Talk:William Shakespeare#Changing image to Droeshout

Remsense, it would be beneficial if you had actually read the body of the article before editing the lead and removing other editors' contributions. The material regarding the modern reception of Shakespeare is thoroughly covered in the section "Critical reputation" and serves as a fair and balanced overview of how Shakespeare has been perceived, particularly in the age of modern drama since the 19th century.

The mention of bardolatry, a term coined by George Bernard Shaw—a Nobel Prize laureate in literature—is far from undue. On the contrary, it highlights a critical aspect of Shakespeare's legacy: the tension between reverence and critique. The modern reception of Shakespeare should include this nuanced perspective, especially given the transformative influence of Ibsen on drama and the contrasting views of T. S. Eliot, who found Shakespeare's "primitiveness" a hallmark of his enduring modernity. These contrasting views are crucial for understanding how Shakespeare's relevance has been debated in modern theatrical contexts.

To excise this material risks creating an overly hagiographic portrayal of Shakespeare. Wikipedia's objective is to present a balanced narrative, not one that veers into idolization by suppressing critical perspectives. Including this context acknowledges both Shakespeare's towering achievements and the evolving discourse about his place in literature.

The lead should reflect this nuanced understanding, which is consistent with the evidence presented in the body of the article. To ignore such discussions may inadvertently contribute to the very bardolatry that Shaw critiqued. --Msbmt (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

:At the very least we should mention bardolatry somewhere. For example, {{tq|The modern reception of Shakespeare reflects both admiration and critique, with George Bernard Shaw coining the term bardolatry to challenge excessive reverence.}} --Msbmt (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

:The lead is meant to be a brief summary of key facts about a subject, proportional to their representation in the article body. Very often, it absolutely should not describe nuances of this kind as there is simply no time to do so without throwing the reader's initial assessment totally out of whack. Juxtaposing a well-cited claim with one that is contrary or dissenting but clearly less well represented is an antipattern. Such nuances belong in the body . Remsense ‥ 论 06:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

::Nobody is ignoring anything. The "bardolatory" criticism of Shaw is already mentioned in the Critical reputation section, which points to two, fuller, sub-articles where it is covered in greater detail. To lob an uncontextualised mention of Ibsen into the lead would be of no help to the reader. KJP1 (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

To write a creative writing 103.163.67.9 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:If what you read in the article didn't help, try :Category:William Shakespeare. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Following-up this discussion: Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive_23#Quartos

I said, then, that I would keep an eye out for any contrary sources and, as it happens, in my reading this week, I came across one. A WP:RS by Barbara Mowat says that Henry VI Part 3 appeared not in a Quarto but in an Octavo. I don't think the article needs to stress the point: but does anyone agree maybe "The others had already appeared in quarto versions—flimsy books made from sheets of paper folded twice to make four leaves" should become "Most of the others had already appeared in quarto versions—flimsy books made from sheets of paper folded twice to make four leaves" or something similar? AndyJones (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• In the absence of any replies here, I'll make that change shortly. AndyJones (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• {{done}} AndyJones (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The discussion was unanimous. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)