Talk:Hamlet/Archive 8

Characters section
Is there a reason that there is no characters section in this article similar to the one in the Romeo and Juliet article? I really think it would help this article to have one similar to that. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hamlet at Elsinore
In the Wiki article about the actor Christopher Plummer, there is a link to this site when it's mentioned that Plummer was in a TV production of the play (titled "Hamlet at Elsinore." Since there's a link, this production ought to be mentioned in the article along with Olivier, Branagh, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.16.173 (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Political "context and interpretation" section
Nothing in the section as written has anything to do with a political interpretation of Hamlet. Only one reference, Winstanley's 1921 Hamlet and the Scottish succession, even touches on a political interpretation or context, that is, her theory that Hamlet was written to oppose King James's ascension and support Essex, both of them being portrayed in characteristics of Hamlet. The theory is almost universally rejected, but a variation of it has been proposed by Stuart Kurland. If this section is to stay, it must reflect its title. Whether it was present during the FA process is immaterial; that was back when editors were far less familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and those policies might have changed since then for all we know.

I suggest you consult Bevington's Tudor drama and politics for some possible approaches. As it is written, it violates WP:ONEWAY because it is nothing more than an Oxfordian promotion wrapped in a guessing game of who the characters represent supported by antique scholarship. And the last contention, "Hamlet was given the royal imprimatur, as the king's coat of arms on the frontispiece of the 1604 Hamlet attests," is flat wrong and not supported by the source, which is not RS for this article anyway.

Oh, and BTW, you are the "POV warrior," not I. I am upholding Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you are the one working to get around them, as evidenced by your refusal so far to explain why your actions don't violate WP:ONEWAY or even to demonstrate that you understand the policy. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from the sneaky way the Oxfordian theory is being smuggled in here, as all should know, it has no right of place being fringe, the fact is that there is no analogy, as Alan H.Nelson, the foremost authority of de Vere, and one of the ranking world experts in Elizabetheana has argued:
 * "First, conceding for the sake of argument that Oxford was a model for action in Shakespeare plays, his behavior was so outrageous and public that it is scarcely necessary that he was the author. Anyone could have made Oxford's life the topic of a play, poem, or story. Secondly, Oxfordians, who draw parallels between their man and incidents in the Shakespeare plays, routinely distort history to make a better fit. Yes, both Oxford and Hamlet were on ships attacked by pirates. Oxford's father, however, was not murdered, his stepfather was not his father's brother, nor was there animosity between them, but rather affection; nor did his mother remarry precipitously. Oxford's love-interest, Anne Cecil, was not the sister of any Leartes, though her father Burghley may have been similar in some respects to Polonius. Oxford did not kill Anne's brother and she did not commit suicide; rather, Oxford married her. Abuse came after their marriage, not before, and continued more or less unbroken to the end of her life, during which she endured at least five pregnancies."
 * Note that 'routinely distort history'. Do we really need a fringe theory by amateurish hacks on a page dealing with Hamlet, a play on which, every year, some 400 odd scholarly articles are churned out. There's simply no room for tweaking around the text with this marginalia from the dustbins of discarded speculation.Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting aside the ongoing ad hominem attacks by both Tom and Nishidani, Tom's claim "that was back when editors were far less familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies" is simply outrageous. Many of the best editors on Wikipedia contributed to the article and the FA process. The parallels between Polonius and Burghley have been commented on by countless scholars for over 100 years, as have the other parallels between the Cecil family and the characters in Hamlet. The attempt to delete the entire section, in spite of the FA process of which it was a part, reflects the ongoing attempts by Tom and Nishidani to delete all mentions of De Vere, and all mentions of the authorship question, from the any related articles here on Wikipedia. It merely reflects their own POV, in spite of any scholarship that disagrees with it. BTW, this is not merely my view, as this agenda of theirs was commented on by a neutral editor here [].Smatprt (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I won't link to all the comments about you because I don't want to be the cause of wikipedia having to put a new server online.
 * None of your comments address the main point: the material excised has nothing to do with the political interpretation of Hamlet or context; it's only here to serve as a link to the Oxfordian article. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (a)Wikipedia articles covering works of famous authors should restrict severely their references to mainstream literature. John Dover Wilson, for one, does mention similarities between Polonius and Burghley. Alan Nelson showed that the extended analogy made by the Oxfordian trash-machine is nonsense. Do you want us to begin marring the page with an extensive set of academicreferences to what is a minor point in Hamlet criticism? What's the point? The point, as Tom notes, has nothing to do with 'politics'.(c) If there was a 'political critique' of Burghley implicit there, how is it that Oxfordians maintain he crushed de Vere by disallowing him to write, and then Cecil's censors let the putative alternative author de Vere brashly challenge the 'totalitarian' repression of the Elizabethan establishment by allowing his hostility to Burghley-Cecil to be played on stage before the Elizabethan court itself. I.e. de Vere is the victim of a repression that refuses him a voice, and yet at the same time the authors of that repression let him get away with murder by having him (Hamlet) murder Burghley metaphorically by stabbing his pantomine stage form, Polonius, behind the arras. It's utter hogwash, and shouldn't be here. You people couldn't fight your way logically out of a paper bag, be capable of which is one criterion for editing wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the ad hominem attacks do get tiresome. Is it possible for you and Tom to argue a point without resorting to such tactics? It's clear you two are teaming up to continue edit warring, and are wikilawyering as you try to find a policy - any policy - that will allow you to delete properly referenced material that was part of the consensus FA version. Your argument that you are not edit warring, but simply following policy, appears to be just one more attempt to bend the rules to fit your agenda - which is the deletion of material you don't personally agree with. You are ignoring the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle that should have been followed. You made a bold deletion. I reverted due to lack of consensus, lack of discussion, etc. and instead of trying to build a new consensus for your deletion, you two simply reverted half a dozen times between you. For the simple answer to Tom's initial issue - ONE-WAY does not apply as the Polonius/Burghley parallel has been commented on by numerous scholars for over 100 years and still is. In regards to the SAQ, Hamlet is THE most cited parallel play according to the OT.Smatprt (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What really gets tiresome is listening to the same complaints for the entire 4 years I've had to deal with you and your stated agenda of promoting Oxford as Shakespeare.
 * Nishidani and I are not edit warring, nor are we intent upon expunging all mentions of anti-Stratfordians from Wikipedia. The Polonius/Burghley speculation is covered in its proper place here, and there is no need to repeat it in this article. There are places on Wikipedia for fringe topics, but those places are not the main pages, nor should main pages link to fringe topics unless necessary. You obviously don't agree with Wikipedia policy. That's not my problem, that's yours.


 * The Burghley/Polonius parallel is hardly fringe. Seriously now - are you saying that it is?Smatprt (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What also gets tiresome is your habit of trying to change the subject instead of addressing it. This is a prime example. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as the Polonius/Burghley speculation, if that should be in the article the fact that Oxfordists use it is irrelevant. Oxfordists use all kinds of things for their "evidence," and if mentioning the Oxfordists's useage were allowed with every fact, every Shakespeare article would be half Oxfordism. The fact that Hamlet is the "THE most-cited parallel play" is irrelevant to Shakespeare studies. By your standards, every medical article should mention homeopathic and chiropractic cures.
 * And we don't have to "try" to find policies to subvert to oppose the insertion of anti-Stratfordism in Shakespeare-related mainpage articles. It's spelled out clearly in WP:FRINGE and WP:ONEWAY. If you don't like it, get the policies re-written. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In reality, if you have a problem with where the material is located - which might be a valid argument - the solution would be to put it under the "sources" section. This is where it is often found in other scholarly material. This makes sense, of course, as the source of the character of Polonius may have been Burghley. Your agenda, which you admit, is to delete anything about the SAQ. However, that one line is...well.. just one line in the entire section you are intent on deleting. But again, I remind you that the material itself was in the FA consensus version. Is it in the wrong place? Perhaps. Maybe. But the solution is to improve the article by fixing the placement, not just deleting the material, the references, everything.Smatprt (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the "solution" is already at hand; the material is already included where it belongs.
 * Oh, the article was FA and therefore sacrosanct? I suggest you review this, this, and this, where you tried to insert yet more anti-Stratfordian POV into the main Shakespeare article long after it achieved FA status. For some reason, your Wikipedia history seems to be chock-full of these types of controversies. I wonder why that is? Must be because everybody picks on you and starts edit wars through no fault of yours. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom - the edits you cite are perfect - I followed bold-Revert-Discuss and a long healthy discussion followed. You and Nishidani are teaming up and engaging in Bold-Revert-Revert-Revert-Revert and the discussion is a mix of sarcasm, personal attacks, ad hominem accusations and the like. Do you see the difference? (BTW - the issue you just listed was not initiated by me but by another editor who I chose to support.) An example of your contribution to that discussion? Smatprt (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So you believe that sums up my contribution to the discussion? One hesitates to explain a joke, so I won't. And your memory is faulty; if you look at the edit history it was more Bold-revert-revert-revert-revert-revert. If you consider those three arguments over one note to be "healthy discussion", then you should be pleased with the way this one is going. The fact remains is that your edits to the Shakespeare article were the most disruptive and almost always ended up in a 5-screen discussion. That's the history, and it's recorded in the archives, so you can hardly deny it.

Our edits here were fully explained from the beginning (Wikipedia policy is to explain edits in either the edit summary or the talk page). Any sarcasm directed at you is the result of losing patience with your tendentious editing and persistent willful refusal to face facts. There have been no ad hominem tactics; you need to look up the term. You also need to look around and find out where your "consensus version" support went to. I've seen only one regular drive-by supporter of yours and one SPA account. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Cecil Family
In spite of our vast differences, I believe we are making slow progress here. Having found several quick references to the Cecil family parallels under "source" information, I moved that material to our "source" section as well. However, I see that the information concerning everyone but Burghley was removed. There is no legitimate reason to delete this material so I did restore it. It's relevant, properly sourced, and all mainstream information. There is not a whiff of fringe or minority view material included so I fail to understand what offends. Please explain. Smatprt (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And so? What about finding several 'quick references' to the fact that there is an analogy between Claudius, Hamlet's mother, the King, and Hamlet and Queen Mary, the Earl of Bothwell and Henry Stuart Lord Darnley, and James 1? What was Polonius aka Burghley, doing in Scotland at the time? Was de Vere, aged 17, at Kirk o' Field? Nishidani (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with such material. We both know, of course, that the Cecil family parallels have been commented on by many, many scholars - from Chambers to Rowse, and (arguably) reflect a strong consensus. It would be interesting to know if the parallels you mention are as well supported, or are minority views on the issue. In any event, feel free to add the information in. Smatprt (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 'It would be interesting to know'? Well, that's surprising, it's in the Winstanley book you cited, Hamlet and the Scottish Succession, (Ch.2)and yet all you got out of the whole thesis was a tidbit everyone knows, and any book could source about Anne de Vere? Why didn't you use her larger material dealing with the Darnley murders and Hamlet? Are you only interested in harvesting for the article anything that talks about de Vere and the Cecils? Did you read the whole book. If so, why do you ignore everything Winstanley wrote about the parallel I mentioned, and respond as if it were all news to you?Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Mainstream scholarship" from 1869 and 1921? Please tell me what university class you picked that up in. I'll settle for a community college class. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several hypotheses on Polonius. Winstanley (1921) has both Cecil and Rizzio (who was stabbed by Darnley, who in turn was murdered in a garden like Hamlet's father). There is Israel Gollancz's (1916) theory that Polonius alludes to Goslicki's 'De Optimo Senatore Libri Duo', translated into English in 1598, just before Shakespeare's (re)drafting of Hamlet. (See Geoffrey Bullough, Narrative ad Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare, Routledge and Kegan Paul, vol.7 (1973)p.45 for its pompous sententious style). The Cecil possibility, if mentioned, elicits automatically an extended passage on several other speculations in the mainstream. So if you want this, you just leave in Dover, put Rowse into a footnote, and add the whole mainstream survey of possible contemporary echoes. To single out Burghley, as you do, Smatprt, is give other editors the impression you cherrypick mainstream scholarship in order to smuggle in leads for the reader to the Oxfordian fringe hypothesis. Either do your homework thoroughly, and edit towards comprehensiveness or give this page a rest.Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the impression that all edits need to be comprehensive. I think this is the root of a number of your complaints against me. But the fact is, there is no such rule or guideline to that effect. In fact, the opposite is true. This is a community effort. One person adds something, then someone expands it, then someone else provides some context, etc., etc. That is how Wikipedia grows, yes? The points you make are good in that the section can be more inclusive. Since you have the resources at your fingertips, feel free to add whatever you wish. But you can't require other editors to only add fully comprehensive material. It's unrealistic. It's also not needed as there are plenty of editors who will always tinker and add and tweak.


 * By the by, can you check your ref to Jenkins and perhaps provide a quote in the ref as you did for Hibbard? The edition of Jenkins I checked (online) did not reflect the page number (421) that you list. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Email Mark Alexander, one of your favorite sources. I'm sure he'll check it for you. That's the page he gives for Jenkins (of course as well as pp.34-5). If it's wrong, I suggest you fix the Polonius page.
 * No, you're wrong. Useful editors edit towards comprehensiveness. Drumbeaters invariably cause a lot of trouble for wikipedia, because they ignore the request that all contributors honour NPOV. The way you interpret the guidelines, they say - I have an open invitation to write up my POV here, as long as I collaborate with others who don't share it. Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Delahoyde
I've removed
 * "It has also been noted that 'Corambis', (Polonius's name in Q1) resembles the Latin for 'double-hearted'—which might satirise Lord Burghley's Latin motto Cor unum, via una ('One heart, one way').(http://wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/hamlet1.html Burghley's Latin motto was 'Cor unum, via una' (one heart, one way), and with 'bis' meaning twice or again, the playwright contorts the motto with the idea of ambiguity, signifying double-dealing -- two-facedness)'"

Perhaps this may have been theorized in mainstream texts, but I can't find details yet in RS books. Delahoyde is English prof. at Washington State, but hasn't published this in a journal or book, and he gets it all from fringe sources. It's cited from his own webpage, which is not enough. I have replaced with the closest I can get to it in Lilian Winstanley's Hamlet and the Scottish Succession (1921). I suggest you keep searching for quality RS on this, Smatprt, and if you do produce one, I will not oppose its inclusion.Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have had to revert User:Smatprt again. This fixation on using a page, that mostly ignores a large volume of very detailed mainstream material on Hamlet, to wiggle in material that backs a fringe lunatic thesis, is unacceptable. From Winstanley (1921), through Chambers (1930) to Dover,(1932) and lastly Rowse writing over 4 decades ago, we have allowed a minor historical theory a voice, a theory which has many competitors which have not been mentioned because no one appears to think one should overload the page with such details, a theory that hasn't been considered important to any great extent in recent work on Hamlet. Not content with this concession, he keeps reinserting a minor point, with a minor mainstream backing, into the text, as he wrote it originally. I see no responsiveness to what other editors have argued, and therefore have reverted.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "For over a century, Shakespearean scholars have identified several of the play's major characters with specific members of the Elizabethan court.'"
 * I.e. from 1864-1967. So the opinion is 'historic'. Since it is an historical tidbit, the verb would have had to be changed automatically from 'have identified' (which connotes a continuous state, please note, Smatprt) to 'identified'. This you didn't do,- logically so, since had you implied your evidence was somewhat dated, the rest of us would be wondering why you persist in exploiting it, since wikipedia is ultimately about giving readers state-of-the-art information, not hints and winks that, after 1967, Ogburn and co., started to revive this in Oxfordian theory just as mention of it waned in mainstream theory. As phrased, you have the misleading impression with 'have identified' that mainstream scholarship still seriously entertains the old view. Perhaps it does - it's a huge field no one can keep track of - but your evidence itself is old-hat. Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggested some possible sources here, but the impediment seems to be their non-availability on the Internet. Smatprt, get a library card and learn how to use interlibrary loan. This of course proscribes instant gratification, which is probably one reason why Wikipedia articles are packed with web sites references. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Protestant Reformation
How can the Denmark in Hamlet by Lutheran if it was written about fifteen years BEFORE Luther nailed up his theses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princess Moogle (talk • contribs) 02:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, it wasn't. Paul B (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Then there is false information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princess Moogle (talk • contribs) 08:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Martin Luther - 10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546
 * Ninety-Five Theses - 1517
 * Reformation in Denmark-Norway and Holstein - 1536
 * Hamlet - believed to have been written between 1599 and 1601
 * The dates seem to work... AJRG (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The mystery of Hamlet.
"Dear Wikipedia, I am a doctor of English Literature and research scholar who cannot fathom how to contribute Shakespeare information to you.

Let me simply present below my contribution to the various explanations your page on Hamlet shows for the Hamlet Mystery.

My contribution is as follows:

The Mystery of Hamlet has stimulated another, recent attempt at solution. It hearkens back to a nineteenth-century hypothesis that Hamlet's subconsious moral conscience stops him from killing King Claudius (until it is too late to save himself).

This recent view suggests that our hostile attitude toward the ruthless Claudius is not deep down shared by Hamlet, that the First Act reveals this. And that Hamlet is very sensitive to his mother's feelings, the Pyrrhus recital being an allegory which exhibits the frantic Hecuba as a projected Gertrude if Hamlet murders her beloved, defenseless husband.

According to this recent view of the Mystery of Hamlet, the First Act reveals that Hamlet, a pre-Christian Viking, has a Christian subconscience, and the Ghost's suffering in Hell for sins committed in earthly life has been taken to heart by his son. Only passion can sweep away his Christian scruples, and the poison-tipped rapier provides that so Hamlet can finally kill his deadly adversary." -- Myron Stagman, author of The mystery of Hamlet: a solution (2010). Cambridge Scholars Publishing (Newcastle, UK) ISBN 978-1443814409. Email posted on behalf of Stagman by response team volunteer Jeandré (talk), 07:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 19th-century interpretations -- pp. 115-122
 * Solution of subconscious moral conscience -- 123ff
 * Passion overcoming scruples -- pp. 134-135
 * Re-assessment of Claudius according to Hamlet's subconscious -- 156-163
 * Pyrrhus recital allegory -- 163--168.
 * posted on behalf of Stagman by response team volunteer -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-13t11:00z

Alternate Title Problem
The first folio and second quarto (both versions) give the title as: The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. However, the first quarto's Hamlet title is: The Tragical History of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. How do we handle the title in the Introduction to the page? The title of the first folio appears to be the most frequently used, but at least a mention of the alternate title seems to be valuable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.160.83 (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation in lede
This edit by an IP, subsequently reverted and now restored by me, is actually useful. I almost reverted it myself but realized that, awkward as it looks, the parentheses make the meaning unambiguously clear. Consider:"Old version: The play, set in the Kingdom of Denmark, recounts how Prince Hamlet exacts revenge on his uncle Claudius for murdering the old King Hamlet, Claudius's brother and Prince Hamlet's father,  and then succeeding to the throne and marrying Gertrude ,  the King Hamlet's widow and mother of Prince Hamlet." The punctuation above allows someone unfamiliar with the play's characters and their relationships to mistakenly think that Claudius murdered two others besides King Hamlet and that he married two others besides Gertrude. Now consider:"New version: The play, set in the Kingdom of Denmark, recounts how Prince Hamlet exacts revenge on his uncle Claudius for murdering the old King Hamlet (Claudius's brother and Prince Hamlet's father) and then succeeding to the throne and marrying Gertrude (the King Hamlet's widow and mother of Prince Hamlet)."Switching the commas to parentheses removes any ambiguity. I admit that the possibility of confusion seems farfetched, but I'm reminding myself that this article will serve as some people's introduction to the play. An alternative to the parentheses would be to insert the words "who was" and "who is" after the respective characters' names, but I think this would also be awkward. In any event, the status quo ante was suboptimal. Rivertorch (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Echoing Rivertorch: looked it over when first added and thought it was an improvement. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, much better. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hamlet Complex
I have heard of something called hamlet complex; does it really exist? I heard it is psychological syndrome of some kind, but should it have wikipedia article of its own then? Mutomana (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * AFAIK Harold Bloom coined the phrase, in the context of Freud's Oedipus complex. According to Bloom, Freud picked the wrong literary metaphor as, although Hamlet may possibly have suffered from one, Sophocles's eponymous character certainly didn't—it just happened to him because he  was sent away as an infant and had forgotten what mum looked like. May not make an article of its own, but there might space at Oedipus complex. Good luck! --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Length; power and influence
Rather than simply reverting this new, awkward wording (which, judging from its edit summary, was based on a careless reading of the previous wording), I decided to change the sentence to a third version, using elements from both previous versions. Here's the way it was originally and is again after a subsequent edit by DionysosProteus:"Hamlet is Shakespeare's longest play and among the most powerful and influential tragedies in the English language."The sentence doesn't establish a correlation between the length of the play and its power and influence, so what we have here is two unconnected thoughts rolled into one sentence. I don't really mind that—it's a reasonable approach when trying to sum up many things without making the lede ridiculously long—but the construction is awkward: "[It] is [a] play and among the most powerful . . ." I changed it to this—"Shakespeare's longest play, Hamlet is one of the most powerful and influential tragedies in the English language."—which at least sets the two ideas apart with punctuation. Dionysos, could you explain why you think the status quo is "clearer"? Specifically, was your principal objection the replacement of "among" with "one of", and, if so, what about the following hybrid?"Shakespeare's longest play, Hamlet is among the most powerful and influential tragedies in the English language."Just a thought. Not a Big Deal. Rivertorch (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the construction that begins "Shakespeare's longest play, ..." that is the problem, rather than among/one of. That's a far more awkward construction and doesn't improve the communication of the information concerned. Of course, there is no connection between the length of the play and its power and influence and the "x and y" construction doesn't posit or imply one. Two pieces of information are given in a single sentence. That is preferable to "Hamlet is longest play. It is also one of the most...", which would fragment the flow unnecessarily. So the question concerns the clearest way of communicating those two pieces of information in a single sentence. Removing the verb from the first piece forces the reader to supply the missing information ("It is..."). A small mental effort, perhaps, but an unnecessary one when the "x and y" construction serves just as well without making a similar demand. The construction you propose could be appropriate for summarising the information in another article (with the addition of a comma)--"Shakespeare's longest play, Hamlet, is among the most powerful and influential..."--but that would be a little odd in an article on Hamlet.  • DP •  {huh?} 18:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

2000s performances
I'm moving these to the talk page. They will need more analysis and some citations if they are to be included: A 2004 revival of the play, directed by Sir Trevor Nunn and produced by Phil Cameron, won a Laurence Olivier Award for Best Revival in 2005.

In 2008, Scottish actor David Tennant starred in a Royal Shakespeare Company production, which then transferred to London'sNovello Theatre. The production was so great a success that a BBC television adaption was filmed with the cast and released on DVD.

Wrad (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving the following for the same reason.

In 2010 Nick Hytner adapted Hamlet for the National Olivier Theatre, focusing on his directorial interpretation of a contemporary, media-savvy government, ruling a surveillance state. Rory Kinnear played Hamlet. In 2011, Australia's 'Melbourne Theatre Company' (MTC) will produce Hamlet as a part of their 2011 main season. It will star Ewen Leslie as Hamlet, Garry McDonald as Polonius and Pamela Rabe as Gertrude.

AndyJones (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Page is beginning to deteriorate
Sadly, this page is starting to deteriorate and could probably use some combing over. Wrad (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think there's a tendency towards trivia and recentism in the later sections. A simple cure, if you want an easy way out, could be to move anything without an academic citation to "Hamlet in Performance". Things without any source at all should probably be deleted. AndyJones (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Another problem I see is that a lot of footnotes aren't in the format that was established as part of the FA drive. AndyJones (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Recently Reverted Material
A few changes I made in the page recently were reverted. The best grounds given for it was that the new material had to be sourced, presumably so that examples of references to Hamlet would not multiply ad infinitum in a chaotic way. Here's a bit more about the recent changes.

1) I simply broke up the "Hamlet in film" section into more discrete paragraphs, and then added one new paragraph at the end which simply read "There have also been several films that transposed the general storyline of Hamlet or elements thereof to other settings. There have also been many films which included performances of scenes from Hamlet as a play-within-a-film. See Hamlet on screen and Hamlet on screen for further details." Other than this final closing paragraph, no new material was added to this section, only the breakup of one longish paragraph into about four shorter paragraphs.

I think the reader of this article should be simply informed of the existence of films that transpose the storyline of Hamlet and be referred to the specific section of the article Hamlet in film which can tell them more. Same goes for films that contain performances of Hamlet.

2) Currently, this article contains no links at all to References to Hamlet.

Actually, the article References to Hamlet fails to distinguish references meaning allusions and "derivative works". The first is simple allusions to Hamlet (a character quoting one line or expressing an opinion about the play, etc.- obvious example, the long discussion about Hamlet in one of the chapters of Joyce's Ulysses). Obviously, this article here needs absolutely none of that. Folks can just go to References to Hamlet for that, and we can nix it here. (For that matter, a single line about Hamlet in A Christmas Carol is a passing allusion, and I'm not sure why it is mentioned in WP at all, even in the References to Hamlet article. A whole chapter in which characters talk about Hamlet in Joyce's Ulysses is a prolonged allusion and deserves some mention in WP, but probably not here.)

However, a more important reference (if it's really a reference at all) is when a play, novel, etc. actually recapitulates the story of '"Hamlet" or acts as a sequel or prequel to same. I believe this is what is sometimes called a "derivative work" at other times a "pastiche".) This is the material I put in my new section entitled "Stage pastiches" (these are not movies). In this latter case, I think the most significant examples DO rate a mention here (albeit with sources which I failed to provide). The most famous Hamlet pastiche of all is surely Tom Stoppard's play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (retelling the play from R&G's point of view and establishing a storyline for them) and it most certainly needs to get mentioned in THIS article, IMO. In fact only the film adaptation of Stoppard's play is in Hamlet on Screen and Stoppard's play is not mentioned AT ALL in References to Hamlet, which in my personal (and hopefully humble) opinion, is utterly unacceptable!! In fact, the "References in Hamlet" article actually mentions the play "Fortinbras" but NOT Stoppard's play!! Someone's not minding the store over there.

More generally, the "References to Hamlet" article is a jumble of trivial allusions, significant allusions, and full-blown derivative works. The trivial allusions IMO should be dropped, and significant allusions and derivative works should be treated as SEPARATE entities!!!!

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of the allusions to Hamlet in English literature, but only one to two dozen significant examples of "derivative works" meaning they actually redo the Hamlet story line, either in a new setting or from the point of view of a different character or are a sequel or prequel. If it's been done on stage rather than film, it will not show up in Hamlet on Screen, and given the chaotic and hard-to-navigate nature of References to Hamlet, the leading and most culturally significant derivative works really need to mentioned here!!

So I think the new material in the new section I called "Stage Pastiches" needs to go back, but should of course only do so with citations, as was noted in the revert edit-summary. They all fall into the category of "derivative works" which is something MORE than an allusion or reference, which as I have already said the References to Hamlet article woefully fails to distinguish.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

For examples of articles that deal ONLY with "derivative works" of a famous work but NEVER with simple allusions or references, see Frankenstein in popular culture, Jane Eyre, Pinochio and Dune (franchise). For examples of articles that cleanly separate "derivative works" from "literary references", see Wuthering Heights and Lolita. Once again, the mashing together of minor allusions, major allusions, and derivative works in the article References to Hamlet is just crazy.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Predestination
In reference to this passage:
 * When Hamlet speaks of the "special providence in the fall of a sparrow", he reflects the Protestant belief that the will of God—Divine Providence—controls even the smallest event. In Q1, the first sentence of the same section reads: "There's a predestinate providence in the fall of a sparrow," which suggests an even stronger Protestant connection through John Calvin's doctrine of predestination. Scholars speculate that Hamlet may have been censored, as "predestined" appears only in this quarto.

which is intended to show a contrast between Hamlet's Catholic and Protestant themes. Except, predestination and divine providence are entirely Catholic beliefs as well. The person who wrote this is not well versed in theology, since what distinguishes Calvinism from Christian orthodoxy is double predestination, something different. I'm going to remove this passage. -- LightSpectra (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't you mean from "Roman Catholic" orthodoxy?--WickerGuy (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no knowledge of this subject and was not involved in writing this particular passage. But I would make the following observations:
 * What LightSpectra says above does NOT appear to accord with Wikipedia's own article on Predestination, which discusses it essentially as a Calvinist doctrine.
 * I would prefer it if we could work from reliable sources rather than base the decision whether to remove/edit the passage on the opinion of a Wikipedian. Does anyone have access to Blits? I don't seem to.
 * It bothers me a bit that Wikipedia has two articles on Predestination: Predestination and Predestination (Calvinism). Both seem to cover basically the same ground and (as I've just observed) cover the subject as an essentially Calvinist doctrine. I appreciate this talk page is not the right forum for a discussion of this, but clearly those pages either have WP:MERGE or WP:FORK issues - depending, to some extent, on the very question being raised here.
 * The above is just my 2p worth. I'll only post back to this discussion if I find a source one way or the other on this subject. AndyJones (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing to add to my comments above is that Thompson and Taylor seem to lean towards the view which LightSpectra objects to. Their glosses to the relevant lines of Q1 and of Q2 refer to Matthew 10:29 [NIV: "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father"]. But their Q2 Gloss on lines 5.2.197-8 reads "Hamlet alludes to the Christian (Calvinist) belief in God's direct intervention in worldly affairs" [2006a at page 448]. AndyJones (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't this just so much speculation? Is there any evidence to support what Shakespeare's thoughts on predestination were, if indeed he had any at all? Until that can be shown, the varying theological viewpoints are moot.Markhh (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well,:
 * Meta-reply: Everything in Wikipedia is speculation on some level. The relevant question is not what's speculation or not. It's: what do the reliable sources say about the subject of the article? As to your question about "evidence" about Shakespeare's thoughts, then in this case it's pretty-much limited to what he wrote in Act 5 Scene 2 of Hamlet. But what he meant by that is exactly what we are discussing here. Also remember that what Hamlet the play "means" is not limited by what we know/think that Shakespeare thought when he wrote it.
 * Specific Reply: Sorry, I don't agree. If predestination is a Calvinist idea then its use in the play is a reference to Protestantism. If it is a Roman Catholic idea also (as LightSpectra suggests) then references to it in the play prove no such thing. (But I still think this is a question of finding reliable sources, not engaging in a religious debate on this talk page.) AndyJones (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is a promulgation of the official doctrines of the Catholic Church:
 * 600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness. Source

Further:
 * V. GOD CARRIES OUT HIS PLAN: DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created "in a state of journeying" (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call "divine providence" the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection... Source

Said beliefs can be traced back as far as Boethius and St. Augustine of Hippo. They're not explicitly Protestant. Again, what distinguishes Calvinism from orthodox theology is the doctrine of double predestination, which is something different (i.e. that God wills some people be damned, as opposed to willing that all be saved). The person quoted for this paragraph in the Wikipedia article for Hamlet was unaware of the distinction, which is why I removed the passage. Now, if the Wikipedia page for predestination only discusses it in terms of Calvinism, then the article itself is poor; I'll take a look at it. But I can cite numerous Catholic and Eastern Orthodox sources that pre-date the existence of Protestantism discussing divine providence and predestination. Another example is in the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, considered one the preeminent Catholic theologian and peripatetic philosopher. -- LightSpectra (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Lots of pre-Protestant theologians talked of predestination on some level, if not in precisely its Calvinist version. Of Calvinist predestination there is no hint in Hamlet.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would recommend reading more Hamlet scholarship before making a blanket statement like that. However, if people object to the sparrow example, we can take it out. There are other examples of Calvinism in the play that we could easily use. Wrad (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is all good stuff. But we need to be wary of WP:SYNTH here. That is to say, the article needs to reflect what reliable sources say about Protestantism/Predestination SPECIFICALLY WITH REFERENCE TO Hamlet. Wrad, you give the impression you've got some sources on this. Can you look them up and make any necessary fix? Or do you think, in light of your sources, that the article is fine with LightSpectra's removal. If the latter we could just say thank you to everyone and close this conversation. AndyJones (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, a very good treatment of this on Wikipedia is Critical_approaches_to_Hamlet. We should echo what that says.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That article says that sometimes the play is "Catholic and medieval", whereas sometimes "logical and Protestant." Yeah, so... not a very well-written paragraph, is all I'll say. -- LightSpectra (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What I think the paragraph means is that the play is unclear and unfocused on its theological point of view, erratically oscillating between elements of both Catholic and Protestant theologies. I would be interested to know what professional scholars say here. It is certainly true that the ghost of Hamlet's father is in a purgatorial state- in that sense the assumptions are definitely Catholic, and not Calvinist!! The author quotes MacCary's Guide to Hamlet a great deal. It would be interesting to see exactly what that book actually says.
 * A question that is raised in the play is whether or not it's really a ghost or a "goblin damned". Protestant members of WS's audience would have made the latter choice. According to the schmoop notes on this play "the play can't seem to make up its mind about whether or not the play is set in a Catholic or Protestant world, which seems to register the kind of religious and spiritual anxiety and confusion that was brought on by the Protestant Reformation and England's official break with the Catholic Church under Henry VIII". (See ) They also quote a scholar Greenblatt: "For Greenblatt, the Ghost registers the complexities of the 16th century debate about Purgatory without coming down on one side or the other."--WickerGuy (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

All 3 of the IPs doing the one and same DeVere edit are in District of Columbia...
and in addresses registered to Verizon as best I can make out.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Adaptations
very sad to see no mention of any movies based off of this wonderful play, bringing the same story to new generations. One of the highest grossing films and one that has been redone many times, and had runs on broadway, "The Lion King". Mufasa taking place of Claudius, Hamlet played by Simba. Very incomplete page when you have so much information but omit major things such as that. if you google hamlet, 2nd thing that comes up is lion king imdb page....and sons of anarchy is losely based off of hamlet as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.94.9 (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Adaptations are discussed the linked article Hamlet on screen. Paul B (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Alternative theories of Hamlet
There must be some discussion of the possibility that Hamlet is based on the life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. I realize the orthodox scholars hold on Wikipedia, and any discussion of the authorship question is brutally suppressed. But many prominent people now believe the traditional story is wrong. A consensus for Edward de Vere as the true author seems to have arisen among the anti-Stratfordians. So it seems reasonable to give some discussion of Hamlet in light of Edward de Vere. To do so would be folly. The Oxfordian point of view is not a fringe theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryVIIIyes (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The most appropriate place to discuss the case for DeVere is in the Wikipedia article Shakespeare authorship question and Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, or just maybe in a short brief new subsection of this article specifically devoted to the alleged parallels between Devere's life and the Hamlet story, but otherwise not here. However, here you have been editing the article both to
 * a) state Devere as author as UNcontroverted FACT (without stating it as one opinion among many)
 * and
 * b)not providing any source for this at all (who says it- you just say "scholars.."
 * Both of these are clear violations of WP policy of WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFIABLE, and WP:UNDUE all three of which I pointed you to on my messages on your talk page, not to mention the usage of "scholars believe.." without stating who these are violates the policy WP:WEASEL.


 * The term "fringe theory" has different meanings to different people. In the sciences, "fringe science" is definitely better then "pseudo-science" since "fringe science" at least plays by the accepted rules of science in a way that "pseudo-science" does not. In the terminology of the scientific community, the DaVinci code would probably be regarded as "pseudo-history" while DeVere's authorship might be in the (relatively more respectful) place of "fringe" history.


 * Rightly or wrongly, the current consensus of mainstream scholarship is against the DeVere theory. Time may tell otherwise in 100 years (though I'm not holding my breath). As such, the DeVere may be discussed on WP, but only in proportion to its current consensus. To discuss it beyond that proportion violates WP:FRINGE. The fact that the DeVere theory is discussed extensively in TWO articles on Wikipedia (which I linked to at the beginning of this post) shows that no theories about DeVere are being "brutally suppressed" as you allege, but we do have rules to protect the integrity of Wikipedia, which indicate that this is not really the best place to discuss it, and NOWHERE AT ALL on WP should the DeVere authorship be stated is as UNcontroverted FACT, which is frankly just plain WP:BADFAITH editing, which indeed really really should be politely but very firmly "suppressed".--WickerGuy (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Since people like you decide what is RELIABLE, it's impossible to meet that standard as you state it. VERIFIABLE is easy enough to do. I will simply go to the sources and cite their work. Then you will delete it based on your interpretation of what is RELIABLE or, rather, that is it is given UNDUE weight, another subjective measure that you will interpret for yourself. The following statement occurs in the first part of the article on "Hamlet": "He [Shakespeare] may have also drawn on, or perhaps written, an earlier (hypothetical) Elizabethan play known today as the Ur-Hamlet." What is the source for this statement? No citation is given, no author is given. This is a clear violation of RELIABLE and VERIFIABLE, at least at the present time. The "Da Vinci Code" is a work of fiction. Mark Anderson, Hank Whittemore, Charleton Ogburn, and others have spent years researching the authorship question. They have concluded that Edward de Vere was the author of the plays bearing the name of "Shakespeare." The issue thus touches a discussion of the plays themselves and not just authorship issue because interpretation of the plays changes as we consider that someone else may have written them. It doesn't matter whether the Oxfordian theory is stated as uncontroverted fact or not. Whether it's even discussed as a possibility, it is deleted, or modified by editors like you who decided what is reliable, verifiable, and proportional. Wickerguy writes, "The de Vere [sic] may be discussed on WP, but only in proportion to its current consensus." Can you give me a percentage on that proportion, so we don't exceed it? If there was a consensus that the moon was made out of cheese, would we limit discussion of alternative theories of the moon's composition to some findable current consensus? I thought that these issues could be hashed in the discussion section--if not here, then where?--but some of the moderators want to squash discussion even here because they don't like the theories being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryVIIIyes (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User:HenryVIIIyes complains of Ur-Hamlet "No citation is given, no author is given", yet in fact there are three references: [23], [24] and [25]  at the time of posting. Is it necessary to have read the article before criticizing its supposed shortcomings? It's as though some contributors have no interest beyond their own, narrow viewpoint.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Specifically, statements cited in the article body don't need to be re-cited when in the article lede.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What is reliable is decided by the Wikipedia rules in the sections that I linked to, not by me (and if you are not wikilinking to that section of the manual, there is no need to use CAPs) or any other individual editor. Wikipedia is governed by rules first, and people second. And no one is squashing discussion here on the talk page. You did the right thing, by taking discussion here. As such, whether or not I personally "like" the DeVere theory should not be relevant to my decisions, or any other WP editor, though it's certainly OK for me to disclose on the Talk page what I think to help others decide (in group consensus) whether or not I am being swayed by bias or not.


 * "The Da Vinci Code" is based heavily on the non-fiction work of Michael Baigent and others- I cited DVC because it is better known, but I might have been clearer had I cited Baigent's work instead. The point I was making was the distinction between points of view
 * a) held by a small marginal minority, but retaining some semblance of plausibility (if not probability)- one can retain hope that this might become accepted even if scholars are not very confident, and
 * b) points of view that can easily be discredited and disconfirmed.
 * In my personal opinion (and I think most scholars), the DeVere authorship theory is in the first category, but not the second one. The non-fiction works upon which DaVinci Code were based are mostly in the second category. That's the distinction I was trying to make.


 * I pointed this out specifically in order to note that the DeVere authorship theory has an entire article and a medium-length section of another article devoted to it in detail and depth on Wikipedia, so it certainly isn't being suppressed here, but given its controversial nature,....

-->a separate article (or a separate section of this article) is the appropriate place to discuss it. Did you miss that this was my main point????<--


 * Please don't try and predict what I and other Wikipedia editors will do in advance in a milder situation than the more severe one you have created. You break a major rule, and then complain you will be suppressed even if you try to comply. You used Wikipedia to push a specific point-of-view, violating WP:NPOV in the most blatant and unambiguous way. Now you complain, DeVere can't even be reasonably discussed as a possibility, but that's not where you originally set the goalposts. Your statement "Whether it's even discussed as a possibility, it is deleted, or modified by editors like you who decided what is reliable, verifiable, and proportional" is preceded by the even sillier statement "It doesn't matter whether the Oxfordian theory is stated as uncontroverted fact or not." As noted, the Oxfordian theory has an entire article on Wikipedia (and a section of a second one), and the whole point of my posts is that yes, it certainly does matter, and that's exactly why your edits have been treated in the summary fashion that they have!!!! Methinks you doth protest too much!


 * I again refer you to the Wikipedia Manual of Style section of what is WP:RELIABLE via this wikilink. Wikipedia's standards are clearly set forth there (and in the other sections I wikilinked to) in a coherent, clear, and consistent manner. They are not "impossible". Thousands use them every day! The standards have been set forth precisely to avoid having WP be hostage to the subjective whims of individual editors. The "undue" criterion is quite clear: An article "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views."


 * Put differently, Wikipedia is a mirror of prevalent opinion, and NOT a crystal ball predicting future opinion. And obviously, there is no precise percentage beyond ballpark guesses of what is proportional.


 * For the record, I attended over a period of 4 summers (2001-2004) a full run-through of the complete English history cycle of Shakespeare's plays in Carmel, CA performed by the Pacific Repertory Company that was sponsored by a grant from the DeVere society. As such, at all of the plays, I was offered copious amounts of literature pushing the DeVere authorship theory, most of what I read. On the question of style, none of the literature stated or suggested this was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt as your edits to this article so egregiously seemed to imply. As to substance, I found the arguments to be clever but circumstantial, and I personally remain unconvinced. But again, WP should not be ruled by my opinion, but by the rules laid out in the MOS.


 * Oh, and, please learn how to wiki-sign your posts.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The de Vere theory is NOT discussed extensively in two articles on Wikipedia. It is briefly mentioned in the article on the Shakespeare Authorship question and somewhat extensively in the one article on the Oxfordian Theory of Shakespeare Authorship. Mark Anderson's book on "Shakespeare by Another Name" is one of the most prominent pieces of research in the field of Oxfordian research, and it gets no citation at all in either article. In fact, most of the citations in the articles are from people who are militantly against the Oxfordian case. These are the gatekeepers of the debate in academia, and these are the people that the Wikipedia editors on these subjects cite. They decide what is reliable, verifiable, and proportional. It has nothing to do with protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. The citation to Ur-Hamlet is mentioned in the body of the article but no upfront where perhaps it belongs. If WP is not ruled by your opinion, then why would so obviously state your bias against the Oxfordian case by stating that "the arguments [for de Vere are] clever but circumstantial," and that "you personally remain unconvinced." Obviously, you, the editors who write these articles on Wikipedia, and a substantial majority of academics in this field remain unconvinced. So the whole thrust of these articles reflects that point of view. It's hard for a minority point of view to become mainstream in one year or 100 years if these people prevent any fair and reasonable discussion of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryVIIIyes (talk • contribs) 02:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * First getting some minor issues out of the way. I would at least consider the article Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship extensive. It is 79K and 11,440 words which by Wikipedia standards is fairly extensive, and BTW there is a third (albeit shorter) article Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian and a list article List of Oxfordian theory supporters. The very long article Shakespeare authorship question has 5 paragraphs specifically on the DeVere thesis (which I would consider a LOT more than a "brief mention"), and other parts dedicated to the propositions that Bacon or Marlowe wrote the plays as well as a lot of material that simply casts doubt on WS without specifically identifying an alternative. There is actually a very short but entire article on WP (which badly needs to be expanded) about Mark Anderson (writer) and he is linked to in the "Bardauthor" template at the bottom of all the relevant articles.


 * Far more important to this discussion. In the article Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship Mark Anderson is mentioned -->five(5) times in the text with TWELVE(12) citations(!!!) and its all from the SPECIFIC book that YOU name<-- where YOU claim he and his book "gets no citation in either article"(!!!). (That reckless misstatement of fact doesn't help your credibility!!!!!! This is at least your second misstatement of fact about what is actually on Wikipedia, and that was a whale of a humdinger/doozey (spelling?)!!!) Furthermore, a printable version of the article is 17 printable pages (not counting 7 pages of references) there are TWO (2)(that would be one out of 8) pages devoted to the case against Devere and TEN (10) pages are devoted to the case for Devere (about 5 out of 8), and so without counting citations, I very seriously doubt you are correct in stating that "most of the citations in the articles are from people who are militantly against the Oxfordian case". There are even more citations from Oxford advocate Charlton Ogburn (12 mentions in the article text and fourteen (14) citations). (Oxfordian Joseph Sobran gets 10 mentions in the text and 8 citations. Oxfordian Warren Hope is listed in the bibliography though uncited.) Needless to say, many of the 122 citations are taking neither side.


 * As for your statement "The citation to Ur-Hamlet is mentioned in the body of the article but not upfront where perhaps it belongs" it has been long-standing policy on WP virtually everywhere that statements cited in the body of the article don't need to be cited in the lede. This is consistent policy on Wikipedia whether or not we are talking about Shakespeare, Homer, underwater basketweaving, of the price of suntan oil in Alaska.


 * As for your statement " If WP is not ruled by your opinion, then why would so obviously state your bias against the Oxfordian case by stating that "the arguments [for de Vere are] clever but circumstantial," and that "you personally remain unconvinced." ". That was my WP:Good faith attempt to put my own cards on the table, while pointing out I am essentially appealing to the rules of WP rather than my opinion.


 * The two articles originally mentioned cover all the major arguments against Shakespeare, the problems with Shakespeare's historical records, his education (or lack thereof), and the setting of so many of his plays among the upper classes, and IMO they do so fairly and reasonably.


 * However, the main issue remains, that Wikipedia is not, by policy, a place to premiere or promote minority viewpoints. Wikipedia is meant to mirror current consensus. You write "It's hard for a minority point of view to become mainstream in one year or 100 years if these people prevent any fair and reasonable discussion of the issue." Wikipedia by policy plays no role in trying to shift opinion. You should carefully read What Wikipedia is not especially the section about it not being a soapbox, not to mention WP's requirement for citations.


 * And, once again, please learn to sign your posts. Click on the pen-icon at the top of the edit-box, or just put 2 dashes and 4 tildes at the end.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and, the Oxfordian theory gets some discussion on the bio articles of a few Oxfordians including the article Delia Bacon and Charlton Ogburn--WickerGuy (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Later Response to query about numbers and proportion
 * Earlier in this dialogue HenryVIIIyes writes "Wickerguy writes, 'The de Vere [sic] may be discussed on WP, but only in proportion to its current consensus.' Can you give me a percentage on that proportion, so we don't exceed it?" and I later quote Neutral point of view in which it is stated "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views."


 * At the time, I said we mainly had "ballpark" figures to go by, but here is more data in further response to H8's query. On the one hand, in 2007 the New York Times did a survey of professors across the US, over whether or not there was a basis for questioning WS as the author of the plays. 6% answered "yes" while 61% said that Anti-Stratfordianism was a "theory without convincing evidence," and 32% called it an "outright waste of time and classroom resources." On the other hand, starting in 2007, Brunel University of London now offers a one-year MA program on the Shakespeare authorship question, and in 2010, Concordia University in Portland, Oregon opened a multi-million dollar Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre, directed by authorship doubter Daniel Wright, a Shakespeare scholar. So the anti-Stratfordians are gaining traction and acceptance (and have some backing from those in performing arts as well, such as Orson Welles and Charlie Chaplin).


 * However, my repeated (almost ad nauseum) business has been to point H8 to the best place on Wikipedia to discuss and mention this, which is articles on "Shakespeare authorship" and Talk pages, but not in the WP articles on the individual plays.


 * As I have stated a "fringe theory" can be either something obviously phony, or just an alternative point of view which is the subject of academic debate but which has not (yet) gained wide acceptance. The Oxford DeVere theory is in the latter category, but it is not the mission of WP to promote such theories, though they are often discussed in articles of their own. WP is supposed to mirror the current level of acceptance of points of view.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Outside assessment
 * Shakespeare scholar James S. Shapiro in his 2010 book Contested Will, claims that Wikipedia has some of the best and most thorough discussions of the case for and against Shakespeare's authorship to be found, far better than that in mainstream academia, of which Shapiro is highly critical for ignoring the case against Shakespeare. Obviously Professor Shapiro disagrees with User:HenryVIIIyes that Wikipedia has "prevented any fair and reasonable discussion of the issue".!!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would this talk page be an example of Shapiro's warning that "Persistence...rather than expertise, [is] rewarded" on Wikipedia, as Oxfordians "turn up everywhere", assiduously striving to maintain their top billing? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shapiro doesn't seem (as far as I can tell) to regard this as necessarily a bad thing (nor do I as long as Oxfordians play by the rules). The full quote from Shapiro is (emphasis added by me) "The beauty of Wikipedia is that entries are compiled and revised by anyone interested in contributing. Persistence and the ability to get in the last word, rather than expertise, are rewarded. And Wikipedia ruled out of bounds potentially controversial explanations of why [JS's emphasis] people believed what they did. Wikipedia was thus a godsend for those skeptical about Shakespeare's authorship, for the first time allowing them to compete on equal footing with their opponents. The forces of democracy and equality and the overturning of hierarchy, the very things that drove Looney [sic] to argue that Oxford wrote Shakespeare's plays, ironically, came to the rescue of the movement he had founded (Contesting Will p.217-218"


 * Elsewhere Shapiro writes "Those who would deny Shakespeare's authorship, long excluded from publishing their work in academic journals or through university presses, are now taking advantage of the level playing field provided by the Web, especially such widely consulted and democratic sites as Wikipedia (page 8 of Contesting Will) (I really hope User H8 reads this!!-WG)"


 * As for WP's coverage Shapiro writes (wikilinks added by me) "Its [WPs] extensive coverage of the subject puts to shame anything that ever appeared in standard resources, let alone reference works produced by Shakespeare scholars and accessible in public and university libraries. The Oxfordian case turns up everywhere on Wikipedia from articles on "Shakespeare" and the "Shakespeare authorship Controversy" to more specialized ones "Edward de Vere" "Oxfordian theory", " Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian" and even the "Prince Tudor theory" Marlovians, Baconians...[and others are all there]though whenever these rivals are discussed together, Oxfordians are assiduous about maintaining top billing" (p. 217)"


 * An on just the page before that Shapiro writes "On ...[Wikipedia]...the Oxfordians appeared more professional than their adversaries"


 * (User:HenryVIIIyes is presumably an anomalous exception to that trend).--WickerGuy (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Shapiro is another academic who completely ignores the similarities between de Vere's life and the Shakespearean plays. He creates a fantasy for the Stratford based on supposition and circular reasoning. The fact that Shapiro would think "Wikipedia has some of the best and most thorough discussions of the case for and against Shakespeare's authorship to be found" is hardly surprising since a honest discussion of the case for and against Shakspere of Stratford is squashed by the pro-Stratford editors on here. There is no honest debate on here. It's pro-Stratford all the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.120.95 (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you actually read the WP article Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship??? It's at least 75% pro-Oxford pro-Devere!!! Nothing is being "squashed" there at all. It remains WP policy to reflect the current state-of-the-question consensus. As such, a separate article is the appropriate place to discuss it on WP as an open question presenting all sides, which is done quite adequately in the stated article, thank you very much. All attempts to state as UNcontroverted FACT withOUT sources or ANY discussion of the relative weight of consensus on either side of the question in THIS article that DeVere is the author will always be reverted as blatant and clear-cut violations of long-standing Wikipedia policy.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Cutting-edge research may indeed overturn eventually current consensus, but Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such research per policy of WP:No original research.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And even without appeal to WP policy, it would seem common sense to the average adult that stating any contentious and controversial theory withOUT a source or even mentioning that it is controversial is a bad thing for any standard reference work to do.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Calm down. I haven't figured out how to add sources. I'm working on that. Need also to figure out how to add them to the bibiography at the end. I did add the word "probably" to the latest change. There is plenty more backing up the Oxfordian theory of authorship than the Stratfordian theory. Richard Roe has a recent book called, "The Shakespeare Guide to Italy". He shows that the author of the plays almost certainly had to have visited Italy in person. There is no evidence Will Shakspere did, but we do know that Edward de Vere. We don't have much more than six scrawled, inconsistent signatures for Will Shakspere--that's it. Virtually impossible to believe this man from Stratford was the great author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.10.30 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this? A "See also" link to "Shakespeare authorship question for discussion of alternate authorship theories". End of story. Those who are interested can go there and read all they want and the main Hamlet article can be otherwise left alone. For all of the squabbling, the Oxfordian authorship is still an unproven alternate theory. Interesting in its own right but otherwise out of place in the main Hamlet page beyond a link or a one sentence mention near the end. And how about requesting semi-protection for the Hamlet page to slow down the silly edit-wars and limit changes to registered editors? Just a thought. Markhh (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * An excellent idea. A brief mention here that the authorship is disputed with a pointer to a different article.
 * To the IP editor. Please study WP policy on WP:Neutral point of view WP:Fringe WP:Reliable sources, and especially WP:No original research so forth. You simply cannot state a controversial theory as UNdisputed FACT on Wikipedia, and ESPECIALLY not without a source. WP is supposed to reflect current mainstream consensus even if that should prove to be wrong in the future. It is NOT a place to advance controversial theories. There's a whole long article on Wikipedia on the DeVere theory which states the DeVere case quite well, and as long as that remains a minority opinion, that article is the appropriate place to discuss it on Wikipedia. That fact that you are convinced of the Devere theory (as well as the fact that I am not) is irrelevant.--WickerGuy (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Posting by banned user removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that the article on the De Vere theory was mostly edited by advocates of the Oxfordian theory, or at least was in its state of a year ago. It does not seem to me personally to have been "manipulated" to discredit the Oxfordian theory. I find no evidence of this in the article. About 75% of the article is dedicated to the pro-Oxford case, and all the main Oxfordian scholars are cited.
 * WP has a fairly precise set of rules as to what constitutes a reliable source which applies across the board to all subjects. Basically, WP is defined to be academically conservative, and to err on the side of caution regarding the advancing of new ideas and new theories. An astrophysicist may have a controversial theory about black holes that may eventually pan out and proved true, but until it gains widespread acceptance, it canNOT be stated as UNcontroverted FACT on Wikipedia. I may be personally convinced that Marilyn Monroe was murdered rather than committed suicide, and I can say on WP that Norman Mailer believes that (and why) but I canNOT state this as UNcontroverted FACT on Wikipedia. I may be personally convinced that OJ was guilty, that Michael Jackson was innocent, that JFK was killed in a conspiracy but I canNOT state ANY of these things as UNcontroverted FACT on Wikipedia!!! Editing the article to simply state (without any qualification at all) that DeVere IS the author is a basic contravention of WP guidelines (and even worse when without a source.) If you think the article on the Oxford theory is slanted against it, you are welcome to amend that article there but also look at the policy of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT as well as the ones that I cited above before preceding.--WickerGuy (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added a brief paragraph to this article on the role that Hamlet plays in the Oxfordian theory, with a hatnote directing readers to the other two articles--WickerGuy (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And added some more.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note that the anon user who edits from various dynamic IPs in the 71.* and 96.* ranges in the thread above has been topic-banned from the area of the Shakespeare authorship question since March 2011 (see WP:ARBSAQ) and should not be engaged in any discussion. Any edits he makes, both on talk pages and articles, can be reverted on sight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The alternate authorship section was very well done, WickerGuy. It's entirely appropriate to include it given the amount of interest in the topic and it's very even handed. Hopefully this will take care of the matter for a while. Cheers Markhh (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with the inclusion of an alternative authorship section. This is properly discussed in the relevant articles on authorship, and in any case there is no reason to pick out Hamlet. According to the alternative author theories every play was written by someone else. We should absolutely not be having thse sections in articles on every play, as this would violate policies concerning fringe theiores. Therefore we should not have such a section for this play. Paul B (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Paul (unsurprisingly). IMO the material and subject should not be included in this article at all. WP:ONEWAY states that "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way" (my emphasis). At one time this issue was up for mediation, but it was precluded by the SAQ arbitration, which should have settled this issue also and IMO did. Shakespeare wrote or contributed to 30-some-odd plays and more than 150 poems. If this material can be inserted in the Hamlet article, why should it not be in every Shakespeare article? In fact there is already a link to the authorship question in the Shakespeare template that is appended to every Shakespeare page; any more than that serves only as advocacy for a fringe theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the history of this, see the |Archive 8 of this talk page, and the associated edits from that time frame that resulted in the page as it was before this new section was added. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Though this is under discussion, there has been an enormous amount of discussion on whether or not fringe theories about alternative authors should gloss every Shakespearean play or poem. Put it here, without a thorough consensus, and you'll have it spread to every other article on Shakespeare, and the position will be Oxfordian. (2) the section on the page is purely promotional, hamlet being a coatrack to hang an advertisement for Oxfordian ideas,+ù
 * Though under discussion, per WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, I've removed it from the page and pasted a copy below.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ==Authorship controversy==

As with all of Shakespeare's plays, the authorship of this play has been disputed by various parties, and various alternative candidates for the authorship of the plays including Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere have been proposed. Although the proposal that Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him has little traction in academia, many prominent figures in the theatre world, including Charlie Chaplin and John Gielgud, as well as psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud have found the arguments against Shakespeare’s authorship persuasive.

The play Hamlet figures especially prominently in the arguments that have been made in favor of Edward DeVere as author, both with regard to controversies related to its date of composition, and with regard to parallels between de Vere's life and the story of Hamlet. On the latter point, Sigmund Freud was especially convinced of the authorship of de Vere on psychoanalytic grounds.

The most prominent contemporary Shakespearean actor to support the de Vere theory (generally known as the "Oxfordian" theory) is Derek Jacobi who has lectured on the matter, written forwards to two books on the subject, helped initiate the petition to seriously investigate the matter known as Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, and had a role in the film Anonymous which promotes the belief the de Vere wrote Hamlet. On the other hand, prominent Shakespeare film director Kenneth Branagh (who directed Jacobi in multiple Shakespeare films) remains convinced that William Shakespeare is the author of the plays attributed to him, although he was falsely reported to have become an "Oxfordian" in the Sunday Express in 2009.

For reference, here is the history of the last Oxfordian section that was expunged as per editorial consensus. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Now the editors on this site are engaging in full-blown censorship. It's one thing to edit the main article, but now they are blocking and reverting comments in the discussion section they do not agree with. The article on the de Vere theory is being controlled by Paul Barlow, Nishidani, and Tom Reedy. They are not advocates of the Oxfordian theory, and they are not neutral on the issue. They are also the editors here. So despite all the lectures about discussing these issues on the Oxford site--or any site--any comment not agree to by the editors will apparently be blocked even in the discussion section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryVIIIyes (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa, gentlemen. I thought that since the DeVere theory's rationale had a special focus on Hamlet that one could give a sop to the Oxfordians here. (especially re Sigmund Freud's buy-in). However, I must concede that since books on DeVere frequently discuss Hamlet, but books on Hamlet rarely discuss DeVere that the WP policy of WP:ONEWAY does indeed preclude even the brief mention which I inserted here.
 * I only in the last few days became aware of the long history of author-wars on WP, and had no awareness of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question until one or two days ago. I support the principle of WP:CONSENSUS. I am not an advocate of the Oxfordian view, though at the time I wrote the section, it seemed harmless to give it a brief exposure.
 * My personal view remains that the Oxfordian view should in principle get MORE exposure, in spite of the fact that I find it unconvincing. However, it does indeed seem that at least in the past year and a half or so, the Oxfordian editors have been doing a certain amount of bad faith and Disruptive editing which has damaged their ability to be heard out on WP (and indeed got this IP editor some time ago banned from even commenting on Talk pages.) As I noted on my own Talk page I wonder if observing such behavior would influence Freud to change his mind.
 * HenryVIIIyes, you have been online for three months now. When the heck are you going to learn to sign your posts properly??--WickerGuy (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Handsomely put. You aren't the first editor to find that an attempt to accommodate an Oxfordian point of view has turned around to bite them, and I don't suppose you will be the last. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Rant by banned user removed, again. In the interest of avoiding talk page clutter, could we all please make it a habit to not engage this person in further discussion but simply roll him back? – Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You fail to understand that part of the problem is the bad behavior and deliberate disregard of the rules of Wikipedia that has gotten several of you Oxfordians into hot water here. It is simply the policy that Wikipedia does not exist to promote pioneering theories, however valid they may eventually turn out to be; rather Wikipedia is meant to reflect current consensus. If an when the "cult of Shakspere" falls THEN you can put in here at WP that it is UNdisputed FACT that DeVere wrote the plays. As long as it remains a minority and/or fringe view among scholars and in peer-reviewed literature (much better than a "poll"- that's not what we're doing), you cannot. That is the rules of the game here. Repeated Explanations of this seem to make no impression on you- you seem bound to flaunt the rules, and do an end-run around them. You remind me of a fellow I knew who wouldn't jump pieces when he could in checkers because he "didn't like that rule".
 * There are many possible explanations for the illiterate Shakespeare's writing of the plays, one is that he could have had a constant collaborator. I mean the Beatles were fairly illiterate, and....
 * In my personal opinion, the Oxfordian case makes some intriguing points, but is extremely weak in its analysis of The Tempest and MacBeth.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, re your assertion "Shakespeare professors are experts on the plays, not history and not the history of the plays", prominent Stratfordian A. L. Rowse was a history professor, not a literature professor. And multiple other Statfordians clearly HAVE familiarized themselves with the history of the era. It's not as if interdisciplinary studies is unknown in academia. Saying that the Statfordian position is "idiotic" sounds very much like special pleading. Calling people who disagree with your view idiots or lunatics is a Bill O'Reilly tactic, and that fellow didn't know that tides were caused by the moon, making the single worst argument for theism in all of debate history.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Beatles were not fairly illiterate, with the possible exception of Ringo. Hey. John went to the same school wot I did. There's no reason whatever to think Shakespeare was 'illiterate'. Indeed, it's wildly implausible given the schooling in available in Stratford. Paul B (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Another posting by banned user (and their new sockpuppet account) removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not part of the larger discussion. I recently got on board, but apparently the user having his comments deleted was before my time, and had already been banned by WP administrators (for violating WP rules of WP:civility) from posting on Talk pages, and is identifiable from using a particular range of IP addresses. There was a lengthy arbitration case that was discussed for about a month in Jan/Feb 2011 involving about a dozen WP administrators and included "discretionary sanctions" (including banning Talk page posting) against this particular anon editor. There are four separate pages on WP devoted to the hearings that took place 11 months ago on this. It went up to very high levels of WP administration. I myself did not find out about this until the recent first deletion of the IP comment.


 * Incidentally, while I failed to note the last edit said "probably", that doesn't solve the problem. That's still a POV opinion (hence violating WP:NPOV which certainly doesn't reflect contemporary consensus.


 * You folks might be forerunners of some Copernican revolution in Shakespeare/DeVere studies (then again OJ might be innocent), but it is simply not the mission of Wikipedia to act as an advocate for new theories!!!! How many times does this have to be repeated ?????


 * However, your behavior at Wikipedia borders on the equivalent to airplane hijackers, and is at least just plain very rude.


 * You seem to have just created this account just for the posting of this protest, while an anon IP has in turn reverted the article prior to the admin getting around to the ban. This right off the bat is suspicious behavior, frankly.
 * And frankly, why all this obsession about someone who lived 400 years ago?? Are you people the love-great-grandchildren of Devere and Queen Elizabeth or what??--WickerGuy (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * PS I would concede that the "rules of the game" are stacked against violating academic taboos (and the authorship question is the subject of a certain irrational taboo in academia), but I would not at all concede that "The 'rules of the game' are stacked against common sense, reason, and the truth." The reason the DeVere theory isn't discussed here is WP:ONEWAY in combo with the fact that books which are general studies of Hamlet almost never discuss the DeVere theory. It was being pointed to this policy that persuaded me to let stand the reverting of the passage I inserted on the DeVere theory in this article.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't accept that there is any 'taboo' beyond the fact that it's just not scholarship in any normal sense of the word at all. I certainly do not think that there's anything irrational about it. It's a consequence of the fact that supporters behave like True Believers in a religion. And that makes even reasonable attempts at accommodation or discussion well-nigh impossible. Paul B (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A traditional Stratfordian who disagrees with you is James Shapiro author of the recent work (2010) Contesting Will. He thinks that the Oxfordian scholarship is flawed because it is based on a bad methodology of trying to read in autobiographical elements into the plays. He is "notorious" for being just about the first really highly reputable advocate of Shakespeare's authorship to devote a lot of time to the alternate authorship theory. And he has actually come under fire both from traditional Statfordians for even dignifying the other side, AND under fire from Oxfordians for being some sort of "stealth agent" holding out a fake olive branch/Trojan horse.


 * My own personal familiarity with this topic is mainly based on a few web-sites, this book, and the book Will in the World which Shapiro doesn't like since even though WitW defends Shakespeare as the author, it employs the autobiographical methodology so beloved by Oxfordians which Shapiro thinks shouldn't be encouraged to begin with.


 * On a slightly different topic. This sort of reminds me of the firing of Ann Coulter from Buckley's National Review in 2001. She claims it was censorship of the content of her articles. However, NR has insisted it was her unprofessional bad behavior (style not substance) that was the motivation for her firing, not unpopular opinion. A close look at the facts makes it fairly obvious that NR is correct & Coulter is wrong. (Surprised?) Yet she persists in the claim she was being censored.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's certainly true that the Oxfordians here have the bad behavior of Believers in a true faith. I didn't get that impression of them in my encounters in Carmel circa 2001-2004 re their sponsorship of the history cycle.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it is I wrote that Shapiro would disagree with. I have read the book - twice! Shapiro does not think that Oxfordian theory is legitimate scholarship, at least not today. His book is distinctive because he looks at anti-Strat theories as historical phenomena, trying to discern how they arose in particular cultural contexts and why particular individuals were attracted to them. That's very far from the "explain the arguments and refute them" approach adopted by even fairly recent previous writers such as McCrea and Matus. Indeed, you could argue that Shapiro is far less respectful of anti-Strat thinking than are McCrea and Matus. They take the arguments seriously enough to rebut them. Shapiro more or less takes it as given that they are no longer to be taken seriously, and looks at why they seemed appealling or attractive at the time. He doesn't even look at recent publications on the topic in any detail. Paul B (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am perhaps responding to the reviews of Barlow's book than the book itself. What I wrote is a prevailing perception in reviews, including if memory serves, the review in the New York Times.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've read the reviews of Barlow's book, but I am surprised, as I haven't finished writing it yet ! Perhaps you saw some of my last book, published a few years ago. Still, Shapiro got a few reviews too! Paul B (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * LOLOLOL!! (Of course I meant Shapiro.) Happy Holidays.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just found Scott McCrea's The case for Shakespeare: the end of the authorship question. I had not been previously familiar with it. It's as interesting as Shapiro's book. I think you are right. It is more genuinely deferential to Oxfordians than Shapiro- willing to take them seriously-, though many reviewers have characterized Shapiro's book as such.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Late postcript