Talk:Garrick's Temple to Shakespeare
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Dthomsen8 in topic Controversy
 | Garrick's Temple to Shakespeare has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 24, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Garrick's Temple to Shakespeare is said to be the world's only shrine to William Shakespeare? | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Controversy
editThe identity of the author of works attributed to William Shakespeare is a matter of major controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.36.194 (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, not really. Prioryman (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a question, see Shakespeare authorship question, but many scholars have concluded that William Shakespeare really did write the plays and poems attributed to him. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Can't quite follow this
editIn the Contents section it says that "According to Walpole, Hogarth designed the chair, which had a medal of the poet carved into the back of it". Did Walpole claim that Hogarth designed the chair, or that it once (and no longer does as implied by the past tense "had") a medal of the poet in its back? Both? Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Does "The chair was designed by Hogarth, according to Walpole, and had a medal of Shakespeare carved into its backrest" make more sense? Prioryman (talk)
- Perhaps, but that implies that it no longer has the medal of Shakespeare, and if it doesn't, then who claims that it once did? Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can't speak for the current status of the chair but the original source says "On the back of the chair was a medal of the poet". That may imply that the medal is no longer there or it may just be ambiguous writing by the author of the source. Prioryman (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Folger Shakespeare Library would obviously know, as they're in possession of the chair. An email would likely sort out this confusion. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Most likely, but it wouldn't be usable as a source, surely? Prioryman (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Of course it would, just need to OTRS it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Really? I hadn't realised that was permitted. Wouldn't it be problematic from the point of view of other editors not being able to access it? Prioryman (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why would they have to be able to access it? All that's required is that the information has been verified as coming from the Folger Shakespeare Library. You see "personal communication" very commonly in academic publications. Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Really? I hadn't realised that was permitted. Wouldn't it be problematic from the point of view of other editors not being able to access it? Prioryman (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Of course it would, just need to OTRS it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Most likely, but it wouldn't be usable as a source, surely? Prioryman (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Folger Shakespeare Library would obviously know, as they're in possession of the chair. An email would likely sort out this confusion. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can't speak for the current status of the chair but the original source says "On the back of the chair was a medal of the poet". That may imply that the medal is no longer there or it may just be ambiguous writing by the author of the source. Prioryman (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but that implies that it no longer has the medal of Shakespeare, and if it doesn't, then who claims that it once did? Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)