 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Is Kyd really "generally accepted" to have been the author of this? I am not a literary scholar, but I have read analyses that both support and refute the proposition. Ellsworth 23:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- No, I think most responsible scholars simply say that it might have been Kyd, since he has a better claim than most. Few would claim any certainty on the matter. The Singing Badger 23:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- In his critical coverage of Hamlet, Cedric Watts states that the Ur-Hamlet was "almost certainly" written by Kyd. --Virnas 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, I think most responsible scholars simply say that it might have been Kyd, since he has a better claim than most. Few would claim any certainty on the matter. The Singing Badger 23:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Is the anti-Stratfordian drivel really necessary? Rintrah 13:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Probably not. I think you were right to remove it, but don't be surprised if it comes back. Turning to the other point in your edit summary, though, I will revert you if you remove the Bloom paragraph. The fact that Harold Bloom has argued the point prominently in Invention of the Human - one of the most widely read and influential recent books on Shakespeare - makes it both noteworthy and interesting, for my money. AndyJones 12:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. I will admit that I am prejudiced to Harold Bloom: his recent anthology of poetry inspired disgust at his work, for its intrusive comments on the poetry, his tendencies to categorise poets reductively, and his disparaging comments about Poe. If someone else expressed his argument, I would consider it with more weight. Rintrah 11:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
References?
editI don't think i understand the references. What is the title of the book? There isn't even a year, just an author and a page number. Am I missing something? --Xali (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's all there, but in a non-standard format. A good start would be to list the works cited giving the author's surname first, as has been done with "Bloom, Harold". I don't particularly want to do this myself as it's a very tedious process to use one of the systems recommended in WP:CITEX, even when using the templates available from the edit toolbar. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yea but really important information is missing; for example "^ Nashe quoted in Jenkins, p.83". There's no title here, there isn't even a full name anywhere. The reference might as well not be there if can't be used to locate the source. --Xali (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- For your example, count nine lines down. It's not convenient, but it's there. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Used standard formatting provided by {{cite book}} template for works cited. The inline references can wait. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- For your example, count nine lines down. It's not convenient, but it's there. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yea but really important information is missing; for example "^ Nashe quoted in Jenkins, p.83". There's no title here, there isn't even a full name anywhere. The reference might as well not be there if can't be used to locate the source. --Xali (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Nuetral POV
editMuch of the article seems to be written on the assumption that the Ur-Hamlet was not by Shakespeare himself. This is a controversial position and the article should refrain from taking sides, instead aiming to explore all the possibly relevant evidence pertaining to the resolution of the controversy. I made some edits to this effect, introducing a link to the new "Q1" page, and deleting or rewording a few other troublesome passages. More work is needed along these lines.--BenJonson (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Update: In general what I have tried to do in these edits is to make it clear that there are two distinctly different interpretations of this evidence. One view is that the play in question is lost; the other is that it is an early version of Shakespeare's own play. It is possible that the article could do a much better job of illustrating both arguments with further detail, but the point is that we ought to adopt nuetral POV as the basis for developing the article, and should not assume that the dominant view, which violates occam's razor, as well as appealing to non-existent evidence, is the only one or even the best theory, as represented in the extant literature on the subject.--BenJonson (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- > Much of the article seems to be written on the assumption that the Ur-Hamlet was not by Shakespeare himself
- Certainly, as Shaxper the stratfordian realtor never wrote anything per se, since he was illiterate and even his surviving signatures are in a visibly guided hand! Ur-Hamlet and Hamlet were written as an autobiographic play by Edward the Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, first illegitimate son of QE1 and probable father of one of her other sons, the Earl of Southampton. 82.131.135.137 (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- so in other words...if I understand you right...this article presents a WP:FRINGE POV as if it were the mainstream viewpoint?
recommemded. Occam's razor Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)