Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Is this a dagger I see before me?

Macbeth is marked with a dagger in the List of Works section. indicating it is thought to be only partly written by Shakespeare. This is unreferenced and a potential co-author is not mentioned in the Macbeth article. Should this be removed? As a general point, these "daggers" should be ascribed to a source. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The published text contains scenes written by Thomas Middleton. It's generally believed that the published text is a cut-down performance version with some extra witchy stuff added by Middleton. Gary Taylor includes the play in his edition of Middleton's works, with details of the passages that Middleton may be responsible for. This is discussed in the main Macbeth article, under Date and text. Paul B (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The dagger is a rather crude device, since it fails to distinguish plays that are genuine collaborations from those that were written by WS but later revised or altered (which is believed to be the case with Macbeth). In the latter case, if the original version had been published we would not be using the "bad" version at all (it would be like describing King Lear as a "collaboration" if we only had Nahum Tate's version). Paul B (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Epitaphs

"His extant works, including some collaborations, consist of about 38 plays,[nb 3] 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, two epitaphs on a man named John Combe, one epitaph on Elias James, and several other poems."

The introduction claims Shakespeare wrote several epitaths. This claim is unsourced but googling seems to indicate that it is a position that at least some scholars really hold. Could someone add some information on these epitaths and why they are believed to have been written by Shakespeare? MathHisSci (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I must admit I've been unhappy about that part of the intro for a while. The epitaphs are not normally included in his collected works, so it's doubtful whether we should see them as "works", and in any case their authorship is not universally accepted. Also the intro should only list topics that are discussed (and cited) in the text, which these are not. IMO, either they should be discussed or deleted from the intro. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that these epitaph references should be removed altogether and a discussion added at Shakespeare Apocrypha. We could replace it with a sentence that says something "other works have been attributed to him" or "are of disputed authorship", maybe adding that these include epitaphs and short occassional verses. The epitaphs have no greater claim to authenticity than other apocrypha (indeed the Elias James epitaph is attributed to Shakespeare in the same manuscript as Shall I Die?). Paul B (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sidebar?

Is there any real purpose to the sidebar that was just added? It seems to me that it just attempts to do partially what the Shakespeare template does. Is it possible that anyone reading the article doesn't know that it concerns William Shakespeare? Tom Reedy (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The same editor added itr to a host of Shakespeare articles. I have to say, it does nothing for me, but perhaps this should be discussed on the main Shakespeare article. It seems to me that many articles are being clogged up with images, infoboxes, project boxes etc that often gouge gaping holes in the page. Paul B (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the template from several of my regular pages while this discussion continues. I can see no real purpose in adding them myself. I've notified the template creator and I suppose I should try to notify some other regular WS editors. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It does seem superfluous (especially on this page, where so many of these articles are linked in the first few paragraphs), but maybe it's better to have too many navigational aids than too few. I lean towards keeping it. - Cal Engime (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, there is already a much more detailed navigation template at the bottom of the page: Template:Shakespeare. These sidebars clog up articles, often pushing images into bunches and creating white space. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not a fan of sidebars or infoboxes. If this were a weekly news magazine, perhaps, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Maybe they're designed to attract people who aren't used to reading more than a few sentences, I don't know. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed {{William Shakespeare sidebar}} being added to a couple of pages, and would have removed them as unnecessary except that I'm busy elsewhere and didn't want to take the time to think about another issue. If the articles were at a stub stage, the new sidebar would be good, but all the sidebar does now is push down the more attractive and pertinent lead image. Putting the sidebar somewhere other than the lead highlights the fact that {{Shakespeare}} is a comprehensive navbox, which is already at the bottom of the articles in a manner consistent with other topics. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Tom, Paul and Johnuniq. The only page I'm watching that it was added to was the Chronology page, and my initial reaction was "Ugh". It's a grand sidebar as sidebars go, but it's not needed, and as Paul says, it can cause problems with preexisting images (which it did on the chronology page). I would have removed it myself, except I assumed it had already been discussed somewhere and everyone was behind it, so I just let it go. For what it's worth, my vote is to remove it. Bertaut (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I notified the editor and he hasn't shown up, so I'm gonna go ahead and take them down. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit to Intro

The "...widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist" is a bit unnecessary. There's no real definite or objective source for this statement and it comes off much more an overzealous opinion than factual information (which tends to the purpose of an encyclopedia vs. a journal or news article). Saying, "he is regarded by some as ..." would be a good compromise and fairly accurate considering the reputation of his plays and the study of such. But stating it like he is omnipotent in his writing is too evidently biased. Like anyone, his work should be presented in a scientific way and readers can determine their own opinion of him. You shouldn't simply say "he's awesome" in what should be a scientific article. 98.16.181.223 (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"Widely regarded as the greatest" is accurate and is supported by the sources:

"...greatest playwright not of his age alone but of all time." - Greenblatt

"...celebrated as the greatest English writer, perhaps the greatest writer of all time" - Bevington

"...there is no question that he is the most enduringly popular dramatist there has ever been..." - Wells

Many more could be cited; it would be hard to identify a biography of Shakespeare or introduction to his works that doesn't comment on his extreme, enduring, and worldwide popularity. To demote him from "widely regarded" to "regarded by some" would practically be introducing an error of fact. - Cal Engime (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Cal. Nobody is describing him "like he is omnipotent"; that is a straw man. There are, in fact, MANY "definite and objective" sources for the statement, and the casual reader should be made aware, right from the get-go, of his enduring status in the literary world. "Regarded by some" is an excellent example of the sort of weasel wording that we try to stay away from. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Brian Whelan painting

An abstract painting of Shakespeare by Brian Whelan was recently added to this page by Whelan's wife (who also wrote the article on Whelan). This seems like self-promotion, and I don't think the painting is notable enough to be placed beside the 17th and 18th Century artwork on the main Shakespeare page, but I'd like to know what everyone thinks before removing it. - Cal Engime (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is an interesting art piece, but I don't think an abstract painting is in keeping with the substance of the article. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 August 2013

In a new book I have just fin9ished reading titled Shakespeare Exhumed: The Bassano Chronicles (ISBN 978-0-9873652-5-5) by forensic historian and philosopher Dr Peter D Matthews, I was impressed by his comprehensive hermeneutical study of the Shakespearean canon to find that many of the plays depict the actual real life events of the Bassano family. Many contain obvious characters of the Bassano family overlaid with deliberate Kabbalistic and Platonic references to highlight the fact that these works were compiled by Master Kabbalists, which no doubt was the Bassano family.

He found documents that connect Shakespeare to the Sly family and discovered the "lost years" of Shakespeare were spent in jail. Shakespeare was depicted in Taming of the Shrew as a blithering drunken pedophile actor who ripped people off, misquoted lines and fell asleep during performances.

As an English historian myself, I was astounded by the depth of his research. George134 (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, the book you suggest does not appear to meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources. You could add this proposal to List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, though. - Cal Engime (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Emilia Bassano, aka Emilia Lanier, is already listed. This issue has been discussed on her article talk page. The Lanier/Bassano theory is included in the History of the Shakespeare authorship question page. BTW, Christopher Sly in the Taming of the Shrew is not a "pedophile" (!!!), nor is he an actor. Paul B (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 October 2013

Would it be possible to add a mention of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in the external links on this page? I believe that it would be a relevant source of additional information on Shakespeare's early and later years. ShakespeareBT (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now:. Please could you provide a link (and set the template above back to saying answered=no). We'll take a look, and do it if it meets Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking into this. The link is http://www.shakespeare.org.uk/home.html ShakespeareBT (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I'm sorry, but that is a promotional site rather than a source of reference information on Shakespeare. I'm afraid I cannot add it. --Stfg (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Biography

This has nothing to do with improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
William Shakespeare: A Renaissance Man William Shakespeare was an actor and playwright during the Renaissance period whose plays are some of the most well-known plays of all times. Some people even say that he was able to eclipse all writers who proceed and follow him. William Shakespeare has influenced all kinds of people including artists, poets, philosophers, and thinkers. Shakespeare wrote four different types of plays: Comedies, Tragedies, Histories, and Romances. Some of the most famous plays are Romeo and Juliet, The Tempest, and A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Shakespeare wrote 38 successful plays in only 25 years. His plays were not short little stories but they were long, complex plays that required background notes for the reader. Along with writing these plays, Shakespeare also starred in his own plays but took on the smaller roles. He also wrote poems and sonnets as well as plays. Shakespeare was born in Stratford-upon-Avon on April 23, 1564 which is the Feast Day of St. George who is the patron Saint of England. In 1576 when Shakespeare was 12, the first purpose-built theater was built (the first theater built for only theater productions and no other cause). This theater, built in England, was constructed by James Burbage whose son, Robert, eventually starred as a major actor in Shakespeare’s plays. Burbage had an influence on Shakespeare because he inspired him to become an actor and a playwright. Other people who inspired Shakespeare to be a playwright are Tomas Kyd and Christopher Marlow who wrote Tragedies and John Lyly who wrote comedies. All three of these men attended a university unlike Shakespeare who didn’t attend a university. William Shakespeare’s parents were Mary Arden and John Shakespeare. Shakespeare was one of eight children, four girls and four boys. When John Shakespeare got a new job, the family had to make the adjustment from being farmers to being higher class. The Shakespeare family was Christian so William Shakespeare was baptized. At the time that Shakespeare lived, there were no formal birth certificates so the certificate at Baptism was the only record of Shakespeare’s real name. On his certificate from Baptism, it shows Shakespeare’s name to be Giliemus Filius Johannes Shakspere. This translates from Latin to William Son of John Shakespeare. When Shakespeare was 18 years old, he married Anne Hathaway who was 26 years old. They had a child five months after their wedding and named her Susanna. Shakespeare then had boy and girl twins, Hamnet and Judith. The Shakespeare family lived in Stratford still but William Shakespeare lived his professional life in London. When Shakespeare started his acting career, there was a demand for theater and the theater was changing too. Special effects were becoming more advanced for playwrights and actors. During this time, plays were so popular that even Queen Elizabeth herself supported them. Without Queen Elizabeth’s help, the plays would have never lived on and survived. Sadly, Shakespeare was not very successful and his plays were not being produced. His plays were not being produced because at this time, English dramas were mysteries which were based off of religious themes and allegories. Soon Shakespeare’s role models Tomas Kyd, Christopher Marlow, and John Lyly died and people began to take interest in Shakespeare’s plays which were surprisingly good. Shakespeare had to deal with some obstacles in his life time. A man named Robert Greene deeply resented Shakespeare. He resented Shakespeare so much because he was uneducated but highly successful. Greene was joined in this attack against Shakespeare by other university educated people. Most of this hatred towards Shakespeare was formed out of jealousy that Shakespeare could be so successful without an education and the training that they had to do themselves. With their complaints, these university educated protesters went and told the whole world that Shakespeare didn’t even write his own plays since he didn’t even have an education from a university. This has a huge impact on Shakespeare because people started to see Greene’s point and considered their theory that Shakespeare didn’t even write his own plays. Shakespeare’s plays dominated the theater stages in London making those 25 years when his plays were playing the best plays during the Renaissance period. These plays are so successful because the three major playwrights died and opportunities for new playwrights opened up. Shakespeare took one of those spots and people started to acknowledge how great his plays were. Below are some of the most famous plays that Shakespeare wrote. A Mid-Summer Night’s Dream Much Ado about Nothing The Merchant of Venice All’s Well That Ends Well Measure for Measure All of the King Henry plays The Life and Death of King John All of the King Richard plays *Romeo and Juliet Julius Caesar Hamlet Othello King Lear Macbeth Antony and Cleopatra *The Tempest Pericles The Winter’s Tale Shakespeare was what some people call a Renaissance Man. A Renaissance Man is a man of the Renaissance period who made great achievements in multiple areas. Shakespeare was a Renaissance Man because he was an actor and a playwright as well as a poet. Shakespeare also wrote so many complex plays in such a short amount of time. Shakespeare is admirable because of his great achievements. He wrote 38 complex plays in 25 years as well as acting in them. He also wrote poems and sonnets on top of writing plays. Shakespeare is also admirable because of his perseverance when all of the university educated people said terrible things about him. Overall, Shakespeare had a huge impact in History and the people who live at the same time as or after William Shakespeare. He truly deserved the title The Renaissance Man because he was such a talented man. He really did eclipse all writers before and after him and he deserves to be recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.148.174 (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

spelling error in "Textual Sources" section

"additions" should be "editions" Gavinpc (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done ----Chewings72 (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete Works section?

In another discussion I was asked about removing the William_Shakespeare#Works section since it is repeated in the William Shakespeare template. I'm all right with it. Any objections? Tom Reedy (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

How many plays did he write

I would like to know how many plays William Shakespeare wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.71.143.172 (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The answer to that is already in the article. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2014

115.187.16.2 (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

Shakespeare was born on the 23rd not 26th! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.96.195 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken in two points. [1] the article doesn't say he was born on the 26th, it says he was baptized on the 26th. The article doesn't give any birthday, because [2] Shakespeare's birthdate is unknown. The article elaborates further, if you'll read through it. - Nunh-huh 00:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

400th Death Anniversary TFA

You guys have less than 2 years to get something to WP:FA for his 400th death anniversary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is already FA, in case you didn't notice. Other Shakespeare articles have also been promoted already. Paul B (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Others, but far from all! King Lear is B- or C-class (the Theatre and Shakespeare WikiProjects have differing grades) and Macbeth and Othello are both C-class. Apart from Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet, which are both FAs (and past TFAs), the highest-graded article for a Shakespeare play is a GA for The Tempest. I'd be sorry to see an anniversary like Shakespeare's 400th pass by unmarked... Ham (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Occupation

Shakespeare also directed some of his plays (most) and thus also one of his occupations was being a Director; although this isn't shown under the Occupation section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josshhuuuaaa (talk • contribs) 18:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that he "directed" plays, or even that there was such as concept as theatre director at the time. Paul B (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The role of Director simply didn't exist at the time, rather a combination of stock character performance and actor/writer lead ensemble rehearsal was employed. for reference see almost any book on the subject, specifically the academically definitive "The Shakespearean Stage, 1574-1642" by Gurr, Andrew. Cambridge University Press. MarlovianPlough (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Religion

The Michael Wood documentary, "In Search of Shakespeare", establishes his faith as Catholic. Has this been refuted? Documentary can be YouTubed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h96ThdV_BM Adrienneharris (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not an original claim. The various theories are all discussed in the article Shakespeare's religion. Paul B (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Catholicism is by no means established beyond reasonable doubt. Arguments, evidence and theories exist for Shakespeare as Catholic, Protestant, Atheist, Agnostic and Jew. MarlovianPlough (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

recently of the court of King James

Has it been established whether the passage refers to William Shackspeare, gentleman, recently of the court of King James? Could it refer instead to William Shackspeare, gentleman, who recently in the court of King James which was established in this borough via Edward VI, etc., commenced the suit against Addenbrooke? Does the King James' court refer to Shakespeare or is the passage establishing that the court is operated by King James and was established in Stratford in the time of Edward VI?

I tend to lean toward the second interpretation as it seems odd to mention "court" as in retinue and then immediately define that this court of law has been in Stratford since Edward VI. Thank you for your consideration of this. Fotoguzzi (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at it again a few ways--emphasis mine: "Preceptum est servientibus ad clavam ibidem quod cum quidam Willielmus Shackspeare, generosus, nuper in curia domini Jacobi, nunc regis Anglie, burgi predicti, ibidem tenta virtute literarum patentium domini Edwardi, nuper regis Anglie, sexti, levavit quandam querelam suam versus quendam Johannem. Addenbrooke de placito debiti..."

...Shackspeare, gentleman, recently in the court of King James, current ruler of England, aforementioned borough... I do not know Latin sentence structure, but is "burgi predicti" referring to Shackspeare? Is it referring to James' court? If we remove, "nuper in curia domini Jacobi, nunc regis Anglie," is there still a sentence? Thanks. Fotoguzzi (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Fotoguzzi (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence would still make sense even with "nuper in curia domini Jacobi, nunc regis Anglie" removed. The "burgi predicti" tells us that William Shackspeare is of the aforesaid borough, presumably Stratford, and the "curia" is the royal court of King James, not the local one. In her "Ungentle Shakespeare" (p.241) Katherine Duncan-Jones says "In the seventh and last surviving document relating to this case Shakespeare is described as 'generosus, nuper in curia domini Jacobi, nunc regis Angliae' – 'a gentleman, lately in the court of the lord James, now King of England'. This pompous phrase suggests an attempt by Shakespeare's attorney [...] to 'pull rank' on his client's behalf, in order to secure the sum owed." Peter Farey (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see what any of this has to do with the article, unless a reliable source can be used to dispute the translation. Otherwise, it's just anti-strat special pleading. Paul B (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Or, the entirety of the world could determine if the current cited translation is correct, and if not, then search for a reliable source with an alternate translation. Peter Farey states that there is still a sentence if the parenthetical material is removed. Is not what remains something like: "...there having virtue of letters patent (from? from the time of?) King Edward, recent ruler of England, the sixth,..." What exactly was held because of the letters patent? The Edward VI material seems more parenthetical than the pompous phrase. Sorry if that is anti-Stratfordian--I was just trying to tie Stratford to Edward VI. Fotoguzzi (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Fotoguzzi (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's just legalese boilerplate. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's Diana Price's post from a discussion about this very thing in 2001:

The "court" in question is the Court of Records in which the legal action is taking place. The translation, rendered in Lewis's "Shakespeare Documents" is "an order to the sergeants at mace that when a certain William Shakespeare, gentleman, recently in the court of James, now King of England, of the aforesaid borough, same held by virtue of letters patent from King Edward VI, recently king of England... ", etc.

The reference to the Court of Records, of the borough of Stratford, is made clear by reference to Edward VI, in whose reign the court received its charter (see Chambers, Facts and Problem, 2:117).

As a result, that detail was deleted from the essay "How We Know That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts". Tom Reedy (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed "Further reading" section

Tom, I thought that the separation of the reading list into "References" and "Further reading" was a good idea, since it allows us far more easily to reexamine just what has been included in the latter with a view to removing some of the less useful or relevant ones. I am thinking, for example, of the editions of single plays or simply the "introductions" to some of them. In any case, a fair amount of work had clearly gone into the division of the list into two, and I think it deserved some discussion before the result was simply reverted. Peter Farey (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare and Dickens: The Dynamics of Influence? The Cambridge Introduction to Shakespeare's Tragedies? Romanticism in National Context? Christopher Marlowe (1968)? Really?

The problem I see with a "further reading" section is when do you stop listing? Everyone has their favorites; sooner or later the list will be longer than the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

But what you fear is happening already, Tom, as your examples amply demonstrate. I simply suggest that splitting the list allows us more easily to identify items for deletion right now, and to prevent the uncontrolled addition of such items in the future, which the current arrangement has so clearly failed to facilitate.

Furthermore, as I said, I believe that Aa77zz deserved our thanks for the work he or she had put into this, and certainly not the peremptory dismissal of the edits with no discussion. Peter Farey (talk) 06:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Having just looked through the items which Aa77zz relocated into a "Further reading" section, I can see no more than 3 or 4 which I might have included in such a section if there had been one. In fact I would suggest that rather than having reverted the two edits (which did nothing to resolve the problem) it would have been better if you had simply deleted the new "Further reading" section in its entirety. That would have also ensured that the "References" section was correctly named, which it isn't right now. Peter Farey (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not understanding you. Why isn't the references section correctly named? When I reverted the edits I was getting page formatting errors that were caused by incorrect formatting of the references. And it would have been nicer if he had discussed adding the further reading section before adding it. I think the only way to avoid the creep of everyone adding their favorite Shakespeare book is to just not have that section; certainly, with hundreds of Shakespeare books being published every year, interested readers can find some further information without the help of a completely arbitrary list. If some of the references aren't being used, then they should be deleted. Tom Reedy (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And now I see you did that while I was typing! Good job. I think the entire page could stand a good revision, myself. I think the standards for FA have gone up since this article was vetted. Tom Reedy (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the good job was really done by Aa77zz who went through the whole lot, picking out those which hadn't been cited in the text. Having checked a fair sample to see whether this was correct, all I did was replace the old "References" section with his version. Peter Farey (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Extra information on Shakespeare's birth date

Shakespeare's birth date is regarded as 23 April because during that time, children were baptized three days after being born. Since Shakespeare was baptized on 26th April, Shakespeare's birth date is taken to be on 23rd April. But the true date of Shakespeare's birth remains a mystery.

Infinite Library (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The "rule" that children were baptized three days after birth isn't really a rule, it's just a factoid made up out of whole cloth by people who would like Shakespeare's birth date to correspond with his death date (and/or the feast of St. George). The origin of the 3-day assertion is traced in Schoenbaum's William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life (see p. 24 ff.) James Halliwell-Phillipps "remarked in passing that three days often elapsed between birth and baptism. This casual suggestion hardens into positive assertion in Sir Sidney Lee's 1898 Life of William Shakespeare… Actually no evidence demonstrates that such a customary interval ever obtained." It is also occasionally pointed out the The Prayer Book of 1559 instructed parents to have their children baptized by the first Sunday or Holy Day following birth (rather than "three days after birth"). So you are correct that his birth date is simply not known, but wrong in claiming that "during that time, children were baptized three days after being born". - Nunh-huh 20:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Age upon death

The article (and the info box) asserts that he died at age 52. If his date of birth is unknown, it is entirely plausible that he died at age 51 (assuming that his real birthday was after the "assumed" April 23 birthday). In other words, if he was actually born on April 24 or April 25 or even April 26, then he died at age 51. If indeed he was born on April 23, then he died at age 52. Either way, we don't know for sure. Therefore, his death at age 52 should not be listed as "fact". It should indicate "age 51 or age 52". Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It says on his tomb that he was 52. He must therefore have died either on or shortly after his birthday. The abbreviation is ÆTATIS٠53 DIE 23 APR. (i.e. in his 53rd year). Paul B (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare's death

The article does not mention how he died (i.e., the cause of death). This is a glaring omission, as most readers will want to know how he died (not simply when he died). If his cause of death is "unknown", then at least that fact should be mentioned in the article. Does anyone have information about this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a glaring omission, because we don't know. All that we know is that he died shortly after making a new will, which suggests he was ill, and knew - or suspected - he might die. But then again it could have been sheer coincidence, or he decided to write a new will because of the recent discovery of his son-in-law's affair. We don't know, The only account of what he died of comes from gossip written down fifty years later by John Ward (vicar), who says he "died of a fever" after meeting Ben Jonson and Drayton and drinking too much. Paul B (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But did you read my above post? It says ... If his cause of death is "unknown", then at least that fact should be mentioned in the article. This is clearly a glaring omission. He is one of the most researched persons in the history of the globe. Most people reading his biography will want to know how he died. I am quite certain that reliable sources have addressed this issue, one way or another. Why leave this material out? What is the argument in favor of excluding it? Even the stuff that you just wrote above (about his will, his illness, his fever, etc.). Maybe Shakespeare aficionados know that, but the average person does not. That information (and that sort of information) is useful and certainly more than this biography currently offers to its readers. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The article seems to hint at the idea that he died of the plague - but in a tentative way: "However it is perhaps relevant that the bubonic plague raged in London throughout 1609", when he might have been there. This [1] suggests syphilis. And this [2] is of interest too. Myrvin (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies on accidental rollback, page refreshed when I was trying to click another link. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Plague is unlikely, as it would leave a wider record of deaths in the area. Syphilis is possible. That's what Katherine Duncan-Jones suggests, though there's no evidence of it. It could have been any number of diseases. It should be discussed in Shakespeare's life, certainly, which is the biographical article. This one is about everything, so there is a question of due weight. Also, it's worth adding that we don't add that the cause of death is unknown to most articles about people of this era, because in most cases all that can be said is that it was "natural causes". Unless it was something dramatic like a Marlowe's death in a knife fight, or Raleigh death from beheading, the causes are usually not known, due the general crappy state of medical knowledge in the era and the lack of records. We don't speculate about the cause of death of Ben Jonson or Philip Massinger (his alleged drinking chums), for example. That goes for almost all writers of the era (and pretty much everyone else too). Paul B (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not asking for speculation. I am simply saying that we should include whatever the reliable sources say. I can't imagine that reliable sources are silent on this matter. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No they aren't. There's been endless speculation, as there is about just about everything to do with Shakespeare. We could probably create a whole article on what Shakespeare might have died of if we wanted to. But we don't include "whatever reliable sources say". We have to have regard for due weight. If we included whatever reliable sources say about Shakespeare this article would be unreadable and interminable. Paul B (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Coat of Arms

User:Paul Barlow has deleted a section I wrote on Shakespeare's coat of arms, citing that the subject is irrelevant to Shakespeare's life and does not merit a section. This seems unfair to me. If you look on the articles of various other armigers such as Francis Drake or Terry Pratchett they have a section describing and illustrating their arms. It's not like it was an obtrusive section either. It was brief and it was at the bottom of the page. Zacwill16 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Zacwill16, I didn't say it was "irrelevant to Shakespeare's life". I said it should be in the article called Shakespeare's life. There is already a discussion of the arms in that article. It could be expanded. I don't think it deserves a whole section here. This is a featured article and its content was very carefully worked over in order to get everything as "tight" as possible. The coat of arms may deserve a sentence, but I don't think it deserves an entire sub-section. This article differs from the others you mention because W.S. is so famous we have entire articles on various aspects of his life, career and work. There's even one on his handwriting and one on how his name is spelled. Paul B (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Of what relevancy is fame? Elizabeth II possibly the most famous person alive today has a section covering her arms. Zacwill16 (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You miss the point. Perhaps I should have said "so widely discussed and written about" rather than "so famous", but the argument remains the same. Paul B (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't say I agree, but I can see I'm not going to win this argument. Next time I think about adding content to an article I'll remember to keep my mouth shut and my pen lidded. Zacwill16 (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Unmentioned Play/Incomplete Play List

There seems to be no mention to his play "Love's Labour's Lost". The play itself (a comedy) has it's own Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love%27s_Labour%27s_Lost) but there is no link or reference to it from the main Shakespeare page and I think it should be there. 71.89.78.73 (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Saritah

Several plays are not mentioned in the text (e.g King John; Timon of Athens; The Merry Wives of Windsor). It's not a list. There is a full list in the template box, but it's not visible unless you open it up. As you say, there is a whole page on the play, and it is discussed in other Shakespeare pages such as Chronology of Shakespeare plays. Paul B (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not include survey results. Surveys are subjective based on selective methodology.

The article includes the line "Only a small minority of academics believe there is reason to question the traditional attribution"

(This was based on a 2007 New York Times survey.) Surveys are subjective and are irrelevant. The language should be removed.

Otherwise we could have articles filled with contradicting survey results which are more dependent on survey methodology rather than actual fact. Reedlander (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The source in question reads: "The Times survey of professors of Shakespeare, conducted March 5 though 29, is based on a random sample of colleges and universities in the United States that offer degree programs in English." In other words, it wasn't American Idol, or something where any yokle could vote multiple times. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

True, but were the surveys confidential? Were the participants independent? What institutions were sampled? Who are these 256 respondents? Are they even relevant in the scope of history? In addition, the respondents may be biased since they are employed in academia. Reedlander (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Biased? Academics would be a biased for what academics think about a subject? Did you really just suggest that? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I mean, really, what's the alternative? Ask a single but well-written conspiracy theorist what academics think about the Shakespeare authorship question? Guess? Roll percentile dice? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

When you are a professor, your public image is extremely important. Especially when it comes down to something as controversial as Shakespeare. The language should simply be removed. Basically, what I am saying is that there is a strong chance that academics are afraid to say what they really think. I have worked as an instructor, so I can understand the problem. Reedlander (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in the source to suggest the results weren't confidential, the survey also found that 89% felt felt no threat to their reputation whatsoever in discussing the matter, and the methodology of the survey is scientific enough that you'd have to present some reliable sources that specifically and directly counter it to argue against it on those grounds. Given the singular focus of your account so far, your questioning of an otherwise apparently reliable source appears to be more of a problem on your end.

As for working as an instructor, see WP:Credentials are irrelevant, On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog, User:Misza13/Nobody cares about your credentials, WP:No original research, and WP:Ignore all credentials. This site summarizes and paraphrases mainstream academic and journalistic sources, and is concerned with verifiability, not "truth". Ian.thomson (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia isn't concerned with having reliable sources, than what good is it? What I'm saying is that surveys are not reliable. Have you ever gone to grad school? Students frequently complete research using contradicting surveys. Which should we include? I propose none (unless the article is specifically about surveys). As far as my singular focus, well there is nothing at all wrong with being a focused individual. According to Wikipedia "all majority and significant minority views" should be covered. Not some subjective survey people created for a news story. Reedlander (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The source is reliable by the guidelines set at WP:Identifying reliable sources. Your contentions fall under Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources. While we're fine with useful single purpose accounts (such as User:Giraffedata, who mostly just replaces "comprised of" with better phrasing), we do not welcome those who seek to:

• "right great wrongs" against fringe ideas,
• use Wikipedia as a soapbox for fringe ideas, or at least
• create an illusion of balance that doesn't exist between mainstream and fringe views.

In short, if someone is here to push a particular view and otherwise not here to build an encyclopedia, they are not welcome.

All significant views are covered in proportion to their prominence and acceptance. Fringe topics are not given any additional illusion of acceptance, and per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question, Wikipedia presents as mainstream the view that a historical Shakespeare was the author of the Shakespearean works, and that alternatives are only presented as fringe perspectives.

In other words: because the mainstream view (which even the most ardent conspiracy theorists have to admit is mainstream) is that Shakespeare was the historical author, Wikipedia must present that as the default assumption. Likewise, because the alternative suggestions are given little mainstream regard, Wikipedia cannot pretend that those alternatives are not dismissed by mainstream academia. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In general, I don't dispute the article. (Although I did several days ago when I was new.) However, I do question the use of meaningless surveys created by exploitative journalists. Reedlander (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's rather amusing that Reedlander is keen to exclude this survey, after so many Oxfordian editors made such an effort to include it. The survey was, after all, created by an anti-Stratfordian. We do of course have numerous other sources stating that the overwhelming majority of academics reject anti-Stratfordianism. In my experience Shakespeare scholars are not at all afraid to say what they think about anti-Stratism. On the contrary, they have difficulty staying polite on the topic. Paul B (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd also note that it is pretty much a "the sky is blue" citation, there because we have to have a citation for facts that are plainly obvious to anyone capable of observing them. Regardless of who wrote the Shakespearean plays, it is obvious to everyone that the overwhelming majority of mainstream academia considers old Bill the only possible author. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In regard to the comments made by Paul B, I think those "numerous other sources" should be used rather than the NY Times survey. -And my comments, although pointed, have never been impolite. Also, if we are so persuaded to include the NY Times Survey, perhaps we should also note that only 25% of the respondents gave a lot of thought to the authorship question. Perhaps the majority of the respondents don't really think much at all. Sorry, but that is also quite amusing. Reedlander (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

My remark about politeness was not directed at you, as I think the context makes clear. If you want to see the other sources, they are quoted in footnote citation 3 of the Shakespeare authorship question page. The "give a lot of thought" bit, simply means that it's not something that preoccupies their mind or research. Commentators on this survey have taken the view that it overestimates the amount of doubt because of the way the survey was phrased and carried out. Paul B (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course I have kind of been toying with you here a bit, but I think my point remains a valid one. Subjects like Shakespeare highlight the weakness and obvious problem with Wikipedia in general. Questionable material often becomes re-affirmed and even publicly accepted on Wikipedia when it probably should not be. I mean, if I am indeed right and Shakespeare is indeed a fraud, you can see exactly how pointless and even harmful Wikipedia can sometimes be. I will try to publish my research to hopefully increase public knowledge someday. It is our shared history and it is quite important for all of us to have a meaningful understanding of our world. Misrepresentation of fact, whether intentional or not, is a terrible thing. Reedlander (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of many problems with Wikipedia in general, but I don't think the fact that it gives most weight to mainstream views is one of them. Perhaps Barack Obama is really a Communist spy undermining America. If so, Wikipedia will be proven wrong for excluding all those editors who try to inform the world of this "fact". But until it is established as a fact we quite properly adopt more commonly held views. Shakespeare authorship theories get far more coverage on Wikipedia than they do in most academic contexts. As for the Elizabeth theory, there exists one book on the topic I'm aware of, Sweet's Shake-spear the Mystery, so I'm sure there's room for another. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Latecomer here. I sort of agree with Reedlander, but only to the extent that one 2007 survey of 256 American academics does not really support the statement "Only a small minority of academics believe there is reason to question the traditional attribution". The survey was taken 7 years ago, so do those people still have the same views? What about British academics? Canadians? Australians? Germans and Mongolians, for that matter? Look, I certainly agree that most academics are Stratfordians, but this particular survey is not the right source to demonstrate that. At least, not by itself. If we stick to this sole source, we should at the very least change the wording to something like "In a 2007 survey of 256 American academics, only a small minority believed there was any reason to question the traditional attribution". Because it's wrong to extrapolate those results to all academics for all time, which is pretty much what we're doing at the moment. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I am unaware of any major - or even minor - new discoveries since 2007. Really, there are, as I said, many many sources that say the same thing. The just aren't surveys. Nothing will ever be completely up to date, but in Shakespeare studies 2007 is virtually yesterday, even if it may be ancient history in, say, population genetics. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, can't we have at least one of the many, many other sources, to complement this solitary survey? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Please excise pedantic quotes

Harold Bloom quotes have no place in a serious encyclopaedia. Please excise them, somebody with excisionary powers. Thank you for improving Wikipedia - The Free Online Encyclopedia Which Anybody (sic) Can Edit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2014

Link to First Four Folios at Miami University broken. Correct link is: http://doyle.lib.miamioh.edu/shakespeare/

Remove: First Four Folios at Miami University Library, digital collection

Replace with: First Four Folios at Miami University Library, digital collection

Laddmm (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing that out and also for providing the working link. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

New image

File:Procession of Characters from Shakespeare's Plays

I removed a new image, which has been restored. I did actually remove it in error - mistakenly thinking it had been added to external links, so I won't revert the re-addition. I'm pretty familiar with this Stothardesque image, having edited the file-description and spent some while trying to identify the characters a while back. I'm in two minds whether or not it should be here. Image overload is always a danger. The question is - does it add anything? The editor who added it did so with the summary "I had FPC in my mind when I added that". AFAIK, the file is considered "good" in the context of FPC because of the high quality of the image-file, not because it is an aesthetically good, important or relevant picture, so I don't see why this would be an appropriate criterion. Paul B (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any less aestheticism in it. It shows a rare collection of his characters in a frame, which is a good encyclopedic value..--The Herald : here I am 14:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "less aestheticism". Less than what? My point was that FPC is not about judging the aesthetic merits of a picture (ie your justification). This is by a minor imitator of Stothard. My main worry is image overload, and whether this serves any useful purpose for the article. Paul B (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It might serve a useful purpose if the characters were identified. As it stands it wouldn't add much for the average encyclopedia reader who is not intimately familiar with the plays, IMHO. I recognize characters from Twelfth Night, Henry IV, As You Like It, The Tempest, King Lear, Hamlet, and Macbeth. I couldn't immediately find a source that specifically identifies the individual figures, but I'm sure one exists. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The website of the Yale Centre for British Art, which owns the painting, lists the characters represented [3]. Unfortunately, it does so in an apparently chaotic way (not left to right, or some other systematic format), so it's not always clear which character is which, though most can be confidently identified from the list. The list also has 28 names (including Shakespeare himself), but there are only 27 figures. Paul B (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm -- I only count 26, including Crab (Launce's dog from Two Gentlemen). Who am I missing? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

None. I misremembered. There are 26 characters depicted (including Crab), but 27 names listed. The YCBA gives no source for the names, so it's not clear where it comes from. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the extra person listed as "people represented or subject" but not actually depicted is Shakespeare. Presumably someone put him in the list as a "subject" of the painting, even though he's not in it. - Nunh-huh 17:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The website works by linking the names to images, so if you click on the name you get all images with, say, Hamlet in them, and all images of Shakespeare subjects, which is why WS is listed. I note that we do already have a painting representing characters in Shakespeare plays. It's the one at the bottom, Sir John Gilbert’s The Plays of William Shakespeare, in which plays are represented by characters in a sub-School of Athens format. Though Gilbert's is the more interesting painting, I think the Yale image is more effective for the article, as its frieze-like structure and compositional simplicity make it easier to see on screen. I would suggest replacing the Gilbert with the Yale image, but centred as it is now rather than at the right. Paul B (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The choice is yours :) I did enjoy seeing which figures were in common (most obviously, Bottom, Crab, Othello) but regret that neither artist seems to have depicted "Lavinia, her hands cut off, her tongue cut out, and ravished." - Nunh-huh 18:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Titus Andronicus was a bit too graphic for the Victorians. Another option would be the opposite -- replacing the Yale image with the Gilbert painting, along with a caption, since it's fairly obvious who's who, and there's a broader presentation for the average reader -- the finding of baby Perdita from Winter’s Tale, Hamlet and Ophelia, Shylock and Portia, Lear in the storm with Poor Tom, Henry VIII (in a classic pose) and Wolsey, Falstaff and the merry wives (with the washing), Prospero, Miranda and Caliban, Launce and Crab, and the menagerie from Midsummer Night’s Dream. Just a thought. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Gilbert painting is already in the article, so how can it replace the other one? I see no point in moving it, as the earlier section is already cluttered, and it's not best suited for centre-display because of its shape. As I said, it's a more interesting image, but on the page it's not really legible, even if one is viewing the artricle on a largish computer screen. Paul B (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well then, how about moving it to Chronology of Shakespeare's plays as the image have no other page linked in the entire wikimedia. But that would face the similar problems, right?--The Herald : here I am 12:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

new stylometric research results

Please note the publication of new stylometric research results that have an impact on the Shakespeare corpus and his biography. Hartmut Ilsemann. William Shakespeare – Dramen und Apokryphen: Eine stilometrische Untersuchung mit R. Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 2014, ISBN: 978-3-8440-3096-9, 355 pages, in German. R stylo, a suite of stylometric tools, was used to analyse the so called Shakespeare apocrypha, a body of Renaissance plays that have been attributed to Shakespeare in part or in toto, but whose authorship has never been proven or refuted convincingly. As R is quite new and embodies a combination of powerful procedures and functions the various methodological approaches were tested simultaneously to make sure that results complied with criteria like evidence and plausibility. In the past many stylometric investigations relied on the relative frequency of function words, and PCA and multivariate analyses made use of larger textual units which were very often the products of collaborative efforts of playwrights. R has the capacity to differentiate between authors even within smaller text units using the rolling delta procedure and its features. The overall result is that a large number of apocryphal plays are indeed Shakespeare’s, and many of the plays that make up the Shakespeare canon represent the last stage of a long and complicated process of rewriting and revising, finally concluded by Heminges and Condell in 1623. The first drafts are shorter and simpler in their plot construction. Many refer to the Queen’s Players, a troupe of actors that dominated the 1580s and dissolved around 1591. There is good reason to believe that Shakespeare served his apprenticeship in the mid 1580s as a playwright with colleagues like Thomas Kyd, Christopher Marlowe, Robert Greene, George Peele, Thomas Nashe and Samuel Rowley, a prolific writer who is scarcely mentioned in secondary literature, but whose stylistic features can be found in an astounding number of plays. Among the plays that were later given a prominent position and a new name within the canon are The True Tragedy of Richard III (Richard III), The Taming of a Shrew (The Shrew), The Troublesome Reign of King John (King John), King Leir (King Lear) and The Famous Victories of Henry V (Henry V). Shakespeare also wrote Fair Em, Edward III, and had a fair share in a number of additional plays like Edmund Ironside, and Mucedorus. Sir Thomas More, Sir John Oldcastle, and Thomas Lord Cromwell all contain Shakespearian contributions and show traces of early compositions and later revisions and additions. The first part of Richard II, also known as Thomas of Woodstock, was written by Samuel Rowley. Only act five is by Shakespeare, which explains Marlowe signals in Richard II. Shakespeare apparently used archive material that Marlowe and he had gathered. Kyd and Shakespeare also wrote Arden of Faversham, and Locrine is Marlowe’s work. Some observations should not be left out. Thomas Kyd and Shakespeare collaborated in many ways. Kyd contributed to Titus Andronicus, and The Spanish Tragedy shows Shakespeare’s style in some places. All of this was concluded not from word frequencies alone, but from a series of investigations that made use of character bi- and trigrams which evaluated more text than word frequencies and were statistically more sound. Volume I roughly covers the period up to the opening of the Globe, and volume II will have to deal with some errors like Wilkins having written the first two acts of Pericles (once again the result of an insufficient number of word frequencies). But there will also be among other plays the forgeries of Ireland, and the Shakespearean stylistics of Theobald’s Double Falsehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.182.212.130 (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Speculation about shakespeare section

Is this really necessary in a serious encyclopedia? Speculation about historical figures is mostly groundless and based on interpretations of their lifes based on modern cultural milieu. The religion section in particular is absurd as it postulates he may have lacked belief in God, which is patently untrue as he wrote numerous sonnets expressing a clear belief in heaven and hell, which would be absurd if he were an atheist or agnostic. We don't have speculation sections in the articles on Newton or Mozart, so why have one for Shakespeare?--Superdupersmartdude (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably because we know very well what Newton and Mozart thought, since they left a large archive of letters and other personal documents. Shakespeare didn't. Hence the speculation. Your argument that Shakespeare must have believed in God because he refers to heaven and hell is as convincing as saying George Bernard Shaw must have been a Christian because he wrote Don Juan in Hell and depicted the Last Judgement in The Simpleton of the Unexpected Isles. We know what Shaw really thought because he said so in his prefaces. Shakespeare didn't write any. And of course, Marlowe has Faustus going to Hell, but his contemporaries were clear that he wasn't a Christian. As for the sonnets, they emphasise that immortality is achieved by 1. having children (sonnets 1-17) and 2. being in poems that will be remembered (sonnet 18 etc). The words 'heaven' and 'hell' are most notably used to refer to the pleasures and dangers of sex (sonnet 129). Paul B (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Or, put another way, the sonnets, though written by Shakespeare, are meant to be read as the words of fictional speakers who are not Shakespeare. If not so, you make the mistake of the "speculators" who imagine Will was in love with a dark lady *and* a young man.

Which is not to say that I disagree that the speculation section here would benefit from being cut down to a few sentences with the appropriate links to other articles. But what's here is an improvement from prior versions, and it's not certain if anyone still here would object to further synopsizing. - Nunh-huh 20:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the value of the section on portraiture in "speculations". It's worth a sentence or two at most. I don't think we can exclude the authorship, religion and sexuality stuff, but it could all be consolidated into a single section. Paul B (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There's much even in the authorship paragraph that could be reasonably excised. For example, it's pretty meaningless to say "but interest in the subject, particularly the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, continues into the 21st century." So does interest in Bigfoot, little green men, and faked moon landings. The sentence is just there to provide a link to a former editors favorite obsession. So I would support anything you'd care to do in terms of combining and judiciously shortening all of these sections. - Nunh-huh 21:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Coat of arms

An editor Zacwill16 added these to the page, which seemed reasonable to me. I didn't understand why they weren't there before. But another Binksternet deleted them because "Shakespeare never raised an army so he doesn't need a coat of arms". A very strange reason. Is there yet another WP rule I've missed? Myrvin (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistaken. I did not find out until just now that Shakespeare's father John had applied for a coat of arms, and that Shakespeare himself had re-opened the application after he was successful as a playwright, and thus his father received the coat of arms five years before death. The coat of arms is believed to be a sign that Shakespeare wanted to pass his success on to his descendants, and to obtain a bit of immortality.

These facts reveal Shakespeare's concern with worldly success, and ought to be written into the biography. Binksternet (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is this edit which added File:Shakespeare1COA.png. Some previous discussions are:

• Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 17#A few minor edits April 2009
• Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 21#Coat of Arms February 2010
• Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 22#Shakespeare's Coat of Arms September 2014

See Shakespeare authorship question#Historical evidence and Shakespeare's life#London and theatrical career for other versions with more details. Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Shakespeare's coat of arms is already in the article Shakespeare's life, in which his more 'worldly' concerns are discussed in detail. Of course his coat of arms is relevant, lots of images are relevant, but that's not really the main issue. People keep adding images to this article which is already very image heavy. We don't want to just pile up images. Likewise we don't need to go into detail on Shakespeare's masterplan for establishing the social status of his family, which is covered in the life article. Paul B (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Beaumont & Fletcher Navbox

I've created a Navbox -- {{Beaumont and Fletcher canon}} -- which may or may not be appropriate to this page. Shakespeare is of course co-author of 2 extant plays with Fletcher, and apparently 1 (Cardenio) no longer extant. All 3 plays appear in this Navbox. I've already placed this template on Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, Philip Massinger, and Nathan Field. Shakespeare is next in line, but I prefer to leave this decision up to the editors here. Clearly there's an argument for inclusion, but maybe you've already had "it's too cluttered" or "must be sufficiently germane" discussions that I'm not aware of. If anyone has an opinion on whether the other playwrights should get the navbox too, I'd like to know. I've listed them (at the top of the template) more or less in order of their bulk of contribution to the canon, so all the subsequent authors contributed even less than Shakespeare, but still non-zero. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2015

77.102.104.199 (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC) William Shakespeare had a great,great and great grandson came to my school. His nickname was BBTT (bentbag and tiptoe)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamietw (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Unlikely to happen, Jamietw, since Shakespeare had grand-children, but no great-grand-children. 😉- Nunh-huh 20:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And given the name suggested and the generational implausibility (Shakespeare's descendents would be at least seventh-great-grand-children, if not ninth or tenth), we could have just removed the request as vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2015

William Shakespeare birthday is the same day he died -April 23 Source : [4] Christine Shenkman (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done. We don't know that. We only traditionally celebrate his birthday today, even though we can't be sure of the exact day. See the Early life section of the article. Paul B (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

New portrait

A new portrait of Shakespeare has been "identified" and according to the source, one of the first directly attributed to him, and possibly ending the enduring question on whether we have an accurate depiction of him. BBC News story. Thought I should get the ball rolling on how this should be approached and integrated. I do think there should be a brief waiting period as sometimes discoveries of these natures come undone after other peers have a chance to review the findings and comment. Mkdw^talk 16:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It should be utterly ignored. It's a ridiculous story. It's just a generic image of a classical horiculturalist. It probably merits a sentence at portraits of Shakespeare. Apparently the discoverer has also identified a new play by W.S., also shortly to be reported in that well known scholarly journal Country Life [5]. Paul B (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

> It probably merits a sentence at portraits of Shakespeare.

I don't think it even merits that. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Then, um, whaddabout adding it to the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates with implicit attribution of the bard's works to the posthumous creativity of Pedanius_Dioscorides? Could any one ping Percy on the Ouija board. He might have more gen on how that might be possible.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sitting?

'Shakespeare's grave, sitting next to Anne Shakespeare, his wife, and...' reads strangely. The word 'sitting' should be omitted. 109.149.208.60 (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

IPA Error

Shakespeare's name is given as /ˈʃeɪkspɪər/ which is a pronunciation that exists in no standard of English even phonemically.

This is a clearly a misconversion from the non-IPA phonetic alphabet in the work cited. The person who entered it clearly misunderstood the guide to the English IPA. See the chart here which clearly shows the standards for this sound sequence as RP: ɪə(r) and GenAm ɪr. The "(r)" in the chart for RP only notes a linking r, as this is at the end of a word without a following vowel, the [r] would not be pronounced.

It should be changed to:

RP [ˈʃeɪk.spɪə], GenAm [ˈʃeɪk.spɪr]

The additional dot denotes syllable division which is necessary to disambiguate the pronunciation as shake+speare as opposed to shakes+peare which is pronounced differently.

-Devin Ronis (d.s.ronis) (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I must admit an oversight on my part. I was unable to edit the article before because I was not logged in but assumed it was highly protected, otherwise I wouldn't've left the note. Once logged in, I saw that it was editable, and now that I've attempted to edit the page, I can see that the original markup contains no error. I see IPA misconversion quite regularly from dictionary phonetic systems, but I assumed the work cited was a print edition not a website. It is in IPA and correct on the site and correct in the markup. The issue appears to be some odd conversion taking place somewhere. Wikipedia automatically converts [ɪə] to [ɪər] inexplicably and where such a conversion is made is quite opaque. The error is that of Wikipedia administration, but I am at a loss how to rectify this error. Any guidance on the issue is much appreciated. -Devin Ronis (d.s.ronis) (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Age at death

BTW, re this edit summary of mine [6]. The footnote in question is in the Shakespeare's life article (currently note 41), not this one. My mistake. The issue has been discussed on the talk page several times: Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive_7#Age_at_death; Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive_21#Date_of_birth; Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive_18#I_found_his_real_birth_date.21. Paul B (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

MansourJE (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015

William Shakespeare is born on the 23rd of April 

Fdog1 (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

From the article: "His actual date of birth remains unknown, but is traditionally observed on 23 April, Saint George's Day." Stickee (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2015

117.220.207.190 (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2015

Please add to external links:

Clear Shakespeare (http://clearshakespeare.com/), a word-by-word audio guide to Shakespeare's plays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.69.204 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Cannabis

Adjusted this [7] but not sure if it is notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I'll defer to your judgment.Kingshowman (talk)Kingshowman — Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I added the ref link to the Thackeray 2015 research. The citation form isn't the same as most of the others in this article, but it is the format Thackeray requested in the "HOW TO CITE:" leader in his study. grifterlake (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe this comes under WP:NOTNEWS and might be better placed at the New Place page in the archaeological excavations section. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. The cannabis section was already in place when I added the reference. If I remember correctly, the first reference dated back 14 years, so the Thackeray research seemed a good way to round it out and update it. 20:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)grifterlake (talk)

Confusing quotes > Critical reputation section

Within the Critical Reception section, the 4th sentence starts out "...Ben Jonson called Shakespeare the 'Soul of the age...'". Directly above those words, a small box displays a quote from Ben Johnson - "He was not of an age, but for all time." Is there a purpose to showing contradictory quotes without explaining them. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is it written in British English

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabi360 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 7 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Presumably because Shakespeare was British. See MOS:TIES. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

400th Anniversary

Shocking that the article made no mention of this, such an exclusion places the encyclopedia in a very bad light indeed, added. Twobells (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Twobells, hear, hear!JustTryintobeJust (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2016

{{shake sphere date of birth || | death_date = 20 April 1616 (y)}}

Katukuabhisheik (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

TFA

I would like to nominate this article for TFA as the 400th anniversary of his death is coming up. Would an event like this be enough for the article to be a TFA again? JerrySa1 (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Age?

His infobox claims his date of birth as April 26, 1564 and his date of death as April 23, 1616, yet despite the fact that would mean he was 51 at death, both the infobox and the section on his death ("Shakespeare died on 23 April 1616, at the age of 52.") claim he was 52. This should be edited to improve the accuracy of the article. ADg2k14 (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The infobox correctly says Shakespeare was "Baptised 26 April 1564" and "Died 23 April 1616". The birth date is not known, but apparently those sources which have examined the issue are confident the birth date would have been on or before 23 April 1564, so his age at death would have been 52. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The clue to Shakespeare's actual age at the time of his death comes from the wording on his monument. This says that he died on 23 April 1616 "ÆTATIS٠53". This would normally mean 'in his 53rd year', which would tell us that he was indeed born on 23 April 1564 or earlier. Peter Farey (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2016

Need to know the basic facts about William Shakespeare and the quartos?

Or want to refresh your knowledge? We have created this section to get you up to speed.

Who was William Shakespeare?

Shakespeare was born in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, in 1564. Very little is known about his life, but by 1592 he was in London working as an actor and a dramatist. Between about 1590 and 1613, Shakespeare wrote at least 37 plays and collaborated on several more. Many of these plays were very successful both at court and in the public playhouses. In 1613, Shakespeare retired from the theatre and returned to Stratford-upon-Avon. He died and was buried there in 1616.

What did he write?

Shakespeare wrote plays and poems. His plays were comedies, histories and tragedies. His 17 comedies include A Midsummer Night’s Dream and The Merry Wives of Windsor. Among his 10 history plays are Henry V and Richard III. The most famous among his 10 tragedies are Hamlet, Othello, and King Lear. Shakespeare’s best-known poems are The Sonnets, first published in 1609. What are the quartos?

Shakespeare’s plays began to be printed in 1594, probably with his tragedy Titus Andronicus. This appeared as a small, cheap pamphlet called a quarto because of the way it was printed. Eighteen of Shakespeare’s plays had appeared in quarto editions by the time of his death in 1616. Another three plays were printed in quarto before 1642. In 1623 an expensive folio volume of 36 plays by Shakespeare was printed, which included most of those printed in quarto.

Why are the quartos important?

None of Shakespeare’s manuscripts survives, so the printed texts of his plays are our only source for what he originally wrote. The quarto editions are the texts closest to Shakespeare’s time. Some are thought to preserve either his working drafts (his foul papers) or his fair copies. Others are thought to record versions remembered by actors who performed the plays, providing information about staging practices in Shakespeare’s day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aderemi06 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

NB: The above text or something like it occurs on several websites, but seems ultimately to derive from The British Library. Phil wink (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2016

2602:306:3B8F:7940:CD10:E895:534C:A6A (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC) 51

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please change "this is so boring dude... " to "". Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Where it says when he was baptized, and that his birthdate is unknown, please changed that to "birth date" cuz I looked it up and that is his birthdate, I looked it up directly on Google. ShadowMenace101 (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Provide a source, and the change will be made Sheepythemouse (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Pointless exercise looking for such a source, as such a source would be wrong. We know that his birthdate is unknown. That is reliably sourced. Until new data is found (and we would hear about such a find) any source which says that his birthdate is known is simply wrong, and by so stating, has earned a reputation as a bad source. - Nunh-huh 19:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

New section reversion

I reverted the new section which was created using the exact same information from the first paragraph of the early life section. This information, which really should be a footnote, is not of the importance to deserve its own section. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2016

114.143.127.32 (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: No request text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Reputation

It may well be true that Shakespeare is regarded in Anglophone cultures as "the world's greatest dramatist" but that is not necessarily true in other cultures. There are those in France who regard Corneille and Racine as superior to Shakespeare and those in Chine who see him as inferior to Guan Hanqing.

I suggest further research as to Shakespeare's reputation in cultures other than the Anglophone, as a basis for a less narrowly-based statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.125.188 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The wording of the statement was discussed in detail when the article was improved and granted FA status (you can search the talk page archives), and it is sourced using three different reliable references. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the wording of the statement is not written from a neutral point of view. The 3 different source are all form anglophones scholars, but the statement is about "world preeminent dramatist". I suppose that a neutral source should be a text about the matter of theater or dramatic arts in general analysing different ages, areas and authors, not 3 essays on W.S. himself, written by 3 author whose field of studies is Shakespear... The three author: Stephen Jay Greenblatt.....Shakespearean scholar, editor of the The Norton Shakespear. book cited: Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare Who will be is favourite author?

David Bevington

"One of the most learned and devoted of Shakespeareans,"[2] so called by Harold Bloom, he specializes in British drama of the Renaissance, and has edited and introduced the complete works of William Shakespeare in both the 29-volume, Bantam Classics paperback editions and the single-volume Longman edition. Bevington remains the only living scholar to have personally edited Shakespeare's complete corpus.

book cited: Shakespeare (!)

Stanley Wells There's not information on wikipedia about this author, but, as the others, the book cited it's not a critical review of dramatists, but a monography on the Bard. book cited: Shakespeare: A Life in Drama (the title sounds so academic and unbiased...)

The article is yours and I understand your love for the author. It's clear that Shakespeareans like to think that "William rules!" and don't want debate, it's a condition very common in a lot of different cultures, all with its writer/poet/dramatist of untouchable status. It's ok. But please Sir, don't pretend there are unbiased source and sounded reason. Is petty anglocentrism and Chauvinism of the most common species.

(I'm european of european ancestry and I love english literature, no SJW here, but it seems to me a clear mistake declare a dramatist "the best that ever lived" in an encyclopedia, no matter how much you've discussed it before.)

P.S.: The Italian Cuisine, widely regarded as the preeminent in the world, (source: "why italian food is the best", Mario Roma, italian cook, gastronomic scholar and ambassador for SanPellegrino, "the italian gastronomy", Giovanni Napoli, italian food critic, founder of the "club for italian food studies", never been abroad and proud to never have been, "other countries sucks hard about eating", Luca Firenze, a life dedicated to study italian cheeses, wines and recipes). Soooooo ignorant, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.221.59.26 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed additions to External Links

Hello, could we consider adding this website to external links? It includes a peer reviewed paper about the portrait mainly featured on site which I have also put a link below for, and that may be wroth considering adding as well. https://www.isthiswilliamshakespeare.co.uk/ http://www.gold.ac.uk/glits-e/glits-e2013-2014/the-faces-of-shakespeare-revealing-shakespeares-/ thanks Yourbard (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2016

Shakespeare was born in Stanford

203.104.11.79 (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 06:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

There are eight Stanfords in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.110.222 (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016

DavidMatthews (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

DavidMatthews has not specified what the change should be, so the request is denied. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016

Syed Azad (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Born April 23 1564

The article currently gives the date of baptism, and states "his actual date of birth remains unknown". There is a citation to William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life (Revised ed.) to support this claim. You have not provided any source to support the claim he was born 23 April 1564. William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life (Revised ed.) is published by Oxford University Press, a well-respected publisher. You would have to produce at least one, and preferably more, highly reliable sources to support your claim. In the absence of these sources, the edit will not be made. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

7 most important plays

At Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts, they include 7 Shakespeare plays among the 17 works in the "Fiction of early printed book era": Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Othello, Romeo and Juliet, and The Tempest. It does not surprise me so much that Shakespeare is considered to have 7 of the 17 most important works from his era, but are these the most important 7 Shakespeare works? I can agree that 5 of these are among his most important 7, but I am not so sure about A Midsummer Night's Dream and The Tempest.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Which would you have instead? --Xover (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I am no scholar of Shakespeare, but I was under the impression that Julius Caesar, The Merchant of Venice, The Taming of the Shrew, The Comedy of Errors, and Twelfth Night were at least as important as The Tempest and that A Midsummer Night's Dream was no more important than some of these.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Xover, any opinion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Bertaut, what about you?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Those seven certainly wouldn't be my personal preference (I'm not a fan of Othello for example, and I think Richard II is seriously underrated), but if pressed on the issue, I'd be inclined to agree that they are the most "important." In relation to the two you mention Tony, The Tempest is his last solo work, his most experimental play, one of only two plays he wrote that observes the classical unities, is generally seen as his farewell to the stage, and is pretty much universally recognised as a masterpiece study of any manner of themes (father/daughter relationships, magic realism, revenge etc). Regards A Midsummer Night's Dream, yeah, I've never really understood the appeal myself. I think As You Like It is a far better "forest play." But, generally, Midsummer is regarded as his finest comedy, is seen as one of the best examples in literature of summa epitasis (basically, the use of confusion in the narrative), and also one of the finest example of literary contrast (how the various couples are depicted). Like I said, I think it's overrated, but I'd be very much in the minority. All the other plays you mention certainly have claims to fame (Julius Caesar's depictions of guilt and power, The Merchant of Venice's depiction of revenge and religious conflict and mixture of comedy beside tragedy, The Taming of the Shrew's handling of gender politics, The Comedy of Errors's tight structure and experimentation in terms of casting, and Twelfth Night's handling of gender), but there are very few plays in his oeuvre that don't have some claim to being unique (Richard II's achingly beautiful verse, for example, or Timon of Athens's savage attack on materialism). So in a nutshell, yeah, I'd pretty much agree with those seven as the most important, if not necessarily my own personal top seven. Bertaut (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger and Bertaut: (apologies for the late reply. my wikitime tends to evaporate unpredictably, and particularly around Christmas) I am, as would be, I suspect, most serious critics and scholars, loath to try to rank them like this (why seven, in particular, for instance?). I'm sure Bloom and a few others have, but as my focus is on the biographical and history side I couldn't point to any off-hand. If there is a genuine need for it, my best proposal would be to try to come up with some kind of objective criteria and then do a survey according to those. Since the result isn't destined for article-space, OR concerns need not be excessive in such an endeavour. In summary, my response is mostly to shrug, and exemplify it by pointing out that I would, personally, argue strongly for The Tempest's primacy over most of the alternate list you gave. --Xover (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Is he widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language?

I can't check the sources so I'm not sure whether they support this claim or not. I don't think anyone would dispute that he's widely regarded as the greatest writer of plays and/or poems in the English language, but is he widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language? What I'm driving at is the fact that he didn't write any novels, so he obviously isn't widely regarded as the greatest novelist in the English language, which in turn means that the claim that he is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language is perhaps a little too broad. If you see what I mean? FillsHerTease (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, a talk page is for discussing changes and improvements to its associated article, not for generalized discussion. However, very briefly...Shakespeare couldn't be the greatest novelist because the novel form hadn't yet appeared when he was alive. He also couldn't be the greatest graphic novelist or screenwriter. All writers are bound to some degree by the particulars of their respective eras. Only if you believe that a not-yet-invented literary form is especially important should that ever be a factor when determining a given writer's place among peers. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Unlike you, I am not having a generalised discussion, I am suggesting a change to the associated article. The question is whether or not the sources support the claim that he is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language. As I said, I can't check the sources, but I am guessing they do not support the claim - for the reason I outlined - and I am asking that someone who can check the sources confirm whether or not they support the claim, and update the article if they don't. FillsHerTease (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

He doesn't need to have written novels -- his contributions to the genres he did write in influenced almost all later English novelists (whether they realize it or not). "Greatest writer [in general]" is not the same as "greatest writer of all genres." To draw a comparison with martial arts, Bruce Lee didn't (to my knowledge) study Capoeira or Krav Maga, but he probably would have beat the ever-loving hell tar out of someone who studied both of those. And even that comparison falls short because Shakespeare is responsible for modern orthography and made significant contributions to English vocabulary as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@FillsHerTease: I can answer this, as I was involved when the text and cites were added, and in subsequent discussions (including at PR and FAC). The cited sources (and several others) support the claim, and as we found, few other similar works on other writers do (or they judge their subject relative to Shakespeare; i.e. they effectively support the claim). There have been discussions on whether it was necessary to include, and the conclusion was that it is such a central aspect of the topic that not mentioning it would actually be misleading. I understand why you react to having this claim in the article (as would I, for any other subject), but it is actually appropriate here and has been thoroughly discussed (you'll find some of these in the archives to this talk page, and some more in the articlehistory-template's links to PR and FAC archives). --Xover (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Xover (talk) - Thanks very much for that. Just out of interest ... how did you access the sources? Is there some way that I can access them myself? Not so that I can check up on you! If this was discussed and agreed to previously then obviously that's fine with me. You never know until you ask! However I have encountered this a few times before - i.e. situations where I can't view the references - and it would be easier and faster if I could do it myself, rather than having to ask, and then wait for someone who understands what I'm asking! :-P Cheers ... FillsHerTease (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. In hindsight I recognise that I wasn't very clear when I started this new Section. All I wanted to know was whether or not the sources supported the claim because I couldn't access them myself. My personal opinion - which is clearly new research - is obviously completely irrelevant and I only included it because it was my basis for thinking that, potentially, the sources might not support the claim. I simply wanted them to be confirmed. However I can see that it might have appeared that I was trying to debate the topic, but that isn't what I was doing. I apologise for the misunderstanding... FillsHerTease (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@FillsHerTease: Don't worry too much about whether your initial query was clear. It's always hard to perfectly envision how others will understand subtext or implicit parts of what you write, unless you happen to be very familiar with the audience. And in this case you happened to wade into an article (set of articles, really) that has been plagued by… less constructive contributions… in the past. When I step in it in this way (which I do with alarming regularly) I try to just chalk it up as an opportunity to learn for the future. In any case, I wouldn't worry about it.

As for the cited sources, in this particular case I didn't actually check them since I happen to have been involved when this was added (back in 2007 I think), so unless someone snuck a change in without me noticing (which it doesn't look like has happened), they ought still to support it. There is no universal way to access cited sources in Wikipedia articles (the requirement is to identify the source, not that it be easily accessible for anyone), so the same applies here as anywhere: book stores, libraries, journal publishers, and so forth. For quickly verifying a single point (a single page, typically) in a book you can sometimes look it up on Google Books or Amazon.com and use the preview function, but often they won't have the page you want. For journal articles, your local University library (and sometimes also general public libraries) have subscriptions to online journal services like JSTOR or Project MUSE. And Wikipedia has a limited number of accounts for partnering publishers that editors may apply for through The Wikipedia Library. The latter project also tries to facilitate resource sharing between editors: for example, I have access to JSTOR, Project MUSE, and Oxford Journals online and can look up things for you there (and the books in my personal library are listed here; feel free to ask me to look stuff up in any of these works).

Finally, it never hurts to double check the sources. There are any number of reasons why my assertion regarding the sources here might be incorrect. I might be lying or deliberately misrepresenting them, sure, but even when assuming good faith I might have a bias I'm not aware of, or simply misunderstanding them, or, as is the case here, it's been 10 years since I actively looked at them and it's entirely possible my memory plays tricks on me. There is a reason why verifiability is a core content policy on Wikipedia: multiple editors (and readers) double-checking (verifying) claims is the only way to ensure accuracy in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". Never feel bad about wanting to verify cites, it's a healthy impulse that helps improve the encyclopedia and nobody should feel offended that someone volunteered their time to help out in that way. Some tact may of course sometimes be needed when broaching an issue, but that's true of any venue. In any case, feel free to "… check up on [me]"; I would appreciate the extra quality control! :-) --Xover (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Different citation needed at end note 5

The citation supporting Shakespeare's disputed authorship in the opening paragraph (endnote 5) would be much better-supported with reference to

Shapiro, J. (2010). Contested will: who wrote Shakespeare?. Simon and Schuster.

...rather than to Shapiro's 2005 book "1599."

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudleymq (talk • contribs) 16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

This article reached WP:Featured Article status several years before Shapiro published his SAQ book. The citation is sufficient, scholarly, and does not lend a bias to the reference, which could be the case were it cited to a book totally devoted to the SAQ. The mention in the article refers the reader to the Wikipedia page on the topic, which does include Shapiro's later book. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017

i request to change some of the facts because they are not true

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway

Wrong link; should be this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hathaway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.31.139.136 (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That leads to the actress, not Shakespeare's wife, which is unlikely to be relevant in this article; and either way it's hard to tell from the information you've provided which link it is you believe is incorrect. --Xover (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting addition to page in regards to Shakespeare's siblings

Hi. I am requesting that information relating to Shakespeare's siblings are added (See below). It seems odd that this page doesn't have this information immediately visible relating to this as most other major people do. This list of people below is from the page on Shakespeare's Mother.

Joan (1558), Margaret (1562–63), William (1564–1616), Gilbert (1566–1612),″ Joan (1569–1646), Anne (1571–79), Richard (1574–1613), and Edmund (1580–1607)

Thanks for taking the time to read this request. :) HamRMac (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@HamRMac: There were some rather significant space concerns in this article which led to that information being removed. It's been determined that it fits better in the article Shakespeare's life, which is linked prominently from this article, and where, indeed, you can both find information on William's siblings and an entire section on his family tree. --Xover (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on William Shakespeare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160403162702/http://www.westminster-abbey.org/archive/visit-us/highlights/poets-corner to http://www.westminster-abbey.org/archive/visit-us/highlights/poets-corner
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304192458/http://www.southwark.anglican.org/cathedral/tour/bill.htm to http://southwark.anglican.org/cathedral/tour/bill.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091119053011/http://www.quartos.org/ to http://www.quartos.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121704035700/http://www.shakespeare.org.uk/home.html to http://www.shakespeare.org.uk/home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

fear of process for debt

What does this term mean? It's mentioned without explanation or meaningful context in the article. -- 188.192.223.168 (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a assertion he didn't show up at church because he didn't want the people he owed money to serve him with a lawsuit there. (That is, if the people he owed money to knew where he was going to be, they could serve him with papers for a lawsuit and make him repay his debts.) - Nunh-huh 01:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2017

Abdurrahman Samani (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

He playes an important role of the world of literature

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on William Shakespeare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107181440/http://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/featuredarticles/apr13_shakespeare.php to http://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/featuredarticles/apr13_shakespeare.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://durer.press.illinois.edu/baldwin/vol.1/html/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160412051544/http://contentdm.lib.miamioh.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/wshakespeare to http://contentdm.lib.miamioh.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/wshakespeare
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160314012401/https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poet/william-shakespeare to http://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poet/william-shakespeare
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116015515/http://www.shakespeareswords.com/ to http://www.shakespeareswords.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121119025026/http://www.shakespearestudyguide.com/Shake2/ShakespeareMusic.html to http://shakespearestudyguide.com/Shake2/ShakespeareMusic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on William Shakespeare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160421135740/http://nypost.com/2016/04/20/how-shakespeares-works-were-nearly-lost-to-us/ to http://nypost.com/2016/04/20/how-shakespeares-works-were-nearly-lost-to-us/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160617173843/http://www.bl.uk/shakespeare to http://www.bl.uk/shakespeare

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2017

Razan alghamdi123 (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

William Shakespeare’s Plays

While it’s difficult to determine the exact chronology of William Shakespeare’s plays, over the course of two decades, from about 1590 to 1613, he wrote a total of 37 plays revolving around several main themes: histories, tragedies, comedies and tragicomedies.https://www.biography.com/people/william-shakespeare-9480323

Not done: Information about Shakespeare's works cited to better sources is already in the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

shak-stat

Or Shakespeare Statistics [8]. Nhtnilse has recently been adding external links from this site to Shakespeare-related articles in way that makes me worry about WP:REFSPAM (and WP:ELNO), [9], [10], [11] and [12]. My question is, is this something that is useful somewhere on WP? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It´s also used in the articles The Wisdom of Doctor Dodypoll and A Yorkshire Tragedy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he spammed a dozen or so articles with that link and I reverted them all. It appears to me to be more fringe-pushing OR, which we get on a regular basis. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Then I´ll undo the two from today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to revert Edmund Ironside as well. I wonder why this sort of censorship was executed and what expertise there was behind it. Please look into Digital Sources in the Humanities (Oxford University Press) where you find research publications that used Rolling Delta and Rolling Classify. The results confirm Eric Sams view of Shakespeare as someone who underwent a phase of apprenticeship and started with bad plays that he did not want to see in the First Folio later. Fringe-pushing is an insult to someone who does honest research with new stylometric tools. A pity earth is still flat.Nhtnilse (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

You have an unrealistic idea of what Wikipedia is for. It is not to publish or publish new research or discoveries. It is a general-use encyclopedia that uses reliable sources based upon academic consensus. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Chandos portrait

As the portrait has never been authenticated as being a true likeness of Shakespeare why is it being used as the main illustration for the article? Far better surely to use one of the only two images of the poet which we are sure of, the First Folio engraving and the bust on his monument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldiboront (talk • contribs) 13:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aldiboront: The image is clearly labelled as being unconfirmed. It was chosen for aesthetic reasons, and because it is the one most commonly associated with Shakespeare. It's also the portrait with the best claim to have been painted from life (the Cobbe may overtake it eventually, but its claim is still too recent). The Droeshout and the funerary monument look alien to most modern readers. --Xover (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2018

The age at death is incorrect and should be changed from 52 to 51, based on Wikipedia's birth and death dates. 129.234.0.20 (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The problem is that we don't know his exact date of birth, only the date of his baptism. The hidden text in the infobox reads, "His monument states that he was in his 53rd year at death, i.e. 52". This has been discussed before (see archive 22, for instance). Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, not even ‘by many’ is accepted anymore

Which is hardly a big difference in any case. Considering how quickly I was reverted by a non-admin, I can only speculate on the number of fans watching who’d be quick to jump against me. Needless to say, the term ‘widely’ has always been highly effusive and in need of statistical sources, otherwise ‘by many’ adheres better to a NPOV. How many articles on here have ‘widely regarded as the greatest’ anyway? Also needless to say, I’ll be taking whatever number of dissenters with a grain of salt until more than one admin responds. Barely made one (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Barely made one: First, you may wish to take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and community norms. In particular, the foundation of decision making processes is consensus: editors discuss, civilly, until a consensus is reached. And Wikipedia doesn't report the opinions of Wikipedia editors: we report what the reliable secondary sources say. Finally, Administrators have no say in content matters; they only enforce policy, curb in disruptive behaviour, and perform various more clerical tasks that require advanced permissions.

Dismissing other editors as "fans" is not a particularly good attitude towards reaching consensus, and if you intend to apply "a grain of salt" towards what they tell you are unlikely to be able to persuade them towards your point of view.

As to your specific complaint, the phrasing in the article's lead reflects what the reliable secondary sources have to say about the matter; not what Wikipedia editors think. It was arrived on after multiple lengthy discussions, including through peer review and Featured Article review (which is the most intensive and comprehensive review process on Wikipedia), and has stood for over a decade. In other words: the existing consensus is strong, long-standing, and backed by multiple high-quality reliable sources. The burden is on you to provide strong sources and persuasive arguments if you want to persuade anyone of your position. Insulting and dismissing them is very unlikely to persuade them. --Xover (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Xover: Late reply, I’ve been too busy to address patronizing responses, but clearly, I wouldn’t have made my 1st edit if I could find the references that supported them. They are supposedly in books, and in searching online I only found a source that call him the greatest dramatist only, one that calls him the greatest English writer (which is different from ‘greatest of anything written in English’), but Amazon isn’t reliable and it might not have been written by him. And one of them calls him the greatest writer, but it seems written by a reviewer rather than him. I also found one with Bevington that follows my ‘by many’ wording that mainly uses ‘greatest dramatist’.

I also realized it wasn’t that important, and neither is peer or FA review (it’d be nice if you actually provided links to relevant discussions, not just the main pages), compared to the policy in MOS:LEADBIO of due WP:WEIGHT that specifies it must be listed in the MAJORITY of sources. Going by an extensive google search, there are clearly more reliable sources that support the use of ‘by many as the greatest’ plus ‘one of the greatest’ rather than ‘widely’. It’s also dubious that the majority call him ‘greatest in the English language’, I see more that call him ‘greatest in England’ and just simply ‘most important or influential’.

As for sources I’ve found that dispute the use of ‘widely’, here are 3 surveyed sources, one of them has him at 50th with Austen at 7th, Dickens at 13th and Dahl at 1st as favorite writer, another has him below Dahl and Dickens as ‘greatest storyteller’, and the third has him behind Dahl, Austen, Blyton, and Rowling as ‘most-loved writer’. Like how surveyed sources must be used to WP:SUBSTANTIATE weasel words, these could remove the validity of the stronger ones. An article also notes that he “divides opinion” and another substantiates that he isn’t popular in class.

Thing is, I’m perfectly fine having him called the greatest in some areas, if there are the right weasel words. For instance, ‘England’s greatest writer’ and ‘greatest playwright’ is fine, and I’m certain I didn’t do anything out-of-line in my 2nd edit (you could also reread WP:Implicit consensus). And I was dismissive in my last post sure, but I don’t see any insults. There’s nothing wrong with fans, some (like the few on Breaking Bad) are sensible, but others can gather in inappropriate places. Anyway, I’m still not expecting results here, and I can easily take it to a noticeboard if I really feel a need to change it. Barely made one (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Barely made one: The sentence is cited inline, to high-quality reliable secondary sources, and you should be able to find them in any decent library. The sources you cite—besides being mainly from fluff newspaper articles that do not bear on what specialists in the field say, and adressing contemporary popularity not qualities as literature—actually generally support the current phrasing. Why do you think Shakespeare is a required part of the national curiculum? And why do you think a contemporary poll ranks him third most popular (not best) storyteller after nearly half a milennium (throughout which he has consistently been ranked so by any relevant yardstick). Or why all these polls and journalists use big type and exclamation marks every time someone actually gets ranked higher than Shakespeare?

In any case, you'll find ANI right over here. Good luck getting your changes through! --Xover (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Whether they are cited inline or actually not doesn't add to the question of whether it's listed in the majority. And I'm rather doubtful of Greenblatt when this says he doesn't mention it much, assuming the readers already know Shakespeare's a great writer. And if we include the 'fluff' article sources that still qualify as reliable, it's clear that 'widely' isn't. Unless you found a policy stating that only scholarly ones are allowed for this sort of decision, the argument becomes weak. Such as how if a few biased essays say he is unanimously considered the greatest writer of all time, does that mean it should be included?

I also have no idea how you see my sources as supporting the wording. Dickens and Austen are both British authors who are also required in most curriculums, and they've been polled higher (the former in a 'greatest' not 'most popular' survey by the way). Their pages, especially Austen's, also have much less WP:PUFF. None of the poll articles have any 'exclamations' either and only one of them emphasizes Shakespeare (which you know, could just be the author regarding him as most notable, not necessarily greater than all the others). And uh, nice try at a trick (if it was your intention), but I'd be posting it in a NPOV noticeboard, you know, where people are specialized to care about this. Barely made one (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Born & Death

In books, I've learn that he was born and he died in the same day that he borned. In article, I read; 26 April 1564 – 23 April 1616, so which one I "have to believe"? — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Punetor i Rregullt5: His actual date of birth is unknown. He was baptized on 26 April 1564 (we have the baptisimal records), but there is no evidence or even documented common timespans from birth to baptism that could tell us on what date he was actually born. There is a tradition that he was born on 23 April, but most modern scholars lend it very little weight (if for no other reason then because the symmetry of being born and dying on the same date would be irresistible to those propogating such traditions). In any case, if you read a book that boldly asserts that he was born on 23 April with no further qualification or explanation you can safely discard the whole thing as shoddy scholarship (not a reliable source). --Xover (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Verdi's Shakespearean operas

Verdi's Shakespearean operas are not two but three: in addition to Otello and Falstaff there is also Macbeth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.216.243.108 (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2019

120.154.34.152 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

hiloo

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Orville1974^talk 23:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Shakespeare's plays

Should the section on Shakespeare's plays say that Shakespeare's plays are normally divided into three categories - the histories, the tragedies and the comedies? Vorbee (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2019

shakespaer wrote merchant of venice SONALIKOLE (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The article already mentions this: Shakespeare's next comedy, the equally romantic Merchant of Venice, contains a portrayal of the vengeful Jewish moneylender Shylock, which reflects Elizabethan views but may appear derogatory to modern audiences. WanderingWanda (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:William Shakespeare for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:William Shakespeare is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:William Shakespeare until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"Or simply 'The Bard'"

Prior to this 2009 edit, the article read that Shakespeare was the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "The Bard"). There was no explanation for the removal of the second title aside from that it seems to have been overwritten by a citation. I believe it should be added back, as Shakespeare is frequently called only "The Bard." I will be bold and add it back, lest there are objections. anthologetes ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope witht a citation, or would object. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I would argue it's borderline WP:BLUE#Citing everything; simply googling "the bard" offers mostly results about Shakespeare, sans "Avon." Here is a WSJ article that exclusively calls him it, wikt:Bard offers a number of books that could be cited, Dictionary.com calls him it, here the BBC, etc. (Sorry for the gish-gallop). I would argue it is common enough not to require a citation beyond the one tied to "Bard of Avon," but if there is widespread disagreement any of the former can be used. anthologetes ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Coat of arms

John Shakespeare coat of arms

Should we include the "finished product" as well? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

the Birth of William Shakespeare

Shakespeare’s baptism is recorded in the records in the Church of the Holy Trinity, Stratford-upon-Avon, as of April 26 1564 at three years of age. He therefore was born in Stratford-upon-Avon, on April 23, 1564.

Gary Haverland december 3 2019Cptn Graybeard Mather (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You can't simply subtract three days from the date of baptism and be sure it's the birthday. Shakespeare's date of baptism is known. His date of birth is not. See [13]. Also, I think you meant "three days", not "three years", but nowhere in the baptismal record is his age given. -Nunh-huh 20:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, they played “fast and loose” with dates in those days. Records were essentially “malleable”. It’s hard to know anything for sure except when in Shakespeare’s later life, documents were filed for current circumstances, and are extant. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Making quotation of John Davies of Hereford more exact

The article states:

In 1610, John Davies of Hereford wrote that "good Will" played "kingly" roles.[60]

It seems to me a more exact quotation would be appropriate. Please see:

https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/file/stc-6341-page-76

So you could put "kingly parts" or "kingly parts in sport".Kfein (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed.Msalt (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020

Right Mate, i dunno what your going on abart but he's really not born on that date innit mandem, it were actually the Feburery 28th you proper pleb, don't be going on abart that shite, right, ill actually come over to your house and blow you up like iran 62.253.232.18 (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

This obviously isn’t a serious request, but in the unlikely event that it is, reliable sources are required. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The IP that posted the above request is currently blocked for disruptive editing. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2020

78.144.23.76 (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Retired to go to his home town at 47

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

"Shak-spere" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shak-spere. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"Billy Shakes" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Billy Shakes. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Shakespeare and Star Trek

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2020

I know when William Shakespeare was born so I would like to insert this information into the infobox. 203.54.223.134 (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

A lot of reliable sources have verified what is currently in the article and no change is needed until several excellent references are available. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"Shakespeare's works have been continually adapted and rediscovered"

Anyone claiming to have discovered Shakespeare must have been living under a rock. 194.207.86.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Image

I have found that this image better represents Shakespeare as who he was. Do you think this should be the main image?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portraits_of_Shakespeare#/media/File:Chesterfield_portrait.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk • contribs) 01:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Helpfulwikieditoryay! Per Portraits of Shakespeare, that portrait is likely based on the Chandos, so I don't quite see "better represents". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The portrait shows Shakespeare with a book; it seems more proper. It's also a clearer painting so I thought it was better suited. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Helpfulwikieditoryay

English Renaissance

Perhaps something about Shakespeare being the central figure of the English Renaissance could be added to the lead and maybe the influence section as well? Without including this information his place and context in history is not nearly as clear as it could be. Aza24 (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It may have a place under "Influence" or in Shakespeare's influence. Bring your best sources and give it a go. But for it to be mentioned in the WP:LEAD here, there should be something in the body to summarize. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2020

2.220.82.157 (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - hako9 (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2020

216.220.136.168 (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

William Shakespeare was occasionally known to have to like men, more or so being with men.

See William_Shakespeare#Sexuality, what change do you suggest, based on what sources? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"Gulielmus Shakspere" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gulielmus Shakspere. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 7#Gulielmus Shakspere until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2021

Can you let me edit there is a grammar mistake 2A00:23C4:3883:6900:6CEA:2C16:1EF1:D139 (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request.

If there is a grammar error, please point it out here (and re-open the request) and an editor with appropriate permissions will happily fix it for you. Thanks J850NK (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)