Talk:Procreation sonnets

A verification problem with this stub
This article, suggests that there is a notable category of Shakespeare’s sonnets known as the “Procreation Sonnets”. The article relies on one, and only one source (Shakespeare's Sonnets edited by Duncan-Jones.) That source apparently doesn’t use the phrase “Procreation Sonnets”, and none of the citations in the article actually verifies this article’s content. You might think, based on the citations, that the phrase or discussions or comments regarding the phrase, might appear on page 100 or 142. That doesn’t happen. You would think that the reliable source makes a claim about comparative “frequency” on page xiv and again on page 54 to 69. That doesn’t happen either. And the comment in the article about sonnet 18 isn’t supported on page 100 either. Nothing is supported.

The phrase itself seems a “put down” or diminishment of the poems — the poems contain many themes. Duncan-Jones may recognize that, and may be wise to avoid slapping such a generalizing label on anything. This article shouldn’t insult Duncan-Jones by pretending that her writing is riddled with such stuff.

I've run into the phrase expressed as "the so-called procreation sonnets". I think this stub perhaps should be removed.Gaustaag (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe it may be possible to cite the relevant term.


 * Regards, --Xover (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regards, --Xover (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regards, --Xover (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regards, --Xover (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regards, --Xover (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regards, --Xover (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regards, --Xover (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regards, --Xover (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regards, --Xover (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regards, --Xover (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the research, however it's not enough that the phrase gets mentioned, but a reliable source needs to accurately support the specific claims that are made in the article. I notice a number of the things you found require subscriptions, which is fine, but they would limit the ability of those who are non-subscribers to verify.  You’ve certainly classed up the talk page, but the article itself is still an unsupported, unverifiable fraud.  Of course it can still be fixed (or done away with).


 * I believe Shakespeare never uses the word "procreation" in any of the first sonnets. And the word, as it refers to a specific sexual act, is such a low common denominator, it would be easy to imagine someone applying that tag on any number of things, from porn to the Song of Solomon, to the Hallelujah Chorus.  It seems like a tag dreamed up late at night in a Freshman dorm somewhere.  (Freshman to Shakespeare:  “Dude!  Increase, tillage!?  Say it like it is!  It’s screwing, dude!”)  None of the sonnets refer to procreation directly, and some not even metaphorically.  I suspect serious scholars avoid it for those reasons.  Gaustaag (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article can certainly be improved; mostly by expansion. A cursory check suggests that all significant claims in the article are cited, and the citations support the sentences they are attached to. However, your main complaint appears to be a dislike of the very term that is the article's subject. Responsive to that complaint I have—in less than an hour, with a single search of a single indexing service—provided 9 citations for its currency and meaning from high-quality reliable secondary sources, by scholars in relevant fields, in well-reputed journals, published by prominent university presses and learned societies. In fact, Shakespeare Quarterly is somewhat of a "Journal of Record" for the field. Your response, so far, has been to dismiss these as not being "serious scholars".PS. I don't think that word means what you think it means. --Xover (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Xover, I appreciate that you troubled to find those sources. I respectfully think that you in good faith misread what I said, though, because I absolutely did not and do not dismiss any of those sources as not being "serious scholars". What I said was that I suspect that serious scholars might be avoiding the phrase for good reason. That wasn't a comment on your sources. It's just a suspicion I have; I think the phrase seems to be falling by the wayside among scholars. I may be wrong. But Wikipedia is a bastion of conservative maintenance of old ideas, simply because Wikipedia doesn't care if an idea is outmoded or not — if content can be supported by a reliable source it is welcomed here. I notice that not all of the sources you found use the phrase (based only on what you posted). Also I know that sometimes authors can be over-ruled by their editors when it comes to titles, so it would be interesting to actually read those sources and try to discern how devoted they are to the phrase. But all this discussion of your sources is a bit off topic. We both agree that they should not be called "unserious". I haven't actually read them, though you may have. They seem to require a subscription (or a visit to, or a loan from a good library). But they appear to be reliable sources in search of come kind of content. And they certainly give a nice, serious appearance to this talk page. Gaustaag (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding edits of May 17
The edits I made hopefully improve things a bit. This article was using only one source, Shakespeare’s Sonnets, edited by Duncan-Jones, a book that doesn’t use the phrase “procreation sonnets”. However, that book does make a comment regarding the change that occurs to the sonnets that follow Sonnet 17, so I have retained the source for that only, and I have reworded that line in this article to remove original research, and to more accurately represent what the source says. I have added new and different source in the lead that not only refers to the phrase “procreational sonnets”, but refers to it as a phrase that has been used in the context this article intends. The article still needs additional work, and additional sources, which shouldn’t be hard to find. Gaustaag (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)