Talk:Shakespeare's plays

37 plays: There are a few plays that had issues and many publishers edited them a lot. So, they are not anymore included in the intro of William Shakespeare. Please change it and write it as 37 plays. And also mention the reason. Actually, there were 39, out of which 2 were cancelled because of editing. Thank you. Myself - Literature Professor, London.

Julius Caesar
YAMANAPPA MADARBold text''' ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by YAMANAPPA MADAR (talk • contribs) 10:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Julius Caesar is read worldwide by everyone, both young and old and is included in almost every English literature curriculum which is why it should be included among the plays listed in the intro. AmbExThErMaL 21:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. why not? AndyJones 22:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Seminal Productions of the Twentieth-Century
I agree with In Defense of the Artist. I think that these seminal productions have less to do with Shakespeare's reputation and more to do with the actual texts of the plays and how they are interpreted visually. I've got three more seminal productions to add.

HUH??????
What's with the Emperor Wang picture. GOD. I hate spammers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.47.166.42 (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

I think we should divide them up into Romances and Tragicomedies
Furthermore, the notes on this page were messed up, so I took the liberty to fix them and add a few more. Your reversion of my revision eliminated some notes that were already there. If we are going to state that some scholars view certain plays as Romances and Tragicomedies or "Problem Plays" then I think we should either do a revised list, like the one I put up, or keep two lists (the first folio and the one I put up). User: Ladb2000

I strongly oppose this suggestion. Just because "some scholars" refer to some plays in a certain way, is no reason to throw away 400 years of accepted catagories, as stipulated by the original publishers of the folio! By the way - theatres across the world typically stick with the comedy - tradgedy - history catagories. (and rarely even use the term "problem play" - because, I think, that theatre practitioners have no problems finding comedy in the comedies, for example.) Smatprt 01:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC) I would agree that the old-fashioned term "problem play" is not useful. It tends to raise more questions than it answers. Niceedgarst (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)niceedgarst

The generic designation "romances" has become fairly standard in recent years. Such well-regarded editions as Bevington and Riverside (among others) list the plays by these four genres: Histories, Comedies, Tragedies, Romances. Shakespeare courses at major universities use the term romance commonly. Niceedgarst (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)niceedgarst

Also you might look at the various wiki cites on article standards and the like. Lists are actively discouraged. I suppose this article must have one, but not two that are 95% duplication. Also - please check out the discussion going on at WikiProject Shakespeare, as we are addressing subjects such as these. Smatprt 01:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Where were most of his plays performed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.39.186.25 (talk • contribs).

Goddamn it

Soliloquies Section
Is this section needed? And if so, why the heavy bias with the article describing how monologues are overall not spoken by the character to the audience. I've performed several of these in front of an audience and they are always more "natural" when the audience is addressed. And the "asides" in Comedy of Errors are exactly that "asides to the audience" not muttered with the hope that no character will hear them. In fact the best way to get the audience to react to these asides is through direct address. This is based on performance experience not academic musings. My suggestion is removal of the article. Also in the soliloquies article it states: "A monologue is an extended, uninterrupted speech or poem by a single person. The person may be speaking his or her thoughts aloud or directly addressing other persons, e.g. an audience, a character, reader, or inanimate object." This is a much more inclusive and accurate description. Spinackle (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * would it be more helpful to make a list of notable soliloquies in the Shakespeare canon? ex: Hamlet Scene 3, Act 1, line(s) 1749-1783To be or not to be this is just one example. Or, is this idea too problematic because we would need the criteria of both 1) what is a 'notable' soliloquy in the Shakespeare canon and 2) what lines in the canon exactly would be cited? I am open to hear the reasoning for this, I think it would be convenient to include some links to these soliloquies, perhaps making this comprehensive for other users/readers to see some examples of these soliloquies.KyleCee17 (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Plays of Doubtful Authorship
There is widespread scholarly agreement that Shakespeare did indeed write two scenes of Sir Thomas More. Niceedgarst (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)niceedgarst
 * Then such should be easy to cite. --Xover (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of WP:ONEWAY and why it disallows the insertion of the Shakespeare authorship question
From Fringe theories:

Mention in other articles

Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.

No independent reliable sources connect Shakespeare's plays to the Shakespeare authorship question in any way except to declare that the idea is a fringe theory and virtually all academic scholars accept that William Shakespeare was the author of the canon.

It is obvious that WP:ONEWAY concerns content, so any argument that the insertion of the SAQ is a "content dispute" and not a WP:ONEWAY violation is fatuous. I hope that is clear enough. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added refs to mainstream scholars such as Bate, Schoenbaum, etc. who all discuss the authorship issue as it relates to the plays. To say that the issue has nothing to do with the plays is simply nonsense. The refs are all RS and mainstream. They connect the topic to the issue and are all independent sources. And yes, this is about content and any challenge should go to the content noticeboard. Smatprt (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have been reverted several times on this, yet your persistence indicates that you either don't understand the policy against the addition of fringe material or you're trying to get around it. This is not a WP:RS issue, so the reliability of the refs is not the problem. In fact, the refs you supplied support the Wikipedia policies that prohibit the inclusion of the material. Please read WP:ONEWAY and WP:COATRACK. You cannot link main page material to extreme fringe material. If you revert back this is the next step. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Smat you used in your last edit refs to make a promotional blob for your fringe theory. It's discussed at SAQ, the appopriate place. There's no point in pasting this junk all over Shakespeare articles. It's a form of promotional spam, tout court. That is its function, since there's nothing there to interest readers of the plays.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Without stepping into the middle of your merry little exchange here, let me just note for the record that I concur with Tom on this: there's no good reason to discuss the Authorship in this article, and certainly not to have an entire section devoted to it. In terms of the cause of the difference of opinion, I would speculate that it seems appropriate to include it from the point of view of someone whose main focus is Authorship, but that for the rest of us it is obviously inappropriate. (Note, though, that this should not be construed as any kind of accusation of POV pushing; it's merely my very subjective speculation as to the underlying cause of the disagreement.) On the other hand it would be very good to have better coverage on the topic of authorship; the short summary section on collaborations is a bit weak in my opinion. PS. In this context, Schoenbaum is the only one I would consider a reliable source. Bate, Love, and Matus' strengths lie more in interpretation of the plays—literary criticism—than literary history, biography, and small-a authorship. Anyway, it is, as Tom points out, a moot point in this case. --Xover (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Xover, are you seriously saying that the authorship issue has nothing to do with the plays??? If so, then WP:ONEWAY would apply. But the issue is indeed discussed prominently by independent reliable sources, so in terms of applying ONEWAY, I simply can't agree. In terms of it being its own seciton or not, I have no problem with wrapping the material into the section on authorship/collaboration. Is that a reasonable compromise? Smatprt (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in a word: yes. The thing is that while the plays are obviously very relevant to the Authorship theory, the reverse is not the case; the subject of the article is Shakespeare's plays, which you can, and should, discuss at length entirely without coming anywhere near the topic of capital-a Authorship. To somewhat rehash my speculation about the cause of the disagreement above, the logic chain here means that once you accept as a premise that the Authorship theory is true, then the opposite relationship becomes relevant. This is where I suspect you're taking a wrong turn, logically speaking; since you, as far as I understand, believe the Authorship theory to be correct, your reasoning includes this as a premise. But once you turn it around and look at it from the other perspective, you realize that even the most ardent Authorship enthusiasts will admit (in fact, they often complain vocally about this fact) that the current state of mainstream scholarship is that the Authorship theory is false. Once you evaluate the merits of including the debated material in this article based on that premise, the conclusion I (and apparently Tom and Nishidani too) have reached becomes more apparent. Take small-a authorship as an example: for a play where mainstream scholarship suggests possible collaboration with another playwright (1H6, say) the topic is very relevant to a treatment of that play and the plays in general, but for a play where mainstream scholarship does not generally consider it a collaboration (like The Tempest) the topic of authorship is not relevant and should be omitted from most treatments. This doesn't, of course, mean that one cannot discuss possible authorship issues regarding that play, but the place to do that would be in a venue for original research; and the discussion would be inappropriate for the relevant Wikipedia article until the general consensus of scholarship changes in its favor. In this specific case, since mainstream scholarship does not consider the capital-a Authorship of Shakespeare's plays to be in question, that theory's relevance to this article fails to obtain. Anyways, I hope you'll forgive me if I've missed the mark on your reasoning (speculating as to another's chain of reasoning is always a risky proposition, I know); but I do sincerely believe you've taken a wrong step somewhere in there, and in this rather… heated… atmosphere it would be quite hard for anyone to take a step back and reconsider the issue. --Xover (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * According to wp:ONEWAY, "Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." Recent books on Shakespeare and the plays by Schoenbaum, Wells, etc - all have a chapter or section on the authorship question. They discuss it seriously (if only to dismiss it) and prominently (much more than a passing mention). More so with the New York Times and other major media. So if they mention it, why shouldn't we? Smatprt (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. This is why we should (and here I believe I'm in disagreement with Tom, at least to some degree) discuss it in the main William Shakespeare article: it is a “significant controversy” (as the FA criteria, as I recall, puts it). But the Authorship theory is primarily a question about the identity of William Shakespeare; even if, say, the Oxfordian theory was proven perfectly correct tomorrow, this article, and the various treatments of the plays, would not (necessarily) change much, if at all (should not if we've written it properly). Schoenbaum, for instance, is writing a biography of Shakespeare, and includes a discussion of Authorship for much the same reason we do it on the main William Shakespeare article: it's a significant controversy, he intends to dismiss its merits, and he ties it in with a general discussion of Bardolatry. In particular, to the degree he talks much about the plays qua plays at all, he doesn't discuss the Authorship issue in that context at all (neither, really, do the major Complete Works editions, for obvious reasons). Also, please note that the standard referred in WP:FRINGE sets a minimum bar for inclusion, below which material should under no circumstances be allowed; but this is not the same as suggesting that a topic that can meet this minimum bar necessarily should be included. --Xover (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

While obviously authorship has something to do with the plays, the plays have nothing to do with authorship. No independent reliable sources connect the two topics in a serious or prominent way, contrary to your interpretation. The only reason they discuss it is to dismiss it, which is far from taking it seriously, and the works in which they do so are not works about the plays. I am preparing a requst for comment, which will not be 3O, since more than two editors are involved. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the problems on all Shakespearean pages is, what to include. The historical depth of criticism, the sheer volume of commentary within specialist circles, for all the works, and each play, means, for me, that one must focus sharply on relevance of incisive, and original contributions to the respective historical details, and interpretations. When I see variations on the same 'blob' of material thrown in here, there, and if unchecked, everywhere, I feel the point of the exercise is not to illuminate the reader about the subject 'Shakespeare's plays' or any one of them, but rather to draw the reader into examining what is a fringe theory. In other words, these blobs serve as redirects that draw one from the theme of any specific page, to the world of Oxfordian counter-factual hypotheses. If one compromises on this, one sets a precedent for turning all pages into battlegrounds where, almost exclusively, our Smatprt will try to negotiate the invariable mention of what remains an untestable hypothesis. It can't be tested because, as all agree, no 'smoking gun' document exists, despite 160 years of intensive searching, to give a minimal credibility to the 'thesis'. We are obliged to work, optimally, harvesting the best criticism from the most severely academic sources, which abound. Perhaps Smatprt's belief-system reflects a truth history has maliciously veiled or concealed, but there's no evidence for it, and to use wikipedia to publicize the 'movement', and possibily to recruit followers, is, I think, improper. The proper thing for him would be to provide a superlative examination, from his perspective, of the SAQ article, and offer it as a challenge to the page both Tom and I have worked on intensively for several months. So far, he hasn't undertaken to pull that 'Oxfordian' angle on the SAQ issue up to even minimally readable or acceptable wiki standards. The old article he was asked to rewrite languishes in total desuetude, orphaned. Surely that is where his talents should be devoted, rather than spreading himself thin, in dabbing and tweaking numerous articles, only to get us all dragged in to repetitive arguments. The additions here and elsewhere, more or less, playing off the same old template, do not illuminate anything.Nishidani (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Is a section about the Shakespeare authorship question appropriate for this article?
One editor, Smatprt, continues to reinsert fringe content discussing the Shakespeare authorship question into the article Shakespeare's plays, which I have reverted with the explanation that its inclusion is in violation of WP:ONEWAY, which states that “Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way” and “If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.”

He has been reverted by three editors, myself, Nishidani, and Verbal, and another editor, Xover, has weighed in against the inclusion of the material. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn through exhaustion from the long-standing edit war of the rest of Wikipedia trying to contain Smatprt's solo campaign within reasonable compass but, as there seems to be something of a head-count going on here, please count mine. There are two articles discussing the topic and that's more than sufficient.


 * As Shapiro notes about these articles, it's persistence and manipulation that count here, not academic expertise. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First, please note that when listing an RFC, the initial comment is supposed to be worded in a "neutral" way. Citing a supposed "violation" is hardly neutral. Also, when mentioning another editor by name, you are supposed to alert that editor by way of a posting on their talk page. Neither of these procedures were followed, tainting the process.
 * In response to the RFC, as stated above, it appears that Tom/Nishi/et al are seriously saying that the authorship issue has nothing to do with the plays themselves. If that were so, then WP:ONEWAY would apply. But the issue is indeed discussed prominently by independent reliable sources (provided in the deleted section) when discussing the plays, so in terms of applying ONEWAY, it simply does not apply. In terms of it being its own seciton or not, I have no problem with wrapping the material into the section on authorship/collaboration, if that is deemed a reasonable compromise.
 * In terms of Tom's comment about a "coatrack" - does anyone here seriously consider the brief mention to cause the article to be a "coatrack"? In other words, does anyone really believe that this article (with the section included) would only exist to draw attention to the authorship question? (A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject.) Or was that statement merely a red herring? Smatprt (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the comment to a NPOV, and in any case is as neutral as this, which I just now discovered. The "coatrack" argument is Wikipedia policy, not my invention. To your other objection that I did not notify you, I did not know that was SOP, and next time I will be more diligent, but I did mention that I was going to solicit outside opinions. As to the heart of the matter, we have all discussed it thoroughly enough so that we all know each others's views, so let's just sit back and wait for outside opinions from non-involved editors. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel compelled to make a comment here because there seems to be a serious failure of sense of proportion displayed in some of the remarks above. Let me make clear that I personally see no reason to doubt that Shakespeare's works are correctly attributed in the folios. At the same time I know that there have been repeated attempts over a long period to re-attribute them, so that the SAQ is clearly notable. Furthermore merely to raise the question is certainly legitimate and is harmless, or even beneficial in that considering it can be used to clarify the relationship between the works and Shakespeare the man. I have re-read WP:Coatrack; it has no relevance whatever to this issue. The proposed paragraph is well sourced and NPOV. The article is currently very deficient in sources. I think that those who wish to improve it would make better use of their time and expertise if they turned their attention to rectifying that situation. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me clear up what seems to be a misunderstanding: The applicable rationale given is WP:ONEWAY, not WP:COATRACK.
 * The section is not well-sourced. It is very easy to find reliable sources to say that anti-Stratfordians believe that someone else wrote Shakespeare's plays. However, this article is about Shakespeare's plays; to bring in authorship requires independent, reliable sources that discuss Shakespeare's plays and connects them with the Shakespeare authorship question in a serious and prominent way. The sources given are reliable for a discussion of authorship, and they are used as such in the appropriate article. You won't find any independent reliable sources that discuss Shakespeare's plays in the light of authorship; those that do aren't reliable and those that are reliable don't. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I really feel some of you may be putting on blinders here. The authorship question is about two things and they are always mentioned in tandem - Shakespeare, and the plays which are attributed to him. In terms of the authorship question, you can't discuss one without discussing the other - and every source that mentions one also mentions the other. Much has been made about my particular POV, but it seems to me that Tom/Nishi/OldMoon are making their arguments solely due to their own POV, so much so that they (or at least Tom) fail to recognize the points made my SamuelTheGhost above. It should be noted that Samuel is the only uninvolved editor who has weighed in on this question. Smatprt (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding WP:ONEWAY, it has already been explained why it does not apply. To repeat - the deleters are saying that the authorship issue has nothing to do with the plays themselves. If that were so, then WP:ONEWAY would apply. But that assertion simply does not hold water. The SAQ is indeed discussed prominently by independent reliable sources (provided in the deleted section) that discuss the plays, so in terms of trying to use the ONEWAY rule, it simply does not apply. Smatprt (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Smatprt, while we're discussing this, could you perhaps avoid restoring the section under debate? Tom and Nishidani will just revert you, and then we'll have a revert-war rather than a reasoned (FSVO) discussion. And in the interest of keeping the discussion reasoned, perhaps you could provide some specific examples of the sources that support your argument? For instance, of Schoenbaum's, I have both A Compact Documentary Life and Shakespeare's Lives sitting in my shelf where they can be easily consulted; and while I must admit it's been a while since I read them, I cannot recall that they discuss capital-a Authorship in relation to the plays. He does, of course, discuss the plays in connection with Authorship, but, as mentioned above, that's the opposite relationship to what would be relevant here. Finally, is not the salient point of the Authorship theories as they relate to the plays qua plays, the small-a authorship and their dating? These are both issues that do belong in this article (in some manner), and where reliably sourced and notable issues that happen to be interesting to Authorship theorists as well as mainstream scholars would be appropriate to include. For instance, while I am not, personally, impressed with the scholarship exhibited in the recent Stritmatter–Kositsky paper on dating The Tempest, I have no particular complaint about including it in the general discussion on dating in that article; where it fits in nicely (some recently introduced weight and balance issues aside) in the range that starts with Malone and his contemporaries and, so far, ends with Vaughan's paper responding to Stritmatter-Kositsky. I would, however, object vehemently to an entire section on Authorship in that article—for reasons similar to this article—irrespective of how interesting The Tempest happens to be to the Authorship theories (as I understand it, an earlier dating of The Tempest is critical for, in particular, Oxfordians and Marlowians). It is the matter of weight again: from the perspective of an Authorship adherent, the related material is absolutely critical to include in nearly all Shakespeare articles; but for mainstream scholarship—which is what Wikipedia concerns itself with—the Authorship issues are mostly irrelevant (unless the blind hen happens to strike gold, as they say) and does not pertain much of anywhere except as regards the man (as the core tenet of Authorship is to question the identity of the man, and everything else follows from there). As Samuel so rightly points out, expending this much energy on this topic when there is so much to be done to improve the article overall does leave somewhat of an unfortunate taste on the palate. --Xover (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ". . . expending this much energy on this topic when there is so much to be done to improve the article overall does leave somewhat of an unfortunate taste on the palate." This is true. Smatprt is serially going through each Shakespeare-related topic and instigating the exact same argument. He hasn't won a case yet, and policy is clear on this, but until some higher authority steps in and lays down the law, this is how we are forced to spend our time if we edit Shakespeare-related articles. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Serious authorship questions regarding Shakespeare's plays, as I think 99% of us know, concern the kinds of issues revived with vigour by Brian Vickers and MacDonald Jackson. Authorship studies do not question who Shakespeare is, since there is no evidence to work on. They question who Shakespeare worked with, and how. With several here, I would like to register my impatience with the way some of us are induced to reverting material that has no foothold in serious scholarship on Shakespeare and his plays. Since this is a repetitive form of behaviour, with a potential to extend over, and disrupt, several dozen wiki pages which still require serious revision according to mainstream sources, I would repeat my suggestion to Smatprt to give this hyperactivism a rest, work the two pages or three pages where the Oxfordian hypothesis is showcased. As they are, they run far beneath the basic requirements for quality on wikipedia, and no one conducts revert wars with him there, where he can exercise a total liberty to show us the depth, intelligence and incisiveness of the results of 'alternative scholarship'. Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed this dispute through Tom Reedy's post at the Fringe theories noticeboard. I agree with Nishidani. Smartprt is simply spamming this article with a blob of fringe nonsense that doesn't belong here; his energy would be better spent improving the pages that deal specifically with the authorship "controversy". --Akhilleus (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom misrepresents the facts once again. If anyone is "serially" going through articles it is he. A dozen deletions over the last few months of long-standing material, often made without discussion and rarely any consensus (which he seems to think means vote counting among like minds.) Now he is wp:Forum shopping, not liking the comment he received from one uninvolved editor. After listing an rfc, he has now brought the issue to two more noticeboards - boards that are filled with like minds instead of the more neutral rfc approach. Smatprt (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So what? I posted it at the fringe theory noticeboard (the dispute is over the interpretation of WP:ONEWAY from WP:FRINGE, the Shakespeare project page, and the William Shakespeare talk page, all appropriate venues. The more attention the better. Let's press this thing to a final conclusion, all the way up to Jimmy Wales if necessary. I'm tired of wasting my time and energy on it, but I'm not going to retire and let you have your way in defiance of Wikipedia policies.
 * And I suggest you actually read WP:FORUMSHOP before slinging accusations. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid all I can see is an SPA working a promo campaign to get a fringe view visibility. The Tempest was noted, and there's been success there, in the sense that the dating section, which surveys views from Malone (1790s) to the present day has over a third of its space, which should incorporate judgements extending over 2 centuries, devoted to a few articles by Roger Stritmatter (an academic in a minor college) and Kositsky, a Canadian writer with no known background in Elizabethan scholarship (i.e., Recentism), appraised as 'devastating' by William Leahy who is introduced as editor of Critical Survey, when he happened to be simply a 'guest editor' for an issue, and, being of the Oxfordian persuasion, stacked it with Oxfordian arguments, which convince him, because he is already convinced, but no one outside the fringe fold in Shakespearean studies generally.


 * As Shapiro, the most recent historian of the movement says, they haven't really a leg to stand on, but they excel in self-promotion, and wikipedia has become one of their focal points for gaining exposure. I think it fair that Stritmatter's view be registered, but (and I've read them) a third of the article, and 'devastating' from a friend, presented as trhe regular editor of a journal he was only invited to edit as a guest to lend space to the fringe perspective, highlighted in this manner? The whole thing has been crafted as promo, and that Leahy quote is deceptive. Good work, This is an example, again, of a successful violation of WP:Undue.
 * As to the remarks above generally, add Stay on Topic and cruft are also appropriate. This publicitarian jig is getting editors off-topic, as they are drawn into a fringe topic that has very little to do with serious scholarship on Shakespeare.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As silly as I consider the authorship "debate", the paragraph in question appears to be cited to reliable sources, is way down at the bottom of the article, and even contains a sentence about its own dismissal. As an inclusionist, I support keeping it in, with a bit of reorganization. ("For over 150 years" is the same as "The public debate dates back to the mid-19th century", so the latter sentence is redundant and can be removed. I also think the paragraph should close with the sentence about how most scholars dismiss this theory.) Scartol  •  Tok  15:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism Inclusionism is the philosophy that information should be liberally added and retained on Wikipedia. It is espoused by users called inclusionists who favor keeping and amending problematic articles over deleting them. Inclusionists are generally less concerned with the question of notability, and instead focus on whether or not an article is factual, with merit, or useful.]

This information is certainly available at Wikipedia. The question here is one of WP:WEIGHT and WP:ONEWAY, which states that "Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way” and “If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack." This article is about Shakespeare's plays; to bring in an authorship discussion requires independent, reliable sources that discuss Shakespeare's plays and connects them with the Shakespeare authorship question in a serious and prominent way. The sources given are reliable for a discussion of authorship and are cited in the appropriate articles, but they do not meet the criteria for inclusion in this article. Find independent reliable sources that discuss Shakespeare's plays in the light of the authorship question and all the objections to its placement in this article will melt away. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The refs supplied already discuss the plays. The authorship question is just as much about the plays as the man and every source discusses both. If you want to challenge that, take it to the appropriate resource board, but we've heard from two uninvolved editors that have both stated the sources are sufficient. Smatprt (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read this. The focus of this discussion is rapidly moving from the edit to the editor. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Et tu, Scartol? The problem here is that all the sources that discuss the Authorship theory will of necessity mention the plays; but sources that discuss the plays will not normally discuss the Authorship theory. A perfect example are the sources provided for the section in question: every single cite I was able to track down there discusses Authorship and mention the plays only incidentally. The litmus test here should be: do the Arden, Oxford, New Cambridge (or even the RSC) or other major critical editions of the plays mention the Authorship theory in connection with the plays; particularly whether they discuss it in the same manner they discuss small-a authorship (e.g. collaborations with Fletcher or Greene or...), performance history, themes, sources, etc.. That Authorship buffs discuss Shakespeare's plays does not ipso facto make the Authorship theory relevant to Shakespeare's plays. You might might as well consider the numerous “Ballsack” jokes in popular culture an argument for including a discussion of low-brow humor in an article on that author's works; the logic would be equally flawed. --Xover (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you are involved editors who have made their POV quite clear. Two uninvolved editors are satisfied with the references. They are uninvolved and you are not - so who is being disruptive here?Smatprt (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is nothing in the basic WP policies which argues against including some reference ot the SAQ here. The objectors have been citing material from WP:FRINGE and related guidelines. The trouble with the latter is that they are based on the implicit and unproved assumption that "fringe" views are essentially all the same, and that it is appropriate to treat them all in the same way. I think that is a mistaken view, so I don't see references to those guidelines as conclusive arguments. The unusual feature of the SAQ is its age; the question was raised in the mid-nineteenth century or earlier and has rumbled on ever since. This makes it notable in a way which cannot apply to recent minority theories, many of which may be very short-lived. A question I'd ask is "Would you expect a mainstream Shakespeare expert to have heard of the SAQ and be familiar with its arguments?" and I think the answer must be yes. The discussions above referring to modern supporters of the idea, therefore in my view miss the point. The SAQ would be notable and worth mentioning here even if there were no living anti-Stratfordians at all. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think your objections are to Wikipedia policy, which clearly states that unless independent and reliable sources connect a fringe topic in a serious and prominent way to another topic, it should not even have a "see also" link. Trying to rationalise it in because of its age is nothing but special pleading, which I would have thought you would know. Both creation myths and flat earth theories are older that the Shakespeare authorship theory, yet those two are specifically mentioned as fringe theories which should not be discussed or mentioned in the main page articles. The SAQ has several articles, so it is not being censored or otherwise made unavailable for those seeking information about it. Discussing it in other main page articles with a text link to the main SAQ article is against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Either those policies and guidelines apply or they don't. If they don't, then they might as well not exist. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Samuel, but you're arguing based on general notability. Authorship passes the test in the general notability guideline; which is why it's mentioned in its own section at the William Shakespeare article, and why there exists separate articles for: Shakespeare authorship question, Baconian theory, Prince Tudor theory, Oxfordian theory, List of Oxfordian theory supporters, and Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian (granted, some of these have issues with content forking and such, but that's a separate issue). But WP:ONEWAY applies specifically because while the Authorship adherents discuss Shakespeare's plays; none of the main scholarly editions of the plays discuss Authorship! They discuss small-a authorship in terms of collaborations (e.g. 1H6 which may be a collaboration with Nashe, Peele, Greene, or Marlowe); they discuss performance history; they discuss textual sources; they discuss printing history; they discuss major themes and contemporary allusions; they discuss adaptations; … But they do not discuss the Authorship question. If one were to accept this line of reasoning then one would essentially argue that the Authorship question should be included in every single Shakespeare-related article on Wikipedia; a notion that should fall on its own absurdity (I don't think even the Authorship enthusiasts would make that argument). The logic here is flawed: that I happen to be a fan of Led Zeppelin establishes a one way relationship, but it does in no way argue that the Led Zeppelin article should include any mention of me (the relationship is one way only). --Xover (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have said nothing at all contrary to wikipedia policies, which I fully support. I have suggested that the label "fringe" is too broad to suffice as a basis for decision in this matter, and the blind application of guidelines (which have less authority than policies) based on that label is not appropriate. I think the disputed paragraph reproduced below has some wrong emphasis, and I'd suggest instead something like:"For over 150 years there have been readers of Shakespeare's works who could not believe that they were written by a man with 'small Latin and less Greek', and who prefer to think that the real author must be a highly educated person or persons. Their ideas are discussed as the Shakespeare authorship question. The great majority of scholars have always accepted the substantial direct evidence for Shakespeare's authorship dating from 1623 and earlier." SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This type of time-wasting promotion and subsequent edit war has played itself out over many pages, with the exact same arguments with identical results. Consensus has the most authority on Wikipedia, and it is almost unanimous in classifying the SAQ as a fringe theory. Smatprt himself insisted that it be added to the fringe theory article as an example, which touched off a seven-month edit war that wasted an innumerable amount of time for many editors, the way this one is doing (with his side consisting solely of himself). Since it is a fringe theory, then those policies and guidelines concerning their presentation apply. Until those are changed, I really don't see how any non-promoter of the SAQ can argue to the contrary. If the policies are wrong, get them changed. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Name the small minority of scholars, i.e., accomplished historians and textual critics of the period who specialise in Shakespeare, who do or did not accept the substantial evidence. If you can't then, 'the great majority' is question-begging, in that it implies, a 'minority' disagree. As far as I can make out, there has never been such an academic minority. This is a technical question, not a matter of what outsiders, or amateur kibitzers among the broad reading public opine. Alan Nelson couldn't name one ranking scholar who believed this fringe theory, a few years ago (2004). It is cited in the academic literature, invariably, only as an historical curiosity to be dismissed.Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're nit-picking. Mathematically, 100% is still a great majority. I'd accept "All accomplished historians and textual critics of the period who specialise in Shakespeare" instead.SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion. I'd like to see a source for 'Mathematically, 100% is still a great majority,' which makes no sense to me, since neither a mathematician nor a literary scholar with a refined sense of linguistic tact would write it. I take your rejoinder, and the proposed emendation, as an indication that you can't think of any ranking period scholar or Shakespearean specialist who would think of this fringe theory as anything more than the fevered fantasy of extramural amateurs with a yen for indulging conspiracy readings (in which part of the conspiracy involves the world of Shakespearean scholarship itself), venturing into matters whose technicalities they do not understand. One or two who did understand the technicalities, gave up the theory, when Elliott and Valenza produced their computerized analyses, though. The Baconian theory never survived Robertson's hatchet job, de Vere was whipped out of the magical hat by an minor English schoolteacher, who surmised proof would be forthcoming, and 90 years later, not one shred of evidence has been uncovered. Oxfordianism had all but collapsed by 1970, as its historians recognize, (the Ashbourne portrait evidence), and only the astute manipulation of public events, like getting Supreme Court Judges, or actors, to make headlines, has kept the story alive for the public, while it is dead and buried as regards scholarly interest. We are writing for the state of the art of Shakespearean studies in the 21st century, and the SAQ page will contain a notice of its historical trajectory, with the obvious Icarean burn-out. Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your're clearly not a mathematician, but let's not pursue that pointless argument. More seriously, there is nothing in your rant above that is incompatible with the short paragraph I've suggested. It seems to me that this discussion is hopelessly polarised between people who on both sides are determined to "win". The loser is wikipedia, but I've had enough. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Inferences about what I might or might not know, 'pointless argument', 'rant' 'hopelessly polarised', 'determined to win', 'I've had enough'.
 * After several edits on this wikipedia page, in reply to a simple request, over an hour, to supply names and justify your proposal's implicit assumption? Well, so be it.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to make any unkind cuts; I'm just giving my opinion (which someone requested) and trying to help find consensus. I suppose when I see a section like "Plays possibly by Shakespeare", it doesn't seem like such a big leap to include a mention of the SAQ. So how about a compromise? Maybe one sentence at the end of the section "Plays possibly by Shakespeare", which reads:"Although some critics question Shakespeare's authorship of all the plays, this is considered a fringe theory among Shakespearean scholars."Or are folks on that side of the fence opposed to any mention of the SAQ here at all? (I recognize the hatrack fear, but it's something a lot of people are familiar with. Leaving it out may cause more raised eyebrows than a single-sentence dismissal.) Scartol  •  Tok  15:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is opposed the the mention of the SAQ in the appropriate articles. As for your suggestion, how does this sound for the Thermodynamics article?
 * Although some researchers question the first and second laws of thermodynamics, perpetual motion is considered a fringe theory among most scientists.
 * How about this for the ape article?
 * Although some claim that an ape-like primate known as Bigfoot inhabits the the Pacific Northwest region of North America, this is considered a fringe theory among primatologists.
 * Or this for the paleontology article?
 * Although some creationists claim that the world was created in six days, among paleontologists this is considered a fringe theory.
 * What's the difference in putting that information in those articles (after all, someone might want to know about them, and Wikipedia shouldn't censor information, right?) and inserting the SAQ in this one? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We're talking about writing a page sourced from the extremely abundant scholarly literature by specialists on Shakespeare. There is so much of it, conforming to exacting standards and peer reviewed, that one must ask oneself, why should one refer to a genre of speculative literature almost completely written by men and women with no training in the discipline?
 * Recent computerized studies, the cutting-edge in attribution studies, are clearing up much of the problems with ascription. They are not used by any authorship doubter. Issues which vexed earlier scholarship are now yielding clear results. These results do not include any of figures customarily cited as the real mind behind Shakespeare. They are his contemporaries in Elizabethan dramatic productions. I don't know why 'fear' is mentioned. It's a simple matter of using the best sources, and the SAQ literature doesn't contain such material. Indeed, it is notoriously poor in arguing its case, and 95% of its arguments date back to the area of the Baconian enthusiasm a century ago. Wiki editing requires consensus, but only if we agree that articles must be sourced to the best available reliable sources, which is what the optimal standard set us asks for.Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well. I've given you my opinion, and while I definitely take your point about apes and paleontology, I think those cases are slightly different. To be honest, I don't care enough to argue about it. You really should have listed this under "Requests for Argument" or "Demands for Consensus Along the Lines of What We've Already Agreed Upon Among Ourselves", because that's the sense I get of what you're looking for here.
 * I will now stop paying attention to this discussion. Scartol  •  Tok  21:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the policies and guidelines are ever changed, I'll be happy to conform with them. But ad hoc special pleading is no policy at all. If you want to add yourself to my request for mediation on this issue to argue your case, feel free. I and others have agreed to the mediation of this particular question, which has a long history and which I'm sure everybody is sick to death of trying to thrash out. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying. I (for one) appreciate your attempt to find a compromise. But you are right - the main objectors are set in their ways and have adopted a "no compromise" stance. Thanks again for your valiant attempt, and sorry to see (yet another) voice of reason driven from the page. Smatprt (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing us with the impression this has nothing to do with the state of the art scholarship on Shakespeare, WP:Fringe and quality RS, but is simply a problem of a flexible editor being abused by an incorrigible diehard tubthumping firebrand posse of two. People with personality disorders, in short, harassing a decent chap. Well, okay, sure. We need some light relief at times.Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for coming in late. I think the authorship question is appropriate here. I don't agree with those who have argued that the question is a "fringe theory". It is a serious historiological issue, and I think it ought to be mentioned (with appropriate references, of course) when there is a substantive discussion in an article about Shakespeare and/or his life and times as they relate to his works. I don't think a brief discussion of the question would violate our guidelines on WP:UNDUE or otherwise. Best regards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Personal opinions are welcome, but the problem is scholarship says explicitly it is not a 'serious historical issue'. The whole argument here is, why is a theory that lacks any serious scholarship, and which is almost universally dismissed or ignored by academic specialists, to be treated seriously for what it might have to say on Shakespeare, the most exhaustively studied writer in world literature?Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Having slogged through the entire discussion up until this point, I am going to point out the running tally. At the time of this thread being posted, there were 3 plaintiffs (Nishidani, Tom Reedy, Xover) against the one very vocal (Smatprt) defendant. Through the course of this thread, meant to take in NEW opinions from NEW voices that were NOT involved in the previous discussion (thereby providing us with a new view of what we should do from perspectives that are not too close to the picture), we have recieved new opinions from Ssilvers, who is in favour of inclusion. We have recieved new opinions from Scartol, who is in favour of inclusion. We have recieved new opinions from SamuelTheGhost, who is in favour of inclusion/editing. We have recieved new opinions from Akhilleus, who agrees with Nishidani. However, as each of the new speakers presented themselves, they were chased off by the already angered opposition. The four of you are all guilty of not allowing any new discussion to take place, thereby leaving you all in your continual hissy fit. As it stands, the vote is 4-4, with Tom/Nish/Xover/Akhilleus in favour of deletion, and Smatprt/Samuel/Scartol/Ssilvers in favour of inclusion. I am not going to provide my bias for you here, as I would like to have my voice heard instead of devoured. Thank you. NortonFord}} ([[User talk:NortonFord|talk) 12:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you overlooked Xover and Old Moonraker. Verbal also reverted the addition. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to edit wars. It seems to me that this insertion issue should be resolved by some compromise. I arrived here because I just finished the very relevant book, Shapiro, James, Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? - New York : Simon and Schuster; London : Faber and Faber, 2010. 352 p. - ISBN 1-416-54162-4.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Revertitis
A request to preserve my sanity: Could you all please refrain from reverting the article back and forth while the RfC discussion is still ongoing? It's not productive and it's driving me batty! I don't much care which version is left while we discuss this—so long as we leave it alone—but I would suggest we leave the version that includes the passage in question so that it's easy for everyone to see what we're talking about. I'm sure all involved will be happy to grant that temporarily leaving it in place for the duration of the discussion does not confer privilege or preference for that version of the article once discussion finally winds down. --Xover (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree with that, for the reasons raised by Xover. After all, the section lived in the article for several years and it didn't cause the sky to fall. It's removal is what got me started in the first place.Smatprt (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I made my edit before reading User:Xover's remark above. When I then read it, I did the logical thing. I went to the old page, copied the contested passage, and conserved it on the section below, from which it can be rapidly transferred back to the page if and when a consensus favours its restoration there. As I note below, what the contested edit says is exactly what is said on several other pages in related wiki articles. Aside from my perspective on the debate, generally as an editor I am vigorously opposed to the transfer and spread of the same paragraph, or paragraph section from one article to several. No encyclopedia I am familiar with enacts this replication and every article should be drafted according to the specific exigencies of the text, rather than being built up from shuffling pieces in from related articles. Links dispose of that necessity, and here Occam's razor should apply.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The disputed passage, under discussion, which Smatprt introduced and whose relevance is contested, as per Xover above. The Shakespeare Authorship Question

 * "(1)For over 150 years, Shakespeare's plays have been the subject of a controversy about whether these works, traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, were actually composed by another writer or group of writers. Those who question the attribution believe that 'William Shakespeare' was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret. Of the numerous proposed candidates, major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various 'group' theories of authorship. The debate has attracted wide attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars."
 * "(1)For over 150 years, Shakespeare's plays have been the subject of a controversy about whether these works, traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, were actually composed by another writer or group of writers. Those who question the attribution believe that 'William Shakespeare' was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret. Of the numerous proposed candidates, major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various 'group' theories of authorship. The debate has attracted wide attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars."

Reasons for rejecting.
 * There is no 'controversy'. The theory is an example of WP:fringe
 * In the last 25 years, the increasingly sophisticated use of computerized stylistic analyses has demonstrated multiple authorship of several plays, but all of the tested 'real' authors of the conspiracy theorists have been comprehensively discounted as possible authors. From Elliot and Valenza to Brian Vickers and MacDonald Jackson, there is no room for the 'alternative authorship controversy' as stated by Smatprt. The theories are historical relics, the attempt to push a dead and buried marginal conspiracy theory as though it were a significant part of a contemporary 'controversy' constitutes an anachronism. There are no ranking Shakespeare scholars who give this any attention except as a bizarre interlude in the discipline's history. Apart from Niederkorn's promotional activities on the New York Times, there is little that can be adduced, nothing from the serious scholarship, for the proposition that this is a recognized theory or controversy. It is only in the imaginations of its supporters, 99.999% of whom have no grounding in textual history, Elizabethan scholarship, etc., and therefore the theory itself can only be completely described from vanity press imprints of dubious scholarly value (WP:RS had to be suspended on many such pages, to cover the tripe)
 * This is not a minoritarian position within recognized Shakespearean studies, which Smatprt is trying to pass it off as. It is a fringe position outside of Shakespearean studies, which 'thrives' by virtue of its believers missionary activities. It is to do with 'winning a public' against the standard scholarly representations of Shakespeare, and all of its evidence for support comes from statistics, gossip and promo articles in newspapers by advocates, pitched to the public, not from citations of scholars of repute and standing within the discipline.
 * The only reason scholars from Schoenbaum to Shapiro mention it, is because of this impact on the public imagination, which the de Vereans work on. And these scholars feel at times duty bound to clarify to the broader readership the why and wherefore of this fringe narrative. Those citations cannot be mischievously used to fudge the impression that these scholars 'recognize' the theory as part of the Shakespearean curriculum.
 * The patchwork blob introduced here, and, in variations on other pages, exists in the Shakespeare Authorship Question page, from which both text and sources have almost been copied and pasted.
 * "(2)The Shakespeare authorship question is the controversy about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers. The public debate dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted public attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars. Those who question the attribution believe that 'William Shakespeare' was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret. Of the numerous proposed candidates, major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various 'group' theories. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians, or Derbyites, respectively. It has attracted public attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars."
 * Shakespeare authorship doubters
 * "(3) The Shakespeare authorship question, the ongoing debate about whether the works attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually written by another writer, or group of writers, has attracted many notable authorship doubters since the subject was first introduced in the 18th century.Those who question the traditional attribution believe that 'William Shakespeare' was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret. Of the more than 50 candidates that have been proposed, several claimants have achieved major followings and notable supporters. Major nominees include Edward de Vere, (17th Earl of Oxford), who has attracted the most widespread support since first being proposed in the 1920s, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley (6th Earl of Derby), who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various 'group' theories."

Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What Smatprt appears to be doing in lugging and lodging this blob around to numerous pages on Shakespeare outside of the article specifically surveying the concept, is to establish a foothold for a precedent. By securing at least on one page a consensus that this dead theory is relevant, a part of a soi-disant controversy, he can then argue that on every page dealing with Shakespeare, the (pseudo-) 'minority' viewpoint has a right to be mentioned. Since the deVereans have an alternative chronology, on every page where a Shakespearean play is featured, we shall be required to give coverage of the deVerean theory, even though it has no academic support, and has been repeatedly shown to be a fictive construct ex hypothesi, for which no historical evidence exists. The consequence will be to turn all Shakespeare articles, if the precedent is accepted, into a battlefield.
 * Smatprt pushes his de Vere theory, not the general theory that any other of the 73 candidates Tom and I have listed. Give him this precedent, and you are making, unwittingly, an open invitation to Marlovians, Baconians, Mary Sidney-fans to hop in an ask that their favorite author be given a nod as well.
 * This smacks of promotion of a fringe theory, rather than a contribution to wikipedia's NPOV coverage of the world. The theory, de Vere, is covered on several major pages, all, be it noted, written very badly. The article on de Vere, on last checking, only cites de Vere's major academic biographer, Alan Nelson, on trivial points, thrice, among its many footnotes, and prefers other non-RS sources more compatible with the fringe amateur speculative literature.
 * This is a point that requires some reflection. None of the pages where deVereans and co., can work unhampered, i.e., pages aficionados of conspiracy can explain their perspective, come up to the minimal standards of wiki articles. They are a total mess, poorly organized, badly sourced, devoid of consequential narrative and exposition. I have asked Smatprt repeatedly to fix those messes before he returns to his repeated forays into the main Shakespeare pages, which must strive to represent the best of both scholarship and of wiki editorial practices. Smatprt is a poor editor, whose inability to understand both Shakespearean scholarship and wikipedia practices, invaqriably leads his interlocutors to waste huge amounts of time on multiple pages, to nudge him towards some awareness of the confused state of the edits he does propose. The above blob only came about as a result of over a year of constant pleading with him to write a precise account from reliable sources. I'm quite willing to deal with any proposal, as long as he can show, in good faith, that he can produce at least one page, unhampered by editors who think his pet belief system nonsense, on de Vere, the Oxfordian theory, Oxfordian chronology or the Shakespeare Authorship Question that would pass as a fair achievement by a high school student in his final year. But he refuses to do this. He wants to play about with the big pages, where serious scholarship must be culled, and to do so in order not to illuminate the article, but to lobby for a promotional spread for the de Verean cult.
 * Unless wikipedia clarifies once and for all what is going on here, apropos WP:RS, WP:Fringe, WP:Undue, and other protocols dealing with promo work by fringe lobbyists, once the alternative de Verean editions for the complete plays come out, we will have people asking for Richard F. Whalen and Ren Draya's edition of Othello (Llumina Press), for Whalen's edition of Macbeth (Fully Annotated from an Oxfordian Perspective), Stritmatter and Kositsky, presumably, on the Tempest etc., to be entered on those play pages as 'alternativ' 'minority' viewpoints whereas, to judge so far, they are simply amateurish productions that cannibalize Shakespearean scholarship for the bulk of their notes, and then wedge in the usual authorship slant.
 * A final point, which I think administrators should examine. When the SAQ page got stuck, Science Apologist asks both parties, effectively Smatprt, and those who uphold orthodox scholarship, to work up an alternative version they felt adequate, to enable outside editors to compare the two, once both were completed. The template was Shakespeare authorship question, which both parties had worked on. The Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft had the usual problems, so Smatprt overnight created a second page for us to work, leaving the original draft page as his own terrain. We were given a Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2. On the first page Smatprt made a desultory 135 edits, and most of those before the split occurred, (a mere 60 odd after we were invited to work elsewhere) and only a few dozen of substance, over three months, and stopped tinkering with it two months ago. It is more or less a touched up version of the disputed page, retaining many of its problems. The draft 2 version has been edited consistently and continuously over 5 months by both Tom Reedy and myself (with quite marked differences between our versions, so much for suspicions of some tagteaming), with over 1029 edits, resulting in a radical rewrite, governed by a stringent reading of WP:RS, and involving some months of detailed reading and research. My impression is that Smatprt cannot work, when given the opportunity to do so, in a fre unrestricted and unchallenged environment, but only becomes hyperactive when he works a page where he has several people disagreeing with him. He proved hyperactive when editing with Tom and myself, and otiose when challenged to work on his own. I dislike working in a conflictual environment, and I think Tom does as well. By the statistics, that is the only environment where Smatprt is willing to operate. So I return to my original request. That he go and fix, untroubled, the fringe theory pages which are a mess, to show that he can produce work up to the minimal standards of quality wikipedia is seeking, before engaging with other pages, with the usual conflictual results.


 * Thank you for posting this latest diatribe. It's a perfect example of your constant attempts to make everything about "the editor", straying from topic (your final point), ad hominem attacks and personal bias. Smatprt (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality and balance issues
I have tagged the article while this remains under discussion and in mediation. This article has sections on Dramatic collaborations, Lost plays, and Plays possibly by Shakespeare, but reference to the authorship question has been deleted. As such, it is not NPOV. Smatprt (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Textual Problem Section
The section, composed of five full paragraphs, contains not a single citation. Should it be deleted if it cannot be evidenced?Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William Shakespeare's influence which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shakespeare's plays. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613133240/http://www.clicknotes.com/hamlet/Pap.html to http://www.clicknotes.com/hamlet/Pap.html
 * Added tag to http://doyle.lib.miamioh.edu/shakespeare/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160617173843/http://www.bl.uk/shakespeare to http://www.bl.uk/shakespeare

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

His life
He had sex with a mocking bird rrrrrrrrawrrrrrrr! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.90.112 (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Shakespeare's sonnets which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it worth adding a tag for plays that are considered to have been collaborations?
We have tags for late romance, problem play, and not in first folio. I think the typical reader might be equally interested in "written in collaboration" or some such tag. Seems to be decent agreement on this and thus could get reliable sources. This category would include Titus Andronicus, Timon of Athens, and The Two Noble Kinsmen. Not sure about others. Thoughts? Dhalamh (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If only I'd scrolled down :s Dhalamh (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Really shamefully badly constructed article!
Anyone, any group of editors who takes on the task of writing on the subject o Shakespeare needs to have a good understanding of the mode in which they are writing here i.e. the encyclopaedia.


 * What are the problems?


 * Let's take it from the top:
 * Shakespeare's plays are a canon of approximately 39 dramatic works written by English poet, playwright, and actor William Shakespeare.[written between the years blanketty-blank] The exact number of plays—as well as their classifications as tragedy, history, comedy, or otherwise—is a matter of scholarly debate. Shakespeare's plays are widely regarded as being among the greatest in the English language and are continually performed around the world. The plays have been translated into every major living language. Many of his plays appeared in print as a series of quartos, but approximately half of them remained unpublished until 1623, .....


 * When Shakespeare first arrived in London in the late 1570s or early 1580s, dramatists writing for London's new commercial playhouses .... were combining two strands of dramatic tradition into a new and distinctively Elizabethan synthesis. Previously, the most common forms of popular English theatre were the Tudor morality plays. These plays, generally celebrating piety, ...... Shakespeare would likely have seen this type of play ...... The other strand of dramatic tradition was classical aesthetic theory. This theory was derived ultimately from Aristotle; in Renaissance England......
 * This entire section is material pertaining to the style and background to his writing. It is body text material. It does not provide a brief summary of the facts or body text.  '''
 * You have written "When Shakespeare arrived in London..." without having told me that Shakespeare was ever in London, wrote in London, or anything else relevant.


 * Archaeological excavations on the foundations of the Rose and the Globe in the late twentieth century showed t
 * New section here that launches into Archaeological excavations  with only the heading to tell us what the section is about.
 * Hey! Were Shakespeare's plays performed in theatres in London? Or were they performed on wagons in the streets of Stratford, York and Norwich?
 * Don't presume your reader knows. 


 * For Shakespeare, as he began to write, both traditions were alive; they were, moreover, filtered through the recent success of the University Wits on the London stage.
 * This is really bad!
 * What "both traditions" are you talking about?
 * OK. If I search for it, I discover that prior to the section on Archaeological digs, buried in the text of the Introduction, there is the vital information that there were two traditions of writing for the theatre.
 * Now I discover that, joined to the fact that these traditions are alive, they are linked by a nut and bolt (a.k. semi-colon) to something called the "University Wits" which I have no hope of understanding unless I leave this page and look it up!


 * Can some serious editor who has an idea about continuity, cohesion and writing an encyclopaedia for those who are thirsting for knowledge, take this project in hand and fix it?

Amandajm (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request as I am partially blocked (The unchanged part is in italics)
The following edit request to use a table for Canonical plays

Canonical plays

Except where noted, the plays below are listed, for the thirty-six plays included in the First Folio of 1623, according to the order in which they appear there, with two plays that were not included (Pericles, Prince of Tyre, and The Two Noble Kinsmen) being added at the end of the list of comedies and another (Edward III) at the end of the list of histories.

 Harvici  ( talk ) 15:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Please edit the 3 Efn and merge them in one, as I am trying but can't do it.Thanks. Harvici  ( talk ) 15:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)