|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Shakespear is a bi-guy according to wikipedia
|From owner-hangout-outgoing-at-mrbrklyn.com Sat Jan 23 19:21:01 2010
Received: by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix)
id 6845256E05; Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:21:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix, from userid 28)
id 54FF356E07; Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:21:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [188.8.131.52])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F9156E05
for ; Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:21:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from panix1.panix.com (panix1.panix.com [184.108.40.206])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D2881F086
for ; Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:22:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: by panix1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 20529)
id 45C4914B98; Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:22:54 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:22:54 -0500
From: Ruben Safir
Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Shakespear is a bi-guy according to wikipedia
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
William Shakespears talk page...
Sexual preferences in Biographies
It's getting past rational at this point the number of irrelevant
entries on famous biographies speculating needlessly on historical
figures sexual preferences. I let it pass in the Divinci entry because I
though it might actually be historically significant, although there
also it is highly speculative, but here there is just no need and it is
completely irrelevance and unsubstantiated.
Wikipedia isn't a tool for political agendas. The use of it in this
fashion threatens its reputation and it's usefulness. Don't vandalize
these biographies for your own political ambitions.
Aside from that, there is a separate article, only God knows why, just
on useless and highly dubious speculation on Shakespeare's sexuality.
That provides more than enough inaccurate speculation on Shakespeare's
sexual preferences. You can annotate it in the footnotes if your so
Where should this stop? Should we start adding paragraphs on every
biography as to speculating on the Jewishness of historical figures?
Wasn't Christopher Columbus a secret Marano? Should we add entries on
speculation of Masonic Membership? Abduction by space aliens? Should we
speculate on everyones vegetarianism? â€”Preceding unsigned comment
added by Mrbrklyn (talk â€¢ contribs) 14:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The sources in this article are scholarly and peer-reviewed, not
political junk sites and not speculation. Please read them before making
accusations that the statements backed up by them are "unsubstantiated."
The ideas regarding his sexuality discussed in the section you removed
are not fringe or minority theories by any stretch, but actually quite
mainstream, and it would be inappropriate to take them out. Wrad (talk)
18:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
That is a flat out lie AND besides the point. This is not mainstream at
all. There is no reason to speculate why this married man with 3
children might have been, if you really twist the meaning of things,
might have been bi-sexual in the minds of some very few political
fanatics. STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE. There was NO evidence of him being
bisexual other than pure speculation of a few sonnets , giving them
alternate meaning and ignoring their obvious context, and it has no
impact on his contribution. It sheds NO LIGHT or unique information
about his biography. It does nothing to help describe any of his
artistic achievements. Neither he nor any of his critics ever even
discussed it when evaluating him. And even if there was, which there
isn't, it is completely irreverent to his biography other than to a
couple of Gay English Majors in Chelsea after drinking to much scotch,.
It is just complete pure Bull SHIT. This isn't Truman Capote, or Walt
Or maybe the fact that only MEN acted at the Globe, and they Cross
Dressed... maybe that is proof that everything we know about Shakespeare
needs to be turned around because he's Gay!
For god sakes..mainstream NOT
This is crap and it is politicization a simple biography.