Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

note "d"

What happened to it? It doesn't link anywhere. Wrad 00:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good spot. That's why I hate these infernal alphabetical notes: they don't naturally readjust like cite.php. The note strikes me as superfluous: the issue of the relationship between these two plays is addressed in book after book, but nothing is known for certain. Readjusting all these notes is a fag, though.qp10qp 12:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I inserted it where it seemed to belong. Feel free to move / delete if you feel it is not appropriate. --Stephen Burnett 13:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Apocryphal Stories

Why is it that the apocryphal stories told to fill in Shakespeare's "lost years" from 1585 - 1592, which are claimed to be "hearsay," are still to be found in every Shakespeare biography? Isn't it time we let these apocryphal stories die a natural death and stop talking about them ad infinitum? If you keep repeating them over and over, they begin to be perceived as being real. HaarFager 06:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, really; and I've made that point in the past. But I fear we are obliged to note these rumours, since some of the hearsay dates to a time not entirely remote from Shakspeare's: for example, Aubrey is one source, and Rowe, the first hearsay collector, writing in 1709, is another. We are stuck with this stuff, unfortunately; but at least we tell the reader that it remains rumour.qp10qp 12:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Confusing sentences

This sentence strikes me as confusing every time I read it.

I assume "any hurry" refers to "some haste" in a previous sentence, but why is it put so awkwardly? RedRabbit 13:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with it. Why is it awkward? It glosses as: "if there was a hurry—and we have no prove that there was—perhaps the reason could have been that because she was pregnant, they didn't want to have an illegitimate child".

Having said that, the proof is in the eating. And if it bothers you, see what you can do.qp10qp 13:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"could have been the reason for any hurry" is what I find awkward. If other readers are fine by this, I'll leave it. RedRabbit 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also confused by this sentence:

In March 1613, he bought a gatehouse in the Blackfriars priory;[48] and from November 1614, he was in London for several weeks with his son-in-law, John Hall.

Why are these disconnected clauses in the same sentence? Why are these lumped together but other clauses set off by periods?

They are not disconnected. They are both examples of his maintained interest in London at a time when he is usually considered to have abandoned the capital for Stratford. And one presumes that he stayed at his gatehouse with John Hall.qp10qp 13:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. My mistake, then. RedRabbit 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not your mistake; it's your take. If it doesn't work for you, then you must find a way of changing it. Just because I think they are connected doesn't mean they actually seem connected.qp10qp 18:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed new section

This section appeared today/yesterday:

Reception in Modern Culture

While the works of Shakespeare enjoy much popularity among theater groups and readers of classic literature, reception in modern culture often ranges from mixed to negative. A large majority of people find Shakespeare to be difficult to understand and follow, as it often requires several passes over a line before one can grasp its meaning, and many can often find none at all without scholarly insight. Even in the days of old, the works of Shakespeare were incredibly difficult to understand when experienced for the first time, as the language is full of meaningful adjectives and very thought-out, elaborate points that are expressed in extremely rapid-sequence, often requiring considerable time to think about and understand. This difficulty lends many today to not bother trying to enjoy the works of Shakespeare, as they find it too difficult to understand without extensive study and meditation on the words. Thus, it can be said that Shakespeare is a dying trend in modern culture, that, while still immensely popular in theater and classic literature, usually only reaches mainstream audiences in the form of quotations from famous works (such as 'Romeo and Juliet' and 'Hamlet') when presented for comedy and amusement, rather than their original purpose.

While the author has clearly made some efforts to describe Shakespeare's place in contemporary culture, it seems obvious to me that this is all opinion. As far as I am aware, Shakespeare remains the most-performed playwright in the world (an unsubstantiated claim from me, now, I know). I'd be happy to see some of this material return (well, not happy, exactly) if the author would cite some research that indicates the scope and prevalence of the attitudes and opinions that he details.

DionysosProteus 14:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The original editor has reinstated the material. As a compromise I have added a {{refimprovesect}} tag, pending citations. As the tag states, the material may still be removed. According to WP:PROVEIT, the best person to provide the citations would be the original contributor. --Old Moonraker 14:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I wait with baited breath for this research to appear. This material is very far from 'obviously' correct. That there are 'mixed' to 'negative' responses I don't dispute, but to claim that these represent a statistically-relevant proportion of the total population of theatre-goers (who form the only meaningful constituency in this case) is completely unjustified. To my knowledge, and it will take a little research to prove it, Shakespeare remains the most performed playwright on the planet. To say that under these conditions most audiences have "mixed or negative" responses defies belief. Professional theatrical production does not, as a matter of course, put on plays that provoke these kind of responses, and continue to do so year after year! By 'mainstream audiences' I'm assuming the author refers to theatre audiences, since we are discussing a playwright; it would be meaningless to cite any other set of the population (the non-theatre-going, for example), just as it would be to say that Picasso's paintings are obscure and unknown because only people who go to art galleries see them. In which case, the author would need to explain why Shakespeare's plays remain the most-produced in the world. Masochistic self-flagellation on the part of global audiences? To say that the lines take several readings before they are understood is nonsensical. We are discussing plays written by a playwright, designed to be heard in a theatre, not literature to be studied--though significant, the latter is far from being the most relevant context. And as for the phrase "even in the days of old", it's clumsy, to say the least. To which 'days of olde' does the sentence refer? Far from being considered overly erudite or obscure, the Restoration and later Augustan periods considered his work coarse and barbarous! They often cleaned-up his language because was too low-brow. The Romantics admired his work for its connection to a folk- or popular- theatre constituency. I don't doubt that your average American high-school student stumbles over the language when studied as literature in the classroom, but the relevant context has to be when the words are expressed by a professional actor in a embodied situation, where the rich semiotic density provided by stress, rhythm, articulation, verbal and emotional shaping and gestural, situational, interpersonal, etc. etc. factors combine to produce a perfectly 'legible' communication. It is Shakespeare's ability to communicate this powerfully that brings audiences flocking to his plays to this day. DionysosProteus 15:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Dionysos completely. This added paragraph makes little sense. "Mainstream audiences"? Does that mean tv and radio? "Original purpose?" - the author doesn't mean theatre, which is alive and well and producing more WS than any other playwright (American Theatre Magazine often make this point), as Dionysos also points out. In the hands of the right directors and actors, WS blows away even those hard to please high schoolers. Good cut.Smatprt 16:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is a featured article. I will kill on sight any unsourced new sections or commentary added to it, and frankly even fully sourced and credible material is going to have to fight for inclusion. If any editor feels that this material should appear on Wikipedia, I suggest taking it to Shakespeare's reputation, and we can hammer it out there. AndyJones 16:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Good Richard II reference. I will also cut such material whenever it appears. RedRabbit 16:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • I'm pretty sure you'd have a consensus on that, Andy. Although I would add that if it has any merit at all it may be good to copy it here when we remove it, so that the editor has a chance to add it back if he can add refs. Wrad 19:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't allow the article to ossify, of course. But we're all probably knee-deep in offcuts and books, so there is no shortage of referenceable material that qualifies for the article, to say the least. The threshold for inclusion must now be quality first. And then proportion, article size, etc. I'm optimistic, though, that the usual Wikipedia degeneration can be staved off, because so many of us are watching and care. Even so, I think we should hold an annual review of the article as a group. (By the way, has anybody applied for front page? I don't think it just happens on its own.)qp10qp 00:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should delete without mercy new additions that fail to meet the present established criteria, and I plan to review the article every month or so to catch any entropic drift. In addition, I'm not satisfied with some other parts of the article, and in a month or so I'll probably do a bit more rewriting. Tom Reedy 15:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

B/c this is now a featured article and has been through a lengthy consensus and standards period, we are totally justified in requesting that any new additions both be well researched, meet the current standards of the article, and achieve consensus before they are added to the article. And in the case of this new section, it doesn't belong here. BTW, massive congrats to everyone who worked so hard to bring this article to FA status. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested edit

I hesitate to directly edit an article with so many active editors, and especially one that has just passed FA. But I noticed that the third sentence in Critical Reputation begins with "And": "And the authors of the Parnassus plays . . . ." I don't strongly object to starting a sentence with a conjunction myself, but I know it irritates some readers and I tend to edit it out. Could this be joined to the previous sentence, perhaps with a semicolon? Mike Christie (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, leave it. We both know the rule about not starting a sentence with "and" is silly; we might as well scan the text for split infinitives and sentences ending in a preposition. If some readers wish to change "and", so be it. It is not for us to remove every word that displeases hypothetical readers of bad taste. RedRabbit 13:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Mike, if it annoys someone, let them address it. "And" is OK at the beginning of sentences on occasion: all the best writers do it. One of the problems with this sort of section is that, really, it is a disguised list. Sometimes it is hard to find connections between sentences that would justify a semicolon; and the "and" helps the flow, I think. But I wouldn't go to war about it either way. (And "buts" are OK at the beginning of sentences too!)qp10qp 20:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries; I am not a prescriptivist by any means, and think conjunctions are fine at the start of a sentence (and split infinitives and prepositions at the end of sentences don't bother me either). I was just worrying too much about writing inoffensive language. Glad to see other people have the good sense to value clarity over prescriptive usage. Mike Christie (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence was never a serious prescriptive usage. It was just a rule of thumb that people misinterpreted. RedRabbit 16:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Spaces between grafs

I put two spaces between the paragraphs in the lead because I received a complaint that they were hard to distinguish. What does everyone think about doing this throughout the entire article?Tom Reedy 03:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

On my computer that makes things look extremely odd. I wonder if your complaint had more to do with the person's computer settings than the article itself. I would be strongly opposed to such a change, myself. Wrad 03:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

On my computer the spaces between the grafs are barely more than the spaces between the lines. Anybody else have a similar or different view?Tom Reedy 03:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wrad--the double spaces look weird. They also don't follow Wikipedia guidelines. If someone has a problem with hard-to-distinguish paragraph breaks, that's an issue to address at the macro programming level (i.e., by changing the overall WP formating standards), not in an individual article. Best,--Alabamaboy 03:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK with me. I was going to change it back, but I see it's already been done. Tom Reedy 03:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Request

Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon.

This has always struck me as clunky. Can we expand it? RedRabbit 16:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What strikes you as clunky? It seems elegant and straight to the point to me. Not a word out of place nor anything missing.Tom Reedy 17:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

British English would have "brought up" for "raised", but it's a minor point. The OED has "now rare" for this sense, with the last citation dated 1869. --Old Moonraker 20:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

At least we didn't have him "reared."Tom Reedy 23:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A couple of copy-editing things (well, three, actually)

• British English (see above) - I'd prefer "brought up". And I've added another "l" to "traveled"
• It appears he retired to Stratford around 1613 - I'd vote for a "that" after "appears" (less colloquial)
• In the speculation part of the lead, works attributed to him were actually written by others - is "others" correct? Surely no-one argues that they were written by more than one person? I'd suggest "actually written by someone else".

--GuillaumeTell 21:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Several people have argued they were written by more than one person. The anti-Strats call it the Group Theory. (And the idea of group authorship isn't just held among the authorship doubters: think of Thomas More or Henry VI Part 1.) I'm not disagreeing with your suggestions in principle, though. AndyJones 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Andy is correct - and there are several group theories, or theories that suggest that many of the plays were revised by others (after the principal author died) prior to publication. FYI - the section used to say "another writer" but was changed to "others" during the FA process. The idea has merit, though. It would probably be most accurate to say "another writer or a group of writers". That would be my suggestion. Smatprt

"Others" covers both scenarios, so IMO it is the best word choice. I'd also like to see another wording instead of "It appears he retired to Stratford." Not only is it clunky ("It . . ."), but later in the article we present the idea only as a possibility that is contradicted by other facts.Tom Reedy 02:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

error in style section

"Was the hope drunk wherein you dressed yourself," please. Sighing, RollsUpSleeves 10:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Good eye. Thanks. RedRabbit 10:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm thinking as well that there should be a question mark at the end. Sighing, RollsUpSleeves 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that "pity, like a naked new-born babe" is identified correctly as a simile in the text accompanying Pity, but incorrectly as a darting between metaphors in the Style section. Sighing, RollsUpSleeves 18:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it slightly to take what you say into account: For the record, the source (Shakespeare's Late Style, by Russ McDonald) says:

Readers will easily recall speeches, lines, metaphors, and turns of phrase in which evocative or distilled language conveys its meaning in apparent defiance of logical or literal sense. An obvious case in which intuitive understanding precedes grammatical cognition is the passage beginning “pity, like a naked new-born babe…” (1.7.21–25), of which Dr. Johnson said “the meaning is not very clear” and over which Cleanth Brooks labored so valiantly. Another is Lady Macbeth’s “Was the hope drunk wherein you dressed yourself?” (1.7.35–38), with its succession of apparently illogical images. This darting from one metaphor to another apparently unrelated image, which has frequently puzzled editors and critics, is a practice that Shakespeare will pursue uncompromisingly throughout the last phase, forcing the listener’s mind to accelerate at a dizzying rate. Frank Kermode’s remark that in "The Tempest" metaphor gleams momentarily, and is rarely extensive enough to be catalogued and analysed, is pertinent to the late style generally; and "Macbeth", notwithstanding its famous vegetative and sartorial clusters, exhibits the roots of this gestural, condensed use of figurative language. qp10qp 21:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In this extract both quotes are cited as instances of intuitive understanding preceding grammatical cognition, but only the latter is cited as a darting between metaphors; there can be no darting between tropes of any sort in the first quote as only one is present. Sighing, RollsUpSleeves 15:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've altered the sentence to include more of the "pity" quotation.qp10qp 20:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that the whole of the "pity" passage was being cited by Russ McDonald. Thanks for the amendments. Sighing, RollsUpSleeves 20:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats to everyone who worked on this article to finally achieve featured status. It is one of the most important humanities articles in any encyclopedia and also one of the most difficult. -- 71.191.36.194 05:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculation sentence again

I was annoyed to see the speculation sentence return to its old form:

Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, and considerable speculation has been poured into this void,[3] including questions concerning his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were actually written by others.

"considerable speculation... including questions [of]..." is a shoddy construction. Please find another way of putting that sentence. RedRabbit 09:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you identify the points of shoddy construction?Tom Reedy 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephen, there was nothing wrong with the placement of that comma. When the second independent clause in a sentence begins with a coordinating conjunction, a comma is placed before that coordinating conjunction. (I find it amusing that we're squabbling over punctuation. A big change from the weeks leading up to FA, huh?)Tom Reedy 05:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Now that we've got to the point of arguing about whether the article says he was "raised" or "brought up", I think our work here is done. AndyJones 13:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, looking back over the vandalism and a few well-intended but incorrect changes that have been done since FA status, I doubt our work will ever be truly done. It's like scraping barnacles. I'm dropping by once a day or so to monitor the page, and I see others are also, so hopefully we can keep the article tight and correct.Tom Reedy 15:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps those of you with strong copyediting skills would find yourself more needed in the Romeo and Juliet article, which was recently promoted to GA. It may be possible to get it to FA with some good copyediting and a little more expansion. Wrad 15:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Play title missing "The"

Under Comedies in the Listings section, the title "Taming of the Shrew" should be "The Taming of the Shrew" Harlezah 12:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted. Fixed. qp10qp 12:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Surviving Descendants

I was just wondering, does Shakespeare have any relatives alive today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.100.5 (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Not directly. As it says in the article, none of his grandchildren had children. His brothers don't seem to have had surviving children, either. His sister Joan married and produced a line which is known to have been productive, though whether that counts I don't know.qp10qp 18:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Was Shakespeare Italian?

Was Shakespeare Italian? Over the centuries scholars have been puzzled by Shakespeare's profound knowledge of Italian. Shakespeare had an impressive familiarity with stories by Italian authors such as Giovanni Boccaccio, Matteo Bandello, and Masuccio Salernitano. In an attempt to solve the mystery of Shakespeare's Italian aptitude, one former teacher of literature has unleashed a new hypothesis on a world eager to hear anything fresh about the Bard.

Retired Sicilian professor Martino Iuvara claims that Shakespeare was, in fact, not English at all, but Italian. His conclusion is drawn from research carried out from 1925 to 1950 by two professors at Palermo University. Iuvara posits that Shakespeare was born not in Stratford in April 1564, as is commonly believed, but actually was born in Messina as Michelangelo Florio Crollalanza. His parents were not John Shakespeare and Mary Arden, but were Giovanni Florio, a doctor, and Guglielma Crollalanza, a Sicilian noblewoman. The family supposedly fled Italy during the Holy Inquisition and moved to London. It was in London that Michelangelo Florio Crollalanza decided to change his name to its English equivalent. Crollalanza apparently translates literally as 'Shakespeare'. Iuvara goes on to claim that Shakespeare studied abroad and was educated by Franciscan monks who taught him Latin, Greek, and history. He also claims that while Shakespeare (or young Crollalanza) was traveling through Europe he fell in love with a 16-year-old girl named Giulietta. But sadly, family members opposed the union, and Giulietta committed suicide.

Iuvara's evidence includes a play written by Michelangelo Florio Crollalanza in Sicilian dialect. The play's name is "Tanto traffico per Niente", which can be translated into "Much traffic for Nothing" or "Much Ado About Nothing". He also mentions a book of sayings credited to Michelangelo Florio Crollalanza. Some of the sayings correspond to lines in Hamlet. And, Michelangelo's father, Giovanni Florio, once owned a home called "Casa Otello", built by a retired Venetian known as Otello who, in a jealous rage, murdered his wife.

Granted, the above similarities between Michelangelo Florio Crollalanza and Shakespeare are intriguing, but for now I remain unconvinced. That Shakespeare was Italian sounds as credible as the idea that Queen Elizabeth I wrote Shakespeare's works in the few spare moments when she was not busy tending to the realm. And I am not alone in my cynicism. While some Shakespearean scholars, most of whom are Italian themselves, are quick to support the hypothesis, the majority are skeptical, to say the least. Although the following excerpt from a biography of Shakespeare by Sir Sidney Lee is not a direct response to Iuvara's claims, it does illuminate briefly the other side of the argument:

It is, in fact, unlikely that Shakespeare ever set foot on the Continent of Europe in either a private or a professional capacity. He repeatedly ridicules the craze for foreign travel. To Italy, it is true, and especially to cities of Northern Italy, like Venice, Padua, Verona, Mantua, and Milan, he makes frequent and familiar reference, and he supplied many a realistic portrayal of Italian life and sentiment. But his Italian scenes lack the intimate detail which would attest a first-hand experience of the country. The presence of barges on the waterways of northern Italy was common enough partially to justify the voyage of Valentine by 'ship' from Verona to Milan ('Two Gent.' I.i.71). But Prospero's embarkation in 'The Tempest' on an ocean ship at the gates of Milan (I.ii.129-144) renders it difficult to assume that the dramatist gathered his Italian knowledge from personal observation. He doubtless owed all to the verbal reports of traveled friends or to books, the contents of which he had a rare power of assimilating and vitalizing (Lee 86).It was not unusual for an Elizabethan dramatist to set his or her play in Italy. Are we, knowing this, compelled to assume that Marlowe, Bacon, and Jonson were Italian? Admittedly, we do not have much information about Shakespeare's education, but why so blatantly disregard the sound reasoning behind Occam's razor? Why is it easier for Iuvara to assume that Shakespeare was an Italian refugee than it is to assume that he mastered Italian on his own? Lesser men than the Bard have learned a second language. Jonson's verses in the Folio identify Shakespeare as the 'Sweet Swan of Avon', and his birth record and other important documents attest to the fact that Shakespeare was a resident of England his whole life. Yet some choose to ignore these pieces of evidence in favor of more esoteric theories. One thing is certain - Iuvara's claim that Shakespeare was Italian will unite Shakespeare supporters and anti-Stratfordians from the camps of Bacon, Essex, Marlowe, Derby, Rutland, Oxford, and Queen Elizabeth in a mutual uproar. francesco da cosenza

Really, Francesco, this is where Occam's Razor comes in. It's simply not necessary to go to such lengths to fill in historical gaps. A much better and simpler explanation for "Shakespeare"'s knowledge of Italian affairs can be found in Mark Anderson's book "Shakespeare" By Another Name, which, for me at least, puts to rest any lingering doubts I may have had that the real author of these works was the Earl of Oxford. He travelled there and lived there, that's where these Italian references come from. It's well worth a read, even if you don't subscribe to the Oxfordian theory. It will certainly make you think twice. -- JackofOz 12:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the comment about Occam's Razo. While these speculations make for interesting mind games, they don't belong in this article. The Shakespearean authorship question is where stuff like this goes.--Alabamaboy 12:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In people's fantasies, Shakespeare is everything: a noble, a woman, an alien, an Italian. Although from time to time these flights of imagination appear in newspapers, no serious scholars give them credence, and the books written about them gather dust. RedRabbit 14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do the insults always start flying from the "Main" side of the "stream"? It has been repeatedly shown (and accepted) that some "serious scholars" do give credence to the authorship issue. Why RedRabbit do you continue with this falsehood (and these attacks)?Smatprt 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

RR wasn't talking about authorship. I fail to see an insult in his post. Do you take seriously the idea that Shakespeare was a woman, an Italian, a sailor, a doctor, a soldier or any of the others that have been made in the books that suggest exactly those (and those books are gathering dust, believe me)? No serious scholar does. Tom Reedy 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, serious scholars should. This is not the place to have a debate about Shakespearean authorship, but anyone who looks at the actual evidence for Will from Stratford - the evidence, that is, stripped of the centuries of accreted hearsay - can only conclude it couldn't possibly have been him who wrote the plays and sonnets, and so we must look elsewhere. Seems like a very rational approach to me. -- JackofOz 21:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets start with the facts that he mentions members of the King's Men in his will and holds a quill in his memorial effigy in Stratford. Then let us work back through each of the other pieces of evidence. Only after each one has been proved to be false say that "anyone who looks at the actual evidence...can only conclude that it couldn't possibly have been him who wrote the plays". Speak for yourself, please.qp10qp 22:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't rational to respond to RedRabbit's insulting implication that anyone who questions authorship is fantasizing with the insulting implication that anyone who doesn't agree with you hasn't examined the actual evidence and isn't rational. -- 71.102.136.107 05:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Was Shakespeare Klingon? The idea that a serious scholar should take these questions seriously is absurd. Truly, what tangible difference does it make if the plays were brought down on stone tablets from Mount Sinai or generated by a infinite roomful of monkeys with type-writers? It strikes me as something to feed the tourists in Stratford or taking a walk round the Globe, and not much more. I'm certainly not arguing against the inclusion of this material in an encyclopedia... as a cultural and psychological phenomenon, its very interesting, but it makes bugger all difference to what we do with the plays in performance or how they are studied in the academy. It assumes a anachronistically Romantic understanding of the way we engage with drama, which forms no part of the vast majority of scholarly investigations into the plays and their contexts practiced today. Besides which, the assumptions that appear to flow beneath so many of these flights strikes me as profoundly reactionary... 'how could a dumb commoner like that come up with exquisite poetry like this?' and the like. The authorship question article is there for this kind of thing, and my best wishes to all who wish to develop that, but a sense of perspective, please! DionysosProteus 23:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not going to turn this into a debate on who wrote Shakespeare. But the question of his identity should of course be taken seriously by scholars, given the paucity of evidence that he could even write - at all. And it's a lot more complex than "how could a dumb commoner like that come up with exquisite poetry like this?". What's the point of publishing biography after biography of the supposed author, when they're full of material that either simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, or is just supposition, hearsay, surmise etc. The starting point for all of these biogs is that the Stratford guy is who we've all been told he was; they then take what little evidence there is, and fill it in with what "must have been the case" or various unproven assertions that have come down to us. Whether the subject is Shakespeare or how and why Stonehenge was built, if the "truth" is never questioned, of course the conclusions will follow, and they will appear to confirm the "truth". Anything and everything should be questioned, if only to confirm the truth, but for some reason Shakespeare seems to be sacrosanct from such review. I agree that these supreme works stand on their own merits, and to a degree it doesn't matter who actually wrote them. (The same is true for Dickens, Beethoven and Michelangelo, or anyone you care to name.) But that's no argument for disallowing serious and legitimate research about the identity of their author. Some proposed alternative identities (such as the one above) have proven, or will be proven, not to hold water. But not all. -- JackofOz 00:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is rather bizarre to ask what tangible difference it makes whether an encyclopedia entry makes true claims. You might have some point if this article were pure literary analysis of the plays, but of course it isn't anything of the sort. --71.102.136.107 05:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is disallowing any "serious and legitimate research about the identity of their author." We're just disallowing it in this particular encyclopedia article. You can do it at the authorship entry all you want. And my own opinions are that none of the candidates will ever supplant Shakespeare and that the authorship argument will never go away. Tom Reedy 01:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your statement isn't responsive to JackOfOz's comments. -- 71.102.136.107 05:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The point, as I understand it, of publishing biography after biography is to sell books. My point is that the debate is irrelevant to the two main cultural areas that use the plays--the theatre and the university. In neither of these sites is the question important in any way. DionysosProteus 01:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the plays or about what theatres and universities find important, it's about a specific human being. -- 71.102.136.107 05:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on spelling

From what I understand, an article on a British subject uses British spelling. However, according to the OED, the preferred spelling is often the "z" spelling, such as "authorize" instead of "authorise." Can anybody enlighten me on this? Tom Reedy 17:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Murky waters. According to Fowler (Modern English Usage) the distinction stems from whether or not the verb was originally Greek in origin; he agrees with the OED that "ize" is more correct for these, but he points out that among English printers "ise" is by far the most common, regardless of origin. He also makes the point that universal use of "ise" avoids having to remember those verbs which absolutely must be spelt "ise": eg advertise, exercise, revise etc, although as you would expect of a classical scholar he disapproves of a practice which he sees as English editors and printers taking the easy way out. --Stephen Burnett 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the ise is often preferred nowadays in Commonwealth English since it's considered a distinction from American English even if certain British English sources don't support that and the reasons for the distinction are somewhat murky Nil Einne 10:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent resurfacing of Legitimacy of Authorship

Ok i know there has been a large debate on this issue in the past, but if the BBC (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6988670.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6985917.stm) sees fit to run a story recently, that a number of people question this should it not be at least acknowledged that this is the case within the article?

Personally i believe he did write the works but, if doubt is documented, however old, should wikipedia not state this as it has not been proven either way and may never be?

I only raise this as these articles have been given prominence on the BBC website recently and a large number of English speaking persons use it as a news/media source.

Please remove/comment on this as necessary.

Euanmoo 00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It actually is mentioned int the article that there are theories. The article doesn't go so far as to say it is proven, and gives reason for the doubt (not much info on him), so I think we're fine. Also, BBC articles aren't really that earth-shaking in the Shakespeare world. Scholarly journals and books are what does that. Wrad 01:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times has run similar articles, as have magazines such as Harper's and Atlantic. Periodicals run stories about things that are of interest of their readers, but that doesn't mean that whatever they publish is accepted by literary historians or other experts. And as Wrad said, the article does mention it and links to relevant articles. Until somebody comes up with something more than unsupported contention, the default history is the one that has been accepted for the past 400+ years. Tom Reedy 02:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite true. A person's actual life, and the published history of that life, are two very different things. The first biography of Shakespeare was written by Nicholas Rowe, as late as 1709. That's when the history starts. It certainly strikes me as odd that such a famous playwright didn't attract any attention at all from biographers until 93 years after his death. The key is that there was very little source material available about the guy from Stratford, and not much more has surfaced since. And why would there be? After all, he never wrote anything, or did anything else of note, of which there is any decent evidence. I understand why the default history of "Shakespeare the playwright" is what we have had up till now. I hope that some day it will be generally accepted that it was always a fabrication. -- JackofOz 02:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of any other playwrights or writers who had their biographies written before the 18th century? Since Boswell practically invented the biographical genre in 1791, I don't know why it would be odd that Shakespeare wasn't written about until Rowe. And you're quite wrong about the source material; much has been discovered since Rowe, so much that there is no doubt that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him except in the minds of those who know little of early modern times or of any other authors. Tom Reedy 13:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

True, little is known about him. We mention that in the article, and acknowledge that there is an authorship question. It seems to have all been covered here. I guess the problem is that wikipedia reports the scholarly consensus, it doesn't change it. Who knows? Maybe it will change, but it won't be through wikipedia. That's for sure. Wrad 03:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you do Wikipedia a disservice, Wrad. All kinds of people find information on this website, in many cases information they had never heard of before, and who knows what such discoveries might lead the reader to do. That's the beauty of the site. To bring it back to Shakespeare, by far the best book I've ever read on the Oxfordian theory is by Mark Anderson, "Shakespeare By Another Name" (2005). Anderson says in the book (Author's Note, page 411) that the first time he ever heard of any such thing as a doubt about the identity of Shakespeare was in 1993. At first he thought it was some silly hoax, but he was intrigued, he did some research, did some writing, and 12 years later his book was the result. Admittedly, he didn't hear about the authorship debate from Wikipedia, but others surely have, and will. -- JackofOz 06:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, i had not noticed the acknowledgments on the issue when i looked, my mistake. I suppose a large section on the issue would not be encyclopaedic in nature as these are simply claims from a few quarters. Also, Ward has a point, this is not a tool for changing the given opinion, that is for research to do, it is for reporting it. As an anonymous update website it is hard for us to guarantee that persons updating will be at the front of the given field and not simply trying to subtly vandalise the article. Euanmoo 13:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Look no one is trying to suppress this stuff. There's a whole article on Shakespeare authorship and other sub-articles on Oxfordian theory and Baconian theory. The main article is linked from this one and the sub articles from the first one. There are also articles on the Great Minds who have developed these theories, from James Wilmot through Delia Bacon to the Charlton Ogburns. Paul B 13:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with Jack that the history starts with Rowe. Rowe's is an anecdotal and not a documentary life. We have documents and anecdotes from long before Rowe, including the First Folio and the 1640 edition of the poems, which contain biographical/anecdotal comment. We have Aubrey, too, who tells us that Shakespeare vsiited Stratford each year during his working life, for example. Aubrey is not particularly reliable (he says Shakespeare's father was a Stratford butcher, for example), but he is earlier than Rowe. There's plenty of other pre-Rowe material, too. Apart from the "lost years", there is not an unusual shortage of information about Shakespeare's life, and many of those who write about his life go out of their way to say as much.qp10qp 16:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Greatest Scientist of All Times?

Would you consider Shakespeare as the greatest scientist of all times?

I certainly would. He not only dwarfs all psychologists of nowadays with his insights about human nature, he also dwrfs all scientists with his ability to convey his insights to very wide audience.

Is there a hidden link between Shakespeare, Stanislavski's Method, recent findings in psychology, complexity theory etc.? Please, join in.

Also, I have received notification on “Hello from my Heart” days (11-21 September). This might seem inappropriate, but:

From my heart,

Damir Ibrisimovic 09:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In absolutely no way, I'm afraid. It is something impossible to rank, but I wouldn't even include him in a list of scientists at all, let alone up with Darwin, Newton, Planck, Curie, Huxely and Einstein. Sad mouse 02:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Damir, the talk pages aren't for airing personal opinions, especially ones so badly informed. -- 71.102.136.107 05:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Persistent spammer

Is turnabout fair play? Should we all register at that Web site and sabotage it if he keeps doing this? Tom Reedy 17:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Tom - that seems petty and small. I am shocked!Smatprt 06:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from that being wrong, it would be more likely to make things here worse rather than better. -- 71.102.136.107 05:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Macbeth

I noticed someone took Macbeth out of the intro as one of the best plays. I added it back in because it is true that it compares with Lear and Hamlet. Macbeth is often praised for its incredible interweaving of language, plot, and character into one concise narrative. Wrad 14:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Russ McDonald (Shakespeare's Late Style) considers it one of Shakespeare's greatest plays, for a start.qp10qp 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Good God! And from an actor, too, which makes the opinion even more shocking.Tom Reedy 23:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I came across the research while working on the Romeo and Juliet article. R&J pales in comparison to Macbeth because Shakespeare had not yet mastered the art of combining language, plot, and character yet. One of the things I personally love about Macbeth is that it is short and concise, yet very powerful. Nothing is wasted. Character affects and responds to plot. Plot influences character. Language reflects plot movement and character struggles. It's just plain good. Wrad 00:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good God, Tom - you are more easily shocked than I thought! Perhaps you might relax. Macbeth is hardly perfect - it is unclear who wrote which parts. It has been revised, added to and has several problematic scenes that are notorious among theatre practitioners (remember them?) - the long Malcolm in England scene, for example, that is so problematic that directors and producers regularly cut it down considerably. The political exchanges between Angus and Menteith, etc? Also regularly cut. Lear and Hamlet were reworked by the author til near perfection. Wiki's own article states that Macbeth is even missing some original scenes. That is why I think the play does not compare to Lear or Hamlet. Of course it's a great play - or as Ward says "just plain good!" - but next to the fine tuning apparent in Hamlet or Lear? I respectfully disagree. Wrad - did I mention R&J? Where did that come from?Smatprt 06:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you calm down? I mentioned R&J because it offered a comparison. Scholars think Macbeth is better. Why take issue with that? If we're going to compare plays, we've got to have something to compare to, don't we? What you say about Hamlet and Lear is also a bit over-glorifying, as my own description of Macbeth, I admit, might be in places. For example, I've read scholars who say Hamlet in particular is full of inconsistencies and errors which we now erroneously think of as brilliantly intentional. But I'm not going to take them out of the intro because of that. The fact is, Macbeth, King Lear, and Hamlet are widely held as his best plays, even if some disagree. TS Eliot thought Coriolanus was best, for Pete's sake! Everyone has a different opinion, we're just speaking for a majority. Wrad 06:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm Calm Wrad - it seems to be you and Tom that went a bit overboard in your reaction. Especially Tom with his silly "Good God...shocking" insult. I must ask is Tom unusually harsh in this case because his real aim to to insult and berate anyone who doubts the standard authorship attribution, as I do? Isn't this the same Tom Reedy who graces the website of David Kathman - one of the meanest, most insulting websites on the internet? Now Wrad, to say "The fact is, Macbeth, King Lear, and Hamlet are widely held as his best plays" is a non-starter. There are plenty of critics that think this play or that play is"'his best". As you say - T.S Eliot loved Coriolanus (as do I), but I still don't call it his best! Regarding R&J - again, I didn't compare it, it's not in the article, and I didn't suggest it be in the article, so that is why I wondered why you even brought it up. The article was comparing Macbeth with Lear and Hamlet, not R&J. Smatprt 06:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also - Just noticed this the other day - 1608 is officially the date that Shakespeare stopped writing tragedies??? Really???? And we know this for certain how???? That statement should certainy be rewritten.Smatprt 06:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's true or not, it certainly isn't "official". -- JackofOz 07:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere does anyone suggest it is. Paul B 08:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Look again at Smatprt's post. -- JackofOz 08:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? The fact that he says the word is irrelevant. We are addressing what is in the article. Nowhere in the article does it say that and nowhere has anyone suggested that it is 'official'. Paul B 10:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant, actually. His words were the very thing I was responding to. It looked to me (and still does) like he was quoting something he'd found in the article, objecting to it, and suggesting it be re-written. If in fact the word "officially" never appeared in the article, I'd love to know just what Smarprt was on about. -- JackofOz 14:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to think that there's more subtlety and flexibility in the parts of the article Smatprt is objecting to. "...producing plays, such as Hamlet, King Lear, and Macbeth, considered some of the finest in the English language..." gives room for plays such as Othello, Antony and Cleopatra, and Coriolanus to be included in that judgement. So the article does not say that Macbeth is one of Shakespeare's three finest plays, nor does it compare it specifically to Hamlet and King Lear. On the question of 1608, the wording was intended to leave room for interpretation: saying in the lead that he wrote mainly tragedies in the period 1600 to 1608, does not rule out that he may have written some afterwards; later in the article, saying that he wrote mainly tragedies in the period 1600 to 1608 and mainly tragicomedies after that does not rule out that he may have written tragedies later or tragicomedies earlier. The idea was to give leeway for differing scholarly opinions, though most do go with the broad dating given. To make this flexibility clearer, I have now changed to "about 1608". I hope this meets Smatprt's objection.

I hope that Smartprt is not questioning the lead simply because it appears less referenced than the rest of the article. The idea was to keep reference tags in the lead to a minimum, to encourage the reader into the article. There is no information in the lead, however, which is not referenced later in the article.qp10qp 13:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My objections to the inclusion of Macbeth are twofold: first, all three plays mentioned are tragedies - as are the other plays mentioned by Qp10qp above. Didn't the man write anything else? Second, I actually do think that Macbeth isn't in quite the same league as Hamlet or King Lear, despite its various virtues, because the protagonist is really an anti-hero, and the elements of tragedy are thereby lessened.

My candidate for a replacement in the lead would be The Tempest, FWIW. --GuillaumeTell 17:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In almost every critical analysis of Shakespeare's works, Hamlet, King Lear and MacBeth are the plays considered his very best. We should leave the language as is.--Alabamaboy 18:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in everyone. While I still find Hamlet and Lear far more deserving of the title "very best", I am happy to go with the consensus, whatever it turns out to be. Regarding my use of the word "officially", please note that I did not put it in quotes, nor did I quote the article directly. What I was raising was that the statment "he wrote mainy tragedies until 1608" as if 1608 was some magic year when he stopped writing tragedies. Now that Qp10qp has added "about" - the problem is solved. As far as the question as to wheher I was quesiton the lead because of lack of references, the simple answere is - No, I wasn't. As has been stated, the references come later. And to confirm - the changes made by Qp10qp do indeed meet my objection about 1608. (Although I still assert that theatre professionals in general do not find Macbeth as perfect a play as is being touted in various critical anaylsis.) Thanks again for hearing me out. Smatprt 21:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I actually thought you brought up an important issue, I just wanted it handled different. This discussion was good. Wrad 22:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Another authorship query

Following copied from my talk page. AndyJones 12:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC):

andy, I wanted to ask you about this...on the WS page under "Authorship" you have this statement;

"popular interest in the subject, particularly the Oxfordian theory, has continued into the 21st century."

I tried to add to this and wanted to say "popular interest in the subject, particularly the Baconian and Oxfordian theories, have continued into the 21st century."

I got the message from you but am a bit confused as to why no edits are allowed there? Thanks... (mirrorverses)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrorverses (talk • contribs)

The topic is so divisive and fraught with emotion that it was decided to direct inquirers to the page that covers it. What you see is a compromise hammered out over many weeks, and it's just not worth going through all over again for such a marginal change. Judging by media coverage and the proportion of Web sites and newsgroup participation, there is no doubt the Oxfordian theory is currently the most popular. The Baconian theory, which as you know was the first strong antiStratfordian movement, peaked in the early 20th C. In the next few decades I'm sure it will be superseded by yet another candidate, but for now the section is correct. Tom Reedy 14:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The compromise version didn't have "particularly the Oxfordian theory" in it, though.qp10qp 15:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should delete that part, then. It is accurate, though, and I hate to see another edit war begin over a topic that peripheral. Tom Reedy 15:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why I left it. It will be interesting to see what happens when we go front page on the tenth. The day will be a snapshot of the parts of the article that people feel the urge to change. I've not had good experiences with the front page before. But if we get the occasional genuine improvement, it will be worth it.qp10qp 21:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah! That's in only two days! I've got to remember to check the page frequently on that day. Tom Reedy 23:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Computer Match

Computer studies of today reveal that William Shakespear's works AND Francis Bacon's works MATCH in that they both heavily use the expanded words of the then new Thomas Cooper (bishop) dictionary/ thesaurus. Does this mean Wm Shakespear was Francis Bacon or that they both heavily used that new dictionary. ??

/s/ DIRECT DESCENDANT VIA HALLs of Willy Shakespear !! 76.195.77.150 ( Do I shake or bake?)

I'm told Bacon's poetry is only about as good as Albert Einstein's. --Scottandrewhutchins 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You'd better try descending from the Harts (not direct, but you could get some cred with that one), because the Halls' only daughter didn't have any children.qp10qp 20:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Two Shakespeare disambig links

There are now two Shakespeare disambig links at the top of the article. Shakespeare (disambiguation) contains all of the links within it, while William Shakespeare (disambiguation) contains merely the links to people with that name. I believe it is redundant to have two disambigs, one of which (William Shakespeare (disambiguation)) contains no info or links which aren't already in the other disambig. I also worry having two links will confuse people, while using only one will ensure people will find what they are looking for. What are peoples thoughts? Is there a consensus to have both or just the original Shakespeare (disambiguation) at the top of the article. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If one contains all the other, I vote for simplicity. Tom Reedy 01:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just the Shakespeare (disambiguation). DionysosProteus 02:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare (disambiguation) now follows the usual pattern of dab pages that also include surname lists (or of separate surname list pages) and links to the dab for pages of multiple people. See also Truman, Truman (surname), and Harry Truman (disambiguation). Also note that, if needed at all, this discussion (which is not a vote) should be held on Talk:William Shakespeare (disambiguation) (a human name disambig) and/or Talk:Shakespeare (disambiguation) (a "regular" disambig), not here. -- JHunterJ 12:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

After edit conflict There's a brief discussion [[User talk:JHunterJ#William Shakespeare {Otheruses}|here]], which I've suggested we continue on this page instead. And yes, my vote is only for one dab. (Also, is it possible to merge the dab pages? Wouldn't that make the problem go away?) AndyJones 12:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this is the main Shakespeare article, the discussion should be held here. I'd also prefer to merge the two disambigs, letting William Shakespeare (disambiguation) be a redirect to Shakespeare (disambiguation).--Alabamaboy 12:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was about the inclusion or exclusion of two diambig links at the top of this article, so it ought to take place here. DionysosProteus 13:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If the discussion is only about the use of the hatnotes here, then I agree. If it's about merging two other pages (as suggested here), then the discussion should follow the usual parameters for mergers. -- JHunterJ 00:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My reasons for setting up the two different disambiguations, from a Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation point of view:

1. There are multiple pages that might have been titled "Shakespeare": Shakespeare naturally redirects to the primary topic, Shakespeare, Ontario, Shakespeare (programming language), so there should be a Shakespeare (disambiguation) page per WP:D. These do not belong on the William Shakespeare (disambiguation) list.
2. There are multiple pages that might have been titled "William Shakespeare": William Shakespeare, William Shakespeare (singer), William Shakespeare (football), so there should be a William Shakespeare (disambiguation) page per WP:D.
   • These and the other surname holders do not necessarily belong on the disambiguation page; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Lists of names. But the list is not too long, and I opted not to spin it off to Shakespeare (surname) yet.
3. Since the page William Shakespeare is the primary topic for both "William Shakespeare" and "Shakespeare", it should mention both in its hatnote(s), per WP:HATNOTE. See also John F. Kennedy or Bigfoot for similar situations.

No complexity is added -- but readers looking for either a Shakespeare or a William Shakespeare will be aided by being presented with shorter lists to sift.-- JHunterJ 00:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are going to great lengths to rationalize this. The JFK reasoning doesn't work b/c there are two disambigs on that page b/c there are two items redirecting to that article: everyone named John Kennedy and the initials JFK. Bigfoot also has two disambigs b/c there are two different terms listed. The Shakespeare disambig contains all the links in both the Shakespeare related disambigs and isn't that long, so there is no confusion. However, having two redundant disambigs at the top will create confusion. The overwhelming consensus here appears to be to include only the Shakespeare (disambiguation) on this page. Unless others object, that appears to be what we'll go with.--Alabamaboy 02:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are being dismissive. "Explaining" is not the same as "rationalizing". And of course the two disambigs are no longer redundant. But the discussion has only be "on" for a day; a little early to claim consensus, much less "overwhelming" consensus with <10 people commenting. It's unfortunate that the article is main-page-featured while out of step with the disambiguation guides, though -- that's why I cleaned up the dabs in the first place, because its feature time was coming. -- JHunterJ 02:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, we will of course wait to see if others give their views on this. But so far, consensus is to only use Shakespeare (disambiguation) on this page.--Alabamaboy 02:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the correct hatnote (that I failed to use, even before this discussion) should have been {{otherpeople}} instead of {{otheruses}} (along with the {{redirect}} hatnote), to produce

For other persons named William Shakespeare, see William Shakespeare (disambiguation).

Just in case the editorial consensus here eventually lines up with the dab guidelines... -- JHunterJ 23:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)