This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
It's at least possible that he did, although the responsibility for keeping the parish registers of the time fell on the clergy, most of whom spoke good Latin, having had to use it in the universities. I am not persuaded that a Church of England clergyman of the period would have used adolescens to mean "unmarried", it's a schoolboy howler. I have reverted the details of death to "perhaps buried" in 1612. Even if people believe the "unmarried" theory, which I do not, we clearly do not have any certainty and cannot state it as a fact that the GS who was buried in 1612 was WS's brother. Moonraker2 (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I haven't checked, I seem to recall both Chambers and certainly Schoenbaum concluding that the correct interpretation is that he was a bachelor; and do state it as fact that the record refers to William's brother. Challenging them would require some pretty strong sources that say the opposite—and even then we might have to explain the disagreement—or we'd be engaging in original research (i.e. a Wikipedia editor's grasp of Latin and opinion of Jacobean clerical practices cannot be used to challenge a WP:RS reliable source). Not that this is, by far, the most critical issue for this article right now, of course—so perhaps not the issue we should expend too much energy on quite yet—but neither is there any exception from WP:RS and WP:OR for underdeveloped articles. --Xover (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
