Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 11

Death?
As I stared at the funeral monument, and pondered what do about how it affected the "Plays" section title, I realized that "Death" as a section title was, how shall I say it, a bit indelicate? I wondered what everyone thought about changing it to "Final years" or "Later years" and moving the heading up a few lines. I'll give it a try and then self revert so we can have a look.Smatprt 03:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh - and on the monument picture issue - While I certainly realize that photos should face in toward the article (duh), I also learned early on that you don't sacrifice overall article format on behalf of one of a dozen pictures. In this case, if the picture was cropped at the top and bottom, it might just do the trick, and not force the "Plays" section title to the right. We'd also see more of that famous pate! Until we get a picture facing the other way or dead-on (no pun intended). What happened to the old one that faces front?Smatprt 03:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd been thinking that picture needed cropping as well. Wrad 03:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The person who manipulated it kind of twisted it; it doesn't really appear that long. But I wanted to get the entire monument in the picture, and I clipped it out of a picture of the entire wall and floor. Like I say, next time I'll get another angle. In the meantime, what are the rules about lifting a pic from the Web somewhere? Tom Reedy 03:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi - I just tried this ;[]. What do you think. I also made the pic a tad smaller and it seems to work better, eliminating the section title issue. I self-reverted until I hear what you think. Smatprt 03:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. - I tried "Later years" as it seems to work best with the "Early life" section title.Smatprt 03:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the "Later years" is a better title, but I don't like the smaller picture. Here's an idea: let's try putting the grave marker on the right side ("Good frend. . .), either as a text box or photo. That would squeeze the text and make it longer, and maybe keep the monument picture from encroaching on the next section. I'll try to find a pic from somewhere.Tom Reedy 14:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See what you think. We might have to add a bit more copy to lose that white space between the sections; maybe add some detail about the will that we cut out previously.Tom Reedy 14:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done. I like the inscription too.  I moved a bit of copy from the last paragraph to the beginning of that section.  I think it provides a nice transition and it also deals with the white space issue. Thanks. Smatprt 15:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved a bit more copy down that seems to fit better with this section than the previous. Tom Reedy 15:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is weird. On my work computer, everything looks fine. On my home computer, it still crowds the next line. Tom Reedy 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I agree: there's still a problem when viewed on high-resolution monitors. AndyJones 19:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is one possible solution to photoshop a mirror-image, then slap that on the right-hand side of the page where overrunning the next heading is far less of a problem? You'd have to move the text box to the left. AndyJones 19:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to import more copy, perhaps expand the will provisions a bit from the material we cut leading up to FA status. I don't think changing which side it is on would solve the problem.Tom Reedy 03:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are both correct - moving the image to the left would keep the section title from being pushed aside. More copy, though, would certainly help. Re: flipping the image - I am afraid that someone would eventually notice and say "Hey - that photo is backwards", so I'd rather see another image that could move right (either facing left or facing front.Smatprt 06:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Extending the will provisions is all very well, but summarising them lucidly is a great challenge, which in my opinion we have never risen to. I haven't seen a version that really nailed it and did not sound confusing or wrong. I'm not sure the reader needs to know the ins and outs anyway. It might be worth workshopping versions at Shakespeare's life. Over there is another image (see left).qp10qp 13:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we took an almost hopeless biography that was bogged down in seemingly intractable argument and turned it into a featured article, although it took a while, so I'm sure if we put our minds and talents together we can come up with something. And the monument photo at the left is useless, it seems to me. I can grab one from a friend's Web site with his permission, but I'm sure he stole it from somewhere else.Tom Reedy 20:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hell, I just replaced it with the smaller one Stephen used a few edits ago. I think that's OK; it's much more in proportion with all the other photos in the article, and if anybody wants to see it bigger all they have to do is click on the pic.Tom Reedy 20:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks all right to me.qp10qp 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In all honesty I have to say that while the monument frame is nice, the image of the effigy looks like a very poor grade waxwork. There's another image somewhere around here which shows full face and does a better job showing the subject. Dulce et decorum. Shir-El too 13:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested minor edit...
Add " O.S. " to the two instances of the death date. That conveys the details to a historian succinctly without needing to chase down a footnote, and gives a link foe the confused. (The exact syntax is cribbed from other articles; in this case, Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.) 71.41.210.146 23:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not a big fan of this. Most books don't bother with it. Too much information, I think. And the result of the greater intrusiveness would be exactly the same, that people would have to go to the footnote to find out what was meant. Not that a short footnote can ever cover it. A look at the article Old Style and New Style dates will reveal how complex and unsatisfying the terms old and new style are, how they applied both to year and to days, and how they differed from country to country. Most famous British dates go to blazes if one inspects them too closely.qp10qp 23:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sanders portrait
Any interest in changing the image to the Sanders portrait, which seems most likely of the various candidates to be an actual painting from life? --Dystopos 22:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One good reason not to would be that there is as yet no consensus on the portrait; another would be what is published underneath the portrait on that page: © All rights reserved. "Sanders Portrait." Canadian Conservation Institute, Department of Canadian Heritage, 2001. Tom Reedy 14:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that there is consensus that the Sanders portrait is more likely to have been painted from life than any other known portrait. The currently-displayed image (The Chandos portrait) is generally held to have been painted after Shakespeare's death and the identity of the sitter has not been confirmed. Furthermore, the conservation institute's claim to hold copyright on a work created in 1603 is spurious. (See explanation at Template:PD-art). --Dystopos 15:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Cite? I am not aware of any such consensus.Tom Reedy 16:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From the link above "As forensic and genealogical evidence continues to come forward in relation to various candidates for most "authentic" image it is clear that the Sanders portrait remains an important contender for the title." and "Most Shakespearean experts contend that the painter of the Chandos is not known and was most likely painted some years after Shakespeare’s death.". The recent news on dating the panel's inscription is here: Globe and Mail. I'm not trying to start an argument. I was just making a suggestion. --Dystopos 16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The website you refer to says, "In Nolen's book [about the portrait], however, five of the seven authorities she consults do not believe that the picture is of Shakespeare" (one was neutral, I believe). These authorities include respected Shakespeare scholars, such as Wells, Bate, and Gurr. The problem with this painting is that though it is itself genuinely of the period, the label which asserts that it is of Shakespeare was, according to analysts (handwriting, language, use of the Steevens date of birth of 23 April, etc.), written towards the end of the eighteenth century, but on authentic paper: this makes the likeliest scenario that the label was a forgery. The family that owns the portrait cannot provide provenance further back than about 1800, so their family legend that the painter was a member of their family (why did he keep it?) is unverified.qp10qp 17:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the label is necessarily a forgery; it could have been added later and still be correct. But there's just not enough evidence to prove it's a portrait of shakespeare, and I doubt there ever will be. The portrait we are using at least has tradition behind it. Tom Reedy 19:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But the paper matches Shakespeare's time and the handwriting, language style and information don't. Why were they written on old paper?qp10qp 19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Globe and Mail article addresses the dating of the inscription which has recently been confirmed as having been made at the same period as the painting and the paper. That said, it was my belief, from reading the recent news, that the authenticity of the Sanders portrait was less problematic than that of the Chandos. Since this seems not to be the conclusion of the other editors, I'll let it rest. Goodnight. --Dystopos 00:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The label gives his death date; but the painting was supposedly painted when he was 39. I haven't read the Globe and Mail article, but in itself that would not be a reliable source. Please don't feel that your suggestion has been dismissed; it is good to discuss all possibilities here, and this question is interesting. The point about the Chandos is that its provenance goes back to the mid seventeenth century and to someone connected with Shakespeare. That doesn't prove it is of Shakespeare, but it trumps the provenance of the Sanders. With Shakespeare, one tends to trace the traditions back as far as possible and to give more emphasis (not necessarily credibility) to the earliest ones.qp10qp 11:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with others who've said the scholarly consensus isn't there to support this image. More important from our POV, though, is that the image is copyrighted. Not much we can do to get around that, especially when public domain images of the other portraits are available. --Alabamaboy 02:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Colleagues: scholars and scientists are not necessarily the same thing nor do they come to the same conclusions, else archaeologists would not have been correcting history books for the last 200 years. If the scientific evidence leans towards the Sanders portrait and it is legitimately available, then use it. Based on the very clear personality portrayed on the Folio, I have a hard time accepting the Chandos portrait as authentic; it may have been a copy of the Bard's features, but the personality behind it is someone else's. At least the Sanders portrait has more in common with that era in terms of style. Thank you, Shir-El too 14:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Scientists also get a great deal of things wrong. And we do not take the word of a lab, employed by the owner of the painting, as reported by a newspaper. Let the scientists publish their findings in journals; let other scientists retest their findings. In the slow-turning world of Shakespeare scholarship, anything else would be jumping to conclusions.qp10qp 15:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Meanwhile, I personally would much rather see the drawing from the Folio at the head of the article than the Chandos portrait, for the reasons already mentioned. Thank you, Shir-El too 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did he come from?
I've just been pondering some things: What does the name "Shakespeare" mean? Where does it come from? What sort of ancestry did Shakespeare have? Celtic, Roman, Germanic? What language does his name come from? In the end, I don't know whether this information would belong here or on the Shakespeare's life page, but I do wonder if scholars have said anything about this. Wrad 22:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Chambers writes a lot about this. vol. II, IIRC.Tom Reedy 14:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Speculation sentence AGAIN
After a long hiatus, I have returned to do some meddling. I hope this form of the sentence in question will stand:

There are few surviving records of Shakespeare's private life and considerable speculation has been poured into this void,[4] mostly concerning questions of his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others

It doesn't jar me as much as the previous version. Any improvements are welcome.

Greetings, comrades. It's been a long time. RedRabbit 02:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your changes aren't really improvemnets. You've taken a sentence and recast it in the passive voice (a no-non) and you included a new unattested (and really unsubstantiable) claim that most of the speculation about Shakespeare's life has centered around sex, religion, and authorship. So I think we'd best go back to the former formulation. - Nunh-huh 02:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've looked for this recasting into the passive voice, but failed! Please point me to it, my friend. As for introducing "most", I acknowledge this was my mistake. Sorry. But I did assume that the first part of the sentence was only there to introduce the second part, that is, to justify it. The previous formulation is detestable—can't we look for some improvement? This sentence has given many editors headaches and it would, I suppose, be a relief to many if it were mended.RedRabbit 03:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Few records survive" = active. "There are" = passive. I don't see the "detestability" but of course would have no objection to actual improvement. But perhaps any suggestions should be worked out on the talk page rather than tested out in the article. - Nunh-huh 03:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How about changing "mostly concerning" to "part of which concerns" or suchlike? This would do away with the problem of introducing a false claim.


 * You're wrong about the passive: "I am a Rabbit", for instance, is neither active nor passive; the verb is linking. A clause is passive only if the natural subject of the verb (or agent) is its object, as in: "The bone was chewed by the dog." Please do me a favour and look it up. But I will follow your suggestion of discussing changes on the talk page first.RedRabbit 03:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is the problem that we are trying to fix? Part of the problem, I suspect, is that we are saying something banal, and also something that's misleading in its emphasis. Shakespeare's life is attested equally well and equally poorly as those of his contemporaries; we are wrong, if we expect to have found more records than we have. That people make stuff up to fill in the gaps should also be unremarkable. Because certain people want to emphasize the speculations by moving them to the introduction of the article, a silly and unnecessary sentence has been constructed. Perhaps the best approach would be deleting the sentence. - Nunh-huh 03:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also wanted to see this sentence deleted from the introduction. Its inclusion, however, was established by compromise. It is probably too late to shake up the introduction again with this question. The result is awkward and I still want to see some kind of improvement.RedRabbit 03:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's outdent. What is the awkwardness, other than its detestable presence? - Nunh-huh 03:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. The main part of the sentence looks like an afterthought, being tacked-on with the partciple "including"; the rest was added to explain the speculation. Although In principle I don't object to using a participle, "including" doesn't work in this case—it has the effect of "oh, and by the way, that has to do with..." I suggest recasting. RedRabbit 04:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Best: "There are few surviving records of Shakespeare's private life and considerable speculation has been poured into this void[4]." Best Wikipedia can do: "There are few surviving records of Shakespeare's private life and considerable speculation&mdash;about his sexuality, his religion, and the authorship of the plays attributed to him&mdash;has been poured into this void[4]." Or anything else you'd care to propose. - Nunh-huh 04:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are kidding, right? Will you two ever let this go?  Yes - compromise and consensus. Remember how that works?  For the record, this sentence withstood the rigors of the FA process.  It has been worked so that all the reasonable editors agree that it is correct and appropriate. "Detestable presence" is so POV that it amazes me that anyone takes you two seriously anymore.  Oh - and thanks for being such regular contributors! Very helpful! Well done!Smatprt 04:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that so many mainstream scholars have felt the need to comment on Shakespeare's "lost years", I am shocked that you would continue to maintain the fallacy that "we know plenty about Shakespeare and only lunatics make speculations", which is of course, nonsense.Smatprt 04:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be hearing things that haven't been said, and attributing them to people who haven't said them. - Nunh-huh 04:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it was the language that I found detestable. Yes, it did withstand the rigours of the FA process, but it is a fallacy to assume that every sentence of every article that does is thus vindicated.


 * No one called those who comment on the "lost years" lunatics; we merely don't agree that speculation of S's sexuality and the authorship question is worthy of note here.


 * Oh, and please be civil, Smatprt. RedRabbit 04:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nunh-huh: Yes, that will do. RedRabbit 05:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The proposed rewrite, inserted without consensus, make no improvement, delete's the link, and ignores the compromise wording agreed to by the regular editors of this page.  Now it says that the only speculations made about WS are about 3 subjects. Please restore until a new consensus is built. Smatprt 10:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus = without dissent, which was the prevailing state of affairs until you objected. The links were inadvertently omitted, and have been restored. It doesn't say anything about "only". Please read more carefully. I think further opinions should be listened to regarding whether the new version is an improvement or not. And kindly stop name calling and flinging accusations in edit summaries, it's inappropriate and unbecoming. - Nunh-huh 12:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I give up. Changing that sentence is like refashioning stone—it's more trouble than it's worth. RedRabbit 11:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, "... considerable speculation has been poured into this void" is passive. The active would be " ... (someone, people, whatever) has poured considerable speculation into this void".  --  JackofOz 12:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with that sentence at all. It's clear, concise, and deals with a question that many people looking up this article will have.  I can't BELIEVE that there's this much fuss and fighting over such a simple sentence.  Good God. Carlo 12:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * JackofOz: Yes, that's true; but the point I was making was that I didn't recast the sentence into passive voice.


 * Carlo: I agree, it is clear and concise, and by now there has been too much fuss; but the sentence is also out-of-place and tacky. It would be better to change it, but it's not worth the effort. I am not going to push this issue any further. RedRabbit 13:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted back to the original sentence because the new one implies that the only speculations are about his sexuality, religion or authorship, and that simply is not true. It is also clunky with the material within the dashes between the object/subject and the verb, and is completely passive, unlike the original, which at least has the first clause in the active voice. The grammatical objections take a back seat to the first one, though, because accuracy should be the primary concern of an encyclopedia, no matter how distasteful or objectionable it may be to some. Reality is not perfectly symmetrical or neatly packaged, at least human reality isn't, and one should not try to impose aesthetic considerations upon it, at least not in an encyclopedia.Tom Reedy 14:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I support Tom's action. I also wonder why people are risking reopening an issue (and we all know what it is :-) that was the result of a long and painful discussion which eventually lead to consensus. Anyway, since this is now a Featured Article, before making controversial changes like this please first seek consensus on this talk page. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, A-boy. I'm not afraid to confront The Controversy That Dare Not Speak Its Name, and I'm sure everyone knows my stance on the issue, but I'm really puzzled over the unwillingness of some to even acknowledge it in this article. Are they so naive to think that readers have not heard about it and therefore we should protect them? Do we think that somehow it will contaminate the rest of the article? Or if we don't acknowledge it that will somehow make it all go away?
 * And as I said, certainly there are more speculations than just authorship, religion or sexuality. Academic institutions would shrink drastically if speculation were outlawed, and not only about Shakespeare.Tom Reedy 14:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I am amazed that attempts to improve the article are thwarted because of one determined zealot. As I've said, this may be the best Wikipedia can do. That's not the same as "good". I wish people would read more carefully: no one has advocated not acknowledging the authorship hobbyhorse: what's being advocated is giving it its proper place, rather than making it the headline story. The proposed change didn't alter the number of times it was mentioned at all or even its emphasis. What happened is one person got his shorts in a knot, and his emotions overwhelmed his capacity for reading comprehension. And then he was backed up by others who would rather not try to improve even the wording of the article. I'm a little surprised that someone would think that a including a list is an indication that the list is exhaustive. The problem, of course, is not speculation, but ungrounded and illogical speculation. No one wants to "outlaw" anything: in fact, what is needed is a better explanation of how illogical and baseless the speculation is. But of course, that won't be permitted, as the article is "owned". - Nunh-huh 02:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Nunh-huh. But I'm afraid that this sentence is guarded by past consensus, even the wording of it. RedRabbit 06:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's owned, it's owned by a lot of people. But there's an African saying: "The goat owned in common dies of starvation".qp10qp 12:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think this sentence is horrible too. No one should be dissuaded from polishing it up, so long as the sense is retained (for me, "private life" just about earns the sentence its place, ring-fencing its application). I dislike the word "void" (it's not a complete void, and can one have a partial void? We do have bits and pieces about his marriage, children, the Mountjoy household, the will...).qp10qp 12:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * re:void (not my word by the way, some other editor wrote this). Voids, refering to the space between galazies, a word brought to us by our friends in astrology, can indeed be partial. We also have large voids, small voids and Supervoids. And even Supervoids are not completely devoid of galaxies. Interest tidbit from the "zealot" who has lost his "capacity"  for "reading comprehension" (I guess personal attacks are allowed as long as they are overwritten!)Smatprt 14:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone agree to this: —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedRabbit1983 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare's private life, of which few records survive, has been the subject of considerable speculation.?

It summarises everything in the current version, I think. But if it must be expanded, I'd propose this:

Shakespeare's private life, of which few records survive, has been the subject of considerable speculation, some of which concerns blah blah blah.

Anyhow, can we move on from examining one another's moral character? RedRabbit 14:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Or: There are few records of Shakespeare's private life and it has been the subject of considerable speculation[, some of which...]

I am sure that this sentence will admit improvement. RedRabbit 14:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I still prefer the current sentence. Per WP guidelines, the lead is supposed to sum up the entire article. I feel the current sentence does that with regards to the subject it covers, while the revised sentence you propose wouldn't do that.--Alabamaboy 16:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. How about:

There has been considerable speculation about Shakespeare's private life, of which few records survive, some of it concerning his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others.?

This summarises everything in the current version and is less horrible, I think.

Or: There has been some speculation about Shakespeare's private life, of which few records survive, concerning his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others.

The reader can infer that there is speculation about other aspects of Shakespeare's life too. In any case, let's rid the article of the current version.

Or (to repeat my previous suggestion): There are few records of Shakespeare's private life and it has been the subject of considerable speculation, some of which concerns his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others.

There are many ways to recast the sentence. RedRabbit 04:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As the Tao says, there are many ways to cook a fish, and the best is as little as possible.

I think the trouble with this sentence is that it tries to say three things when it can only manage two. In the same way that three fat many will never fit comfortably in a two-man boat, whichever way round they sit. I hope you don't end up like Joseph Grand in La Peste, who spent his whole life forever re-writing the same sentence.qp10qp 12:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the reason it is so "overpacked" is that it tries to imply a causal connection between "lack of records" and "speculation" (a connection which does not exist, as there are plenty of writers with fewer records and less speculation: the speculation is clearly brought about by the greatness of Shakespeare's reputation (coupled with the psychological needs of the speculators), but this explanation does not suit the point of view of those who devised the sentence).Thus, the sentence probably won't be rewritten: it is effective at subtly injecting a desired point of view into the article, and the vituperativeness and zeal of those who support that point of view make others loathe to deal with the sentence's obvious problems. - Nunh-huh 15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Loath. And the speculation in all the named areas, plus others (occupation before he went to London, how he got into the theatre, whether his marriage was happy or no, etc.), *IS* linked to the lack of information about the man, for the simple fact that if we knew, there would be no speculation. I agree with you that some of the speculation originates in the emotional needs of the speculators, which is one of the reasons why the said speculation will never cease, and I support any improvement on the sentence. It's just that I haven't seen any improved versions that fulfill all the requirements of an encyclopedia article. Graceful writing, while desirable, is not the first requirement; truthful communication of whatever facts exist is. (While I'm at it, the only information we have from the "lost years" is that his father tried to recover some land he had lost by defaulting on a mortgage.)Tom Reedy 00:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the verb and got rid of the void. Feel free to revert if you don't believe it's an improvement.Tom Reedy 03:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the loss of "void", but the verb "fueled" once again makes the claim that the speculation is a result of lack of information - a point of contention, not one which is universally acclaimed as true. I've made another try, with "permitted". "Facilitated" or "enabled" are other possibilities. - Nunh-huh 05:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about "led to" but then canceled for the same reason. In a way, it is the lack that has fueled the speculation. We need a finer shading--something between "led to" and "permitted." I thought about "allowed" also, but "permitted" is almost the same, except "permitted" seems to me to imply authorization. How about "opened up?"Tom Reedy 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me "facilitated" is that word. It means both "to make easier" and "to bring about", so each "faction" can believe that its meaning is the intended one. - Nunh-huh 06:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As Tom has said, and I fully agree - the speculation IS linked to the lack of information about the man. Refusing to concede this point is what seems to be driving the desire to alter (or delete) this sentence. A number of editors have agreed to this and now because one editor refuses to concede a point, we go round and round and make the sentence worse. "a lack which has caused" is just plain ugly and no improvement over the concensus FA version. Many editors have asked if this must be toyed with, then please do it on the talk page, and build a proper consensus. And there was NO discussion about "fueled". Am reverting to FA version. Thanks Smatprt 05:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And let's be clear here: Contrary to the accusation made above, I did not write the connecting sentence in question. The causal relationship, which is clear to everyone but Nunh-huh, was written and inserted during the FA process by the more respected editors of this page.  And the attached reference was supplied by these editors as well (my wording and references from a year ago were replaced).  And whether other playwrights of the period are well documented or not has nothing to do with this sentence.  That's mixing apples and oranges. To deny that speculation (in general) is caused by lack of information (in general) is amazing. It's just stubborness. The obvious fact remains - if we knew more about the man, if he didn't have the "lost years" attached to him, if his works weren't subject to endless intrepretation, then scholars (and writers of fiction) wouldn't try and fill those blanks. But they do - it's only natural. To deny that is naive.Smatprt 06:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No one said you wrote it. Let's be clear here: FA is not an annointed version, and FA status doesn't mean an article won't be edited and improved. A vacuum isn't a cause, it's an opportunity. Presenting your idea of causation as if it were the only one is not going to win you points, so what will it be: participate in improving the sentence, or sit on the sidelines as others do it? Because others will. - Nunh-huh 06:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should work on the sentence--if that is the problem--instead of hammering on each other. Let's take a while and see exactly what the objections are. Earlier, in a now-archived conversation, RedRabbit wrote "'considerable speculation... including questions [of]...' is a shoddy construction." I asked him to identify the points he had in mind, but he never did. Going by the conversation above, I assumed his objection was the language itself, but apparently I was wrong. If the topic of the sentence is the main objection, I don't think anything can be done, because in my opinion and in the opinion of a lot of others, the authorship topic should be included in the article, because it is a main subtopic of Shakespeare, no matter what you might think about it. Ask 100 people who don't really know anything about Shakespeare what they do know, and I would bet they would mention something along the line of "Oh, isn't he the guy who didn't really write the plays? Some noble or somebody wrote them for him?" That is the way it has been since the Baconian movement of the late 19th-early 20th centuries. It is a fact of life, and there is no getting around it. The Encyclopaedia Britannica gives the issue an entire column in its main article. Granted, it is not in the introduction, but that article was written in the 1980s, long before the Internet and the increase of leisure time disseminated the subject more widely. If the objection is the language, we can do something about that. But to try to divorce the speculation from the lack of information about the biography seems to me to be ill-advised and just wrong. True the motivations are mixed, and true the eminence of Shakespeare contributes, but the major reason is the lack of information and the compulsion of human curiosity to fill a vacuum with speculation, no matter how far-fetched. So let's take a deep breath and identify the main objection here, and from there we can determine what objective we should be working toward. Tom Reedy 12:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If we're to work on it, we first need to get rid of the red herring that we are discussing whether "the authorship topic should be included in the article", as no one has proposed that it not be. RedRabbit's objection was quite clearly stated: "The main part of the sentence looks like an afterthought, being tacked-on with the partciple "including"; the rest was added to explain the speculation." I concur. I additionally believe that the sentence is contentious and non-neutral, insinuating a causal relationship where there is none, and where there is no need to do so. Now what we need is some explanation of what was wrong with "Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, a lack which has facilitated considerable speculation, including questions concerning his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others." from the person who reverted it, along with suggestions of how it might be improved.  - Nunh-huh 13:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't like the word "facilitate," which is bureaucratic-speak for "helped." and I really don't see your point that the gap isn't the reason for the speculation. As written, your sentence says the gap helped the speculation, so I believe you're putting too fine a point on it. A good point about the sentence as it now stands, "considerable speculation has been poured into this void," is that being cast in the passive voice it removes any causal effect, leaving the motivations to be found in the individual speculations.Tom Reedy 15:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The gap, as it were, is necessary but not sufficient for the speculation. Other gaps exist for other playwrights and there is no rush to fill them, as the gaps themselves are not the issue. The gaps represent opportunities for speculation, not motivations.
 * As I pointed out, that's only one sense of "facilitate", but other words are available. Or rephrasings.
 * Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, a lack which has enabled considerable speculation
 * Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, a lack which has made considerable speculation possible
 * Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, a lack which has permitted considerable speculation
 * etc. (and "a lack" can probably be left out as well). I think there's much to be said for "Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, which has permitted considerable speculation, including questions about his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others." or even "There has been considerable speculation about Shakespeare, including questions about his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others."- Nunh-huh 15:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

All of these phrases, "which has enabled considerable speculation," "which has made considerable speculation possible," and "which has permitted considerable speculation," attribute the speculation to the gap in the records, and could be subsumed under "which has led to considerable speculation," so again, I believe you are putting too fine a point on it. I take your point about "lack," though, and I think something like this might work: Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, which has led to considerable speculation, including questions about his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others. Alternately, I think your second sentence that leaves out the introductory clause could also work.Tom Reedy 16:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The phrases in question imply no causation, while "leading to" does. To enable something is not to cause it. To make something possible is not the same as causing something. To permit something is not to cause something. This is not a fine point at all, it's a clear difference in meaning. Perhaps it would be easiest just to leave the troublesome prefatory phrase off, then. (Which is what I think you mean by my second sentence.)  - Nunh-huh 16:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, given the definition of "imply," they do. As far as leaving off the prefatory clause, if you can obtain a consensus it's OK by me. But I believe you're fighting an uphill battle.Tom Reedy 19:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You really need to reexamine the definition of "causation". - Nunh-huh 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I’m always open to word games and debates.

Here are the definitions of “imply:” 1.	trans. To enfold, enwrap, entangle, involve: in lit. and fig. senses. Obs. 2.	To involve or comprise as a necessary logical consequence; to involve the truth or existence of (something not expressly asserted or maintained). 3.	To express indirectly; to insinuate, hint at.

Note especially definition three.

Here are the definitions of “causation”:

1.	The action of causing; production of an effect. 2.	An excuse.

I think the key word here is “imply.” All of those verbs implied  causation, none of them specifically denoted causation. It could be argued (although I won’t) that simply being in close proximity by virtue of appearing within the same sentence is enough to imply such.Tom Reedy 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You say you won't, and yet you do... :)  My point, which I take it you agree with, is that none of my suggested choices denote "causation" and so are acceptable, while the current sentence explicitly claims there is a causative nexus (where there is no universal agreement that that nexus exists), and fails to attribute that claim, and so is unacceptable. - Nunh-huh 06:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see the word "speculation" replaced by "debate". As well as speculation about Shakspere's authorship there has also been reasonably interpreted evidence (for example, see here or John Michell's 'Who Wrote Shakespeare?') but to concentrate only on the speculation is POV. There is now an MA in Shakespeare Authorship Studies at Brunel University (London) so they don't seem to think it's speculative. I'd recommend that those who spend their time here defending Shakspere might use their time more wisely doing some research of their own into the authorship issue instead of being taken in by superficial accounts of Shakspere's life propagated by people like Stanley Wells and Jonathan Bate. It seems to me that these authors are highly skilled at ignoring reasonable counter-arguments and have simply been content to feed a receptive public a continuously recycled and uncritical popular view. Reading their work is like reading Hansel and Gretel for 10 year olds! My advice: Think for yourself! (Puzzle Master 14:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Determining the reasonableness of the interpretation is what is at issue, isn't it? If there were a reliable objective standard for that, there would only be one candidate. And since no scholastically-accepted evidence exists for any of the speculations, it remains in the area of speculation rather than debate.Tom Reedy 15:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have discovered there is no monopoly on prejudice/speculation, I have found it on all sides of the debate. However, I think that there are too many academics/scholars who are closed (on principle) to considering an alternative argument when it is possible that they are wrong themselves (and these are the people with the power to change current thinking). (Puzzle Master 22:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC))
 * My advice: try not to compare Stanley Wells to to books written for ten years olds. You only make youself look foolish.[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Stanley Wells couldn't solve a detective mystery if the prime suspect wrote a confession in 1 meter high graffitti on the Great Wall of China! And I'll bet my house that if you were an eskimo I could sell you an ice box! (Puzzle Master 23:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Or Jonathan Bate, editor of Arden editions. Bate, in The Genius of Shakespeare, argues that it is Shakespeare's genius and fame that stimulate alternative authorship claims, not lack of evidence about his life. The more famous someone is (Jesus, for example), the more crackpot conspiracy theories they inspire. So, agreeing with Bate, I disagree with Smatprt and Tom that the reason for the alternative-authorship theories is a shortage of information about Shakespeare's private life. But, Puzzle Master, Bate is your ally, because in debating the matter, he justifies our mentioning the authorship debate in the present article.qp10qp 15:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In my case, as a puzzle compiler for Mensa, it is the puzzle that attracts my attention not the reputation. But why is the motive for someone's opposition of principal interest to you? Surely, it is far more important to weigh the structure and content of the argument presented (which most academics/scholars, contrary to the spirit of historical investigation, neglect to do). I once sent Jonathan Bate a critique of the authorship section of his book, which easily dismantled his argument, and which he could have written himself had he carried out the requisite research. It's sheer complacency! (Puzzle Master 22:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

I haven't read all of the above; so forgive me if I cover the same ground.

I suggest this: Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, and there has been considerable speculation about such matters as his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others.

This would do away with the ugly "void" and "including" without changing the content.

No, qp10qp, I will not dedicate my life to this sentence; I am reminded of the silly character in The Plague who attempts to write a novel, but can't get past the first sentence because he must perfect it. RedRabbit 11:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let us annoint Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, and there has been considerable speculation about such matters as his sexuality, religious beliefs, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others. as our proposed version.  If no objections are forthcoming, it can be implemented as the consensus version and placed in the article. - Nunh-huh 11:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's good enough for me, so count me on board. Steven?Tom Reedy 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure what Steven thinks, but Stephen thinks this is just fine! RedRabbit's version keeps the content and the context and appears to avoid ugly words! Smatprt 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we can't do anything until Steven checks in. Tom Reedy 17:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Steven who?Smatprt 19:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh! did I write "Steven?" I meant "seven!"Tom Reedy 19:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks Thom! (thounds like I'm lithping, dothent it)?Smatprt 22:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to Tom for reinserting those pesky links to the authorship and sexuality articles. I am amazed, but not surprised, that in the last few rewrites those links kept being forgotten. Sneaky, but so obvious! Smatprt 12:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [] Tom Reedy 19:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)