:::::::About ''Rudimenta Grammatices'' from the Lily article: ] ] (]) 19:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}}I finally accessed the edition of Cressy that is cited in the article. The relevant citations are under the headings "Royal Injunctions, 1559" and "Canons of 1571", pp. 28-9. The first reads "Elizabeth inherited Cardinal Poles's procedures for examining schoolmasters and developed them into a national system of control," and then quotes a section of the injunction: "Item, that every schoolmaster and teacher shall teach the grammar set forth by king Henry VIII of noble memory and continued in the time of king Edward VI and none other...." The second reads "The control of schoolmasters was strengthened in 1571 .... The church canons of that year set forth the prerequisites for the grant of a teacher's license and elaborated the formal duties of schoolmasters," and also quotes part of those canons: "... Schoolmasters shall teach no grammar but only that which the Queen's Majesty hath commanded to be read in all schools throughout the whole realm...." |
|
|
|
|
|
I erred above in stating that math was not taught. According to S.J. Curtis' ''History of Education in England'' (1953), arithmetic was taught to the younger students in the first two forms by the usher (pp. 89-90), and "History and geography were taught incidentally in connection with the authors read," as well as "a little geometry and astronomy to the higher forms" (90). They did not, however, teach reading or writing. ] (]) 23:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::At risk of whining, am I supposed to take Misplaced Pages policy seriously? At the top of this page it says “Be polite and welcome new users. Assume good faith”. Pardon me, but what I getting from you Mr. Reedy seems to me dismissive condescension and avoidance of the issue. You say to me, “If you would read the links I provided, you would learn that the grammar school curriculum was grammar.” I think it would be quite clear to anyone reading my posts here that I have read and am quite familiar with the background material we are discussing and that you are struggling through that material to find legitimization for the claims I am contesting. Your latest response again serves to circumvent the issue. I say again, the “law” (Royal Injunctions) does not “dictate” a curriculum including any specific purely literary texts. Clearly, however, there are a number of statements in both Misplaced Pages articles that are designed to give exactly the impression that literary texts (Caesar, Livy, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Plautus, Terence, Seneca, etc.) were “dictated by “law”. You’ve obviously searched through Baldwin and Cressy but you haven’t provided any quotation that supports the specific contention that Ovid or Terence (etc.) were included in the royal mandate. With the Lily “article” you are really reaching (Lily’s suggestions). By the way, if those suggestions became a legal requirement, you will find that in the surviving lists of curriculum from Harrows etc, they were ignored. Did Harrows break the “law”? You can infer, if you want to, that such works were typically part of a state-directed “curriculum”, and to that purpose you can quote Baldwin who effectively made that assertion (though he did not make the claim that it was set in “law”). However, to claim that a “curriculum”, including literary texts as mentioned above, “was dictated by law”, is factually incorrect and, in my opinion, intentionally deceptive, the point being to perpetuate the oft made false claim that “we know what books were taught in the Stratford grammar school”. The fact is the “law” did not prescribe which literary texts were to be used and there are no records of curriculum for that school. Therefore, we do not know which literary texts were used for instruction at that school. There may have been twenty or more. There may have been four or five. We do know. We do know that the Stratford grammar school was in the “lowest class” (Baldwin). If you want to infer which or how many literary texts would have been available at Stratford, what that does that suggest? ] (]) 09:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}}Look, I'm tired of going round and round about this. Early on I offered to change the statement to "standardised by royal decree", and you later said you would be satisfied with "grammar curriculum". How about we merge the two and rewrite the sentence to read " Grammar schools varied in quality during the Elizabethan era, but the grammar curriculum was standardised by royal decree throughout England, and the school would have provided an intensive education in Latin grammar and the classics." |
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't agree, take it to dispute resolution, because I'm done with this. ] (]) 14:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Support''' move to '''Shakespeare''', the article subject is consistently refered to as such-and was during his time. |
|
:I agree. Will you make the change to both articles? For the record, I disagree with the statement "intensive education in...the classics", but I recognize that Baldwin very clearly made that assertion and that it is generally accepted, and that, within Misplaced Pages's polices regarding "varifiability", there is no point is pressing that issue here. Thank you.] (]) 16:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] (]) 12:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Done. It is not only Baldwin who says that. Check out S.J. Curtis, ''History of Education in England'' (1953, 1971). The method of teaching was rudimentary grammar instruction, followed by translating Latin scriptures and authors. That was pretty much it in the grammar schools, from the time they were 7 until they were 14. The only thing that changed is that the authors got more sophisticated, and they would throw in a smattering of Greek in the upper forms. ] (]) 19:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: '''Oppose''' - Assuming I’ve correctly understood the proposal as; rename the “William Shakespeare” article as “Shakespeare”. His name was William Shakespeare, and if you’re thinking about ease for readers, “Shakespeare” already redirects here, as you say. You suggest there are other authors whose pages follow the proposed approach. Could you give a couple of examples? That might help me better understand your thinking. ] (]) 16:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::]? ]? ] (]) 16:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, some Ancient Greeks came to mind. But the proposer suggests there are writers broadly contemporary to Shakespeare where this approach is followed. ] (]) 17:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose'''. Per ]: ''"Using the last name as the page title for a person, when the first name is also known and used, is discouraged, even if that name would be unambiguous, and even if it consists of more than one word. Unambiguous last names are usually redirects: for example, Ludwig van Beethoven is the title of an article, while Van Beethoven and Beethoven redirect to that article."'' ] (]) 17:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose'''. The proposition is frankly silly, and scales very badly. ] (]) 21:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' Potential confusion with the politician ], and the actor ]. ] (]) 09:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' per KJP, a well intentioned but silly proposition. ] (]) 09:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' too, per ]. ] (]) 12:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Outdated line to change == |
|
== Wilam Shakespeare = Michele Angelo Crollalanza (Sicilian family) == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under "Legacy": "Shakespeare remains the world's best-selling playwright, with sales of his plays and poetry believed to have achieved in excess of four billion copies in the almost 400 years since his death." We are considerably beyond the 400 year mark. ] (]) 23:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
Wilam Shakespeare = Michele Angelo Crollalanza |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The line is a quote from Guinness World Records (2014 edition), and is correct in that sense. You'll need to get a more recent edition of Guinness, quoting the appropriate entry to correct this. ] (]) 00:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
http://www.bollywoodmantra.com/video/shakespeare-siciliano-2-messina-famiglia-florio-di-palermo-michele-angelo-crollalanza/ |
|
|
|
::If sales of Shakespeare's plays and poetry were in excess of four billion copies ten years ago, they are still in excess of four billion copies. The number of sales cannot fall. The 2014 Guiness World Records source would still support the updated sentence. It's just a technicality. ] (]) 21:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{unsigned|2.33.180.107}} |
|
|
|
:::The "four billion copies" is not the fact at issue here. The fact at issue is the "almost 400 years"., which is correct if you are quoting the 2014 issue of Guinness (which it is). As I stated above, a more recent issue of Guinness (2016 or later) will have the updated factoid (more than 400 years). Yes, it is a technicality, but an encyclopedia is all about the technicalities. ] (]) 22:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I'm sorry, but that does not meet ]. ] (]) 14:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Macbeth authorship == |
|
== One of... == |
|
|
|
|
|
''Macbeth'' has a dagger after it, indicating that the play was only partially written by WS. I could find nothing to support this in the Wik/macbeth article.] (]) 09:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
I see there's been an unsourced edit to the lead to make Shakespeare "one of" the most influential writers in English. Such edits have been controversial in the past. I'm just mentioning it and don't intend to revert. ] (]) 13:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have reverted it. It is surely unarguable to state that WS was “arguably” the most influential writer in English ever. ] (]) 15:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::p.s. It might benefit the editor wanting the change to take a look at earlier discussions on the same point, . ] (]) 06:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==The modern reception of Shakespeare== |
|
:Parts of the published version were written by ]. It's usually believed that he adapted the original version, rather than co-wrote the play as such. This is discussed in the "Date and text" section of the ] article. ] (]) 09:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:you can also see details at - <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 09:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, ] thinks Middleton rewrote a lot of the lines, cut chunks out and also added passages. He even thinks the Witches were changed from more mystical figures in the original to ugly hags in his version. Get a hold of his edition of the collected works of Middleton; he annotatates every line he thinks may have been adapted or re-written by Middleton. ] (]) 09:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remsense, it would be beneficial if you had actually read the body of the article before editing the lead and removing other editors' contributions. The material regarding the modern reception of Shakespeare is thoroughly covered in the section "Critical reputation" and serves as a fair and balanced overview of how Shakespeare has been perceived, particularly in the age of modern drama since the 19th century. |
|
== Edit request on 9 April 2012 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The mention of ], a term coined by George Bernard Shaw—a Nobel Prize laureate in literature—is far from undue. On the contrary, it highlights a critical aspect of Shakespeare's legacy: the tension between reverence and critique. The modern reception of Shakespeare should include this nuanced perspective, especially given the transformative influence of Ibsen on drama and the contrasting views of ], who found Shakespeare's "primitiveness" a hallmark of his enduring modernity. These contrasting views are crucial for understanding how Shakespeare's relevance has been debated in modern theatrical contexts. |
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
On Shakespeare Festival 2012, every play of the author is going to be staged in different languages. It says that there's going to be 37 plays. So Shakespeare had 37 plays not 38. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To excise this material risks creating an overly hagiographic portrayal of Shakespeare. Misplaced Pages's objective is to present a balanced narrative, not one that veers into idolization by suppressing critical perspectives. Including this context acknowledges both Shakespeare's towering achievements and the evolving discourse about his place in literature. |
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 08:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The lead should reflect this nuanced understanding, which is consistent with the evidence presented in the body of the article. To ignore such discussions may inadvertently contribute to the very ] that Shaw critiqued. --] (]) 02:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Read the article. The 38th is '']''. In reality we can't be absolutely clear about the number of plays he wrote, since some may be lost and in other cases we can't be sure how much he actually contributed to the text. The exclusion of ''The Two Noble Kinsmen'' is due to historical doubt about its authorship, though frankly, I've never quite understood why '']'' got canonised before TTNK. TTNK is also the only play not included in the ], a 'complete' production of the works which also only does 37 of the plays. ] (]) 09:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:At the very least we should mention bardolatry somewhere. For example, {{tq|The modern reception of Shakespeare reflects both admiration and critique, with ] coining the term ] to challenge excessive reverence.}} --] (]) 02:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:The lead is meant to be a brief summary of key facts about a subject, proportional to their representation in the article body. Very often, it absolutely should not describe nuances of this kind as there is simply no time to do so without throwing the reader's initial assessment totally out of whack. Juxtaposing a well-cited claim with one that is contrary or dissenting but clearly less well represented is an antipattern. Such nuances belong in the body . <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 06:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Nobody is ignoring anything. The "bardolatory" criticism of Shaw '''is''' already mentioned in the ''Critical reputation'' section, which points to two, fuller, sub-articles where it is covered in greater detail. To lob an uncontextualised mention of Ibsen into the lead would be of no help to the reader. ] (]) 07:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Shakespeare is a name associated with William, arguably the best to ever do it in multiple realms. Several writers of the same era, and previous ones, with a less known body of work, only have 1 name on their articles. The redirect is already his, no (disambiguation). I understand both reasons against and in support, just want to test the waters to see where we stand on this. It seems a reasonable move:
Under "Legacy": "Shakespeare remains the world's best-selling playwright, with sales of his plays and poetry believed to have achieved in excess of four billion copies in the almost 400 years since his death." We are considerably beyond the 400 year mark. 47.221.100.154 (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I see there's been an unsourced edit to the lead to make Shakespeare "one of" the most influential writers in English. Such edits have been controversial in the past. I'm just mentioning it and don't intend to revert. AndyJones (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Remsense, it would be beneficial if you had actually read the body of the article before editing the lead and removing other editors' contributions. The material regarding the modern reception of Shakespeare is thoroughly covered in the section "Critical reputation" and serves as a fair and balanced overview of how Shakespeare has been perceived, particularly in the age of modern drama since the 19th century.
To excise this material risks creating an overly hagiographic portrayal of Shakespeare. Misplaced Pages's objective is to present a balanced narrative, not one that veers into idolization by suppressing critical perspectives. Including this context acknowledges both Shakespeare's towering achievements and the evolving discourse about his place in literature.
The lead should reflect this nuanced understanding, which is consistent with the evidence presented in the body of the article. To ignore such discussions may inadvertently contribute to the very bardolatry that Shaw critiqued. --Msbmt (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
