Because the page looks abandoned after archiving. Nishidani ( talk) 21:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Tom. Just 1 hour into the 2nd presidential debate, did Obama say he was going to go after immigrant ' gangbangers'? Nishidani ( talk) 18:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
@Nishi & Paul B: lol Knitwitted ( talk) 02:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
According to Christie's, the painting has been "historically identified" as the 15th earl, which just means that someone attached that name to it at some point in history. Its recent sales have been as portrait of an unknown male in the style of Mytens. Obviously, it's highly unlikely to be the man himself. The lot description of the most recent sale (14 Dec 2010) is:
MANNER OF DANIEL MYTENS Portrait of a gentleman, historically identified as John de Vere, 15th Earl of Oxford (c.1490-1540), three-quarter-length, holding a cane with identifying inscription 'John Vere Fifteenth Earl of Oxford/Lord ...of England/Gibson pinxit' (lower left) oil on canvas 49¾ x 41¼ in. (126.5 x 105 cm.)
"Gibson" may, I guess, be a reference to the 18th century copyist Thomas Gibson.
Paul B ( talk) 07:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The "Lord ...of England" signifies that part of the inscription is damaged. Having looked at the more detailed file on the Christies website, I think the missing word was probably "chamberlain". It could be
Henry de Vere, 18th Earl of Oxford. "Gibson" might be Richard Gibson (1615-90) rather than the 18th century one.
Paul B (
talk) 11:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The supposed Lord Great Chamberlain engraving looks 16th-17th century in style, but I don't know where it comes from originally. It's semi-emblematic in character so it's certainly unlikely to be a "portrait" in any realistic sense. I'll have a look at some books on images of Elizabeth. Paul B ( talk) 18:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Pennington's Descriptive Catalogue of the Etched Work of Wenceslaus Hollar (p. 93) has an entry on the Hollar version of the design. No mention is made of Oxford. Roy Strong has this to say about the 1576 ceremony, which is the one depicted: "Elizabeth appeared arrayed in her garter robes and wearing a diadem of pearls upon her head, the sword of state borne before her by the Earl of Hertford, her mantle supported by the Earl of Northumberland and the Lord Russell, and her train carried by the Countess of Hertford assisted by the Earl of Oxford." (The Cult of Elizabeth: Elizabethan Portraiture and Pageantry, p. 168) If this is accurate, I guess the image should go in the article dedicated to Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford. Paul B ( talk) 13:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tom,
I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted [4]. I hope I can count on your support. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
My polite question to you, Mr. Reedy, is expressed above. Are you an administrator for Wikipedia? If not, for whom do you act in my case? -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 08:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I sincerely hope you'll write a bio of Oxford based on what his contemporaries' biographers wrote about him. I think *that* would be an interesting read and I think whole-heartedly you would do an excellent job. Best, Knit Knitwitted ( talk) 15:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch ( talk) 17:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
It depends what scanners you use and the software, of course. What type of dots are they? We have very high quality ones here at the uni, which I can access. BTW, I've redone the version of the Ashbourne portrait to get rid of that milky line of ectoplasm above the head on the right, but I haven't uploaded it yet. I was not sure whether that came from some sort of print fault or the scanning process. Shall I replasce the file? Paul B ( talk) 11:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I've just sent you an email. I don't know if he's notable, but the article has been around for a while without being targeted for deletion, despite the weird title. One of the regular editors looks likely to to be Corbett himself. For a long while it emphasised his status as a cult anarcho-punk figure. This seems to be true, but the only sources I could find were Punk fan websites and YouTube (I have a soft spot for punk, but I won't be looking for Apostles albums if the stuff on YouTube is typical). The editor-who-may-be-Corbett then deleted all the Punk stuff, since he seems now to be promoting himself as a gentleman-scholar rather than an anarchist nihilist! As for his career as a photographer, I've no idea how significant he is in that field.
Of course that's all separate from the question of Lewes Lewknor's presence on the list. The book certainly exists and the author of a book does not have to be notable for the candidate to be listed. The Anne Whateley advocates are very obscure persons, as are many of the other originators of new candidates. Of course I know that we should have at least notification of the claims by an RS. I admit I couldn't find one. The book's only just been published, but someone (who I wonder?) has splashed stuff about it all over the web. Paul B ( talk) 19:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Hope this helps :) Best, Knitwitted Knitwitted ( talk) 20:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that certainly is a cornucopia of cushions. Of course they could all be grain merchants who did a bit of theology on the side. I'm also distressed to read that one of the Barlows was destroyed by "rabid fanatics". An ill omen. It's a pity I haven't been able to find a detailed published discussion of this sculptural convention. It would be good to have a section on it in the article. Paul B ( talk) 19:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Earl of Oxford's Men, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Henry VII, Tumbler and Thomas Dekker ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Barrell was an "art critic"? If this is a reference to essay on the Ashbourne, I'd hesitate to call that art criticism, since it was not about evaluating it in any meaningful way. Or did he write some reviews of Picasso shows? Paul B ( talk) 14:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Congrats on your recent article "Oxford's Men"... very nice research!
Is there any chance you would provide cites to Fripp and Groves (or anyone else) which shows how Shax used the Tomson N.T.? I'd like to correct my essay to reflect the facts. Thanks very much for your help! Best, Knit Knitwitted ( talk) 16:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Do I take it that you have answered your own question, since you have now added an image from the Folger website? I'm impressed that you found that image. I find negotiating the Folger website painfully confusing. Paul B ( talk) 17:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Tom Reedy. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Tom, are you planning to add something that establishes notability to your new article on Margery Golding? That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A). However, person A may be included in the related article on B. You may want to keep it in your userspace until you do, because as it stands, it could get speedy deleted at any time. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC).
I don't mind either way. It is not however a 'non-sequitur' (i.e.not following logically from what precedes): I put it in to introduce the remarks that follow. The low-survival rate of documents may have been covered elsewhere, I don't reread the whole page everytime I edit, but the point is important to understand why the sceptic objections re lack of evidence they insist must be there to 'prove' anything just fly in the face of the hazards of documentary survival.You know the page better than I, so either remove the Callaghan source as well or, if reconsideration changes your view, perhaps relocate it. Cheers, Tom Nishidani ( talk) 12:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Tom, after writing the above note, I noticed that your talk page is in the category De Vere Family. Oxford isn't really your great-great-great, etc., grandfather, is he? -- Alan W ( talk) 02:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
[[:Category:De Vere family]]
(which makes a link to the category, like
this).
Johnuniq (
talk) 02:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Using the colon gerts rid of a great deal of obscure darkdown. James McAuley, on being offered the choice of a colostomy for bowel cancer, preferred to ignore the indignity and accept death, quipping:'Better a full stop than a semi-colon." Cheers, chaps! Nishidani ( talk) 07:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Using the colon is a rather obscure bit of markup, which I learned only today,
Hello Tom. I wanted to let you know that Old Moonraker has not editied since August of 2012. I miss him and I hope that he is well. You might already be aware of this but I wanted to let you know just in case. Cheers and have a good week. MarnetteD | Talk 16:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I found a link to an article "Wikipedia's Shakespeare Problem" at the top of the talk page for the SAQ article and so posted the following. I thought it courteous to let you know.
Wikipedia Stratfordians have a fresh problem - Stanley Wells! They have classified the Shakespeare Authorship Question as 'fringe' but now Wells is on record as being concerned that it's entering the mainstream. One editor in particular - Tom Reedy - seems totally averse to this being cited in notes where it strikes me as wholly relevant. They really need to change their policy on this, Authorship questioners may be a very small minority in academia, but they can no longer be classified wholly as 'fringe' Sceptic1954 ( talk) 18:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Since you have over 25 edits at Talk:Charles Dickens, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Derivative works and cultural references templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm writing an academic article on people-participation in the 'production' of Shakespeare studies.
I noticed that you had recently provided some edits for the Wiki Shakespeare page, and wondered if I might ask you some questions about that?
This project is at a very early stage so I've not yet refined or worked out a fixed methodology. So the questions are also not yet fully formed. (And I am aware that you also contribute to many other pages.)
1. What motivates you specifically to contribute specifically to the Shakespeare page?
2. Do you consider that your skills in this regard are general, technical, or specialist?
3. Have you contributed to other Shakespeare-related pages?
3. What's you opinion on how the Shakespeare page has evolved over time?
4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Shakespeare page in terms of its current form and content?
5. Who would you say are the target readers for this page?
6. What have been the advantages and/or the frustrations of working on the Shakespeare page?
7. What are your reflections on the process of wiki-engagement in terms of connection, community and collaboration?
8. In your view, are there any other questions that ought to be considered?
Many thanks for taking the time to read this! TheoryofSexuality ( talk) 17:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
John Weever may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm really sorry about the revert. I'm using some beta software (which really isn't a good excuse) and I didn't see your edit summary about the material being outdated. -- Kangaroo powah 04:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Tom, I thought I should ping you about this, in case you have ideas about a possible sockmaster. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC).
Thank you for the link on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard it is a very good article. Reminded me of college days. -- Dr Daly ( talk) 17:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Million Award | |
For your contributions to bring William Shakespeare (estimated annual readership: 4,550,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:
![]() | This editor won the Million Award for bringing William Shakespeare to Featured Article status. |
If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I've lived in Texas for about 10 years now.--v/r - T P 16:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Be aware that your recent notification to just selected members of the Fair Use Wikiproject (not all of them) regarding the NFR template is a direct violation of canvassing. (A message on the project's talk page would have been acceptable). I'm not reporting it at this point, but be aware that while it is fine to get more input such as from that project, you have to avoid narrow notification which is one clear sign of canvassing. -- MASEM ( t) 13:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WP:COIN#Michael Mic Neumann. You were involved in a prior discussion about that user. --
Lexein (
talk) 10:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your recent edit to Thomas Paine, I agree, of course, that it was not a book, but I'm wondering why the adjective "American" needs to be before "title". Wouldn't "the best-selling title of the period", or "the best-selling title in America" be all right? Were there significant sales outside of America? CorinneSD ( talk) 15:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Could you direct me to that part of the MOS without the comma? Thanks. Inglok ( talk) 19:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I should have given exactly the explanation you gave, Corinne. I said "foregone" because it mirrored Tom's edit and I knew he would recognize it. Tom: Corinne and I are discussing appositives on my talk page too. Inglok ( talk) 21:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Tom. Is there a specific wikipage where references to books, etc. on biblical parallels found in Shakespeare would be an appropriate topic? Or possibly, could a new page be started for such topic? Thanks for your help! Best, Knit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitwitted ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks! Forgot that Knitwitted ( talk) 18:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC) thing.
The world has turned since the old arbcom warning system, and the new style is:
{{subst:alert|saq}} ~~~~
A brief comment can be included, but it's probably better to add any wanted comment in a second edit because the new system checks for the above and, if detected, prompts the editor (you) to check that no previous warning has been issued, and you have to click Save a second time for the comment to be added. Viewing the user talk page history would show a tag indicating that an alert had been issued. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Basically you just need to type some text, like starting an article. Sorry I've so brusque-seeming. Very busy! Paul B ( talk) 08:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page: Category:People who knew William Shakespeare, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ( talk) 06:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
FatGuySeven (
talk) 03:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! FatGuySeven ( talk) 16:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Tom,
I've gone and fixed the links on the page to reflect the archived URL; I assume you already found your way to that. The principal compilers were Sir John Sainty and Andrew Thrush, and indeed I believe the page was taken down because the two published the compilation in v. 321 of the Standard Series, List and Index Society. It's not "original research" in the Wikipedia sense insofar as both the original IHR webpage and the List and Index publication, which I assume to be essentially the same, have been researched and written by experts in the field, and the conclusions drawn are theirs, not those of Wikipedians. His appointment is also corroborated by R. G. Marsden's earlier compilation in the English Historical Review. Given that his imprisonment was for bad behavior rather than disloyalty, and that he was at the time still a substantial landowner in Essex, his appointment doesn't strike me as extraordinary or unbelievable. Choess ( talk) 04:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. Reedy, for correcting the errors of my ways at Biblical allusions in Shakespeare re articles cited in the scholarly journals Brief Chronicles and The Oxfordian as well as the scholarly newsletter Shakespeare Matters. I am truly in awe of your unfettered dedication and selfless determination to rid Wikipedia of any cites to these said scholarly rags. Perhaps you would consider running your hindsight scrubbage on Dr. Stritmatter's page as well as Dr. Waugaman's page for any such mention of the above-mentioned scholarly rags. Perhaps you might even joyously scrub other such scholarly rags hence-to-now unknown to appear on Wikipedia's blow me standards of a pure, highly scholarly bibliographic nature. Again, I thank you for taking time out of your busybody schedule to correct my obvious mis-judgments. Yours very truly, Knit Knitwitted ( talk) 16:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello you recently edited the article Battle of Pantelleria (1586) concerning the ownership of the Edward Bonaventure. The evidence that it was owned (or may have been owned) by Edward De Vere was from this article [5] Shire Lord 17:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
A case ( Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
No rest for the wicked, pal. There's Oxfordian cypherism even in the sanctuary. So get off ya hammock and fire up the grey matter! Nishidani ( talk) 14:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roger Stritmatter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Stritmatter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bomagosh ( talk) 20:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey Tom, I didn't know you had an article published in Shakespeare Quarterly. Congrats. Have you had work published in it before? I don't usually read it myself unless somebody specifically recommends an article (normally something to do with Shakespeare on film), but I'll definitely grab a copy from the library and give your article a perusal. Bertaut ( talk) 23:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tom,
I'm a researcher who hopes to use this image of yours in a research publication. I was just wondering if you had a higher quality image than the one you posted to the article that you'd be kind enough to share. Thanks, and thanks for being patient with any mistakes/faux-paus I make, its been forever since I've edited. D-rew ( talk) 21:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for adding that link to the project page Tom, it's a hell of a resource. Already been using it for an upcoming module I'm teaching on close reading, using Othello as an example. Very nice find. Bertaut ( talk) 01:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I recently dipped my toe into updating 1 little element of Wikipedia's 154 Sonnet articles and, well, it turns out that more than 1 thing could stand improvement. I've written up a little manifesto cheekily called User:Phil wink/Sonnet Uniformity Act. Ultimately, I'll post a link on WP:BARD, Shakespeare's sonnets, and possible William Shakespeare. But 1) I despair of getting enough feedback to achieve "consensus" worthy of the name, and 2) I hope to get a sanity-check from dedicated editors before completely exposing it.
Would you be kind enough to read my harangue, and comment? (Please comment at User talk:Phil wink/Sonnet Uniformity Act so we can maintain 1 discussion.) I may continue tweaking it a bit, but I think it's pretty much complete, apart from updates based on ensuing discussion. FYI, I've put out this same request to Xover and Thefairyouth154. I'm much obliged for any insight you can contribute. Phil wink ( talk) 21:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I nominated William Shakespeare for TFA because his 400th death anniversary is coming up. JerrySa1 ( talk) 23:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Shakespeare Association of America, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa ( talk) 23:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tom. You know, those edits of page ranges in the SAQ article by user srich32977, though no doubt made in good faith, did bother me when I saw them, but I couldn't put my finger on why. Now that you've reverted them, I thought about this some more and realized (as you said) that we were already consistently following one style, and there was no point in changing all the citations without good reason. Just changing everything to follow another self-consistent style does not by itself provide a good reason. That said, in scanning all the notes all over again, I did notice one inconsistency that had been overlooked, so I did change that citation now. Eternal vigilance!
Glad you're still around, and hope you've been well. Happy New Year! -- Alan W ( talk) 07:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Shakespeare authorship question article has been scheduled as today's featured article for a second time, for 23 April 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 23, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 16:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Shakespeare
Thank you for quality articles around William Shakespeare, including the Shakespeare authorship question, in almost ten years, for updates such as the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, for the reminder of conduct "well above par", - Tom, "kinder, gentler editor", you are an awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
A year ago, you were recipient no. 1642 of Precious, a prize of QAI! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
You (or someone else, per your notification) removed without comment an external link I added for Politicworm.com
I know of nothing other than factual quality which distinguishes it from other sites on the list. So I would like to know: what is the basis of its removal?
Proximity1 ( talk) 08:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)proximity1
Tom I am relatively new to editing wikipedia
1)I am a little troubled that you are banning posts which disagree with the view of the editors and acting as judge and jury.
2) I dont have an axe to grind on the topic, but I think scholarship has moved significantly over the past 20 years and that the view presented on wikipedia does not reflect the mainstream. I think the devere and bacon authorship theories in particular are on the decline while scholarly and linguistic theories connecting marlowe are on the ascent. I footnote some 2017 studies. I would say the article is particularly biased in implying that computer linguistic studies reinforce the hypothesis that shakespeare wrote everything himself. I believe they suggest the opposite.
3) everything I wrote is meticulously footnoted and documented and presented in a fair and neutral manner.
4) if you delete my post in its entirety, you deny the wikipedia community an important resource, namely a summation of all Shakespeare works in chronological order and present the arguments relevant to each text. the chronological pattern is very important, because it highlights the earliest works are thought to be collaborations with Kyd, the next several tragedies are strongly attributed to Marlowe, then Shakespeare starts writing more on his own, and then as his business matures he delegates more to Middleton and Fletcher.
please restore my comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unified field ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈ 2a) some other aspects of the existing article which troubles me: it is written as if people are binary. pro-stratfordian or anti-stratfordian. that mindset made sense 20 years ago, but many scholars today are assuming multiple hands worked on each play, trying to parse out which phrases were edited by which co-author.
another thing which troubles me; the article seems more interested in advocacy than unencumbered analysis. so, for example, the article takes the standard argument that shakespeare lacked the education or background to write these works and attempts to turn it on its head, maintaining his fallability shows he was a likely candidate. i dont buy this argument for a minute, because the author of these plays had a level of erudition far from what could be obtained with a grammar school education. but mostly the article is written in a style of someone trying to defend a view at all costs rather than in a manner which suggests intellectual honesty.
I am sympathetic because it sounds like wikipedia is getting barraged with edits which overwhelm the editors. but may I humbly suggest you are getting so many edits because the article as written does not adequately cover the material, does not reflect recent scholarship, and is not open enough to divergent viewpoints.
also, I was not attempting to espouse anything new and radical. merely to summarize what I believe be to the scholarly consensus in a concise chronological chart format which does not presently exist. perhaps you wish to have separate columns presenting arguments for and against shakesperian authorship of each play. other readers are free to annotate this chart if I missed relevant arguments.
but simply deleting the chart (and other edits) cannot be the right answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unified field ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
If you´re interested: [7]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Tom Reedy. I just noticed this picture you uploaded some time ago. The description reads:
Also known as "Shakespeare and His Friends at the Mermaid Tavern". The painting depicts (from left in back) Joshua Sylvester, John Selden, Francis Beaumont, (seated at table from left) William Camden, Thomas Sackville, John Fletcher, Sir Francis Bacon, Ben Jonson, John Donne, Samuel Daniel, Shakespeare, Sir Walter Raleigh, the Earl of Southampton, Sir Robert Cotton, and Thomas Dekker.
It looks to me like Ben Jonson, John Donne, and Samuel Daniel have, between them, but 2 heads. The first, gazing directly at the viewer, I take to be Ben Jonson (albeit more dashing than I've ever seen him before). The second, to me, is a coin-flip between Daniel and Donne... but Daniel if I had to choose. Granted, there's a fuzzy profile-like splotch behind Daniel/Donne, but given the clarity of the rest of the figures, surely that splotch is not intended to represent one of WS's contemporaries? Do you have anything to shed light on this super-important problem? Cheers. Phil wink ( talk) 23:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)