Jump to content

Talk:William Shakespeare and Overlook Hotel: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{inappropriate tone}}
{{fac}}
{{inappropriate person}}
{{skiptotoctalk}}
[[Image:Overlook timberline.jpg|thumb|200px|right|The Overlook ([[Timberline Lodge]]) as seen in a still from Stanley Kubrick's film ''[[The Shining (film)|The Shining]]'']]
{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=03:52, 31 October 2005
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare/archive1
|action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=26921282


The '''Overlook Hotel''' is the fictional hotel from [[Stephen King]]'s novel ''[[The Shining]]'' and its adaptations. [[Timberline Lodge]], a mountain resort in [[Oregon]], was used in [[Stanley Kubrick]]'s adaptation of the book while the [[Stanley Hotel]], King's inspiration for the Overlook, was used in a TV adaptation for [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]].
|action2=PR
|action2date=12:44, 1 November 2005
|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/William Shakespeare/Archive1
|action2result=reviewed
|action2oldid=27056972


==Construction==
|action3=GAN
The Overlook was built by a man named Robert Townley Watson between the years of [[1907]] and [[1909]] on an ancient Indian burial ground. (A number of human remains were unearthed and removed to another location.)
|action3date=01:03, 5 April 2006
perhapes many people are unware of the madness of the hotel the ghost do not appear when the hotel is open or could being inside the hotel make u go mad and start using volience or simply thinking in your head im not along in this hotel im sure of that.
|action3result=listed
|action3oldid=46996708


==Location==
|action4=WPR
The Overlook Hotel was located in the [[Rocky Mountains]], 40 miles West of the nearest town, (the fictitious) Sidewinder, [[Colorado]]. (The novel references a close proximity to [[Estes Park]], [[Boulder]], and the [[Rocky Mountain National Park]].)
|action4date=19:20, 24 November 2006
|action4link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/William Shakespeare
|action4oldid=89866456


Due to its isolation, relatively poor access, and the Colorado winters, the hotel is only open from May 15 to September 30 each year; it is almost inaccessible for 5 to 6 months each winter.
|action5=WAR
|action5date=6 June 2007
|action5result=failed
|action5link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/William Shakespeare
|action5oldid=136378885


==Layout==
|action6=PR
The Overlook contains a total of 110 guest quarters. (Coincidentally, from May 15 to September 30, when the hotel is open, the Overlook employs 110 full-time staff.)
|action6date=13:57, 19 June 2007
|action6result=reviewed
|action6link=Wikipedia:Peer_review/William_Shakespeare/Archive2
|action6oldid=139189320


Basement: Boiler, furnace, storage (newspapers, paperwork, scrapbooks)
|gacat=writers
|currentstatus=GA
|aciddate=20 June 2006
}}
{{WikiProjectBanners
|1={{WikiProject West Midlands|class=GA}}
|2={{WikiProject E-theatre|class=GA}}
|3={{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=GA
|priority=Top
|core=yes
|a&e-work-group=yes
|old-peer-review=yes
|A-Class=fail
}}
|4={{WPLondon|importance=high|class=GA}}
|5={{WPE|class=GA|importance=top}}
|6={{Wikiproject Shakespeare|class=GA|importance=top}}
}}
{{todo|1}}


Lobby Level: Overlook Dining Room and Colorado Lounge in the West wing, registration desk and offices behind a 160 foot lobby in the center section, and banquet/ballroom facility in the East wing
{{archive box|
* [[Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
* [[Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
* [[Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 3|Archive 3]]
* [[Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 4|Archive 4]]
<hr />
* [[Wikipedia:Peer review/William Shakespeare/Archive1|Peer Review]] (October 2005)
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/William Shakespeare|Peer Review]] (November 2006)
}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=GA|category=Langlit|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|small=yes}}
{{FAOL|Hebrew|he:ויליאם שייקספיר|lang2=Spanish|link2=es:William Shakespeare|lang3=Croatian|link3=hr:William Shakespeare|lang4=French|link4=fr:William Shakespeare|small=yes}}


First Floor: 20 single rooms, 20 double rooms, and a storeroom at the extreme West end
__TOC__


Second Floor: 10 single rooms, 30 double rooms, and a storeroom at the extreme East end


Third floor: 10 suites in the West wing (including the [[Presidential suite|Presidential Suite]]), 10 suites in the center section, and 10 suites in the East wing; all command magnificent views
==Shakespeare the Enlightened Rosicrucian ==
I've once again removed the categorization, because there is no obvious connection between Shakespeare and the Rosicrucians. Categories should not be added to pages on which there is no information that would enlighten a reader as to why they are present. The category is sufficiently mysterious and, apparently, controversial, as to require prior discussion on the article's talk page before you should even consider re-adding it. - Nunh-huh 03:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Top floor (attic): storage (furniture, etc.)
:Lusitanian has recently added the following utterance to the introduction to the Rosicrucian article: "Also, it becomes clear that this [[holy]] Order initiated and shaped the whole [[Renaissance]] movement of the western world through the works and cooperation of [[:Category:Rosicrucian Enlightenment|evolved individuals]] in the fields of arts, literature, religion and science since the [[14th century]], under the auspice of those Compassionate Ones in charge of mankind's evolution." This is ''way'' beyond mainstream thought. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 06:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


==Features==
== [[William Shakespeare#Early life|The Hoghton Will]] ==


The Overlook Hotel is a world-class hotel whose location provides an "overlook" of a magnificent section of the Rocky Mountain range.
It seems that Bob Bearman, Archivist at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, has "conclusively" disproved any connection with Shakespeare (which is disappointing, but there you go). His article ''Was William Shakespeare William Shakeshafte? Revisited'' appears in the Spring 2002 issue of ''Shakespeare Quarterly'' (Johns Hopkins University). This is a subscription-only product, so I can't read it, let alone cite it. Does anyone have access?


Its amenities include a [[roque]] court (possibly the finest in North America), a putting green, a [[topiary]] garden, a playground, and a pool.
<s>While we're in this paragraph: re "asseted nexus". "Asset nexus" (the ambassadorial connection) would be a neat way of describing the supposed introduction from Shakespeare's schoolmaster, Cottam, to his old master Hoghton. As far as I know, "asseted nexus" means something else. Is it a typo? Can anybody put me right?</s>
*Thank you, [[User:Celithemis|Celithemis]], for putting that right.


==History==
--[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 21:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The Overlook was considered to be one of the most beautiful resort hotels in the Rockies, if not the world. It had many illustrious guests: [[Vanderbilts]], [[Rockefeller family|Rockefellers]], [[Astor_family|Astors]], [[Du Pont family|Du Ponts]], [[Marilyn Monroe]], [[Truman Capote]], and presidents [[Woodrow Wilson|Wilson]], [[Warren G. Harding|Harding]], [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Roosevelt]], and [[Nixon]].


[[Image:Stanleyhotel.jpg|thumb|200px|left|The [[Stanley Hotel]] in Colorado served as King's inspiration.]]
:I have online access, but not from here! I'll have to wait till tomorrow. What do you want, a summary? [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 23:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks for the offer: it's just that I am slightly in awe of the definitive and certain "and is now accepted wisdom" in relation to the sojourn as a schoolmaster in Lancashire. Bearman's conclusions seem to undermine this and might be worth including for the sake of balance. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 23:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


The Overlook was built by a man named Robert Townley Watson between the years of [[1907]] and [[1909]]. During the construction, an ancient [[Native American Indian|Indian]] [[burial ground]] was discovered on the site and a number of human remains were unearthed and removed to another location. Following this, a number of mysterious deaths were involved in the building of the hotel, inspiring local tales of vengeful Indian [[spirit]]s full of anger due to the disturbance of their resting bodies. The Overlook Hotel was finally completed in [[1909]] and first opened to the public in [[1910]]. Despite the strange, untimely deaths surrounding it and the eerie tales, the hotel itself was attractive, elegant and spacious hotel with panoramic views of the mountains and proved immensely popular, receiving more visitors than expected.
I too question any claim of "accepted wisdom" when it comes to Shakespeare's lost years. Is it POV or Weasel? or both? [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 04:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


The fledgling hotel proved to be a burden on Watson, so he sold the hotel in [[1915]]. Many strange events occurred and rumours of [[haunting]]s and a [[curse]] abounded. It was sold again and again in [[1922]], [[1929]], and [[1936]]. The hotel was finally abandoned, vacant until the end of [[World War II]], when it was purchased and renovated by Horace Derwent. The Overlook became one of Derwent's most valuable holdings in Colorado. Derwent boasted that his Overlook would be the "Showplace of the World," but it would have a history as anything but. He poured over 3 million dollars into restoring the hotel in his attempts to create his showplace before a single patron ever walked through the doors. Even with all of the Overlook's faboulously wealthy guests, the hotel never made a single dime back.
I have access. I'll give it a read if I can. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 05:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


The Overlook's financial loss proved to be too great, and in [[1952]], Derwent sold the hotel to Charles Grondin, the head of a group of investors based in [[California]]. The group ran the hotel for two seasons before it was sold to a company called Mountainview Resorts. The company went [[bankrupt]] in [[1957]], closing the Overlook for the rest of the decade. The Overlook fell into disrepair during this period, but it was leased and repaired in [[1961]] by four writers who reopened it as a writers' school. However, the school closed when a drunk student died after falling out of his third-story window onto the terrace below.
*Yes, please tell us what it says. But "accepted wisdom" is ridiculous: that has to go. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 06:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
::Well I had to wait till the library opened, since the online text does not reach back to 2002 due to "moving wall", apparently. Anyway, the gist of the argument is that Shakeshafte was a common name in the area of Hoghton's influence - Preston. There are several recorded William Shakeshaftes from local Shakeshafte families, and the size of the bequest suggests that Mr Shakeshafte was probably a middle aged man, not a youth. There is no "conclusive proof", but Bearman argues that it is unlikely that Shakeshafte was the bald bloke from Stratford. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 10:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


In [[1963]], the Overlook was bought yet again by a [[Las Vegas]] investment firm. It opened a few months later. However, the sale was peculiar because the head of the firm was Charles Grondin, who had bought the hotel from Horace Derwent in 1952. Grondin had been tried and acquitted for [[tax evasion]] in [[1960]], and had become the executive vice president of the [[Chicago]] office of Derwent's company. These facts led to speculation that Derwent controlled Grondin's Vegas organization and had bought the Overlook a second time under peculiar circumstances. In [[1964]], it was discovered that the Vegas firm that owned the Overlook had connections with [[Mafia]] [[wikt:kingpin|kingpin]]s. Grondin denied the charges. In [[1966]], however, a gangland-style triple murder was committed in the Overlook's presidential suite, one of the victims being a notorious mafia hit man named Vito the Chopper.
==Reputation==


The Overlook recovered from the scandal and business continued as usual. Eventually, management of the hotel was given to a man named Stuart Ullman in [[1970]]. Soon after he started his tenure, more unusual and horrific events occurred in the Overlook. A panicked cleaning woman claimed to have seen the corpse of a guest in the bathroom of Room 217 (the guest's corpse was en route to her funeral at the time of the sighting), and she was promptly fired by Ullman.
:''This reverence has provoked an unforeseen negative reaction in the youth. In the 21st century most people in the English-speaking world encounter Shakespeare at school at a young age, and there is an association by some students of his work with boredom beyond comprehension and of "high art" not easily appreciated by popular culture; an ironic fate considering the social mix of Shakespeare's audience.''


==Supernatural Attributes==
This sounds like somethig written from personal experiance, so I think that this needs a source as lots of things encountered in the school room on a hot summer's day brings "boredom beyond comprehension". Also I think some mention should be made in this section of the connection between rap and hip hop and Shakespeare:
*Douglas Lanier [http://unhmagazine.unh.edu/sp03/bookreviews.html Shakespeare and Modern Popular Culture] Oxford University Press, 2002
*:Various rap and hip-hop artists, too, have parodied Shakespeare, forming a rap Shakespeare sub-genre, although in some venues, Lanier points out that "the street culture of the modern Bronx is not that different from that of Elizabethan London." He also notes the stylistic similarities between rap and Shakespearian language: "both are poetry designed for performance, not the page; both feature language delivered against a strong metrical beat and display a mastery of rhythmic effects; both use what is for mainstream speakers of English a largely non-standard vocabulary, dense in allusions; both are self-consciously virtuosic in their wordplay. Rap's stylized qualities... provides an analogue for how Shakespearian English strikes the contemporary ear."
* http://arts.guardian.co.uk/edinburgh2002/story/0,,781676,00.html &mdash; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3051527.stm
* http://artsedge.kennedy-center.org/content/3656/
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/shakespeare/60secondshakespeare/watch/midsummer_rap.shtml
--[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 14:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


The Overlook Hotel is not only haunted by the ghosts of those who died violently within it, but the entire Hotel is itself a host to a being of unknown origin; apparently, the souls and, perhaps, special abilities of those killed in the building belong to the entity. Possibly, the Hotel believes that if it can harness sufficient "supernatural" power, it can "break free" of the building in which it has somehow become trapped in.
== Previous peer review issues to address before FA status ==


==The Events of ''[[The Shining (novel)|The Shining]]''==
Many of the issues in the last peer review were unaddressed, so I am posting it in this more prominent place. Please add <nowiki>{{done}}</nowiki> tags to things that are done or discuss issues that may not need to be fixed. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


As part of the immediate backstory, in [[1970]], Ullman hired a man named [[Delbert Grady]] to be the Overlook's winter caretaker. Along with his wife and two daughters, Grady spent the winter months in the hotel. When the Overlook's staff returned to open the hotel for the season, they discovered that Grady had murdered his family with an [[axe]] before killing himself.
'''[[William Shakespeare]]'''


In [[1977]], Ullman hired a new winter caretaker named [[Jack Torrance]]. Torrance was an aspiring playwright and a recovering [[alcoholism|alcoholic]] who saw the caretaker job as an opportunity to repair his fractured family life. Torrance, along with his wife Wendy and son Danny spent the winter tenure in the Overlook, which was marred by terrifying occurrences.
Article is a GA, but surely it ought to be an FA! Please advise on how to get it there! [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] <sup>[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]</sup> 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


Unbeknownst to Jack and Wendy, Danny Torrance had [[psychic]] abilities, such as [[mind reading]]. These abilities were referred to as "the shining" by Dick Hallorann, the hotel's cook (who also had the shining). And unbeknownst to the entire Torrance family, the Overlook Hotel had been somehow transformed into an evil sentient entity, filled with ghosts and evil spirits that sought to absorb Danny into the hotel to become something more. The Overlook's paranormal inhabitants, such as the dead woman in Room 237 and the living hedge animals on the roque court, started to attack the child, but to no avail.
'''Balloonman'''


Eventually, the Overlook started exploiting Jack and his desperation to get to Danny. The evil spirits in the Overlook, including the ghost of Delbert Grady, told Jack that Danny and Wendy were trying to oppress him and that he should kill them both. The Overlook also played on Jack's past in alcoholism against him and had him start drinking again. After he attacked Wendy and Danny in the ballroom, they locked him in the Overlook's pantry. The hotel let Jack out, equipping him with a roque mallet, so he could make Danny "take his medicine." Jack wounded Wendy and Hallorann (who had come back to the Overlook at the telepathic request of Danny) before cornering Danny.
* I don't like the opening sentence. It turns me off "greatest writer... greatest in Western Literature ... preeminent dramatist." Those may be true statements, but it reads like propaganda.
**I've fixed the opening a bit. That look better? [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] <sup>[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]</sup>
***{{done}} Yup, already dealt with by Adam. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
*"about 37 plays" immediately makes me wonder why "about." I suspect that you go into more detail later on, but without an explanation, it raises questions that you don't want to have raised. I'd leave the numbers out and go into more details later on.
**I've tried leaving them in, but giving a link to an article about the doubtful attributions. If this is too awkward, I'll cut 'em. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] <sup>[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]</sup> 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
***I've tried <nowiki>"wrote [[Shakespeare Apocrypha|about]] 38 plays"</nowiki> as a way of keeping the sentence uncluttered but also providing a reader who cares with detailed info on why we say have to say "about". Does that work? <small>Broken edit by AndyJones</small>
****{{done}} Covered in footnote 3. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 16:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
*I'm not a fan of long sentences. While it may be gramatically correct, I'd break break the sentence about his fame starting during his lifetime into two.
**{{done}} At least, done in the sense that I believe this sentence is no longer there. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 16:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
*Wordy, for example: ''He is counted among the very few playwrights who have excelled in both tragedy and comedy'' can be shortened to ''He is considered one of the few playwrights who excelled at both tragedy and comedy.'' "Counted among", "very few" and "have" don't add much to the article. "Very few?" How many is that? Who else is considered among the "very few?" Who makes this determination?
**{{done}} - already dealt with. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
*"living language" another case of wordiness, people will assume living languages, you don't need the word "living".
**Don't think I agree that "living" is redundant. Translated into every language may well be wrong. Therefore considering it {{done}} [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
*The translation into every language also needs to be cited.
**{{done}}
**I don't like "modern languages" as the target article for this. I've removed the wikilink. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
*put the details about the number of articles after the last sentence in the intro or move that sentence up. It explains why the exact number of plays can't be known.
**{{done}} IMHO, since as mentioned above footnote 3 seems to cover it, and what more is there to say? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
*The first 3 sentences in the Early life start off with probably... probably... and presumably, without any sources/citations this looks like OR.
**I've tweaked this, and asked for an attribution on the talk page. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] <sup>[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]</sup> 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
***{{done}} Yup, already solved. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
*"Shakespeare's last two plays, '''play1''' and '''play2''', were written in 1613."
**Is this sentence still there? It refers the two collaborations with John Fletcher, namely [[The Two Noble Kinsmen]] and [[Henry VIII (play)|Henry VIII]]. Actually, trying to source this it's difficult to say with any certainty that they were ''written'' in 1613. The Arden Henry VIII points out that the first recorded performance was at the Globe in 1613 (when it was described as a new play) but also speculates that it may have been performed at Blackfriars earlier. The matter is contentious, as you can see from the wikipedia page where an Oxfordian user is edit warring to suggest a far earlier date (Oxford died 1604). Sorry to clutter Balloonman's contributions with this guff, by the way: if I knew how best to fix this I'd do it myself rather than blathering here! [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 09:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
***{{notdone}}. No action required. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 17:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
My three biggest comments are: 1) Watch the wordiness, go through the article and ask, "Does this word/phrase need to be there?" 2) Watch the long sentences. Most American's read at a 6th grade level, your writing style is at the 12th grade level. 3) When making claims such as "greatest" "best" etc you need to cite it otherwise it looks like POV.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


Danny had realized that the person attacking him and his mother was not really Jack Torrance, but the hotel itself, which was possessing his father. Danny told Jack that the hotel had made him start drinking again and had given him false promises to correct past events. The real Jack emerged to tell Danny that he loved his son and to get out before the hotel took over again and used the mallet to kill him. The creature that remained was prepared to kill Danny until Danny realized that Jack had forgotten to release the Overlook's boiler pressure and the hotel itself had forgotten too. Danny, Dick, and Wendy barely escaped the Overlook before the hotel was destroyed as the Overlook's boiler explodes. The hotel's presence unsuccessfully tried to convince Hallorann to kill Danny and Wendy, but he resisted and they escaped.
*I think each point has been dealt with. 1) The article has been mostly copyedited. 2) We agreed long sentences were not a problem ''per se'', but only poorly put together ones. We shouldn't assume our readers have a stunted reading level. 3) This is contentious. People do not need references to be aware of these claims: most first hear them in school, many elsewhere. Adding references only serves to appease those uncomfortable with the claims, although they make very little difference. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 06:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
**I agree as regards (1) and (2). But as regards (3): we are aiming for featured article status: requiring sources isn't unreasonable, even for things which all of us here at the talk page are happy to accept as obviously true. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
***On the other hand, looking at the current version of the article I don't see a lot of unsourced peacockery, therefore: {{done}}. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Even though the Overlook seems to be a mere, inanimate hotel, certain parts of the book suggest that it is in fact a sentient entity. Delbert Grady's ghost refers to the hotel as the "manager" who has appointed Jack as the caretaker. A powerful voice, heard only though Hallorann though the shining, first tells him to turn back when he tries to help the Torrances and later tries to tempt Hallorann into killing them. Indeed, at the climax of the story, Danny discovers that the man attacking him is not the real Jack Torrance, but really the hotel itself. The hotel then kills Jack with the mallet, gruesomely "shedding" Jack's body, becoming a living composite of all the ghosts in the hotel. It is implied that this is the hotel's animate, supernatural form.
'''[[User:Nat91|Nat91]]'''
*I agree with most of the things Balloonman said. Sentences like "widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language" need to be cited (although we all know he probably is). That sentence has a citation but I'm not sure if those online encyclopedias are a reliable source.
**I don't have a problem with those sources ''as such'', but I suggest that we add a print source, also. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
***I don't see the point. People are not going to check this source and think, "Oh. This says so; he must be." Any reference will be extraneous. If anyone disagrees on this point, a reference will not likely change his mind. The only possible purpose for it would be to appease reviewers. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 06:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
****Fair enough. {{notdone}} [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
*In my opinion, the article needs a lot of citations, for example, "there are no direct descendants of the poet and playwright alive today" certainly needs a reference.
**This one still a problem: but it's correct and easily sourcable: I don't have any of the biographies here, but they all say this. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
***I agree. They are all consistent on this point. The only biography of Shakespeare I have at hand is a bad one. I don't want to mention it for fear of embarrassment. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 06:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
****{{done}} [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
*I thought it was a very known fact that he was born and died on April 23. Is there a reliable source for that? The article says "baptised April 26, 1564." [[User:Nat91|Nat91]] 17:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
**Nobody knows when he was born.[[User:24.77.19.233|24.77.19.233]] 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
***Birth statement seems to have been decided on after a lot of debate over what scholars know and don't know. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 17:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
****{{done}} agreed. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 08:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


In Stanley Kubrick's [[The Shining (film)|film]], the hotel was not destroyed. Instead, Jack Torrence was absorbed into the hotel in a ghostly time warp of madness and murder. After chasing his wife and son outside into a [[blizzard]] (and after which they escape in a [[snow mobile]]), Torrence dies of [[exposure]] whilst running around a [[hedge maze]]. His image then appears clearly in the forefront of an old photograph inside the hotel lobby (namely the [[July 4th]] [[ball (dance)|Ball]] of [[1921]]).
'''[[User:Yannismarou|Yannismarou]]'''
[[Category:Stephen King]]
*"William Shakespeare (baptised April 26, 1564 – died April 23, 1616)[1] was an English poet and playwright widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language,[2] and the world's preeminent dramatist." The world's preeminent dramatist? Are we sure about that? Better than Aeschylus and Sophocles? And if yes why? I may be wrong but I don't feel comfortable with the superlative.
[[Category:Fictional hotels]]
**{{done}} seems to have been addressed as this is now referenced, as previously it wasn't. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 17:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
**{{done}}. Aeschylus who? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
*"(see Shakespeare Apocrypha for plays uncertainly attributed to Shakespeare)". My opinion is that this link should be somewhere in "Plays" and not in the lead.
**{{done}} This is no longer in the lead. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 17:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
*By the way, do you have in mind the issue of Time devoted to the "bard" ("Will power")? There were 2-3 excellent articles there? And one comparing him with ... I don't remember ... Wait ... I'll find him ... Yes ... With Middleton! A very interesting assessment about the Bard's talent.
**{{notdone}}. I don't think we need to be concerned to find that specific source. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 08:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
*"Early life" is undercited. In the next section I see a {citationneeded}.
**{{done}} <small>I added in the early life citations a few months back.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 12:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)</small>
*"He appears to have moved across the Thames River to Southwark sometime around 1599." Source here?
**{{done}}--[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 22:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
*"Later years". No citations here. I see the article is overall undercited, so from now own I'll name seperate sections.
**{{done}}
*In "Other poems" both paragraphs start with "In addition". Repetion of the same forms of prose.
**{{done}}
*For a playwright like Shakespeare "Style" is under-analyzed. I expect here some modern assessments, further analysis, and comparaisons with other important playwrights (contemporaries of him or of the near centuries). Another suggestion is to keep the section concise and, instead, to create a sub-article.
**{{done}}. Dealt with at length. See various discussions below. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
*Reading "Reputation" I thought again about this issue of TIME and an aricle named "Shakespeare Inc." I think.
**{{notdone}}. I don't think we need to be concerned to find that specific source. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 08:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
*What I mean is that the modern aspects of the bard's reputations and the commercial success and effect of his name should be treated in this or in a subarticle.
**{{notdone}} a lengthy section on Shakespeare's influence in the modern age would quickly degenerate into a trivia section. The reputation section adequately covers his reception in later ages; essentially his plays are performed with updated stagecraft. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 12:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
*"Identity" needs better referencing and some modern assessments by modern scholars.
**{{notdone}}. There's no section with that title in the article now. Nothing to do. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
*Wow! "See also" is huge. And most of the links there are already linked above!
**{{done}} Took out repetitive links and made list into two columns. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 17:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
*In "Further Reading" we should have the ISBNs.
**Before I fix this, I want to know if there are any books in there that shouldn't be. What does everyone think? Is this section ok? [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
***I agree it needs wittling & I've started a bit. Not averse to adding some either. Maybe more discussion needed? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
:::The ISBNs I've just added are works I've used for footnotes. Is this duplication? --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
*Are all "External links" links necessary? Could they be better organized?
**{{done}} greatly reduced their number. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
*You know my obsession with inboxes! I think you could think about adding some here from the Bard's work, if you can relate them to specific sections and analyses.--[[User:Yannismarou|Yannismarou]] 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
**I agree, I've got a few quotes in mind that I could add. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
***Added a Ben Jonson quote to the reputation section, but am struggling to decide on a quote from one of his plays. It needs to be well-chosen and well-placed. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
****Use one of his best-known plays: Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Othello, The Taming of the Shrew, Much Ado about Nothing, and the like. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
*****Suggestions: "What potions have I drunk of siren tears..."; "Farewell, thou art too dear for my possessing..."; Hamlet's advice to the actors (especially appropriate); one of Macbeth's laments; a sililoquy from Romeo and Juliet; one of Richard II's speeches; a clown's speech (preferrably Falstaff's, the Fool from King Lear's, or Dogbert's); something from Midsummer Night's Dream (maybe Puck). You get the idea. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 07:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
******[[Image:Dogbert icon.gif]]?
*{{done}} (Is Dogbert Shakespearean?) [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 19:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

*At the risk of starting an ugly debate, it seems that the authorship paragraph is uncommonly short compared to the other "speculations" sections. It has been cut down so much that the general whys and wherefores behind the debate are not even mentioned. If this is to be a short summary of the main article, shouldn't a few of the more prominent topics within the subject be mentioned? Perhaps a statement or two about why the subject even exists?[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
**Rather than digging that up again, I think we should stick to the plan of fixing what was seen as wrong in the old peer review right now. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

'''Notes by [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] <sup>[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]</sup>'''
*Please see [[User:AndyZ/peerreviewer|automated]] peer review suggestions [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/November 2006#William Shakespeare|here]]. Thanks, [[User:AZPR|AZ]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:AndyZ|t]]</sub> 19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this to FA status! [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


:Oh, god, I remember that... I went through, added a fair number of citations, but couldn't find all of them and noone else was around at the time. Glad to see this is finally moving forward. [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] <sup>[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]</sup> 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

==Style and Reputation==
In my opinion, the style and reputation sections will be the hardest. I suggest we use only the most rigorous citations for these sections, meaning highly reliable academic citations. Is that ok with people?--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:Highly reliable academic citations are most certainly not ok! [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 13:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::Hmm, perhaps I wasn't being clear. I meant we should aim for using book citations by established scholars (which doesn't mean overly obtuse academic articles and such). I just feel we should steer clear of using website citations for these sections b/c they're going to be controversial. Is that acceptable? If not, why? Best,--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 13:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Agreed. Both sections are heavily under-cited at the moment. There are chapters on reputation in two of the Cambridge University Press "Companions" which I have here. I'll look through those and see what I can source from there. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started on the above. I've got a problem with the following extract, though. It strikes me as clearly (almost self-evidently) true, but I cannot source it:
::''This reverence has provoked an unforeseen negative reaction in the youth. In the 21st century most people in the English-speaking world encounter Shakespeare at school at a young age, and there is an association by some students of his work with boredom beyond comprehension and of "high art" not easily appreciated by popular culture.''

Does anyone have any thoughts? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 21:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
::I tracked down some solid references for that section and added them in. Do they work for you?--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Excellent. Well {{done}}. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So, if I'm correct, all that's left is the Further Reading ISBNs and the Style section. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 07:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
*Style section now {{done}}
*New influences section {{done}}
*Reputation section {{done}}
*Therefore, are we ready to proceed to a final peer review? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 17:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against it, unless anyone has anything they want to address beforehand. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 17:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
::We're ready for peer review.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Let's go ahead and do it now, so that there is no lull in the process. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 18:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Types of plays ==

There are two different listings of the types of plays written by Shakespeare. In this article it states that he wrote four kinds, History, Comedy, Tragedy and Romance. While in a linked article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare%27s_plays Shakespeare's Plays]in jean It only states the first three listed above. I have always been taught to use the first three and that all his ''Romances'' could fit into the other categories. Still this may just be a matter of opinion so I changed nothing in the articles.
*Yes, you can classify the plays in a billion ways: some people are fond of separating the "romances" from the other comedies, others carve out the "problem plays", or identify some-or-other plays as "tragi-comedies". No-one uses these labels with any consitency. The only proper course for an encyclopedia is to classify according to the First Folio (comedies, tragedies, histories) then to deal with all the other nuances in the article's text. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::I'd also prefer to go with the traditional comedies, tragedies, histories breakdown.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
**I agree with AnyJones - the only proper designation should be the traditional types as set down by the first folio - comedies, tragedies and histories, then explain the more modern designations within the context of the play pages themselves. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 01:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

== Typo ==

I don't seem to be able to edit this page, but can someone fix the typo "contempories"? Cheers.
[[User:Dieseldaddy|Dieseldaddy]] 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. I think it's blocking you because of how new you are. You should be able to edit this page yourself in a few days. Thanks for the help. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

== Signatures ==

Something should be said about the fact that the only documented samples of his handwriting are 6 different "Shakespeare signatures" and none of them spell "Shakespeare" the same way. Especially because there's a picture of one. [[User:Sydneysaurus|Sydneysaurus]] 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

== Timeline ==

I feel like there should be some sort of rough visual timeline of historical events and Shakespeare's events. However, it should be clear that the information isn't known for sure. [[User:Sydneysaurus|Sydneysaurus]] 22:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

== sourcing format ==

"Greenblatt (2004:338) is persuasive that the "equivocator" arriving..." This quote from the religion section isn't following our sourcing method. Can anyone fix this? [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 02:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:I am the guilty editor—fixed. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 05:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

==Oops==
Sorry about that ANdy, I'm tired and I didn't see the ref tags. I'll be watchful next time ;) [[User:Elenseel|Elenseel]] 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
*Don't worry. Thanks for your vigilance. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 08:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

==Question==

First, excuse my ignorance. How are we from crowning this with Featured status? What steps are required?

I should also like to make a suggestion: in the reputation section we should add a reference to Shaw, as evidence of Shakespeare's pre-eminence. His contempt of bardolatry at least shows it to have existed.

By the way, I read Henry VI pt. 3 today, and saw for myself the passage Greene used in his parody. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 11:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the plan was to resolve all the old peer review issues, then resolve whatever else we see might be wrong. Then go for one last peer review and then FA. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 17:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
::[[User:Wrad|Wrad]]'s plan sounds good to me. As for the FA process, we have to nominate it as a [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates|featured article candidates]]. B/c this is such a high-profile article, I'd recommend that several of us both nominate it and follow the article through the FAC process.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 19:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good plan. I'm sure it will get a ''lot'' of thorough reviews. I also plan to leave a short message on the talk page of all project members notifying them of each step's beginning and inviting them to participate. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 19:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

References to Shaw now added. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 08:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Top 50 ==

Just wanted to point out that this article is one of the [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles&limit=500&month=05%2F2007&mode=view top 50] most-viewed articles on wikipedia. Making it an FA is sure going to be great for this encyclopedia. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 02:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
::I totally agree. This is a biggie.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
::::I should add, though, that seeing some of the articles ahead of Shakespeare makes me question the priorities of too many people in the world. [[List of Konoha ninja]]? [[Pokémon Diamond and Pearl]]? Still, at least we're ahead of [[Paris Hilton]] (even if only barely ahead).--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Style and influence ==

I have been troubled by the style section, which seemed to me to be focusing not on Shakespeare's style but on his influence (and since I originally wrote most of that section, any fault there rests with me). To try and fix this, I've separated that section into a style section and an influence section. I've also added more info and references to the section. Please let me know what people think about this.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:For my part, I think the new organization works better. I think perhaps the middle two paragraphs of the "Influence" section might work better as a separate section titled "Dramaturgy" or "Stagecraft," placed between the Style and Influence sections. I had also been thinking about the contents of the style section, and I would like to add some more information, to wit
*his extensive use of couplets during the 1590s (and as late as "All's Well")
*the tendency in his early plays for rhetoric/poetry to overwhelm character and
*his subordination of rhetoric to character in the Jacobean plays
*his attempts to respond to or mimic the satiric drama in the early Jacobean plays
*the highly idiosyncratic verse of the final plays
Ordinarily, of course, I'd be bold and do it without prior approval, but since I'm a latecomer to this I wanted to get some thoughts from those of you who have been working on this page first![[User:Jlittlet|Jlittlet]] 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I'd be okay with having subsections in the influence section (but to do that, the overall section would need to be expanded). Please feel free to add in your other suggestions. Just be sure to add good citations b/c we'll be called on it during the FA process if they are missing. Best,--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 17:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Technical Difficulties Regarding the Influence Section ==

I was looking at this page to do a report, and after a little clicking around I realized that when this article is accessed as a redirection from a search for "Shakespeare", the Influence section is visible, while this entire section is missing when the user searches for
"William Shakespeare". Obviously some kind of simple keyword editing problem, and i'm sure it can be fixed easily.
[[User:Sk8rsam224|Sk8rsam224]] 02:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Sam K (sk8rsam224) June 3 2007 10:05 PM EST

Let me do some experimenting... Hmm. Worked fine for me. Maybe just a temporary glitch in the database. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 02:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


== Started new peer review ==

I've started the new peer review. The link is at the top of this page, or simply go to [[Wikipedia:Peer_review/William_Shakespeare]]. Best,--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

== References ==

Just looking over our references. If we want FA they need to be more consistent. We have some refs that start with titles, and others that start with authors. Also, our web citations should probably all use the web cite template, since they also vary more than an FA should. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
*Fair enough. Are there any policies/guidelines/MoS on which style is better? It's an easy enough job for one of us, if we know what to change. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 13:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
::I've just responded to a new <nowiki> {{fact}} request using the standard {{cite book}}</nowiki> template. I like it because it's easy to deploy and because the output is standardized, but the [[WP:CITET]] page warns that some "editors find them annoying". As only an occasional contributor, I'm not pushing this but deferring to those who have been putting in so much hard work recently. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 15:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

== [[William Shakespeare#Style|Style]] ==

I've temporarily removed ''At the end of each scene in his plays, Shakespeare also uses a couplet, in which there are two rhyming lines of poetry'' from the end of the "[[William Shakespeare#Style|style]]" paragraph. It seemed to sit rather uneasily there, separated as it was from the "rhythm and verse" section. It could probably do with a citation as well. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 17:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

:Hello. Yes, I appreciate your concerns, but my sentence was quite true. If you take out a copy of Romeo and Juliet or perhaps Julius Caesar, you would see that at the end of each scene, there is a couplet! I remember my English teacher telling us about this in a lecture before; this is a characteristic of a Shakespearean tragedy. Now, for comedies, I really don't know; I haven't read any. You also said that you need a "citation". Now I really can't say anything about plays but [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=couplet+shakespeare Google search for "couplet shakespeare"] mentions plenty of sonnets. Does this help you?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

::I did a search, and found a good site [http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dschwart/engl339/verseprose.html here], but it is careful to say that couplets only occur at the in ''some'' of the speeches and scenes. I don't know if this is notable enough... [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

:::What exactly do you mean by "notable"? Is there a particular definition of "notable" to follow here?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 18:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Fixed. Thanks, [[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]], for your understanding response, here and on my talk page. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 18:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it happened in every scene, maybe. Some scenes just isn't notable enough. I'm sure Shakespeare did almost everything in some of his scenes. If there was a source that said "all", that would be notable, if not for this article, then for the [[Shakespeare's plays]] article. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 18:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonraker. "Many" is fine. Basically it just boils down to the fact that you have to have a source. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

== Unsourced Shakespeare ==

This is a list of unsourced comments in this article. Some are true and just require sourcing just for form's sake, and many could in my view happily remain unsourced: others strike me as contentious, possible OR, or unencylopedically worded:
*He is one of the few playwrights considered to have excelled in both tragedy and comedy
*his plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation, and poetic grandeur with philosophical depth.
**Since this is in the lead, and seems to be a summarizing statement, it probably doesn't need a source. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
*many of his quotations and neologisms have passed into everyday usage in English and other languages.
**Same as above, sourced later in article. Lead statements don't necessarily need sources. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
*was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in April 1564,
**This is sourced later on in the same paragraph, and is kind of broadly known, anyway. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
*the son of John Shakespeare, a successful glover and alderman from Snitterfield, and Mary Arden, a daughter of the gentry. *His birth is assumed to have occurred at the family house on Henley Street.
**All but the Henley Street thing is sourced later in the same paragraph. I think we should cut the Henley street, personally. I just read a source saying this is contested and no one really knows. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
*The record of Shakespeare's christening is dated 26 April of that year.
**cited earlier in the paragraph. I fixed these, but now i think it might be over-referenced. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
*At the age of eighteen, he married Anne Hathaway, aged twenty-six, on 28 November 1582.
*One document identified her as being "of Temple Grafton," near Stratford, and the marriage may have taken place there.
*Two neighbours of Hathaway posted bond that there were no impediments to the marriage.
*There appears to have been some haste in arranging the ceremony, presumably because Anne was three months pregnant.
*On 26 May 1583, Shakespeare's first child, Susanna, was baptised at Stratford.
*Twin children, a son, Hamnet, and a daughter, Judith, were baptised on 2 February 1585.
*Hamnet died aged 11 in the Black Plague in 1596; his date of death is not known, but he was buried on 11 August.
**You're right about these. Everything from here to my last comment needs a source. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
*By late 1594 Shakespeare was an actor, writer and part-owner of a playing company known as the Lord Chamberlain's Men

Removing most items from this list. Problem mostly dealt with. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]]

*In addition, Shakespeare wrote the short poem The Phoenix and the Turtle. The anthology The Passionate Pilgrim was attributed to him upon its first publication in 1599, but in fact only five of its poems are by Shakespeare and the attribution was withdrawn in the second edition.
*{{unsigned|AndyJones}}

:Andy: I should point out that, per [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." While a number of the items you listed do indeed need citations, we shouldn't feel the need to cite statements like "The record of Shakespeare's christening is dated 26 April of that year" which are unlikely to be challenged. Doing so can quickly fill up an article with cite references, which can make an article difficult to read. Best, --[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 18:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Andy (I'm assuming this is your list after looking at the history). Could you put a citation needed template by all of these? It would help me. Many of them may appear not to be cited, but are covered under later citations. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 18:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the list is so huge, I'm going to address them one by one. within your text. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, read my comment for individual exceptions. Other than that, I have put citation needed tags on all remaining sources listed (and a few more). I think we can assume that when they are all gone then the issues brought up above have been resolved. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

*Yes, sorry all, I had to leave Wikipedia for a real-life reason before I'd really finished what I was doing on the above so I just pressed "save". Once I've finished this list I also promise to start going through with strikeout tags, or maybe with {done} and {notdone} tags. My thinking, of course, is to ensure that we don't go into the FA process with any statements on the page which are unsourced when they need sourcing, and that we remove any OR. I note Alabamaboy's point and of course I agree with you up to a point, although there's still the question of where we actually draw the line. Wrad, your comments are really useful. Also, I have a copy of Schoenbaum on my desk at home, so I can probably source any unsourced biographical stuff, this evening. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

== British vs. American Spelling ==

This article isn't consistent when it comes to British vs. American spelling. In some places it uses, British ("characterisation", "baptised") and others it uses American ("popularized" and "capitalized"). Since the Bard is British. I'm leaning that way, but it doesn't really matter, just as long as it is consistent. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 01:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I really dont care - it's just that Wiki redirects to the American spelling. I thought - shouldn't we be consistant with Wikipedia? But I certainly won't make an issue of this if you want it Brit. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia doesn't care as long as it's consistent. Let me see if I can find the policy on it... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English Here it is] After looking at it again, I guess it should be British... Yes. I'm going to move per the MOS guideline that the spelling standard be British for this article, on the basis that the Bard is a Brit. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 02:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes - that looks to be correct - YIKES! That means all 5000 articles related to Shakespeare need a british spell check![[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 02:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

:Tough call, but necessary imho. If we can't insist on using British spelling for Shakespeare - of all people - we may as well abandon it altogether. But are there really 5,000 articles related to Shakespeare? -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

::I don't think this is the huge problem you're worrying about. Most Shakespeare-related articles are already British spelling, and I correct Americanisms whenever I notice them creeping in. Yes, policy is that this article, being about a British subject, should be in British English, and I think we someone should go through and make it consistent, in view of the fact that we're about to apply for FA status. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually - I don't hink it's a huge problem - just a dauting task. Thankfully, we can rely on the Brits to watch for these spelling variations.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 13:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Question: In British English, do quotes come after or before punctuation? I think I remember reading that this is different from American English. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

:This is a matter of WP policy, not national differences. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

== reference 109 ==

I think I might have messed it up. Can someone please fix it?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 16:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Done.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 17:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference 97 doesn't work now.--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 18:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

== We've lost our "A" class at the biography wikiproject ==

We've just failed a review at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/William Shakespeare]]. Apparently two editors a few weeks apart makes a consensus, there. Actually my worry about that type of thing was one of the reasons I tried to avoid putting any {fact} tags on the article itself yesterday. I'll start citing some of the biography today, though. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
::I disagree with that review. Also, the superlatives (greatest, preeminent, excelled, poetic grandeur) the reviewer says lack citations actually have cites. I wouldn't worry about this. Let's finish bringing this to FA status. Then we don't have to worry about the opinions of two revieweres in WikiProject Biography. BTW, it would have been nice to have known this was up for review. Ah well. --[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 17:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Andy: I guess this review shows that we need to provide a citation for everything in this article.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 17:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Do we really have to cite everything? The page [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] says that it's just a guideline.--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::I hate to say it, but yes. There's too many people like those two Bio reviewers who will scream unless every sentence in this article has a citation. Might as well do it. What gets me about that review is it shows a lack of knowledge about the general critical consensus on Shakespeare. I agree that it would be POV to call a writer "the greatest" UNLESS that is the general critical consensus. In that case, it's POV to not call the writer that. Argh!--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Hmmm...you sound mad. Can you calm down a bit? I'll help cite some sources, if you'd like.--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 17:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Oh yeah, and BTW, I know a little Spanish, so I can get some info from the Spanish version. I really can't translate, though.--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 17:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I'm pretty good at spanish too if you need any help. [[User:Sydneysaurus|Sydneysaurus]] 14:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

== Influence section ==

I really like the information on Theatre in Shakespeare's time that was added to the influence section, but in that info was discussing the evolution of Shakespeare's writing over time, not his influence on later theater and literature. AS such, I've moved that info to [[Shakespeare's plays]]. I hated to do this, but the main article is already extremely long. In a similar manner, perhaps we should cut back the sexuality and religion sections of the article.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 18:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
::I've now placed most of the religion section in its own article. The removing of this info to their own articles has shaved nearly 20 kbs off the article. It's now 58 kb long (which is probably okay).--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 18:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Good idea. Smatprt and myself both proposed that at the peer review. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

== Remove Bibliography ==

I'm about to remove the Bibliography section completely. It has potential to be criticized as a list, and all of the works in it are in the template at the bottom. Any objections? [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

:I don't really know. What's wrong with having a list of all of Shakespeare's works? Surely these are essential to his life!--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 18:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

::I disagree too. LISTS ARE BAD is not a wikipedia policy, and I'd strongly object to any knee-jerk responses to the biography project's comments. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Maybe it was a knee-jerk. But I would like to improve it. I'd like to take everything after "Apocrypha" out and move it to another section. As it is now, the section doesn't represent Shakespeare's Bibliography. I think we need to separate his works from adaptations of his works. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I recently edited in the following text to the bibliography section: "Shakespeare's plays are traditionally organised into three genres: Tragedies, Comedies, and Histories. However, this method was not the conventional grouping at the time. When Shakespeare was alive, plays were usually organized chronologically. The organization chosen for Shakespeare's plays, which is featured in the title ''Mr. William Shakespeares [sic] Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies'' (otherwise known as the [[First Folio]]), enables readers to read the plays in light of the genre, appreciating resemblances within each group as well as the individual distinctions." This information is supported by the current citation given in the bibliography section. Can I add it in?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

*No, please don't. My edit summary when I removed it was "Is this bit new? Sorry, I can't make sense of it. There were NO collections of Shakespeare's works before the Folio so suggesting that they were usually organised any way is wrong." and I'm afraid I stand by that. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

**I don't really know if I'm interpreting your edit summary or your comment here correctly, but that's not what the source says; in fact, I think you probably misinterpreted the information. The source points out that the works of other writers, not Shakespeare, are arranged in chronological order. This type of organization was the precedent in the time of Shakespeare. However, as the citation also points out, the organization of Shakespeare's works holds an exception. In "Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies," otherwise known as the "First Folio," all of his works are organized into 3 genres: Tragedy, Comedy and History. This "invites readers of Shakespeare's plays to read in the light of genre, apprehending family resemblances within each group as well as individual distinctions." ''Source: http://www.fathom.com/course/21701729/session1.html ''--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 21:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave the bibliography section. It's short and concise and the article wouldn't be complete without it.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 00:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:If I may make a suggestion for an alternative... I've been recommending navigation boxes / author templates to do away with list-like bibliography. It cleans up the article and can look quite attractive. Take a look at examples like [[Template:Charles Dickens]], [[Template:Nathaniel Hawthorne]], and [[Template:Edgar Allan Poe]]. There's plenty more varieties out there too. -[[User:Midnightdreary|Midnightdreary]] 14:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::Ahem... it occurs to me that this page already has a template as I suggested. So, why is there a huge bibliography already taking up so much space if his complete works are already listed in a nice, clean box? (it's a great template, by the way) -[[User:Midnightdreary|Midnightdreary]] 14:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::::The box at the bottom is a wonderful thing. But that doesn't take the place of a bibliography. Can you please provide me a link to where on Wikipedia it was decided that bibliography lists are considered "unencyclopedic" and why the same list within a template is considered ok? I agree that endless lists are worthless but in this case, the bibliography is concise and packed with info that the template lacks.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::BTW, if the template replaces the bibliography then the template will need to be revised, namely the removal of the "See also:" section, which are not works by Shakespeare. But that's only if the template were to replace the bibliography, which I believe should not happen. The reason I asked my previous questions is I'm not aware that lists like bibliographies are now considered unencyclopedic and to me the guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Embedded list]] and [[Wikipedia:List guideline]] allow these types of lists within an article. But if you can show me a guideline which replaces these...--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Final comment: The main guideline on all of this is [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)]]. There is a discussion to reword this guideline (see the [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28lists_of_works%29#Final_proposal.3F|guideline's talk page]]), but even here the use of templates to replace bibliographies is not being discussed. Instead, the discussion to to spin a bibliography off into its own article when the bibliography takes up more than a third of the article (which isn't the case here). --[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::Right. The people there who tend to disagree a good deal did agree that lists of works were worth having, though there can be a great deal of difference in how they are arranged . For this one, the works are so well known that they do fit into a section. A template is a supplement--it has a use, and the use is to arrange the WP articles and let people see what there is--it's a '''navigation''' template. Even where all the works have articles, & thus would fit, as they do here, a template only really makes sense when work on a more finely crafted list is not appropriate or practical. That is not the least true here, of all possible places in WP. We might additionally try a page with the works arranged both by genre and chronologically and by inclusion in the various major editions. This above all other articles in WP would be the place for one. There's a manageable number, several worthwhile ways to list them, and of course an immense amount of reader interest. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I'd be for having a separate [[List of works by William Shakespeare]] that is exhaustive and has details such as first published, first appeared in which theatre, dates, afterwards get into the Folios. It should give you a sense of when Shakespeare's works appeared in the world, and how they appeared subsequently in the struggle to keep them circulating. A separate [[List of works by William Shakespeare]] would not have to be compacted and compressed and could lend some context to how his works were published. This would be a supplement to this main article.-[[User:BillDeanCarter|BillDeanCarter]] 09:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::::We do have an article [[Chronology of Shakespeare plays]]. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

== birth and death unknown ==

The date of birth and date of death are both unknown. Read this:[http://www.william-shakespeare.org.uk/facts-about-william-shakespeare.htm] What should we do?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 19:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
*We should ignore it. His date of death is on his monument, it's good enough evidence for anybody. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

== Editing Moratorium ==

I'm a bit worried that this page is changing extremely fast, while the peer review is going on. Could I ask if other members of the wikiproject agree that it might be wise to keep the article relatively stable for a couple of days: just let the peer review guys review us warts-and-all and then we can see what we're left with? I'm all in favour of keeping the momentum going, but I'm quite worried about knee-jerk responses, too. And I'd like to feel that all the peer reviewers were reviewing essentially the same page. <small>(Feel free to shoot me down on this one!)</small> [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
:Good idea. I'm a fairly new editor here, although I've learned the ropes very quickly already. I would wait to see what the peer review says, so that I can kinda learn how to write articles here. :) [[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
::Romeo, you're doing great! I think he's saying to just look over the peer review carefully before editing, keeping in mind that not all suggestions by reviewers are right. But, if you agree with something a reviewer says, don't hesitate to fix it.

::Also, Andy, I think you've got a point. I have also noticed, though, that many of our editors are fixing things pointed out by reviewers, whether they know it or not. This certainly isn't bad, except for the fact that changes should be recorded on the peer review so that reviewers can keep up. I think I've brought things up to par for now, roughly. I say, keep editing, just keep the peer review in mind when you do it. Don't let one get ahead of the other. Is this what you meant, Andy? [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 20:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

:::You see, that's the thing. Where can I find the peer review?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 21:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

::Click on "a request has been made" in the box at the top of the page. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest we focus on adding all the missing citations. That's the biggest hurdle left. Then make any changes needed from the peer review.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 00:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:The way I see it, aren't we working backwards? When we find a statement that could be controversial, shouldn't we look for the guy that added it so that we can ask him for the source that he used? The way I see it, we're really just citing information with sources that have the information, but it's not necessarily the place where the editor got the information.--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::YES!! And that's an important object lesson for new wikipedians: '''cite your sources at the time you put information in'''. There are a few fairly new wikipedians I have encouraged to do precisely that, and this is the reason why. There is NO CHANCE, now, of us working out who wrote which bit of this page, and even if we worked it out, no chance of us contacting all of them and of them remembering which sources they used and contacting us back to tell us what they were. So we have to go back and do the work again. For example, consider [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Shakespeare&oldid=135129156#Reputation this section] about Shakespeare's reputation. Is there anything wrong with it? No. Is it factually accurate? Yes. Is it written in clear intelligent prose? Yes. Is it relevant and encyclopedic? Yes. Is it thoroughly sourced? NO! So before we could apply to promote the article to featured article status, we had to replace it with something we actually ''could'' source. We had no idea what the original sources were so some poor sap had to rewite from scratch: all the previous good work was lost, and the new version, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Shakespeare&oldid=136545305#Reputation which is here] is not necessarily better, clearer, more encyclopedic or in more compelling prose. It just has the advantage of having lots of annoying little footnote tags all the way through it. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:::'''Annoying little footnote tags''': I was just skimming the article for outstanding <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> tags I could pick off when the moratorium ends, when I had just that thought. Is it possible that we are now going too far with this, perhaps giving too much weight to the views of "those two Bio reviewers who will scream unless every sentence in this article has a citation" (above—"[[Talk:William Shakespeare#We've lost our "A" class at the biography wikiproject|We've lost our A Class]]")? Could we tidy them slightly and still meet the [[WP:CITE]] guideline? --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 09:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm sure it would be possible: but I don't think there's a right or a wrong answer to the "how many footnotes?" question. And yes, I do think there's a serious chance that we could give too much credence to a couple of bio-project reviewers who none of us ''really'' seem to agree with, very much. My feeling: the page is pretty damn good - I don't want to mess with it more than the peer review indicates we need to in order to get our FA status. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedians should cite their work as they edit. Unfortunately, this article has had so many edits over such a long period of time that it'd be hard to track every unsourced edit down to its original editor. Probably easier to find a citation to either support the statements in the article or change the statements.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 13:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

== Stanzas ==

Article says:

::''This pattern changed in Shakespeare's later plays, where he began to use a flowing form of blank verse (where the lines don't rhyme and are not grouped in stanzas).

Are we to understand that his early plays had the lines written in stanzas? And if so is that correct and I've been missing something for all this time? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:All of his plays were written chiefly in blank verse. The statement is incorrect. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 07:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:The later plays certainly have a more "flowing", conversational verse, but that's just a sign of increasing skill and facility. It's an ongoing process throghout his career, not a break. Obviously "the lines don't rhyme", otherwise it wouldn't be blank verse! [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 22:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

== [[soliloquies]] ==

I've moved the following recent addition here, from the article:

::''<nowiki>His plays are also notable for their use of [[soliloquies]], in which a character makes a speech to him- or herself so the audience can understand the character's inner motivations and conflict.<ref>''Shakespeare's Soliloquies'' by Wolfgang H. Clemen, translated by Charity S. Stokes, Routledge, 1987, page 11.</ref> Among his most famous soliloquies are [[To be, or not to be]], [[All the world's a stage]], and [[What a piece of work is a man]]. In his book ''Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies'', James Hirsh defines the convention of a Shakespearean soliloquy in early modern drama. He argues that when a person on the stage speaks to himself or herself, they are characters in a fiction speaking in character; this is an occasion of self-address. Furthermore, Hirsh points out that Shakspearean soliloquies and "asides" are audible in the fiction of the play, bound to be overheard by any other character in the scene unless certain elements confirm that the speech is protected. Ergo, a Renaissance playgoer who was familiar with this dramatic convention would have been alert to [[Prince Hamlet|Hamlet]]'s expectation that his soliloquy be overheard by the other characters in the scene. Moreover, Hirsh asserts that in soliloquies in other Shakespearean plays, the speaker in entirely in character within the play's fiction. Saying that addressing the audience was outmoded by the time Shakespeare was alive, he "acknowledges few occasions when a Shakespearean speech might involve the audience in recognizing the simultaneous reality of the stage and the world the stage is representing." Other than 29 speeches delivered by choruses or characters who revert to that condition as epilogues "Hirsh recognizes only three instances of audience address in Shakespeare's plays, 'all in very early comedies, in which audience address is introduced specifically to ridicule the practice as antiquated and amateurish.'"<ref>{{cite journal |last=Maurer |first=Margaret |year=2005 |month= |title= Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies|journal=Shakespeare Quarterly |volume=56 |issue=4 |pages=504 |accessdate=2007-06-06 }}</ref></nowiki>

I think this is good stuff and I want to find a home for it somewhere: just at this moment I want to avoid any lengthy additions to the page for two reasons: firstly we already have worries about its length. Secondly anything added now needs really urgent attention/fact checking/clean-up/whatever and I'd prefer that we proceed without that pressure. Does anyone have a view on the right home for this material? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:I think it should go in the main [[Shakespeare's plays]] article. I've now moved the info there (aside from a short bit in this article, which I stuck back in the style section). I agree with Andy that we need to not expand this article too much more--that's what the subarticles are for. In addition, this article should give an overview of Shakespeare and his works. The subarticles are for extended and detailed info like this. Best, --[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 13:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::That's fine. I just thought about adding it in here because the peer reviewers said to do so. Can we at least add a few sentences about the point I was trying to make? You see, when a speaker says a Shakespearean soliloquy, the audience would naturally assume that he or she is speaking to them. However, the source that I quote here says that that is not the case, and the character stays very much in the fictional world. A short mention in this article would at least convey that message.

:::Yes, please add a sentence or two about the point you were making. If you can include the citation with that, we'd be good to go. Best, --[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::::I've added it back in, with a major cut on the information that I was trying to point out. How does it look?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::I think the trouble with this is that your man is expressing his opinion on this point, and his POV is unlikely to be shared by many actors. If you're performing, say, "I do much wonder that one man..." (from Much Ado) or any soliloquy by a villain (Iago, Richard III) probably the best way to play it is to talk directly to the audience. Watch Antony Sher do Leontes for an example of this at its most effective. I've amended the sentence (mostly by shortening it) so that I think it's less contentious but still supported by your source. Does that work for everyone? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::Thanks. Your edit makes much more sense now.--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 14:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

*Yes, it's much better - although the phrase "solo speeches" is a bit rough. Perhaps use "solitary"? In any case, it really depends on the intrepretation of the director first, and then the actor. In Timon, for example, Apemantus can be played directly to the audience, much like a narrator, or can be directed to be spoken soothsayer like, at the other characters; or he can be directed to play the speeches to himself as a rambling malcontent. In a nutshell, the actors work within whatever presentations style the director chooses. It would be nice to add something in to that effect.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

== iambic pentameter and blank verse ==

In the case of Shakespeare, isn't iambic pentameter a form of blank verse? If so, then should we clarify that? If not, then should we make the distinction between the two?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 16:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
*Yes: it's wrong and needs fixing. The same point is made in the conversation [[#Stanzas]], above. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 17:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
**Maybe we can separate the point about couplets into a different paragraph so that we can explain iambic pentameter even better.--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 17:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
::::My apologies for messing that up. I didn't mean to imply that iambic pentameter wasn't a form of blank verse. The new version fixes that perfectly.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 22:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

== ProQuest ==

What is ProQuest? Is it a reliable source? If yes how do I (well, any reader) access it? I see it's cited as a source on this page. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:ProQuest is a subscription database that has access to the following:
:*ProQuest History Study Center - (study units, historical documents, maps, multimedia, and journals covering 14 centuries of history)
:*ProQuest Learning: Literature - (author bios, criticism, reference works, multimedia, and full-text literary works)
:*ProQuest Historical Newspapers - (basically has a picture of older newspapers)
:*ProQuest Online and ProQuest Platinum - (a collection of every major newspaper, journal, magazine, etc.)
:Most of the content available in these 5 databases are not published by ProQuest themselves; it's mostly a collection of various journals, magazines, periodicals, reference works, and other publications. If ProQuest is the publisher, however, then I can tell you that it indeed is a reliable source. You, or your library, needs a subscription to these databases.--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 14:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::If Proquest is a sub database, then you should list the actual journal or magazine as the publisher and at the end of the cite say "accessed through ProQuest on June 5, 2007" (or something like that.)--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::But the content that I added in was published by ProQuest themselves. The citations you refer to are correct, although there are some citations that I now have to fix myself.--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 15:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::Well done with the changes to these citations. They look good to me, now. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
*I thought cites to subscription websites were discouraged - especially when there are other print sources available. Yes? No?[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 22:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
**The database that I used is a collection of major publications. So...let's say I used ProQuest Platinum to get an article on the New York Times about President Bush's visit to Europe. Are there other ways to access this article with the exact same text? Of course! You can buy a copy of the NYT itself, or you can go to it's website and read the article. Also, you can access the information via other subscription databases! In the end, the information found on ProQuest can be found elsewhere; I just chose to use this method.--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 15:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::But in the ref, you are supposed to give the details of the original source within the frame of the intermediate source. [[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 16:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Which I did, although I only partially understood what you just said. :( Anyway, take a look at this reference that I put in: "Maurer, Margaret (2005). "Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies". Shakespeare Quarterly 56 (4): 504. Retrieved on 2007-06-06. Accessed through Proquest on June 6, 2007." That is what your looking for, right?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 16:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Somewhat, but with details of and link to Proquest: the reader would need to know what to type into the Proquest searchbox, because it seems to me that a Proquest link wouldn't bring up the article (or can you make it do that?). And no point having an access date if there's no link. What about this one? "2005, Elizabethan Period (1558–1603), from ProQuest Period Pages, ProQuest".This gives far too little information to the reader, and I got nowhere typing "Elizabethan Period (1558–1603)" into the Proquest search box. My experience of article sites is that even if they are subscription only, the page that comes up gives the reference details for the article: after all, they are trying to tempt you to subscribe to read it; even that much information helps any reader checking a Wikipedia reference.

::::::::By the way, what I meant by my terminology is that your actual framing reference—in other words to the place you accessed this info—is intermediate because it comes between the reader and the original article. I would have used the word "covenience" rather than "intermediate" had I not found Proquest so inconvenient a link. It is the containing or framing reference because that is where you got the information: the question then is, how reliable or admissable is the website (I've no idea in this case)? Here's an essay which discusses convenience links: [[Wikipedia:Convenience links]], if you haven't seen it. [[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::I think Romeo is the only one of us who can fix this. I'll come back in a day or so and re-source these bits if it's still a problem. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 08:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::I added direct links to the information, but the only way to access it is via subscription. There are no free trials; the only way to get a trial is if you actually sign up for it. =D [[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 15:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::I'm sorry to be tedious about this, Romeo, but even though I have no doubt that the information is there, the new edits don't solve the problem. We were coming close with the "Margaret Maurer" ref, which might indicate where the information could also be checked ''away from'' ProQuest, though the ProQuest information given was insufficient. I feel that the information needs to be re-sourced. In the case of the passage at the beginning of the style section, I have suggested that it should be deleted as both too vague and irrelevant to style (see Peer Review). Romeo, I suggest you go to the talk page of [[Wikipedia: Citing Sources]] or [[Wikipedia: Reliable Sources]] and ask there if ProQuest is a valid source (I've no idea) and, if it is, how best to word and format references to the articles on it. Some smart people post on those pages and their advice will be useful. [[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::I sent a message to the editors over there, as you requested. I found a partial copy of the article [http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/shakespeare_quarterly/v056/56.4maurer.html here], but it's not all of the information that I used. Now I did notice that some people here use what you call "sandboxes." Would it be possible for me to copy the text from ProQuest to a sandbox so that you can view the full text?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I've had a look at the statements with ProQuest cites, and I think I can probably cite them all quite easily from print sources from my study at home. I think that might be an easier solution than trying to solve the "ProQuest problem". I've got a writing deadline in the real world this week, but I'll see what I can do. I definitely don't think copying to a sandbox is a solution: it may even be illegal as a copyvio. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That might work; but I'd really like to keep the information that I added about soliloquies in. Personally, I think that it's a good analysis on Shakespeare's use of them. You can, however, use alternative sources for the information on sonnets and the Elizabethan period.--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 16:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I have viewed the articled published by Maurer several times through FirstSearch, ProQuest, and eLibrary Research databases. Because the [http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/shakespeare_quarterly/toc/shq56.4.html direct link] to the article is only a partial copy, I can only conclude that the article is not available in the Free Web. However, since many academic institutions, such as a high school, college, or university, have access to various databases that most likely contain Maurer's article, I feel that the material cited via intermediate sources is reliable.--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 17:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Yes, I think the Maurer source is fine, since we have the print citation followed by "accessed through" and the name of the website. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 18:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Ok, that's good. Unfortunately, I can't find any content regarding the Elizabethan Period and Sonnets. The sonnet information can probably be found anywhere; I just don't know where to find it. The Elizabethan Period information could be removed, as suggested by [[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]]--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 18:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

*I have just given essentially the same information in a long response on Wikipedia Talk:Citing sources. (Only difference is that I do not consider all the magazines they index as necessarily reliable)'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

== Citations complete! ==

The last citation tag has been eliminated! We may want to go through and re-check everything to make sure we didn't miss a spot. After that we should get started standardizing the citation format. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
*Agreed. I think the moratorium I asked for should be considered over, too. I think the only suggestion I have at this point is that we should dicourage any NEW material on the page: especially if lengthy. The focus now should be on cleanup. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
**<ahem!> There's another one on the section called "Influence on theatre, literature, and language" :D --[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 15:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
***I placed that one. Just now replaced it with a ref. Any other spots we missed? [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing not. So, what format should we use? [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 04:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
*Over at the [[WP:HD|help desk]], when asked this question they refer people here: [[Wikipedia:Citation templates]]. It looks very confusing to me, but perhaps that's the first place to look. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
**I've started using the cite book template for books. Also, if a book is cited several times, I use the template the first time, and the rest of the time I list only the author's last name and the page number. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 15:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
***I just went through and fixed several citations, but there is still a lot left to do, for example, I don't see how the template cites essays within books. Journal citations seem to be pretty standard already, so no work needs to be done there. Websites need to all be under the web cite template. There are also some odd ones that I'll point out once the easy but tedious work is done. One thing which I think would be classy would be to separate footnotes from citations, as in the [[IPA]] article. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 18:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
****I went ahead and created a separate notes section. As I was fixing citations, I noticed this would make things clearer and would make citations easier to fix. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 19:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
*****This "new" section now needs a few citations. I added the appropriate tags. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations needing help (as of this version of the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Shakespeare&oldid=138227519]:

*13 work within a work, can't figure out how or if the template can handle these...
*15 should be divided in two
*54 looks odd
*59 ?
*64 needs book template
*68 Proquest, ongoing discussion
*70 work within a work...
*78 same
*81 needs template
*87 seems odd and the link is dead
*96 work within a work
*101, 105, 106, 109, 116 same as above
*118 doesn't look complete
*119-121 work within a work
*146 seems odd
*149 seems incomplete
*152-154 "third series"? work within a work?

Some of these may be fine, some obviously need help. I just post them here so we can decide better what to do. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 00:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

**Suggest that for "work within a work" you (or me, or someone) just looks at how {citebook} renders on the screen, then just reproduces that same look, plus the additional info, within {ref} tags. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
**I don't understand why "third series" is a problem??? If in doubt, you can't go wrong slapping it after "The Arden Shakespeare", as in "The Arden Shakespeare (third series) Macbeth" or whatever. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
***Alright, that's a good way to fix works within works. I just didn't know what "third series" meant. Didn't know what to do with it. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 20:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
****Had a go at some of the "work within a work" ones. How do they look? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 10:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
*****I love it. Looks good. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 12:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose we put the rest of these on the back burner until the main issues being discussed lower on the page are solved. If anyone wants to fix these now, though, they are perfectly welcome. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

==Peacock==

I have a problem with the sentence "His plays combine popular appeal and poetic grandeur[13]with complex characterisation and philosophical depth." which does seem to be a piece of (almost) unsourced [[WP:PEACOCK|peacock]]ery in the intro, of the kind which any non-Shakespeare-enthusiasts at Featured Article Candidates will criticise us for. The source is to an essay by A.C.Bradley (who was long dead by 1998 so the citation is not good) and its place mid-sentence suggests to me Bradley probably only said "poetic grandeur" and no other part of the sentence. I propose that we remove this sentence completely. However I'm open to suggestions for replacements. Someone somewhere has surely written an overview of Shakespeare's literary reputation & style from which we can source a replacement sentence. Otherwise, I don't think the intro would be bad, without it. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 13:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

:Out with it! [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 18:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

== "Fork" articles? ==

I noticed that we have several articles that have the word "Shakespeare" in them, what I like to call "fork articles" (honestly, I have no idea what they're really called). What I'm referring to are the ones about his sexuality, religion, authorship question, reputation, plays, etc. etc. Is there a way in which we can put all of these fork articles together? Perhaps in those little boxes you have at the end?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 15:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, all of those should be added to the Shakespeare template. I'll do this in a moment.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I've developed a template for Shakespeare's relatives at {{tl|Relatebard}} (as you can see, the last two links need an article). Maybe this information would be good in a "Biography of Shakespeare" template, however. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:There's always the Family Tree template:
{{familytree/start}}
{{familytree | | | | | | RS | | | | | | | |RS=[[Richard Shakespeare|Richard<br>Shakespeare]]}}
{{familytree | | | | | | |!| | | | | || | }}
{{familytree | | | | | | JOHN |-|v|-| MA | | | |JOHN=[[John Shakespeare|John<br>Shakespeare]]|MA=[[Mary Arden|Mary<br>Arden]]}}
{{familytree | | | | | | | |,|-|^|-|-|-|-|-|.|}}
{{familytree | | | | | | | WS |v| AH | |JOAN|-|WH|WS=[[William Shakespeare|William<br>Shakespeare]]|AH=[[Anne Hathaway|Anne<br>Hathaway]]|JOAN=[[Joan Hart|Joan<br>Shakespeare]]|WH=[[WIlliam Hart|William<br>Hart]]}}
{{familytree | | | | | |,|-|-|-|+|-|-|-|.| | |}}
{{familytree |JH|-| SS | | HS | | JS |-|TQ| | | JH=[[John Hall (1575-1635)|John<br>Hall]]|SS=[[Susanna Hall|Susanna<br>Shakespeare]]|HS=[[Hamnet Shakespeare|Hamnet<br>Shakespeare]]|JS=[[Judith Quiney|Judith<br>Shakespeare]]|TQ=[[Thomas Quiney|Thomas<br>Quiney]]}}
{{familytree/end}}
- <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 05:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

*Yes, that's very impressive. However can this discussion be dealt with at [[Shakespeare's Life]]? This article is big enough as it is, and I consider this a very bad time to start expanding it.[[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
*Sorry, toning down what I just said a little, I would approve of adding Wrad's template to this page. Also I'm in the RED LINKS ARE GOOD camp, so I'm not too worried by the lack of articles on a couple of the relatives. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::I love the diagram but don't think it should go in this article. Let's put it in [[Shakespeare's Life]]. --[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::Agree with 'bamaboy. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:::By the by, here's a good link for Shakespeare's line: http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/timeline/genealogy.htm. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 02:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

==Sentences==

This sentence seems detached from the rest of the paragraph:

''Shakespeare's writing displays a persistent engagement not only with the technical requirements of theater[38] but also with theater as a shaping concept in human life.''

Ditto:

''There is a tradition that Shakespeare also continued to act in various parts of his plays, such as the ghost of Hamlet's father, Adam in As You Like It, and the Chorus in Henry V. These traditions, however, have little scholarly basis.''

The paragraphs need to be rearranged for coherence, or perhaps rewritten. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 07:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

*The first of those seems unnecessary and convoluted to me. By all means remove or rewrite, as you see fit. I think the second, though, is valid and interesting - the enduring myths about Shakespeare need a mention, I think, provided we make clear that they are popular myths not historical fact. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the Speculations section is overlong. Can't we reduce it to one or two paragraphs and provide links to sub-articles? We shouldn't give as much emphasis to speculative issues as to the rest of the biography. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 08:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

*Contrary to some comments at the Peer Review, I think it's important that we have this section. However I strongly agree that all three parts could adequately be reduced to a paragraph or two. The second paragraph of authorship could be moved to style or removed, the first paragraph on religion could be dealt with just by wikilinking "recusancy" in the second paragraph (general background not being needed when it's just a click away), and the third paragaph could go: being in my view too detailed for an overview, while not giving enough detail for the reader to make an informed judgement on the subject. Sexuality could easily reduce to one paragraph on his attitude to Anne and possible unfaithfulness, and another paragraph on his alleged homosexuality. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
*Also, just to be clear, I think all of this is excellent material: I think it should be on Wikipedia, just on the sub-pages rather than in this summary section. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
::I also think it is vital that we have this speculations section. I'd also hate to see any of this section merged into other places b/c these are speculations--having them elsewhere may give them more weight than they deserve. We've already cut back the religion and authorship subsections; if we cut back the religion part too, then the section should be not overly long.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 18:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
::::I've now cut back the sexuality part. This speculation section is now only a third what it used to me. I think that's a decent size.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::The section still reads pretty terribly though. The first sentence in particular is unintentionally humorous: "As with many aspects of Shakespeare's life, there is little direct evidence with regards to Shakespeare's sexuality aside from the fact that he was married to Anne Hathaway and fathered three children." Well, there sure isn't much evidence for Bush being US President other than that he shows up for work in the West Wing every day. I'd just edit most of it out but I'd rather not get into whatever debates you've had going on back here. [[User:Rolken|Rolken]] 09:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::{{done}} [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

== See also ==

I changed a lot in the see also section. A lot of the link were duplicates of the template at the bottom of the page. I didn't see any reason for two links so I deleted those. I also added the relatives template. Right now the section is pretty skimpy, but whatever is added should have a good reason to be. Anyway, it's a work in progress, so please comment. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

==Collaborations==
The plays marked as collaborations don't jive with the list of collaborations at [[Shakespeare's plays]]. These are missing from the WS list: (FYI - I'm showing excerpts from the other page - not my particular POV.)

''Cardenio'', a lost play; contemporary reports say that Shakespeare collaborated on it with John Fletcher.

{{done}} [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

''Macbeth'': Thomas Middleton may have revised this tragedy in 1615 to incorporate extra musical sequences.

{{done}}[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 06:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

''Measure for Measure'' may have undergone a light revision by Thomas Middleton at some point after its original composition.

''Timon of Athens'' may result from collaboration between Shakespeare and Thomas Middleton; this might explain its incoherent plot and unusually cynical tone.

{{done}} [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

''Titus Andronicus'' may be a collaboration with, or revision by George Peele.

{{done}} [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Should these be added to the WS page for consistancy?[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 18:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

:I don't see why not, with one reservation: Do they have reliable sources? [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 20:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not on the Shakespeare's plays page, but they do appear on the play articles themselves...so the answer would be yes[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 21:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
:Then I'd say stick them in with the sources. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
::I agree. To the extent that you can reliably source these, add them in. Use the same method I did (as amended by Wrad in moving to Notes) & it'll be fine. I'll have a go at this in the next few days if no-one else does. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 21:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I added some of them. However, I'm not sure about adding revisions, as opposed to collaborations. Aren't all of Shakespeare's works revised by someone in the Folios and Quartos? Just seems like the list could be unending, and may not belong in a "Bibliography", although it is fine in the plays article. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No - I don't believe there is any evidence that "all of SH works" were revised in the Folio and Quarto process. Far from it. Aside from the list appearing on the Collaboration page, I've not seen any other works that have been seriously considered as revised or collaborated (on). Revised or collaborated - either way, they are not fully in Shakespeare's hand, so should be noted. (Also - some plays, like Timon, have been debated whether it is a collaboration or a revision - so a grey area already exists here.) I added Macbeth due to general agreement about Middleton's additions and will list Measure4Measure if I can find reliable sources.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 06:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

== Final Round-up ==

Time to start considering whether we're ready to apply for FA status. Here are a few issues I still have:

1. The following passage:
::''Shakespeare's plays tend to be placed into three main stylistic groups: early romantic comedies and histories (such as A Midsummer Night's Dream and Henry IV, Part 1); middle period romantic comedies and tragedies (including his most famous tragedies, Othello, Macbeth, Hamlet and King Lear, as well as "problem plays" such as Troilus and Cressida); later romances (such as The Winter's Tale and The Tempest). The earlier plays range from broad comedy to historical nostalgia. The middle-period plays have grander themes, addressing issues such as betrayal, murder, lust, power, and ambition. The late romances have redemptive plotlines with ambiguous endings and various fantastical elements. However, the borders between these stylistic groupings are rarely clear.[59]
:...the problems here are discussed at the peer review (see Smatprt's review, and my response to him). Source [59] at the end just says "Doran" and there isn't a footnote called Doran so far as I can tell. (Prehaps it means Greg Doran, the director?) Anyway, I think the section should go unless someone can please provide a source who uses this classification. Also, I'm not sure one source is good enough if we're going to say the "plays ''tend to be placed'' into three main stylistic groups" since we need to demonstrate a tendency.

:::I agree with the general consensus on this passage. The section really doesn't fit with the basic, NPOV attitude we've taken in editing this article. Maybe rather than parading one way of organizing his plays, we should just outline some of the most popular methods. Maybe start with the classic, trag com hist, then tragicomedies, late romances, and problem plays. Not too long of a description, but just a short paragraph outlining several ways his plays have been categorized. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 01:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

::::I say, take it out. The points you've just made are in the intro to the Bibliography section, fully sourced, and I think this is a bad time to expand the page with any new information. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::{{done}} I'm removing it. Obviously that's without prejudice to someone putting something brief and well-sourced in its place. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 18:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

2. The Mountjoy/Bellot thing is still unsourced, surprisingly since all the biographies mention it. I'll try to deal with that this evening, if no-one gets there before me.

{{done}}

3. Any other issues? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
::The last remaining issue from the peer review, the Influences section rewrite, has been completed and the person raising the issue with that section appears satisfied. I think we're good to go once the above issues are addressed.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 13:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
::::One final point: I think that when we start the FAC process, it would be good if several of us placed our names on the FAC page as being co-nominators. This will perhaps help the nomination gain credibility.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 13:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::I can't help you with that, lol. I don't think I can be considered "credible" in the eyes of the Wikipedia community. :D One more thing: I noticed that the peer review is still open. Don't we have to wait for the peer review to be declared "closed" before we can start moving on to the next step (featured article, right? I thought you wanted A-class) ? {{unsigned|Romeo in love}}
::::::I don't think you're any less credible than the rest of us. Wikipedia is the encycolpedia that anyone can edit, and the fact that a comparative newcomer like yourself was so active in the FA drive is a credit to you and to the system as a whole. And I think we'll be skipping "A" and going straight to "FA". [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 16:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::We can also go straight to FA without waiting for the peer review to end. It's actually pretty common. The review closes automatically when an article is moved to FAC. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 19:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

4. {{done}}I think the intro could use touching up to reflect recent article changes as well as concerns brought up in the peer review. As it is, it is strong on biographical and reputation issues, with a bit about the plays, but is weak at summarizing the new influence section, as well as the speculations sections (as mentioned in the peer review). In this area I think we should say at least a bit about what there speculations are. For example: "Because so few facts are known about Shakespeare, many have speculated as to whether his works were authored by him, or by some other author. Others have asked questions about his sexuality: whether he was faithful to his wife or bisexual. Still others have pored over his life to find signs of his religious affiliation, whether he was Catholic, atheist, or some other faction of the day." Anyway, something to touch the intro up a bit (especially since that is one of the hardest hit areas of in FACs). [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 20:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

*I think Wrad's proposal above is a good suggestion on a tricky issue and addresses one of my earlier comments - why are there these speculations in the first place? Good work Wrad.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 20:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
::I concur. Fix up the lead per Wrad's advice. We should be able to start the FAC a day or two after the lead is fixed.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

**I'll go ahead and add my little speculations bit with some sources. Others may do better at adjusting the rest than me. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

***Last sentence of lead - is the religious speculation really a choice of only Catholic or Atheist? Sounds incomplete.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 01:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
{{done}}***Ditto - is seems the final line of the lead, now lumping all the speculations in one sentence, has an odd feeling to it. Perhaps it is because the three subjects are so varied that having them all in the same sentence made me laugh out loud. Or maybe I'm just getting punchy.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 01:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

== FAC language ==

I've revised the already existing featured article candidates page for this article, which is at [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare]], to include a draft of the potential FAC language. Please note that this FAC is not yet live on [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]] and won't be live until we all are satisfied with it. I also hope others will place their signatures on the page so the FAC will be a joint nomination. Otherwise, make changes to the language as people see fit. If everyone is satisfied, perhaps the FAC can start tomorrow or the next day. Best,--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 00:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:I regret to announce that I will not be editing for an indefinite amount of time due to an unexpected change in my schedule. I wish you all the best of luck. --[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:BTW This doesn't mean that I won't be editing anymore; in fact, I still might be editing a lot. I'm just saying that since there might be some days where I won't be here, or some days when I will edit at a much slower frequency.[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 17:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
::I totally understand. I hope you'll keep an on the FAC in the coming days. Best,--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 22:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Many people on wikipedia feel this way. It's the way it is when you put something out for the whole world to see and say, "I think this is great! Tell me what you think!" [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 02:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

==Shakesperae Template==
The bottom catagory (See Also) of the Shakespeare Template seems a bit of a mishmosh. Could it be catagorized or alphabetized or something? - right now it jumps from catagory to catagory with no apparent reason. I was going to alphabetize it but that would put "Authorship Question" first, which would undoubtably piss someone off, so I am loathe to do it myself. Can someone have a go at it?[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 23:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed this as well, but I think it may be best to leave it for now, until the project develops more and we see what articles deserve placement, or at least to move a discussion about it to the template's talk page. (One issue with changing it is that it is an integral part of the Shakespeare portal. Any change should keep that in mind.) [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 00:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
::I agree. Leave it for now. The next step after this article reaches FA status will be to start reviewing all the Shakespeare subarticles and making sure they include the new information and citations in this article. At that time, we can easily work on the template. Best,--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 01:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:::An example of the problem with changing it now would be the overhauling in progress on the [[Shakespeare's influence]] subject, involving three articles on the template in question. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 01:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 01:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


== Article is now a featured article candidate ==

Unless people have an objection I'm going to go ahead and make the FAC live. I think we're ready. Of course, there will be a number of requests and comments as the FAC goes through the steps, so I hope everyone will pay attention and make any fixes that are required (or bring to the attention of editors previous discussions in the peer reviews about any relevant issues). This should be a great a discussion, along the lines of the ones we had in the previous peer reviews. Best,--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 22:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:No offense to the editors that are commenting on the nomination, but this already feels like we've been summoned to a hearing in court. We are the defendants, and the featured article reviewers are the judges. Does anyone else feel this way? Also, I don't feel comfortable about the fact that a Director holds control over what can be chosen or not. :(

:PS I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm just expressing an opinion. Hey, it's a free country, right?[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 02:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

::I hope ye don't take the various comments that way, I get the impression that the reviewers are acting just as a "fresh set of eyes", appreciate the effort made, and want the page promoted. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I'd advice everyone to not take this FAC as a trial or an attack on our work. I've been through two of these FACs before and in both cases I had to make a large number of changes to the articles. The great news, though, is that in the end both articles were better for having so much excellent input and succeeded as Featured Articles. Best,--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::::And generally reviews don't make detailed comments unless they think the article will be deserving of the star. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] 23:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::I agree, even as someone who has a hard time exposing work to criticism. This is going to make the article better. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::It '''is''' a bit like being on trial, but you get used to it. I think that is fair enough if we are asking for an article to be officially considered one of Wikipedia's best: the press is full of people who can't wait to attack anything they see as low standards on this site, and so the process needs to be rigorous. The trouble is that it is actually very difficult to make criticisms without sounding adversial: if one softens the tone of comments too much, there is a danger that they may not be taken seriously. But it must be assumed that if someone goes to the trouble of commenting in detaIl on an FAC, and especially if they make constructive suggestions or have a good featured-article record themselves, they care about the article. Having said that, it is perfectly OK not to act on an objection if you can make a good case not to. Not every suggestion is going to be good. [[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 23:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

==Trimming==
The article is now at 71 kilobytes and bound to swell abit during the next process. Any way we can all look for opportunies to trim a bit? For example, I think the Reputation section has swelled maybe a bit too much - especially considering there is a sub-article to link to. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 23:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:Actually, on the FAC it has been brought up that the article is quite short. Might want to wait on this. Let's just focus on the FAC, for now. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I was just concerned about little extra words and phrases that might be removed, but I am happy to wait and see. After reading the latest "Reputaion" section, it just struck me that some of the material was too far expanded and would be better left in the subarticle.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 01:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::Since the consensus on the FAC so far is that the article is too short, not too long, I wouldn't trim anything. Best,--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 02:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

==Sentence==

''Modern criticism has described some of his plays as "problem plays." This term is applied to overlapping groups of plays by scholars beginning with F. S. Boas, W. W. Lawrence, and E. M. W. Tillyard. The common element in the definition is that the plays so labelled present "a perplexing or distressing problem" in a way that raises rather than answers ethical questions.''

What does this mean?! Can someone rewrite this in simple, or comprehensible, English? [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 06:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:Given it a try.--[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 07:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

::In very simple terms the PROBLEM with a problem play is that you have a problem classifying it as a tragedy or a comedy. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Yes, Old Moonraker's version very good IMO. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's much better, but still confusing: ''Grouping four of them—All’s Well that Ends Well, Measure for Measure, Troilus and Cressida and Hamlet—under this title was a coinage of critic F. S. Boas in 1896.''

"Grouping [them]... under this title was a coinage by..." Surely ''grouping'' is not a ''coinage''? I am reluctant to edit this myself, though. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 09:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:I've rewritten that bit and cut the first sentence (1896 isn't all that modern, and the final sentence of the para states the position today). --[[User:GuillaumeTell|GuillaumeTell]] 10:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, that's better—I was trying to say that the title was coined, not the grouping!--[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 11:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Second Example:

''Hamlet (c. 1601) is believed to be a reworking of an older, lost play (the so-called Ur-Hamlet),[71] and King Lear may be an adaptation of an earlier play, King Leir.''

This says Hamlet is a reworking and King Lear an adaption. Is there a difference between a reworking and an adaption? Why the difference in terms? [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 04:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Third example:

''Many of Shakespeare's plays first appeared in print as quartos; but the rest remained unpublished until 1623 when the posthumous First Folio was published by John Heminges and Henry Condell.[8] The traditional division of his plays into tragedies, comedies, and histories follows the pattern of the First Folio''

Why is this is in the section on Sources? [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 04:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:*I see this has been resolved. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourth example:

''In Hamlet he found the obscurity of motivation and psychology justification for inclusion.''

This is vague: "obscurity of motivation" and "psychology justification for inclusion". This needs to be stated in clearer English. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 04:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:*Reworded, following more closely the phrasing of the source work. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 06:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fifth example:

''Little is definitely known about the [[Chronology of Shakespeare plays|exact chronology of Shakespeare's plays]].''

Combining "definitely" and "exact" is overkill. Surely only one is needed? [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:*This has also been resolved. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sixth example:

''Because so few historical facts are known about Shakespeare, there are many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright [28][29] as well as questions pertaining to his sexuality[30] and religious beliefs.[31]''

This has far too many words. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 14:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Seventh example:

''The term "romances" has also been applied to several later comedies.[80]''

Why is this in ''Problem Plays''? [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 14:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Eighth example:

''Many so-called bad quartos so badly mangled that they are assumed to be among the "stol'n and surreptitious copies" that the editors of the First Folio complain about.''

How are they mangled? Little is said about the "stol'n and surreptitious copies". [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 14:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

== ref 66 ==

This ref seems odd. I guess it is citing the fact that Thomas North was the translator, but shouldn't the ref lead to an attribution of the broader facts involved? Does citation 67 cover this issue? [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

== sonnets problem ==

There are technical issues going on in the middle of this section. I'm not sure what it was before. Can anyone fix this? [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:I've fixed it and added content that was in the intro of [[Shakespeare's sonnets]]. It looks to me as if something had been deleted sometime in the past, thus tampering with the reference markup. --[[User:Kyoko|<font face="arial" color="#8652b9">''Kyok''</font>]][[User talk:Kyoko|<font face="arial" color="#BA55D3">''o''</font>]] 22:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

== Other influences ==

Scholars have pointed out the influences of Shakespeare beyond the page and the theater. I just don't know where to find the sources for them. Here are some examples:

*Psychology: Shakespeare ''strongly'' influenced Sigmund Freud's theories, and thus much of the psychiatric world to this day.
*Human Consciousness in general: Scholars have also proposed that we are who we are and that we think the way we think because of Shakespeare's writing. In other words, Shakespeare created the human mindset of today.

Does anyone know where to get sources for this? I've been trying for awhile, but haven't had much luck so far. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 02:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::I've also read that before, but I don't know how much stock to put in it. I've also read that Shakespeare greatly influenced 19th century medical doctors. Perhaps all of this should be put into [[Shakespeare's influence]] but not the main article (once we get references for the items, that is).--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 02:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

*The second of your blobs is the general theme of Bloom, Harold "Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human". I'm not sure I set much store by it, though, particularly. I've a copy at home and I could have a look in the next day or so to see if there is anything we can use. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

==Copyediting==

''Chronology'' and ''Performance'' need copyediting. They don't match the preceding sections in quality. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 06:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:I made a start but I only had a few minutes free. There is a chapter on this in one of the Cambridge companions, which I have at home, so I may be able to fill in some of the gaps in the sourcing. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 13:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of Chronology is long and knotted. The reader most likely will lose interest very quickly. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 14:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:I've done a little more tidying there and removed the comment at the end - there are plenty of citations, '''except''' that a ref is required for Doran's activities (I don't have easy access to a copy of her book, assuming that's what is being referred to).

:Is "chronology" really the right header for this section? It's almost entirely about textual matters except for the first sentence! --[[User:GuillaumeTell|GuillaumeTell]] 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See below for a more thorough analysis. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 05:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

== Authorship: Sourcing ==

I despair that the whole discussion at FA has become yet another Authorship Controversy argument. However, in my view it would be wrong to remove any mention of the subject from the article. This has been discussed so many times I'm reluctant to set out my argument in detail unless someone really needs me to. However, I agree that there are valid criticisms on the sourcing of this subject, which I suppose is inevitable when (as I've pointed out elsewhere on Wikipedia) the anti-strats tend to be enthusiastic amateurs.

Can I please therefore ask if anyone has access to Schoenbaum's "Shakespeare's Lives" or Stanley Wells' "Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide" and if yes can our material be rewritten and sourced from there? I doubt the FA reviewers would have [[WP:RS]] problems with those sources (and of course if they do, we can discuss further). [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 08:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:I just added Concordia University's website discussion of the authorship as a source. Is this valid?[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 10:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:What exactly were you hoping to cite? I'm somewhat bemused about what is at issue here. That such debate has existed is undisputed. All that is disputed is whether there is current scholarly debate about it. I think we should not confuse scholarly ''discussion of it'' with scholarly acceptance that it is a real issue. That would be like saying "scholars discuss Ancient Greek mythology" and confusing it with "there is dispute among scholars whether or not Ancient Greek mythology is true". Since the second statement is not being made here, I can't see what needs to be cited. I think we need to stop the FAC turing into an authorship debate, which means please no pro and con arguments there. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 10:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::This citation seems to refer to an account of a conference held at Concordia University during April 2007, and not a publication of the University itself. It may not satisfy the reservations of the FAC. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 11:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:::The Concordia conference is an annual event organised by Daniel Wright, a member of staff who is an Oxfordian. He is a member of the College of Theology, Arts and Sciences. [http://www.cu-portland.edu/ctas/faculty/dwright.cfm] [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 11:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::::I agree. Still not good enough, yet. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::I have raised a possible compromise on the FAC page, which is to keep the 69 word paragraph as is until the FAC is over. We can then have another discussion on this talk page to see if consensus on keeping the paragraph in has changed. I also totally agree with Paul--no more debate on this issue on the FAC page! Best,--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Ok. I'll agree to that compromise. Then I'll smoke my axe with hot blood as I hack through it afterward. I'll lay low all of your sentinels! [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think us agreeing is enough. We all do. It's our FA reviewers who are pressing the point (and have continued to do so since Alabamaboy's suggestion) and it's them who have to be impressed. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 18:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've talked to Awadewit and while he's not happy with the situation, he said this issue isn't a deal breaker with regards to him possibly supporting the FAC. So let's continue to avoid dragging the FAC through this debate.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:It seems as though FAC is precisely the mechanism to deal with inappropriate emphasis on fringe theories. We don't want featured articles to be embarassing, which means that we must remove embarassing things from articles for them to become features. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:I have added Schoenbaum to the refs, and another book. The whole screen-filling screeds of prose over at the FAC seem to be about nothing more than having citation of scholars saying "the authorship controversy exists". Other possible texts would be Kaufman's 2003 article in the OUP book, or the ''Shakespeare Encyclopedia'', 1974, which has entries on Bacon and Oxford as candidates. I added Holderness's ''The Shakespeare Myth'', which discusses the issues on pp.11-14. Holderness asserts that mythology of secret aristocratic ancestry of an apparently low-born hero is behind the authorship issue (he cites Robin Hood/Earl of Huntingdon) "ultimately it is this myth that explains the old quarrels about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays...These controversies still rumble on in the peripheries of the scholarly world." (p.11). Schoenbaum has pages and pages on the stuff of course. (pp.385-451 1993 edition), and also sees the issue as a product of bardolotry. He's very dismissive, "an irresistable passion in these men and women: the inexorable compulsion that usurps thought, courts ridicule, even (at times) unseats reason" (p.450) He adds hat the "continual flow of publication" on the subject means that any professor of English will regularly be asked about the issue by people who have heard of it and yielded to "the dark power of anti-Stafordian obsession". [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 18:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::At last some good, solid refs. Brilliant, [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul]]! --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 18:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, much improved. However we are now sourcing the statement that "popular interest in the subject ... has continued into the 21st century" citing one [[Samuel Schoenbaum]] (6 March 1927 – 27 March 1996). Lets not pat ourselves on the back just yet. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::I think adding Kaufman 2003 would cover that. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Yes, OK, but the wording of the section hasn't changed. The point of a source is that the text of the article has to reflect what that source ''actually says'' about the subject. We're getting there, but someone with access to these books needs to check what they say. If they say the same as our article says then that's fine, we just amend the ref to include a page number. If they don't then the article has to be changed to match the source. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::*Postscript to previous comment: I see some good stuff in Paul's comments above. If only the article contained some of it! [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

::::I hope it is not thought that the people at FAC are a sort of "them": they (me included) care about this article and they are only too aware that if it becomes a flagship article, which it will if featured, it should be able to resist scrutiny from the press, likely to include this article in any survey, and from academia. But you are getting there with the sourcing: when academics mention the matter, they do so to dismiss it, and that is starting to be reflected. I've read Schoenbaum, and I felt sorry for him having to drag through this matter, but his dismissive tone is typical of scholars. At the moment, that is not reflected in the over-fair article text, which I think needs to quote a pretty scornful dismissal like the one quoted above. Only by this means will the article make clear to the reader who doesn't check the sources that the idea that someone else wrote Shakespeare's plays is a pile of nonsense. Imagine that you came to the following paragraph not knowing anything about the matter. What would be your impression?

::::''Around one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death, doubts began to be expressed about the authorship of Shakespeare's works. Alternative candidates proposed include Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. Although William Shakespeare of Stratford is accepted in academic circles as the author, popular interest in the subject continues.''

::::You might be forgiven for thinking "typical old fuddy duddy academics; who needs them?" [[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 20:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Almost all the editors here would agree with you. But we also have [[user:smatprt]], who is very dedicated Oxfordian, insistent on presenting the issue as a real matter of doubt rather than of curiosity. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the people at FAC are some "them" trying to stop this article from reaching FA status. Almost all of the FAC suggestions have been good ones and have greatly improved the article. I just want people to remember that Wikipedia works by consensus and the authorship section has been an extremely consensus-testing issue here. While I disagree with smatprt on this authorship issue, he has been a valued editor of this article. Please keep that in mind as we improve this section with better sources and info. Creating a version that won't keep consensus in the coming years will not be useful. --[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 20:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

==="To do" Proposal===
The base of the entire authorship issue is reliable sources, thus, I believe we should first do some research among peer-reveiwed scholars and replace the sources, then work on the wording of the section, then work on the intro. There's no use clipping branches when the trunk is out of whack. Let me outline my plan:

#Replace all sources in the Authorship section with reliable, scholarly ones.
::{{done}} I think. All refs questioned in FAC are now replaced. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
#Carefully reword the section according to consensus and according to the sources.
::Other than the "Why" issue discussed later on this page. I think it is fine, except I would like to make this change:
::''Although all alternative candidates are flatly rejected in academic circles,[145] popular interest in the subject continues.[146][147][148]''
:::I'd like to change this to: ''Although popular interest in the subject continues,[146][147][148] all alternative candidates for authorship are flatly rejected in academic circles.[145]''
#Finally, reconsider the Lead according to whatever changes have been made.

[[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 16:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

== Performance History ==

Can I ask if the "performance history" section is intended to stop where it does or whether it's the intention to expand it? If the latter I can probably have a go this evening, but I'd like to be clear what the author's intention was. <small>Incidentally, am I the only one who's finding it hard to keep up with the pace of change of the article and the discussions on it?</small> [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:I didn't intend to expand this section any more. Since this is an article about Shakespeare, I feel only the original performances during his lifetime are relevant. If you follow the link in that last sentence, you will see that there's far too much into on subsequent performances to add in here. Of course, that's just my opinion.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 14:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::Fair enough. I won't touch it, then. I wonder if maybe the heading needs to change a little, though? As it is, it encourages you to think you'll be reading about Garrick, Kemble, Irving and so forth. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 18:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Done. --[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 18:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

==Kiddie boredom==

I think we can do away with these sentences, even though they are sourced: ''The widespread reverence for Shakespeare has provoked an unforeseen negative reaction in some of today's youth. Because most people in the English-speaking world encounter Shakespeare at school at a young age, there is an association by some students of his work with boredom[161][162] and of "high art" not easily appreciated by popular culture;[163] an ironic fate considering the social mix of Shakespeare's original audience.'' I remember as a 15 year old I was bored too, yet I hadn't read any of his plays. Anyway, half-hearted teenagers can make any play sound dull while reading monotonously. The next sentence has to pull out an awkward transition: "Neverthless...".

Can we agree to the sentences' removal? [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 15:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:I won't fight you on this. But my view is that it's better to say this than to have an article with a wholly positive POV! (But the irony bit in the last 11 words seems pretty irrelevant to me, and isn't sourced.) [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

::I don't think there is any depth to the issue of kiddie boredom. Maybe some bored, angsty teenagers will disagree; though I don't know. If we need balance, i.e. a negative counterweight, we should chose something else to that end. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]]

:::Teens will always get bored with Shakespeare. And they'll also get bored with Rebecca, Tom Sawyer, A Separate Peace, and almost every other fucking classical novel that exists in the English-speaking world!!! What classical book DOES a teen like?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 23:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

==Paragraph==

This is under-developed: ''The twentieth century saw the development of the professional field of study known as English studies, covering English literature and language fields.[159] Critical methods applied to Shakespeare's works included structuralism, poststructuralism and semiotics, and his works were analysed from feminist and Marxist perspectives.''

The first sentence is irrelevant: readers want to know about the study of Shakespeare, not about a general field of study. The next sentence is poorly linked, and is just a laundry list of critical methods. Inject some life into it.

Everything in the Reputation section before the last two paragraphs is well written, though. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 15:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

*Done. Needs someone to look it over, though, please. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 22:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

**I think it's much better than it was, but the structuralist parts still read more like a history of literary theory than a summary of the history of Shakespeare's reputation. Just needs a few more applications of these criticisms to Shakespeare, specifically, in my opinion. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

**It's a scholarly paragraph now. Well done. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 05:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

==More copyediting==

Because I am too familiar with the article, I won't attempt to copyedit it. Here are my concerns for those who are interested:

''They have been translated into every major living language[44] and are continually performed all over the world.''—This sentence looks misplaced besides the two adjacent sentences.

For the second sentence of Sources, see [[Talk:William Shakespeare#Sentence]]

''Shakespeare may also have borrowed stylistic elements from contemporary playwrights like Christopher Marlowe.''—Who else? Or should I say, whom else?

''Common to all four...''—The paragraph jumps from Hamlet to all four plays and then back to Hamlet.

''leaving the other three in the "problem" category.''—Unless there is something I am missing, this doesn't need to be stated.

''Many of the plays have been alternatively classified as tragicomedies''—Only four are discussed: "Many" is imprecise. Anyway, this raises the question: all four? Three of them? How many exactly? Or this referring to plays other than the Problem Plays as well?

''No authoritative print version appeared in his lifetime, and there is no evidence that Shakespeare supervised the publication of any of his plays.''—The sentence has improved, but it's still awkward. The jumping of tenses is probably causing my unease.

''There are signficant textual problems and textual variants, small and large, in every play of which multiple texts have survived.''—The subject should be "Every play..."

''Unlike some other dramatists of the time''—How about, "Unlike some of his fellow dramatists"?

''As a result, textual variations resulted from printers' errors...''—Does this follow? Printers don't seem to be forced to make errors because Shakespeare took no interest in publication. Perhaps another way of linking the sentence should be found.

''The text in many of the so-called bad quartos is so badly mangled that they are assumed to be among the "stol'n and surreptitious copies" that the editors of the First Folio complain about.''—How are they mangled? Nothing else is said about "stol'n and surreptitious copies" yet the sentence assumes the reader is familiar with this.

''The quarto and folio versions of King Lear, for instance, differ to a significant degree.''—"for instance" shouldn't be in the middle of the sentence.

''Traditionally, editors have arrived at a conflated Lear, including all scenes from both versions.'' How about replacing "including..." with "which includes"?

''However, Madeleine Doran saw the two as meaningfully distinct, and Gary Taylor and Roger Warren's The Division of the Kingdom made the case that textual differences such as those in the texts of Lear arose from different provenances for the two texts.''—This doesn't read well. Nor does the next sentence.

I am uncomfortable with the next paragraph.

''During Shakespeare's lifetime, many of his plays were performed in the Globe and Blackfriars Theatres[60] by the playing company the Lord Chamberlain's Men ''—Can we remove "the playing company"?
"in" should be "at".

''The other main location where Shakespeare's original plays were performed''—This is unbalanced. The previous sentence has "were staged at"; then this sentence follows with "The other main location ...was".

''The King's Men played in Blackfriars during the winter, and at the Globe during the summer.''—Same problem with "in". <s>I don't think this sentence needs a comma.</s>

''Shakespeare's fellow playing company members acted in his plays.''—Awkward. Anyway, this is repeating information.

''Among these actors were Richard Burbage (who played the title role in the first performances of many of Shakespeare's plays, including Hamlet, Othello, Richard III and King Lear),[62] Richard Cowley (who played Verges in Much Ado About Nothing), William Kempe, (who played Peter in Romeo and Juliet and, possibly, Bottom in A Midsummer Night's Dream) and Henry Condell and John Heminges, known today for collecting and editing the plays of Shakespeare's First Folio (1623).''—There is problem with syntax.<s>I suggest changing the commas to semi-colons and the parentheses to commas.</s>

''In the centuries since Shakespeare's death, his plays have been performed numerous times in different venues, formats, and versions.'' This seems redundant. It might bore the reader.

''These are narrative poems, with both "Venus and Adonis" and "The Rape of Lucrece" based on classical works by the Roman poet Ovid, while "A Lover's Complaint" tells the original story of a scorned love (although a few scholars question if Shakespeare was the poem's actual author).''—The with- phrase constitutes most of this sentence and has most of the information—an awkward syntax. The "while" is wrong: "while" should only be used for "at the same as" or "whereas".

''These poems were all written in the rhyme royal (with the rhyme scheme ababbcc)[69][70] and appear to have been written either in an attempt to win the patronage of a rich benefactor (a common practice of the time) or as the result of such patronage.''—Sentence jumps tense mid-way.

''In addition, the anthology The Passionate Pilgrim was attributed to him...''—"In addition" doesn't work here as a transition; it appears cheap.

''Shakespeare served his dramatic apprenticeship at the height of the Elizabethan era''—"dramatic apprenticeship" is too vague.

''During this period, "drama became the ideal means to capture and convey the diverse interests of the time."''—Paraphrase this instead of quoting.

''Stories of various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated and the poor and illiterate''—Can we find something better than "Stories of various genres"? The word "enacted" seems eccentric here.

''His style changed not only in accordance with his own tastes and developing mastery, but also in accord with the tastes of the audiences for whom he wrote''—"accordance", not "accord". Also, "His style changed... in accordance with his... developing mastery" doesn't read well.

''While many passages in Shakespeare's plays are written in prose, he usually wrote a large proportion''—How about, "Although Shakespeare wrote many passages in prose..."? The voice will be consistent and the sentence balanced.

''He and other dramatists at the time used this form of blank verse...'' Does "this form of blank verse" refer to iambic pentameter with the end of lines punctuated or just simply "blank verse"?

''A typical example is provided in Macbeth:''—Can we remove "provided"? Or at least change it to "occurs"?

''His plays are further notable for their use of soliloquies in which a character makes a solitary speech so the audience is given insight into the character's motivations and inner conflict.''—Shouldn't there be a comma after soliloquies? Can we change "so the audience..." to "giving the audience..."?

''The character either speaks to the audience directly (such as choruses, or characters that become epilogues) or, more commonly, speaks to him- or herself in the fictional realm''—"<s>such as" should be "such as in".</s> Is "him- or herself" really necessary? Normally it should be avoided at all cost.

''Shakespeare's writing—in particular his plays— feature extensive wordplay in which double entendres and clever rhetorical flourishes are repeatedly used.''—Change "in which... are used" to "of". The dashes probably should be commas.

''Humor is a key element in all of Shakespeare's plays.''—How?

The next sentence is too long.

The last three sentences of the paragraph don't flow. That's all I have time for. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 05:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

== Chronology and publication ==

"Is this an improvement?" asks [[User:AndyJones]]. Yes! --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 17:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, thank you. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 19:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

==Sections most in need of copyedit==

Please target the following sections:

*last sentence of intro;
*2nd paragraph of ''Performance'';
*1st and last paragraph of ''Style'';
*and ''Influence on theatre, literature, and language''.

These are most in need of copyediting. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 19:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

*WOW! Amazing work by everyone - I took a copy of the article to bed with a blue pencil last night and pretty much everything I marked has been fixed this morning. Good work! <small>Still, no rest for the wicked, plenty more work to do.</small> [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

==Bad refs==

*167. Christopher Marlowe by Brian Robert Morris, 1968, pages 65-94.
::{{done}} [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*143. The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare Unfolded, available at Project Gutenberg. by Delia Bacon, 1857.
::This is part of the whole authorship thing and will probably eventually be gone when replaced by a better ref. May be best to just leave it for now. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 20:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*115. Introduction to The Comedy of Errors by William Shakespeare, Penguin Classics, 1999, xix.—This should name the author of the introduction.
::{{done}} I found an alternative source with the quotation. Amazingly, the quotation in the text was wrong, and weaker than the real thing. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 20:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*110. Introduction to Hamlet by William Shakespeare, Barron's Educational Series, 2002, 12.—As above.
*79. Shakespeare's Soliloquies by Wolfgang H. Clemen, translated by Charity S. Stokes, Routledge, 1987, 11
::{{done}} [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*78. Macbeth Act 2, Scene 1—Which edition?
::This is a pretty standard way of citing Shakespeare. I don't think it needs any more. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 19:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 19:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


49. Plutarch - I brought this up earlier on the talk page.

59. Editor's Preface
:{{done}}. Used a different - perhaps better - source. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 21:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

63. Proquest

73. Proquest

76. Introduction

99. bad punctuation, may not be complete
::I adjusted it, but it can still be expanded. Is this a book? [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 20:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
::A quick check on Amazon suggests this author (Roland Frye) didn't write a book that was just called "Shakespeare". Unless the person who added this source can fix this, can we source it from elsewhere?
:::[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sE_vuDVQwNkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:Roland+inauthor:Mushat+inauthor:Frye Front cover] [[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
::::{{done}} [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::I just noticed that there's another reference to this book, about Hamlet, which has a different ISBN. The editor who added that info must have used a different edition, but I've just checked the Hamlet ref and the pagination is the same as in the other edition, so the first ISBN can be used in both cases. Would be tidier.[[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

127. Stendhal's pamphlets
*I put this in. I've just checked my source and I cannot improve on it. If your problem is the plurality of 'pamphlets' then my source uses the plural, too, and since Grady dates them 1823-25, I assume that he means they were a series. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 21:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*Incidentally, [[Stendhal]] is a one word pen-name, so if the problem is the lack of a first name, it's because there isn't one. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 11:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
*Can I consider this {{done}} unless I've guessed at the wrong objections? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 11:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
**Sure. I was just looking for the name of the author, but if that's all we have, that's all we have. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 15:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

164. Ackroyd is odd
::{{done}} [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 20:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We can check these off as they are done. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 19:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Copied the following from the FAC page:

* Brown, Calvin Smith; Harrison, Robert L. Masterworks of World Literature Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970, 4.
* Craig, Leon Harold (2003). Of Philosophers and Kings: Political Philosophy in Shakespeare's "Macbeth" and "King Lear". University of Toronto Press, 3.

* The dates are not in the same place - here and throughout the notes.

* Dr. Mobley, Jonnie Patricia (1996). Manual for Hamlet: Access to Shakespeare. Lorenz Educational Publishers, 5.

* Why is there a "Dr." in the author's name?
**I fixed all of these except the ones in the authorship section. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

* Ackroyd, Peter (2005). Shakespeare: The Biography. London: Chatto and Windus, pp 53-61. ISBN 1-856-19726-3.
**{{notdone}} Cannot see anything wrong with this one. What's the issue, please?
***Awadewit just comapared this one to the one below to show inconsistency in ISBN format. That's all. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 15:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

* Decide whether or not ISBNs are going to be included - inconsistent here and elsewhere. Also, decide whether or not to include hyphens - some ISBNs have them, some not.
**I'm in favor of having as many ISBNs as we can. They are an invaluable resource to locating sources. I am also in favor of adding dashes, as that makes them more readable. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
***All now have dashes. The hard part will be adding ISBNs to the rest of the books. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

* Gray, Terry A. (2002) "The Lost Years," Shakespeare Timeline, accessed 7 Nov 2006.

* Sometimes the notes say "accessed" and sometimes they say "retrieved."
**{{done}} All now say "Retrieved".

* NAGLER, A.M. (1958). Shakespeare's Stage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 8. ISBN 0300026897.

* Why is Nagler's name in all caps?
**{{done}} [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

* Ackroyd, Peter (2005). Shakespeare: The Biography. London: Chatto and Windus, p220. ISBN 1-856-19726-3.
**{{notdone}} Cannot see anything wrong with this one. What's the issue, please?
***This has alread been fixed, anyway, so no worries. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 15:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

* Once you introduce a citation, you do not need to repeat all of the information. You need only use the author's last name and page number (title if you are including other works by that author).

* Schoenbaum, Samuel (1975). William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford University Press, 24-26 and 296. ISBN 0195051610.

* If a book is listed in the "References," you do not need to introduce all of the information here, especially when you have already used the "author, page" format. Awadewit | talk 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

**{{done}} All these refs have now been shortened accordingly. Thanks for changing the name of the Further reading section. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

*Please see FAC for a few more references that need work. Didn't know whether to move here or not. Thanks.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

==Style section==

I mentioned my problem with the "Style" section at the peer review and since another editor has now queried the opening paragraph of it, I have taken what seems to me the most useful action and cut that opening paragraph, which has almost nothing directly to do with style. Apart from which, it is fraught with other problems, as I pointed out at peer review. I place it here for appraisal, in case anyone disagrees with my edit. [[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::''Shakespeare started his career in drama at the height of the [[Elizabethan era]], in the years following the defeat of the [[Spanish Armada]]; he retired at the height of the [[Jacobean period]], not long before the start of the [[Thirty Years' War]]. During this time, "drama became the ideal means to capture and convey the diverse interests of the time."<ref name="proquestelizper">{{Citation
| year = 2005
| title = Elizabethan Period (1558–1603), from ProQuest Period Pages
| publisher =ProQuest
| url= http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_id=xri:pqllit-US&rft_dat=xri:pqllit:reference:per015}}</ref> Stories of various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated and the poor and illiterate.''<ref name="proquestelizper">{{Citation
| year = 2005
| title = Elizabethan Period (1558–1603), from ProQuest Period Pages
| publisher =ProQuest
| url= http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_id=xri:</ref>

No problem with that: a good edit. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 22:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:The first sentence shouldn't stand alone in the paragraph. Another sentence is needed to elaborate its content. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 06:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

''Humor is a key element in all of Shakespeare's plays. Although a large amount of his comical talent is evident in his comedies, some of the most entertaining scenes and characters are found in tragedies such as Hamlet and histories such as Henry IV, Part 1. Shakespeare's humor was largely influenced by Plautus.[82]''

These three sentences are awkward to read. How is humour a key element? The second sentence is too long. The third looks as though it were added as an afterthought. Can we fix these, please? [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 06:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

== First Folio ==

Exactly which plays are listed in the First Folio? According to the article, all 6 categories of Shakespeare's works are in the First Folio, but can we say for sure that that is true?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 22:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:The 36 plays in the [[First Folio]] are listed in that article. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 22:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
::I can see that, but the Poems, Lost Plays, and Apocrypha aren't listed, are they?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:::They're not listed because they are not in the First Folio. The First Folio was a collection of plays, and so the Poems do not appear. The so-called "Lost Plays" would not be lost if they were known to be in the First Folio (there's some question as to whether Love's Labour's Won is an alternate title or a lost play), and the "Apochrypha" wouldn't be apochryphal if they did. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 23:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Actually, they are listed, and I see what Romeo is saying. The Bibliography section says "The following are in the first folio," but then lists everything, not just the first folio. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::Actually, they are ''not'' listed in the First Folio article. Which is as it should be. The Bibliography section ''here'' doesn't quite say what you say it says, but what it says is not quite right and needs fixing. I would suggest it be changed to something like "Shakespeare's works include the plays which appear in the First Folio, (listed here according to their classification there), two plays which do not appear in the First Folio (Pericles, Prince of Tyre and The Two Noble Kinsmen), and the Poems. Other works attributed to him are classified here as Lost Plays or Apocrypha."- <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 23:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Sounds like an excellent plan. I'm glad there isn't any similar confusion in the folio article. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yea, that's what I meant. Sorry for any confusion. Nunh-huh's idea is fine.--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 01:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

== Editors' names at which format? ==

When we cite a work editing by someone, does the editor's name go LAST, FIRST MI. or FIRST MI. LAST? I can see that the authors' names go LAST, FIRST MI. but does the same apply to editors?--[[User:Romeo in love|Romeo in love]] 01:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:Well, it depends. If the Author is listed, then ''first last''. If the Author isn't, and the editor goes first, then ''last, first''. Citations are still being worked on too, so don't feel too worried about it. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 01:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::An FAC shouldn't be affected by the niceties on this, since the main thing is to give full information about the source. Style guides vary, but on the whole the footnotes should go first name, second name, and the references list or bibliography should go second name, first name. The reason for the difference is that the bibliography is an alphabetical list, where one looks authors up by surname, whereas you can't look books up alphabetically in the footnotes so there's no need to put the second name first. On the other hand, consistency is important, so the second name, first name method used in this article's footnotes should be observed, obviously. Editors are treated in the same way as authors; though when a book has an editor ''and'' an author, the author takes precedence and the editor goes after the book title. Any editor or co-author who isn't named first in the book details in the bibliography goes first name, second name, as Wrad points out. [[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 02:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::The only other point to add is that because {citebook} goes LAST, FIRST I've tried to follow that in any citation which doesn't use that template, for consistency. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

==Influence on theatre, literature, and language==

I have pulled out some of the fluff in the prose. However, there are still some sentences that need editing.

''he expanded the dramatic possibilities of characterisation, plot, language, and genre''

Something more precise than dramatic possibilities?

''Hamlet's failings cause his downfall, even though he is merely exhibiting some of the most basic of human reactions and emotions.''

Awkward. Why do we need an "even though" clause? This should be rewritten.

''Shakespeare's characters were complex and all too human.''

Tacky. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 06:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:I have done more work on the section. I hope it is to people's satisfaction. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 07:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

== Peacock / Sourcing problem ==

We are now saying the following unsourced:

::''Many of Shakespeare's plays are reputed to be among the greatest—not only in the English language but in all of Western literature. They have been translated into every major living language[41] and are continually performed all over the world.

I feel sure we've dealt with this in the past, so I'm not sure where the sources have got to. It needs fixing, though: it's the basis of Alabamaboy's introductory paragraph at the FA that we've fixed the article's [[WP:PEACOCK]] problems. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 08:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

*Wait! I see sources in the first paragraph of influence and the last paragraph of reputation that could be used to fix this. (Although I am now wondering whether the article makes the same point three times - plus the intro makes four.) I'll look into this and report back here. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 08:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

*OK I'm back. I've re-sourced the section I was worried about. I'm not overly-worried about the redundancy problem so I'll let it stand - but I've raised it and if others are concerned, they can delete. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

== A plea on deleting footnotes ==

I appreciate we are all editing very fast. However, can I make a special plea that we please all take care if deleting footnotes, to ensure that they are not referred to elsewhere?

I know what the footnote which is now [8] means:

:''Michell, 62-63

...but it is difficult to see how the average reader will work it out. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 12:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::I fixed it. That change was made about a week ago... [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 15:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

==Opening==
While removing a reference that was being mischaracterized, it occured to me that there's really no particular reason for "There have been many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright, as well as questions pertaining to his sexuality and religious beliefs." to be in the lead of the article. This is adequately covered later, and it's not important enough to be in the lead. It's excess verbiage we don't particularly need. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 16:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:I've never liked that sentence. I won't be sad if it goes. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 16:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::The problem is that the lead is supposed to summarize the article and the speculations about Shakespeare are a part of the article. The current language of ''"There have been many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually [[Shakespearean authorship question|written by another playwright]], as well as questions pertaining to his [[Sexuality of William Shakespeare|sexuality]] and [[Shakespeare's religion|religious beliefs]]."'' works for me. It doesn't imply support for the speculations but states that these speculations exist. The earlier statement that there isn't much historical info about Shakespeare was rightly removed b/c that isn't true; there's actually a lot of historical info about Shakespeare, at least compared to other playwrights and poets of that period (aside from the self-promoting [[Ben Jonson]] and literary writers who were [[aristocrats]]).--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 16:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I see someone has already removed the sentence. I wish people would reach consensus on the controversial aspects of this article before making such edits.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 16:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Which is why I raised the question here rather than just doing it. However, it's well gone: a summary should include only major, important points, rather than each and every subject addressed by the article. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 16:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::I don't think the sentence is a problem, but it's not ideal to have disputed Oxfordian literature as our source. I'd suggest using Gary Taylor's ''Reinventing Shakespeare'', Hogarth Press, 1990, which discusses in detail disputes about authorship (pp.210-23), sexuality (pp.261-3; 342; 394) and religious affiliation (p.145). [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 16:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether RedRabbit was right or wrong (and personally I can see his point) I propose we all leave the lead in the form he left it in, while we hammer this out, here. I have invited Smatprt to join this conversation. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 16:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::Fine with me. As I said, I support the sentence above, for the reasons I previously stated.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 16:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry - just read your request. So here I am. I agree with Paul and Alabamaboy and support the sentence as well. But we were responding to the first (or 2nd) FA that said the sentence just hung there. It obviously needed a "why" that applied to all the speculations. Whoever came up with "lack of historical facts", solved it for all of us (or so I thought). And yes, while we have lots of historical data and stories and traditions, the list of actual "facts" is pretty short. And his "lost years" - also leave a historical gap. I also agree with Paul that using Gary Taylor is preferable as he addresses ALL the speculations. Well done, Paul. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 16:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::::So of course, now having read the request, you'll return to the previous version. A "why" made up by Wikipedians, and that is in fact, in error, doesn't improve the article. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 16:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at my recent "To do" Authorship post above for my thoughts on this. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 16:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a reliable ref for the "not enough info" bit. Whatever else there is can be added, but please take a look at my proposal above about this whole thing. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 16:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrad - I am content with the format you propose.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 17:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:::<small>after two edit conflicts:not read you guys through thoroughly yet</small>OK. A few 2p-worth issues from me:
:::#To me, it seems POV to talk about "the works attributed to" our man. If the reliable sources say he wrote them it's not open to wikipedians to cast doubt upon that consensus by using words that suggest that a matter which is not in question, is in question. I appreciate that an anti-Strat would take an opposite view, and I respect that, but the article must run with what we can reliably source, and we cannot reliably source that anti-Strafordianism is credible. However, I will not press this point if the consensus is against me.
:::#I'm strongly in favour of including the authorship question on this page, and I'm well aware that we've all had a tougher ride through the FA process by taking that stance. It's a good sign that we're mostly prepared to stand our ground when it matters.
:::#Paul, am I correct to understand that you are saying Gary Taylor's book supports the sentence in the intro, pretty-much as we had it before? If yes (and subject to my first point, and a bit of copy-editing perhaps) I'd support its restoration. No-one is going to question GT's reliability.
:::As I say, just my 2p worth. I'm inviting comments rather than trying to lay down the law. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 16:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Just to clarify: the matter under discussion here is not whether the authorship "question" should be treated in the article, but whether it needs to be included in the lede. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 17:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

<s>Alright, since we clearly aren't all mature enough to handle my "lets keep it as it is until we've hammered it out" suggestion, how about we all agree to keep it as it is NOW until we've hammered it out? And, yes, I am banging the keys. Does anyone have a problem with THAT? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 17:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)</s><small> Apologies to everyone. Forget I spoke. Choler overblown with walking round the quadrangle, and all that. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 17:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)</small>

:I don't know whether it would be entirely accurate to say Taylor can be said to support the intro to the sentence ('Because so few historical facts...'), but it's not an unreasonable generalisation, since if there were much more information, some of these disputes would go away. Taylor's book is an examination of Shakespeare's changing reputation and its relation to changing social values. His opinion of the authorship controversy is similar to Schoenbaum's, though much less aggressive. He sees it in the context of the sacralisation and desacralisation of canonical texts as a discursive mode in Victorian culture, tied in with Darwinianism, Higher Criticism of the Bible etc. He also sees it as a parallel to the emergence of modern scholarly "authorship" debates at the same time (were bits of Macbeth written by someone else? etc). The religion issue is discussed in the context of 18th C critics who have either pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic sympathies (esp Edmund Malone's anti-Catholicism). The sexuality issue crops up throughout the book in connection with the desire of authors to either associate WS with homosexuality, or dissociate him from it. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 17:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::Since there's no reference to support it (and frankly, if Taylor had made the assertion, all we could say is "According to Taylor....", or as seems more to be the case "One explanation that we think we can read into Taylor, among many others we might also mention here but have chosen not to....), we hardly need include it in the lead. It's not a viewpoint that is generally held, it's just a "just so" explanation that might be held. Since there are references that support the fact that we have a great number of historical facts about Shakespeare, we'd wind up with dueling references, something clearly not appropriate for the lead paragraph in an article. If we can find a reputable scholar who has posited this explanation, that reference and any consequent discussion can be placed in the daughter article. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure what you are arguing here. By "this explanation" do you mean the lack of information? That these matters have - on and off - been discussed over the centuries is not in dispute is it? [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, by "this explanation" I mean "It was a lack of facts that made people posit a different author". That people have speculated about these things is not in issue; that they were motivated by lack of evidence is. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 19:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'll fess up. I'm the one who added it, at a time when the debate was calm and things were being less microscoped. I got it from the [[Shakespearean authorship]] page, which points out several arguments used by anti-Stratfordians about the lack of evidence about his background. For example, the lack of proof that he attended the Grammar School or a University, is used by theorists. Whether or not this is complete balderdash, it is one of the reasons such a theory exists. If we had pictures of Shakespeare and an autobiography written by him, there would probably be fewer theories about him. Anyway, there may be sources to be garnered from the Shakespearean authorship page, but if not... we still have the problem. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:Well, obviously people tend not to make things up that can be directly contradicted by known facts, but that doesn't mean that it was the absence of those known facts that motivated them to make the stuff up. There's no reason to try to "save" this explanation: it's wrong. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 18:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:Since there are no surviving records of Stratford school the lack of direct evidence is hardly surprising. Of course there is much less evidence about many other writers, but we don't get conspiracy theories developing, so there's clearly more to it than mere lack of evidence. In some ways it's about the kind of evidence that ''is'' available (S's business dealings; his writing as a money-making job) and its claimed incompatability with a "bardolatry" view of S as a pure-minded poet and great thinker. Both Schoenbaum and Taylor discuss this in detail. Frankly I'd like the authorship section to concisely discuss these arguments and the history - while also treating fairly the views of anti-Statfordians - rather than be a kind-of sop to doubters. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Nunh's right. None of the other speculations sections talk about why. We're trying to keep those sections short. Why not just leave out any mention of why, since it is so difficult to prove that kind of thing? I don't think it would hurt the article. I do think it would hurt to put in a faulty speculation about it, though. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:It has certainly been argued, almost as a cliché, that there are few facts about Shakespeare's life, but as a historian, I'm always surprised at how many there are. That case can be argued, too (the following came up as my first Google Books hit, from Sylvan Barnet's edition: [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=N_DEGterbJ4C&pg=PR7&ots=m3SJnBmviu&dq=Shakespeare+facts+known&sig=feZWSMkQIi9BEmE7p2BQQq0ZGC0 "More facts are known about William Shakespeare than about any other playwright of the period except Ben Jonson."]). My guess is that literary scholars will tend to point out the paucity of facts while historians will not. I recently had a terrible time trying to find information about the Jacobean painters [[John de Critz]] and [[Paul van Somer I]] in order to start articles about them. These were important royal painters (de Critz was the king's serjeant painter) and many paintings by them remain, though, as with the playwrights, attribution always leaves doubts). The sorts of bits and pieces of information about them that remain are similar (though fewer) to those for Shakespeare: in de Critz's case, our main piece of evidence is a bill! Someone above suggested that we know more about Jonson than Shakespeare because he was self-publicising, but I daresay Shakespeare was too, since he was part of the commercial theatre; the real difference, I think, is that Jonson worked for the king and queen as one of the two principal creators of the court masques, about which we know a good deal, at least until records dry up after about 1610, and that role made him a prominent figure of the day, since the queen's masques were one of the events of the year in aristocratic and diplomatic circles.[[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 20:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::Well my own specialism is actually art. Since I have an interest in engravers of the period, the claim that little is know about WS seems quite strange in contrast to the f-all that is known about most Brit artists - even the "big names" of the period such as Hilliard; still, the fact remains that paucity of information helps ''sustain'' the doubters, even if it's not really the cause. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 20:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::So the consensus is leaning heavily towards removing the statement. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 21:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Well, I certainly seem to have talked myself into it! [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 21:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

== True consensus needed ==

Despite the statement directly above, the removal of the speculations sentence from the lead is not consensus. Smatprt and myself have both stated we were okay with this sentence in the lead: ''"There have been many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually [[Shakespearean authorship question|written by another playwright]], as well as questions pertaining to his [[Sexuality of William Shakespeare|sexuality]] and [[Shakespeare's religion|religious beliefs]]."'' I'd also be ok changing the words "attributed to him" to "written by him" and Smatprt probably would also be ok. But I must admit I'm growing increasingly disturbed by this FAC. Smatprt has now removed support for the FAC for what I must agree it is beginning to look like excessive POV pushing on this authorship issue. I agree that mainstream academic support for these speculations is almost nonexistance, but there is popular support and some academic support. While I don't support these speculations and have tried over the years to keep them in their proper perspective within the article, the attempt to totally whitewash the article with regards to these issues is silly. The statement "Although all alternative candidates are flatly rejected in academic circles" is POV and wrong, even if sourced. There are some academics who support alternative candidates (even if they are not mainstream, top-flight academics). As such, I'm removing my support from this FAC until true consensus can be found on this issue.

In my opinion, having this statement in the lead would be accurate and NPOV:

::"There have been many speculations about the man, including whether his works were actually [[Shakespearean authorship question|written by another playwright]], as well as questions pertaining to his [[Sexuality of William Shakespeare|sexuality]] and [[Shakespeare's religion|religious beliefs]]."

As for the actual authorship section, this seems like accurate and NPOV language:

::Around one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death, doubts began to be expressed about the authorship of Shakespeare's works. Alternative candidates proposed include Francis Bacon,[143] Christopher Marlowe,[144] and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.[145][146] Although William Shakespeare of Stratford is widely accepted in academic circles, popular interest in the subject continues,[147] albeit well outside serious scholarship.[148][149]

The wording above seemed to be something that people here could agree on and support.

I know a number of us have worked really hard on this article, but if true consensus can't be found on this, then the FAC does not deserve to pass. The above wording won't satisfy everyone totally, but it seems to be something we can all come together on. Please let me know what people think.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 22:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:I am in favor of every word. Not only in favor. Very satisfied. I would like to point out as well that the references in the Authorship section have been overhauled and replaced with more reliable ones and footnotes. When I said consensus, I merely meant on the removal of the "Because so little is known" part. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Ah, then apologies for my misunderstanding. Still, I want people to come together and agree on either this wording or a different wording so this silly reverting and borderline edit warring stops. Unless this happens, I will continue to oppose. Best,--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 22:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Indeed, if the article can't address this without misrepresentation, it should not be a featured article. The paragraph quoted above has one major flaw, which is "Although William Shakespeare of Stratford is widely accepted in academic circles," which fails to indicate exactly what he's accepted as. It's incomplete, and sounds funny. I'd suggest "Around one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death, doubts began to be expressed about the authorship of Shakespeare's works. Serious scholars agree with near unanimity that William Shakespeare is the author of the plays attributed to him. Outside serious scholarship, popular speculation about authorship continues.[147][148][149] The proposed alternative candidates include Francis Bacon,[143] Christopher Marlowe,[144] and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.[145][146] ". The only real question is if this is a formulation that Smatprt could resist the temptation of tinkering with. [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 22:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not just say: "Although William Shakespeare of Stratford is widely accepted as the author in academic circles..."? That is a lot simpler, and seems to address your concern. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::I object ''very strongly'' to the efforts of some of the FAC editors to excise the authorship section, and I say that as a card-carrying "Stratfordian". However, the real issue about the intro sentence seems to be about the phrase about the paucity of evidence, not about the rest of the sentence. As I've said, ideally, I think the authorship section should be written differently. I think it should be more like this:

:::Almost as soon as Shakespeare's works began to be canonised as models of dramatic art and of intellectual sophistication, some critics also began to doubt that a mere provincial actor could have been their author. Several Victorian writers suggested that the philosopher [[Francis Bacon]] may have been the true author, a theory first proposed by [[James Wilmot]]. By the early twentieth century these ideas had been taken up by several distinguished writers including [[Mark Twain]] and [[Sigmund Freud]]. In the later twentieth century the candidacy of [[Edward de Vere]], earl of Oxford became more popular. Nevertheless, the great majority of professional scholars have rejected the theory, suggesting that it is motivated more by snobbery and mythology than solid evidence.

::Of course that's just a draft. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 22:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I could support your version but I strongly doubt we could get consensus on it. Nunh-huh, "Serious scholars" also strikes me as POV (especially repeating this phrase twice). How about this:

::Around one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death, doubts began to be expressed about the authorship of Shakespeare's works. Proposed alternative candidates include Francis Bacon,[143] Christopher Marlowe,[144] and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.[145][146] Among academics and scholars, there is near unanimity that William Shakespeare is the author of the plays attributed to him, but popular interest in the subject continues.[147]"

That wording keeps things simple and NPOV. If people want more info, they can read the main article on the subject. I should also add that, as Awadewit stated in the FAC, this authorship debate is making the article unstable. We need to come to consensus ASAP or the FAC will fail. --[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 22:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I think it's fine. Maybe just change the last sentence to: "Although popular interest in the subject continues, among academics there is near unanimity that William Shakespeare is the author of the plays attributed to him." This places more stress on the academic viewpoint. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::::That sounds reasonable, and I agree that Wrad's revision makes it flow better. - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 22:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::And Paul, when it comes to evidence, I would call your attention to the overhaul of references recently done on the section, along with footnotes making several of the points your proposal does. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:It's simple but it does not ''explain'' anything. I think Awadewit is as much of an evangelistic ideologue on this matter as some other editors. My wording fits the evidence of the RSs that have been produced. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 22:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:Alabamaboy, I think you misunderstood: when Wrad referred to consensus, he meant on the point in the intro about so little being known (it has also been argued by some writers that quite a lot is known). I don't think the whole sentence that you mention; should be trashed, but it needs copyediting ("Many speculations" is odd English, for example: surely the usual form is "much speculation") and isn't fully integrated with what went before.

:As far as the paragraph on authorship is concerned, even Awadewit has said that a brief dismissal would be sufferable; and so cutting it is not on the agenda, by majority verdict (I am in the minority but realistic). In which case, discussion is bound to continue on how to improve the passage and its references. For a start, it is badly written, starting as it does with an unnecessary passive construction. I do not believe that Smatprt has made his case that any serious academics question Shakespeare's authorship, but he has made the case that some serious academics have discussed the matter. Therefore, Awadewit's problem with the weaker sources in this paragraph can be addressed by removing them and allowing the references to Schoenbaum and Holderness and other serious academics to cover the whole matter (since the article is not endorsing the theories of Delia Bacon and co, references to those sources is not needed: all that is needed are references to serious academic sources who, in dismissing the theories, would mention Bacon, Oxford, and co. en passant).[[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 23:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::The bigger point, though, is that by going back and forth on all this we have been making the article so unstable that it is about to fail the FAC (IMHO). Please see possible final language below.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:::It's not going back and forth, it's gradually improving. Raul has made it very clear that he doesn't regard editing work in response to the FAC process as instability. Instability is destructive edit warring. Chill for a moment and go with the process: the article is getting closer each day.[[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Perhaps you are right. I'm going to step away from this and work on other projects. I've proposed a final version below.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 23:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

== Final consensus versions? ==

This statement in the lead:

::"There have been many speculations about the man, including whether his works were actually [[Shakespearean authorship question|written by another playwright]], as well as questions pertaining to his [[Sexuality of William Shakespeare|sexuality]] and [[Shakespeare's religion|religious beliefs]]."

The actual authorship section:

::Around one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death, doubts began to be expressed about the authorship of Shakespeare's works. Proposed alternative candidates include Francis Bacon,[143] Christopher Marlowe,[144] and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.[145][146] Although popular interest in the subject continues, among academics there is near unanimity that William Shakespeare is the author of the plays attributed to him.[147]"

Is everyone ok with this? If you are, please state so here ASAP. And if everyone agrees with these versions, please don't make any further changes to the authorship and speculations sections.--[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 23:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I will support this, if only to resolve the issue and get the FA process back on track. However, I do wish there was some context provided, as requested on the last FAC. Paul made an attempt at this that was on the right track. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 00:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:I am. And again, Paul and Qp, look at the recent changes to the section, including the new references and footnotes. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::Meaning what? I know what the current text says. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 23:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Meaning the footnotes contain all the information you wanted in your proposal. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::::No they don't. They just list names. My version contexualises and creates a chronology supported by the sources. Anyway, the first rule of academic writing is to put it in the ''text'' rather than the ''note'' unless you have a very good reason to do otherwise. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 23:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Kudos to Wrad for those edits (Kofi Annan's job is up for grabs, by the way), but it would be much simpler just to remove any reference to Delia Bacon, Hoffman and Looney. A mere reference to Schoenbaum would cover all that very simply.[[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 23:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::My good reason for making them notes was because I knew if I touched the main text everyone would have a catfight :) Well, this is supposed to be a summary of the Authorship issue, so I don't know how much more you want to add, but I'm all ears. I would like the vast majority of information to remain in the [[Shakespearean authorship]] article, though, as I'm sure you would. A list of names and scholarly input on the theories is about all we can handle, although context might be a good add. Though Qp seems in favor of keeping it simple. I am too. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

*I have looked at the recent changes and before providing any statement of support, I have a question for the group - I was successful in locating several true academics, including a Dr. Strittmater who has indeed published on the issue, I obtained his published material, as well as an online version for you to check. I provided three different cites to his work that supported the history of the authorship, the reasoning behind it, and cites for Oxford. (Bacon was also mentioned in Strittmater's published material.) This was all done as a response to the FAC and requests from awadewit. my quesiton is - why were each and every one of those references cut? What made them not a RS? If at least one of these can be restored, I would feel less like censorship is being employed and would be inclined to support these statements. If the non-academic Kathman has been added back in, and (and whith other non-academics) is considered reliable, then the deletion of Stritmatter cannot stand without accusations of POV and censorship[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 23:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

*And while I disagree with Paul's conclusions (that it all boils down to snobbery), I do appreciate his attempt to provide some context for the existance of the issue. That is what the paragraph has been missing. I also agree with Paul that the lack of historical data is a fair generalization. If we had a script in his hand, any autobigraphical statements, if the names of Heminges and Condel were'nt added to the will after the fact, or if the folio contained anything other than circumstantial evidence, we would not be having these conversations. But lacking concrete evidence, speculations continue. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 23:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:It's not my conclusion, it's the conclusion of most academics who have written about this. We don't have to agree to accept that that's the majority view. I tried to be be fair by describing Freud and Twain as "distinguished" rather than as "amateur", which I could have done had I been pushing a POV. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 23:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::They were taken because of Awadewit's comment on the FAC stating that they were unreliable. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrad/Everyone - Please explain why Stritmatter (academic) is not reliable and David Kathman (distinguished amateur) is.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 23:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:Take a look at Awadewit's comment. Basically he says it was a dissertation and dissertations are notoriously faulty. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::Very true. And I've read some stinkers. Kathman isn't an amateur. His publication record demonstrates that he's accepted by the best as a legitimate scholar. Stritmatter is far less accepted. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 00:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

By publication record, do you mean the one chapter in someone else's book? What other authorship writing of his has been published (except on his own website?)[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Smatprt, you miss the point entirely because you are so obsessed with point-scoring about Oxfordianism. In fact Kathman has published in several other places, as has already been pointed out to you. As it happens, I think that Awadewit is as irrational on this matter as, IMO, you are. You can think I'm wrong, of course, but Awadewit is making a big issue out of this, for reasons I think are unfair. I think my verson of the text - plus notes - would meet his objections. Your need constantly to argue in favour of anti-Statfordianism is just making matters worse by, as it were, jabbing at open wounds.

:How about:

::As soon as Shakespeare's works began to be canonised as models of dramatic art and of intellectual sophistication, some critics also began to doubt that a mere provincial actor could have been their author. Several Victorian writers suggested that the philosopher Francis Bacon may have been the true author, a theory first proposed by James Wilmot [ref to schoenbaum]. By the early twentieth century these ideas had been taken up by several distinguished writers including Mark Twain and Sigmund Freud.[ref to ogburn?] In the later twentieth century the candidacy of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford became more popular.[ref to looney, ogburn] Nevertheless, the great majority of professional scholars have rejected the theory, suggesting that it is motivated more by snobbery and mythology than solid evidence.[ref to Holderness, Schoenaum, Taylor] Dissenters, known as anti-Stratfordians, continue to disagree [ref to Stritmatter etc]. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 00:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Refs to Stritmatter and Ogburn aren't going to get us FA status. We need academic, peer-reviewed sources. And please cool it with the personal attacks. Just respond to the argument, not the person. Also, Smatprt, by publication record I believe he means peer-reviewed, scholarly articles by him or her have been published. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 00:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::Since Kathman is opening old wounds, why not just find a better source. Surely academia has better to offer, yes?[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 00:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Cool it yourself. I dobt that Smatprt is insulted by the fact that I am being honest. The most important point is to create a workable text. There is a difference between citing texts as evidence of what people think, and citing them as authorities. My proposal is clear on that difference. [[WP:RS]] is actually quite unambiguous about this. We can cite [[David Icke]] as evidence of what David thinks, but not as evidence that the Queen of England is actually a Reptile. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 00:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Paul's version - it seems informative and neutral. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 00:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul - I liked what you attempted (providing context), just not all that snobbery business, which just reopens old wounds. We had a version that was approved (if not wildly) by all the FA editors. Now, based on the controversial edits of the last few days, it is up for grabs once again. Ah well. BTW - With a minor change or two, I would support your version as well.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 00:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Since the theory isn't held by scholars, it's not going to be propounded by scholars. It's reasonable to cite the more famous amateur theorists for their own views, but no reason to cite the obscure ones. I'd like to see the time frame made more concrete, e.g. "Some one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death, as his works began to be canonised as models of dramatic art and intellectual sophistication, some commentators also began to express doubts that a "mere provincial actor" could have been their author. Several Victorian writers suggested that the philosopher Francis Bacon may have been the true author, a theory first proposed by James Wilmot [ref to schoenbaum]. By the early twentieth century these ideas had been taken up by several distinguished writers including Mark Twain and Sigmund Freud[ref to ogburn?]. In the later twentieth century the candidacy of Edward de Vere, earl of Oxford became more popular.[ref to looney, ogburn] Nevertheless, the great majority of professional scholars have rejected the theory, suggesting that it is motivated more by snobbery and mythology than solid evidence. [ref to Holderness, Schoenaum, Taylor]" ? - <span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 00:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:Well, I'm about to go. I still think Alabamaboy's version is the best proposal so far. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 00:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::After all that has been said, I think at this point I agree with Wrad and will support Alabamaboy's version, as it has the best chance to pass FA. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 01:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::I've just read a chapter called "Shakespeare and co." on Google Books (with much chicanery, I managed to read it all) in a book by Harold Love about attribution, published by Cambridge University Press. Since it goes through all theories methodically, I have used it to reference the sentence about Bacon, Oxford and Marlowe, which really didn't need three reference tags. I also combined it with the Kathman reference for the next sentence, since Love is wholly dismissive and calls the dissidents "a small splinter group", and also since Smartprt objects to Kathman. On the latter point, I am surprised at Smatprt, whom I usually respect for his arguments without agreeing with him. It is not valid for Smartprt to point out that Kathman hasn't had any more published than some of the authors he favours, like Ogburn; you have to take the editor as the key to the volume's peer review process, and since the book in which Kathman's contribution appears is edited by respected Shakespeare scholar Stanley Wells, it counts as a reliable source. Even so, the reference no longer depends only on Kathman.[[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 01:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]]- I only object to Kathman if we are deleting Stritmatter's published material, as Stritmatter is an academic who conducts ongoing research on the same subjects and using much the same source material as Kathman. Does that clarify my objection better? [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 01:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:I haven't looked into Stritmatter; but the validity of Kathman has nothing to do with the validity of Stritmatter. Whatever the case with Stritmatter, Kathman is a reliable source.[[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 01:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::I was only addressing your statement that I compared Kathman to Ogburn, which was not the case. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 01:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::I will add that in the past I held more esteem for Kathman than I do presently. As his personal website has grown, it becomes more angry and preachy - in essense, less professional. He also has begun to make more far reaching conclusions that simply don't make sense, given the sources he provides (or doesn't). Scan thru his website and form your own conclusion, but now he strikes me more as a lightning rod for anti-stratfordians, than a serious scholar. And I'm pretty sure Shakespearean academia has better to offer. However, that is simply MO and I realize others will disagree.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 02:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I've read neither his chapter nor his website; but the book's qualification as a reliable source is inarguable. Like most authors, Kathman is probably much improved by academic peer review and scholarly editing. No one is suggesting citing Kathman's website. [[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] 02:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== Good morning, everyone ==

OK, I've got up and I'm in a marginally better temper, so let's review where things stand.

1. The Authorship section now reads:

:''Around 150 years after Shakespeare's death, doubts began to be expressed about the authorship of Shakespeare's works. Alternative candidates proposed include Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.[144] Although all alternative candidates are rejected in academic circles, popular interest in the subject continues.[145]

::I still think historical context and details of scholarly opinion are better in the text than in the notes. This version reads almost like a disclaimer. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 10:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, but just so we are clear, that stuff is now not in the notes either. It is nowhere. See my point 2, below. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 11:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Shakespeare&diff=140245333&oldid=140244609 here]. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 11:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that most of us have accepted that that is a stable version. WILL ANY DISSENTERS PLEASE SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HEREAFTER HOLD YOUR PEACE?

2. QP has removed Wrad's {note|Authorship} reference from the text, and for consistency I just removed it from the the notes section, also. I understand Wrad is happy with this (although Kudos for the hard work on it, which may be useful at another page).

WILL ANY DISSENTERS PLEASE SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HEREAFTER HOLD YOUR PEACE?

3. <s>The sentence from the lead has been removed completely. I'm not sure I see a consensus for that but I think we definitely have a consensus for its opening words being removed since we are unable to source them. (Oh, how I wish [[User:The Singing Badger|the Singing Badger]] was here!)</s> Correction, it seems only the opening words from that sentence have been removed, and I believe we DO have a consensus for that.

As before, WILL ANY DISSENTERS PLEASE SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HEREAFTER HOLD YOUR PEACE?

My understanding is that this little edit skirmish will not of itself harm our FA application, since it arose out of the FA process itself and therefore doesn't count as "instability".

Assuming those points are settled, I presume we can move on from the authorship issue.

4. This is the first featured article nomination I've been involved with, so can someone give me an idea of the procedure from here. Does the nomination stay open until we either get the star or people stop talking? Or is it like AfD where they give you five days, and then recycle your article for firelighters?

5. Have we got a current to-do list of matters still needing action if the FA application is to succeed? It's Sunday so you've got me and my small library for the whole day and I'm happy to rewrite and rewrite and to keep rewriting until no more rewriting will help. (Or until my wife drags me off on a trip somewhere, so pray for rain!)

6. With all the arguments above, has anyone noticed my utterly brilliant work on the "style" section? And will people now look it over and correct all of my mistakes, please?

[[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 07:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:You're sprightly this Sunday! I'm not: I'm hungover. I have noticed your "utterly brilliant work"; kudos, my friend. As for your other question, copyediting and citations are the only remaining issues. I had a quick look over the article and no sections offended me, except the introduction. I still don't like these sentences:

:''Shakespeare produced most of his known work between 1590 and 1612, although the exact dates and chronology of the plays attributed to him are uncertain. He is one of the few playwrights considered to have excelled in both tragedy and comedy, with works like Macbeth, Hamlet and King Lear ranking among the greatest plays of Western literature[2] and greatly influencing subsequent theatre and literature through their innovative use of plot, language, and genre.''

:''There are many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright, as well as questions pertaining to his sexuality and religious beliefs.''

:Other than that, I think we've done very well and everyone should be applauded for their hard work. I'll read over the article properly when I'm not hungover. I hope to find that copyediting is no longer an issue. [[User:RedRabbit1983|RedRabbit1983]] 08:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah, I got through a bottle of pinot grigio last night while editing this, which may account for my occasionally bad tempered responses. Hopefully my edits to the article itself aren't tainted by that too much. I'm sober as a judge, now, and drinking my fourth coffee of the morning. Oh dear. Anyway [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not an alcoholics self-help group]] so let's get back to the copyediting. I'll have a look at those points you've just raised if you'll have a look at the opening sentences of "Stlye" and see if there's anything there that can be improved, replaced or removed. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 09:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::More specifically, I mean this bit:
:::''Shakespeare's stagecraft and verse style bear the marks of the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods in which he lived,[70] his style developing not only with his own tastes and skills as a playwright but also in response to the tastes and requirements of his audiences.[71]
::which (a) rather states the obvious when you get down to its meaning and (b) seems to be in more difficult language than the next few sentences. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 09:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::::I've had a look at the intro. I'm a bit scared of touching the sentence about speculations: my previous changes have, um, not found favour. I will give it some thought but I think any improvement to that sentence should be discussed here rather than made on the article itself. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 10:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done some copyediting on the intro. Can I have a view on this:

:''Because of Shakespeare's popularity, his works have been translated into every major living language.

...which seems to me to get the causality the wrong way round: ie he's popular because people have read his works, not the other way about. Am I just being too pedantic about this? I won't change it: I'll just let that thought rest for another editor to consider. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] 10:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::Well, it is surely because of his high reputation. It's true of most "classic" writers, but I think it's fair to say that Shakespeare travels better than many other canonical authors, so popularity is probably the most concise way of saying "both admired and still widely read". [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 10:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:30, 24 June 2007

File:Overlook timberline.jpg
The Overlook (Timberline Lodge) as seen in a still from Stanley Kubrick's film The Shining

The Overlook Hotel is the fictional hotel from Stephen King's novel The Shining and its adaptations. Timberline Lodge, a mountain resort in Oregon, was used in Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of the book while the Stanley Hotel, King's inspiration for the Overlook, was used in a TV adaptation for ABC.

Construction

The Overlook was built by a man named Robert Townley Watson between the years of 1907 and 1909 on an ancient Indian burial ground. (A number of human remains were unearthed and removed to another location.) perhapes many people are unware of the madness of the hotel the ghost do not appear when the hotel is open or could being inside the hotel make u go mad and start using volience or simply thinking in your head im not along in this hotel im sure of that.

Location

The Overlook Hotel was located in the Rocky Mountains, 40 miles West of the nearest town, (the fictitious) Sidewinder, Colorado. (The novel references a close proximity to Estes Park, Boulder, and the Rocky Mountain National Park.)

Due to its isolation, relatively poor access, and the Colorado winters, the hotel is only open from May 15 to September 30 each year; it is almost inaccessible for 5 to 6 months each winter.

Layout

The Overlook contains a total of 110 guest quarters. (Coincidentally, from May 15 to September 30, when the hotel is open, the Overlook employs 110 full-time staff.)

Basement: Boiler, furnace, storage (newspapers, paperwork, scrapbooks)

Lobby Level: Overlook Dining Room and Colorado Lounge in the West wing, registration desk and offices behind a 160 foot lobby in the center section, and banquet/ballroom facility in the East wing

First Floor: 20 single rooms, 20 double rooms, and a storeroom at the extreme West end

Second Floor: 10 single rooms, 30 double rooms, and a storeroom at the extreme East end

Third floor: 10 suites in the West wing (including the Presidential Suite), 10 suites in the center section, and 10 suites in the East wing; all command magnificent views

Top floor (attic): storage (furniture, etc.)

Features

The Overlook Hotel is a world-class hotel whose location provides an "overlook" of a magnificent section of the Rocky Mountain range.

Its amenities include a roque court (possibly the finest in North America), a putting green, a topiary garden, a playground, and a pool.

History

The Overlook was considered to be one of the most beautiful resort hotels in the Rockies, if not the world. It had many illustrious guests: Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Astors, Du Ponts, Marilyn Monroe, Truman Capote, and presidents Wilson, Harding, Roosevelt, and Nixon.

File:Stanleyhotel.jpg
The Stanley Hotel in Colorado served as King's inspiration.

The Overlook was built by a man named Robert Townley Watson between the years of 1907 and 1909. During the construction, an ancient Indian burial ground was discovered on the site and a number of human remains were unearthed and removed to another location. Following this, a number of mysterious deaths were involved in the building of the hotel, inspiring local tales of vengeful Indian spirits full of anger due to the disturbance of their resting bodies. The Overlook Hotel was finally completed in 1909 and first opened to the public in 1910. Despite the strange, untimely deaths surrounding it and the eerie tales, the hotel itself was attractive, elegant and spacious hotel with panoramic views of the mountains and proved immensely popular, receiving more visitors than expected.

The fledgling hotel proved to be a burden on Watson, so he sold the hotel in 1915. Many strange events occurred and rumours of hauntings and a curse abounded. It was sold again and again in 1922, 1929, and 1936. The hotel was finally abandoned, vacant until the end of World War II, when it was purchased and renovated by Horace Derwent. The Overlook became one of Derwent's most valuable holdings in Colorado. Derwent boasted that his Overlook would be the "Showplace of the World," but it would have a history as anything but. He poured over 3 million dollars into restoring the hotel in his attempts to create his showplace before a single patron ever walked through the doors. Even with all of the Overlook's faboulously wealthy guests, the hotel never made a single dime back.

The Overlook's financial loss proved to be too great, and in 1952, Derwent sold the hotel to Charles Grondin, the head of a group of investors based in California. The group ran the hotel for two seasons before it was sold to a company called Mountainview Resorts. The company went bankrupt in 1957, closing the Overlook for the rest of the decade. The Overlook fell into disrepair during this period, but it was leased and repaired in 1961 by four writers who reopened it as a writers' school. However, the school closed when a drunk student died after falling out of his third-story window onto the terrace below.

In 1963, the Overlook was bought yet again by a Las Vegas investment firm. It opened a few months later. However, the sale was peculiar because the head of the firm was Charles Grondin, who had bought the hotel from Horace Derwent in 1952. Grondin had been tried and acquitted for tax evasion in 1960, and had become the executive vice president of the Chicago office of Derwent's company. These facts led to speculation that Derwent controlled Grondin's Vegas organization and had bought the Overlook a second time under peculiar circumstances. In 1964, it was discovered that the Vegas firm that owned the Overlook had connections with Mafia kingpins. Grondin denied the charges. In 1966, however, a gangland-style triple murder was committed in the Overlook's presidential suite, one of the victims being a notorious mafia hit man named Vito the Chopper.

The Overlook recovered from the scandal and business continued as usual. Eventually, management of the hotel was given to a man named Stuart Ullman in 1970. Soon after he started his tenure, more unusual and horrific events occurred in the Overlook. A panicked cleaning woman claimed to have seen the corpse of a guest in the bathroom of Room 217 (the guest's corpse was en route to her funeral at the time of the sighting), and she was promptly fired by Ullman.

Supernatural Attributes

The Overlook Hotel is not only haunted by the ghosts of those who died violently within it, but the entire Hotel is itself a host to a being of unknown origin; apparently, the souls and, perhaps, special abilities of those killed in the building belong to the entity. Possibly, the Hotel believes that if it can harness sufficient "supernatural" power, it can "break free" of the building in which it has somehow become trapped in.

The Events of The Shining

As part of the immediate backstory, in 1970, Ullman hired a man named Delbert Grady to be the Overlook's winter caretaker. Along with his wife and two daughters, Grady spent the winter months in the hotel. When the Overlook's staff returned to open the hotel for the season, they discovered that Grady had murdered his family with an axe before killing himself.

In 1977, Ullman hired a new winter caretaker named Jack Torrance. Torrance was an aspiring playwright and a recovering alcoholic who saw the caretaker job as an opportunity to repair his fractured family life. Torrance, along with his wife Wendy and son Danny spent the winter tenure in the Overlook, which was marred by terrifying occurrences.

Unbeknownst to Jack and Wendy, Danny Torrance had psychic abilities, such as mind reading. These abilities were referred to as "the shining" by Dick Hallorann, the hotel's cook (who also had the shining). And unbeknownst to the entire Torrance family, the Overlook Hotel had been somehow transformed into an evil sentient entity, filled with ghosts and evil spirits that sought to absorb Danny into the hotel to become something more. The Overlook's paranormal inhabitants, such as the dead woman in Room 237 and the living hedge animals on the roque court, started to attack the child, but to no avail.

Eventually, the Overlook started exploiting Jack and his desperation to get to Danny. The evil spirits in the Overlook, including the ghost of Delbert Grady, told Jack that Danny and Wendy were trying to oppress him and that he should kill them both. The Overlook also played on Jack's past in alcoholism against him and had him start drinking again. After he attacked Wendy and Danny in the ballroom, they locked him in the Overlook's pantry. The hotel let Jack out, equipping him with a roque mallet, so he could make Danny "take his medicine." Jack wounded Wendy and Hallorann (who had come back to the Overlook at the telepathic request of Danny) before cornering Danny.

Danny had realized that the person attacking him and his mother was not really Jack Torrance, but the hotel itself, which was possessing his father. Danny told Jack that the hotel had made him start drinking again and had given him false promises to correct past events. The real Jack emerged to tell Danny that he loved his son and to get out before the hotel took over again and used the mallet to kill him. The creature that remained was prepared to kill Danny until Danny realized that Jack had forgotten to release the Overlook's boiler pressure and the hotel itself had forgotten too. Danny, Dick, and Wendy barely escaped the Overlook before the hotel was destroyed as the Overlook's boiler explodes. The hotel's presence unsuccessfully tried to convince Hallorann to kill Danny and Wendy, but he resisted and they escaped.

Even though the Overlook seems to be a mere, inanimate hotel, certain parts of the book suggest that it is in fact a sentient entity. Delbert Grady's ghost refers to the hotel as the "manager" who has appointed Jack as the caretaker. A powerful voice, heard only though Hallorann though the shining, first tells him to turn back when he tries to help the Torrances and later tries to tempt Hallorann into killing them. Indeed, at the climax of the story, Danny discovers that the man attacking him is not the real Jack Torrance, but really the hotel itself. The hotel then kills Jack with the mallet, gruesomely "shedding" Jack's body, becoming a living composite of all the ghosts in the hotel. It is implied that this is the hotel's animate, supernatural form.

In Stanley Kubrick's film, the hotel was not destroyed. Instead, Jack Torrence was absorbed into the hotel in a ghostly time warp of madness and murder. After chasing his wife and son outside into a blizzard (and after which they escape in a snow mobile), Torrence dies of exposure whilst running around a hedge maze. His image then appears clearly in the forefront of an old photograph inside the hotel lobby (namely the July 4th Ball of 1921).