Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 20

RfC: Is note "e" relevant
Is note "e" in the "Authorship" section relevant to the article? Smatprt (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the note completely relevant to the article and the section where the note appears. Prior to another editor adding the note and adjusting the sentence accordingly, the article stated there was near "universal" rejection of all alternate authorship candidates in "academic circles". Quite an extraordinary claim with no reference to support it. By adding the note and a proper reference to the New York Times survey of Shakespeare professors, we now have some verifiable information from a reliable source that directly addresses what the "academic" establishment actually believes. I fail to see why having this information represented in the article would not be considered relevant. I support keeping it. Smatprt (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here we go, yet once again.
 * 1.The original note was misleading because is dishonestly stated that 17 percent of 556 Shakespeare professors answered either "possibly" or "yes" to the question, when in fact it was only 265, because only 48 percent—265—of the 556 even bothered to respond to the survey. I think a good case could be made that if a professor was an antiStratfordian, he would have made it a point to answer the survey.
 * 2.The note is misleading because it lumps “possibly” along with “yes,” when in fact “possibly” could also count negatively.
 * 3.The note is misleading because only 16 out of 265 surveyed answered “yes” to the question, while 217 answered “no,” about as close to “universally rejected” as you’re going to get. I think a good case could be made that a lot of the non-respondents thought it was a silly waste of time because of the survey topic, and that the true percentage of antiStratfordians is closer to 3-4 percent than 17 percent, especially given that 93 percent of those surveyed called it "A theory without convincing evidence" or "A waste of time and classroom distraction."
 * 4.The note is misleading in the context of the statement because it surveyed only American universities.
 * 5.The note is irrelevant to the article because the article accepts the authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford; it only includes the mention of antiStratfordianism to avoid a tedious edit war; and it is not the place for misleading statistical campaigns.
 * 6. Finally, the form of the authorship mention was hacked out in a long and contentious dispute, and you yourself have defended it from others who wanted to add more material to it that questioned the primacy of Oxford as the leading contender. Introducing another change will do nothing but cause another long and unnecessary dispute.
 * On another, more personal note, let me say that these constant attempts to wedge antiStratfordian propaganda into this article grow tedious and cause one to doubt your good faith in matters of this sort. No major editor from here that I’m aware of goes to the antiStratfordian articles and insists on constantly introducing material that goes against the main themes of the articles and harasses the editors, but you seem to think that’s perfectly acceptable to do here. I for one would like nothing better than to be able to go away for a while and not come back to find that you’ve tried yet again to insert more antiStratfordian material in this article, but I can see that will never be.Tom Reedy (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On another, more personal note, let me say that these constant attempts to wedge antiStratfordian propaganda into this article grow tedious and cause one to doubt your good faith in matters of this sort. No major editor from here that I’m aware of goes to the antiStratfordian articles and insists on constantly introducing material that goes against the main themes of the articles and harasses the editors, but you seem to think that’s perfectly acceptable to do here. I for one would like nothing better than to be able to go away for a while and not come back to find that you’ve tried yet again to insert more antiStratfordian material in this article, but I can see that will never be.Tom Reedy (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tom, please note that there is no foundation for failing to assume good faith here. The note in question was added by an uninvolved editor and Smatprt merely edited that addition; and the addition and the subsequent edit are both entirely consistent with good faith efforts to improve the article. What I think you fail to take into account is that Smatprt, and others interested in Authorship, focus on that topic because that's what they're interested in and will tend to add information and wording supportive of that because they're convinced it is correct. I, personally, think Authorship in all its forms is absolute bunk, but just because the edits in question are incorrect doesn't mean they were not made in good faith. That said; without actually looking thoroughly at the NYTimes article and the survey it is based on myself, I find your (Tom's) evaluation of the statistical validity of the survey convincing. It suffers from selection bias, and would, even if statistically valid, not actually be measuring the relevant data: scientific consensus is not measured by majority vote so this poll would not bear on the question at hand. In other words, this NYTimes article and survey should not be used to support the sentence in question. More importantly, the note, even with a better survey, is redundant: the sentence as a whole is already sourced to multiple reliable sources. In other words, my !vote here is that the note is not needed and shouldn't be based on this source material even if it was. --Xover (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My personal feeling--which I identified as such--is not the issue here, that being why this note is superfluous. However, it's worth noting that everything Smatprt contributes carries an authorship subtext without blatantly proselytizing and accompanied by a perfectly "innocent" explanation of how it's merely to make things clearer, which implies premeditation, which in turn might cause one to suspect collusion. Whatever.
 * Speaking to the original topic, we have four editors who have contributed much to the article siding on deletion of the note--qp10qp, Nunh-huh, Xover and myself, and one editor--Smatprt--who has instigated several edit wars over authorship siding on keeping the note ostensibly contributed by a drive-by editor--Afasmit--who I assume also supports keeping the note, since he praises Smatprt's "well-reasoned response." That's a survey I support. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope that we all agree that blunt statements need to be referenced. To get back to the climate change comparison, imagine the furor if the global warming article simply stated that its occurrence is almost universally accepted among academics without a link to the surveys showing the 96-97% agreement among climatologists. If one or more of the four references given at the end of the paragraph discusses a serious survey among academics, the results of that survey would be great to add and the reference should follow the sentence. If the authors of the books simply discuss the authorship question and come to the conclusion that all doubt is just so much codswallop, near universal rejection doesn't automatically follow. Like most "drive-by" readers and editors I cannot check these texts, since I do not have any of these 4 books in my library and the particular pages are not accessible via google books. In contrast, the new reference gives access to the data of a clearly described survey from which people can draw their own conclusions. And, again, it would be much better if the results of more surveys are known.
 * It is unclear how adding a supporting reference to an existing statement can be considered in bad faith. Unless good faith here means blind faith, which I admit I'm bad at. Afasmit (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you haven't brought up Galileo yet. I daresay the statistics indicating the percentage of scientists who believe global warming is real were not gathered by a newspaper via an e-mail survey, hardly my idea of a "serious survey among academics." In addition, vast numbers of climate scientists have signed petitions urging that action be taken to counter the effects of global warming. when vast numbers of Shakespeare scholars and literary historians sign a petition urging the acceptance of the Shakespeare authorship question as a valid literary topic, then we can revisit this issue. As it is now, we have 4 for deletion, 2 against. Who calls the shots on pulling the plug? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks not withstanding, I'm afraid Tom really does not understand this process very well. It's not about vote counting, its about discussion and forming a consensus. If that does not work, then we can try other forms of dispute resolution including administrator involvement. The RFC was made to invite non-aligned editors to comment. I, for one, will wait to hear more comments. I will say that Xover, you might actually read the survey and article. As to Tom's complaints, such as the note is "misleading" because it only includes American universities, well, as always, Tom can find something wrong with just about everything. On the one hand, he can accept such ridiculous phrases like "near universal" even when they come without a proper reference, but on the other hand, he can't accept a survey of Shakespeare professors at American universities that offer degrees in English lit as a reliable source?


 * FYI, if I recall correctly, those 4 references at the end of the line in question were all referring to the extraordinary statement that the Oxfordian theory is the most prevalent. 4 references might seem overkill, but that was what was required to fend off those who were either ignorant of the facts or just didn't want to accept them. The "near universal" bit still needed a reference. I think we all know that such a statement would be pretty hard to verify, especially given the NY Times survey. At least the Times reference does substantiate the sentence as it stands now - that only a small minority of scholars believe there is reason to doubt. I have to wonder if the real reason some editors don't want the note is that it puts the lie to their oft-made contention that no serious scholars doubt the standard authorship view. Is that what is really going on here? Is that why, for example, Tom continues to insult editors, continues to make false accusations and use inflammatory terms and statements? All in the defense of "good scholarship"??? Smatprt (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate you explaining to me how a consensus is arrived at without "vote counting." And you are being misleading yet again by saying that my only complaint is that it surveyed only American professors. Deal with the major objections.
 * After a long and contentious argument sparked by your last contribution, in which we all agreed the article needed less--not more--footnotes, I am objecting to this addition for two main reasons:
 * 1. The survey misleadingly overstates the support of antiStratfordism among college professors. As Xover pointed out, it suffers from selection bias in that it states the results only for those who deigned to answer the survey, which logically selected out those who considered the survey's topic too ridiculous to spend time answering, and given the evangelical nature of antiStratfordists, it included a larger percentage of them than is actually the case.
 * 2. This article is about Shakespeare. If you want to use a misleading survey done by a newspaper, the article on antiStratfordism is the place for it.
 * However, if you agree to use this version of the note, I have no objections (it is a mirror image of the original, with the bias going the other way, which illustrates how difficult it is to use these types of surveys in an even-handed manner):
 * In a survey sent to Shakespeare professors at 556 American colleges that offered degrees in English Literature, less than 3 percent (16) answered “yes” when asked if there was “good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon.” Out of those 556 queried, less than 48 per cent, 265, responded to the survey.Tom Reedy (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't misquote me. I never said anything remotely approaching "only complaint". Accusing me of being "misleading" and then misquoting me to back up your attack is not helpful. For an explanation as to the meaning of consensus, as opposed to vote counting, I suggest you contact an administrator. Suffice it to say, here is the policy:"RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes." Also "Mediate where possible - identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart." These are the policies, Tom.  I didn't write them. I don't always agree with them, but we all have to live with them... including you.


 * Regarding your comment #1, quite frankly, you are simply making assumptions based on your personal feelings. You have no data to support your claims. The Times developed the methodology and reported the results accordingly.


 * Regarding comment #2, "a misleading survey done by a Newspaper", am I correct in understanding that you do not consider it a reliable source for the purpose of this article? Smatprt (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the deluge of all those comments from non-aligned editors, and I don't want to get in a back-and-forth pissing contest with you, but I'll answer your questions and then shut up and wait for all those comments. As for your complaint about misquoting you, I was referring to this comment from you: "As to Tom's complaints, such as the note is 'misleading' because it only includes American universities, well, as always, Tom can find something wrong with just about everything." That is the only point you chose to address. As to your other two comments above, the survey is biased, and my figure of less than 3 percent is more accurate when the bias is taken out of the survey by making the two logical assumptions I mentioned, and I do not consider the survey a reliable source for this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The debating floor has now been opened to others, but there seems to be little left to add: Tom's response ("Here we go, yet once again") seems to cover all the points I would have made. Thanks for the trouble saved! --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We have to be aware of the context here. Firstly, the authorship of many Shakespeare plays is in dispute. For example several collaborators may have worked on the Henry VI plays, and Pericles, Prince of Tyre is generally accepted to have been part-written by other authors. These claims about collaborations, alterations, cuts and other attributions are a standard part of Shakespeare scholarship in just the same way that they are of other authors and artists. To give an analogy, art historians will dispute whether this or that painting is the work of Rembrandt, or by one of his pupils or imitators. There is a whole "Rembrandt Project" dedicated to this. This is wholly different from the claim that the entire works of Rembrandt were actually painted by the Prince of Orange, or whoever. In other words there are two "authorship" debates, the mainstream one concerning attribution, and the "conspiracy theory" one that says Bacon or Oxford or whoever wrote the entire canon. The problem with this survey is that the question as asked does not allow the respondent to distinguish between the two controversies. The wording was, is there "good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon." Note the phrase "principal author". There is good reason to believe that he was not the principal author of several plays, so we don't know whether those who answered 'possibly' or 'yes' were accepting that he was not the principal author of some of the plays, or of poems such as A Lover's Complaint. The question seems to be carefully phrased to produce a positive response from some scholars. Furthermore the "possibly" respose may imply simply an acceptance that we can never wholly rule out anything. Possibly Milton did not write Paradise Lost. Who can be absolutely certain? The 'possibly's may simply reflect the scholars' need to affirm their open-mindedness. Also, the survey, as reported merges the 'possibly' responses with the 'yes' responses. And as I said above, even the 'yes' responses could easily be a result of the respondents acceptance that Shakespeare was not the "principal author" of some of the plays. So the problem here is that the survey itself is fundamentally flawed and misleading. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Any more comments? Hello? Anybody there? (sound of crickets)Tom Reedy (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is further discussion and comment on the thread at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Paul B (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been following this. Some sort of note is clearly required, but, as written, note "e" seems to me to be Pseudoscience. GuillaumeTell 15:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have referenced the appropriate clause with the NYT article and deleted the note. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In hopes of avoiding another long discussion and putting this one to bed, I'll go along with Tom's latest changes, as noted above. I've also removed the RFC tag. Smatprt (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare in 25 of Dickens's titles?
Under "Influence," I read:

Shakespeare influenced novelists such as Thomas Hardy, William Faulkner, and Charles Dickens. Dickens often quoted Shakespeare, drawing 25 of his titles from Shakespeare's works.

Certainly Dickens quoted Shakespeare all over the place, but what twenty-five titles are these? Seems a misleading phrase. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding this completely.

95.134.8.40 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't know of any Dickens titles derived from Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This appears to have been copied from the Shakespeare's influence article, where it is footnoted to Gager, Valerie L. (1996). Shakespeare and Dickens: The Dynamics of Influence. Cambridge University Press. pp. 186. I've no idea what 'titles' are meant. Paul B (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Chapter titles, such as "A Piece of Work" in Our Mutual Friend, referencing What a piece of work is a man. It is evident from context in the source, but not in this article. But p. 146 mentions Household Words and All The Year Round (q.v.) William Avery (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So 25 chapter titles out of how many? 1,000 or better? I don't see that it's worth mentioning. In fact, that entire section is watery thin.Tom Reedy (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And looking at the Shakespeare's influence article it is obvious that it is not a reliable source from which to copy-and-paste. It claims that Shakespeare used 20,138 new words!Tom Reedy (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Other wikipedia articles are never reliable sources per se. I agree with point about the sheer number of chapter titles from which the 25 are said to be drawn (Gager doesn't enumerate them all). Am I alone in thinking that merely working allusions to Shakespeare into one's prose isn't the same thing as being influenced by him, in the sense that's meant? William Avery (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We'd also need to know whether phrases like "houshold words" and "piece of work" had already become commonplace as - household words - or whether they were still specifically allusions to Shakespeare. Many people use phrases from Shakespeare all the time without knowning it. That does not mean they are 'influenced' by him in the usual sense (though they are unknowingly). Paul B (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Aye, there's the rub! I've deleted the offending sentence, but there're a lot of unsupported statements in that section that need to be culled out, such as the sentence previous to the Dickens one. I can think of nothing more useless than vague generalities just for the sake of filling space. Having the main Shakespeare's influence article brought up to FA status is probably what should happen before trying to compress it into a short summary in this article. Unfortunately, I'm busy with other projects at the moment. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Discussion on note "e"
I've changed the numbers on the note that was recently added to accurately reflect the survey. Why it was added is beyond me; this article is not supposed to be a digest of antiStratfordian news events. Comments on deleting it? Tom Reedy (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not required in the slightest. And proves nothing anyway. qp10qp (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's propaganda. It doesn't mention how that percentage is less than the % of Americans that believe space aliens have contacted humans (64%), abducted humans (50%), or contacted the U.S. Government (37%). It's less than the number who believe that man was created by God within the last 10000 years (47%). It's roughly equivalent to the number who think the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks (13%). In short, we don't decide authorship by polling the populace, or professors of all disciplines. There is almost no belief so stupid that fewer than 17% of people believe it. - Nunh-huh 19:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it ever possible for you guys to assume good faith? Calling the original note "misleading" does not do that, nor does creating a confrontational edit summary. This article is hardly a summary of antiStrat events, so I really don't understand that comment. I did not post the note, but did recast the sentence to reflect the subject of the line (the minority percentage) and provide the actual quote from the survey. Calling people's beliefs "stupid" is also uncalled for. Is there a reason that every time anything (even remotely) related to the authorship is discussed, that AGF goes out the window and the name-calling and bullying begins anew? (And speaking of accuracy, the survey was not amoung "professors of all discilines", it was of "Shakespeare professors" - you all might actually read the survey language before misrepresenting it.) Also, the original figure was actually accurate in that 556 Shakespeare professors were surveyed at 637 colleges that offered English Lit degrees. Of those, 265 actually completed the survey. That distinction wasn't particularly clear... and Tom's change didn't really clarify that either. For me, that isn't the point since its the percentage that is the key bit of information being communicated here.


 * To the point - I think the note should stay. There has been a long-standing mention of the acedemic establishment and their "universal" rejection of the authorship issue for quite some time - a mention that had no reference attached such an extraordinary claim, btw. Now there is a note, with a reference. I, for one, appreciate the clarity and the added information. After all, isn't supplying properly referenced information on "all human knowledge" what Wikipedia is about? The note and references are completely appropriate to the section in the article.Smatprt (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There's little to add to Smatprt's well reasoned response. I simply gave a reference for the unsourced "almost universal rejection among academics". The word "universal" isn't even used in any of our global warming articles (a hugely debated issue where agreement among climatologists is 96-97% in recent surveys), so I changed the wording to "(small) minority". Anyway, though people on both sides may find solace in them, the media used the survey's results largely as a reaffirmation of the traditional viewpoint. Indeed, the accompanying article (though perhaps written by an avowed Stratfordian) had the title Shakespeare Reaffirmed. Of course, you can take issue with the way the survey was conducted, like "professors of Elizabethan era history may be a better informed and/or less biased crowd than literature professors", or the more common but less defensible "college professors are all pot-smoking liberals", but it was the only survey I could find, except that (current and old) members of the US supreme court voted 4:3 anti-Stratfordian (5 witholding an opinion). Hey, they are academics too;-) Kidding aside, the note would greatly benefit from some more survey results, for example among historians and/or from the UK. I'm surprised there are so few around. Afasmit (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Think about what is in the text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.210.3 (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Kurdish Sorani Article
Sir Admin :D, Please Add the Kurdish Sorani Article to the list ckb:ویلیام شێکسپیر Thanks alot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.159.83.97 (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

American Spelling
Whilst reading through this article I couldn't help but notice that the spelling of the word popularised was written as its American English equivalent, "popularized". Considering Shakespeare is such a quintessentially British subject, one would expect this article to be written in British English. According with Wikipedia Manual of Style (See WP:ENGVAR) "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation." -I know of few other articles with ties as strong to the nation of Britain as Shakespeare, and recommend wholeheartedly that this spelling error be rectified as soon as possible. I'd do it myself, but the article appears to be locked... Gilly of III (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For some strange reason neither "popularise" nor "popularised" appears in the Oxford English Dictionary. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I realise that now... I feel like quite the fool. Thanks for replying anyway, it's the only way I'll learn. I guess it is a good thing this article is locked. : ) Gilly of III (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts... This article is not currently written in Oxford English. Although it understandably disallows the non-Oxford preferred word "PopulariSe(d)" in favour of "PopulariZe(d)", it includes words such as "ItaliciSed", "UnauthoriSed", "AuthoriSed", "StyliSed", "DramatiSed", "EmphasiSed" and "StandardiSed". None of those words I mentioned are in their preferred Oxford English spelling. According to the preferred Oxford English spelling, they should be spelled with a "Z" (please read American and British English spelling differences also feel free to search "AskOxford" at ). Currently, more of the words in this article are spelt in non-Oxford English than in Oxford English. According to Wikipedia Manual of Style, Consistency within articles (see WP:ENGVAR): "Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation". Oxford English is NOT the same spelling as other forms of British English such as the form used by Cambridge University Press. Oxford English warrants the substitution of the "S" in many words such as "EmphasiSed" (and the earlier mentioned words), with "Z" (e.g emphasised = emphasized). And even if this article isn't meant to be in Oxford English, for the sake of constistency within the article, either popularized should become popularised, or the other words should likewise follow their Oxford English ("Z") equivalents. Someone should maybe think about fixing this. It's no wonder I got confused with the spelling earlier. Hopefully I'm correct this time :). Regards, Gilly of III (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I believe even "recognised" should be "recognized" according to Oxford English... Gilly of III (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not necessarily: . --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * -ise and -ize endings are confusing even for experts. I suggest we look each word up in the OED and use the preferred spelling. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Old Moonraker & Tom Reedy. And that's a good idea about looking each word up, Mr. Reedy. I agree that it is confusing. As Old Moonraker has shown, it appears to be somewhat optional (Although slightly more in favour of the "ize" spelling according to American and British English spelling differences. It's especially confusing for me because I live in Australia, so naturally even my Oxford Australian Dictionary lists words such as populariZe as populariSe with the "Z" spelling" listed as a varient. I still propose that we change them all to either "ise" or "ize", though -for the sake of consistency. But anyway, particularly you Mr. Reedy, have contributed far more to this article than I have -so I think it should be your choice. Sincerely, Gilly of III (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been searching AskOxford and it seems that the words listed are headed with the "z" spelling yet with the "s" spelling in brackets under as a varient. See: -  -  -  -  -  -  -. But, also according to AskOxford "Spellings such as organisation would have struck many older British writers as rather French-looking. The Oxford English Dictionary favoured -ize, partly on the linguistic basis that the suffix derives from the Greek suffix -izo". It still doesn't particularly mention which is preferred now, though, but the Oxford English Dictionary does: "For the suffix more commonly spelt -ise in British English, OUP policy dictates a preference for the spelling -ize, e.g. realize vs realise and globalization vs globalisation" -. On these grounds, I would change them all to ize, but as I mentioned earlier, that's up to you. It should still be one or the other, though, not a confusing and inconsistent use of both. Sincerely, Gilly of III (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't logged in, the above was my post. Sincerely Gilly of III (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think they should all be changed "for the sake of consistency," but just go with the preferred OED spelling. English spelling is not consistent, and trying to impose consistency is a task that has been taken up by better men than us, to no avail. I don't find the spellings confusing, and personally I think it's an impoverished speller who only knows one way to spell a word. Would you change "The Rime of the Ancyent Marinere" to "The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner" for the sake of consistency? Or "The Faerie Queene" to "The Fairy Queen?" I sincerely hope not. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose not, and you've definitely got a good point there. I think it's these quirks and variations in the English language that make it so great. On the brightside, though, I've gone from believing that all "ize" spelling were Americanisms to learning that they were, least in the past, preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary. So I'm happy that I've learned something :D. And as for the consistency, I think I was being a little pedantic, few other people would have been bothered. Wikipedia does say to be bold, though, doesn't it? (Strangely, popularise was included as a variation in the Oxford English Dictionary, too. ;) ) Respectfully, Gilly of III (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC) -Even if you did try to imply that I was an impoverished speller.

Also, upon reading through the talkpage, I realised that I may have come of as a little bit rude in some of my previous posts (Use of bold, rulebook-bashing, etc). It seems you've been editing this page for a lot longer than I, and for to just blow in randomly challenging things does seem a bit uncalled for. I also think I may have been writing a little pretentiously. Sorry about all of that. : ) Gilly of III (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Challenging things while adhering to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF requires no apology - most editors will recognize you're just trying to improve the article. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't trying to imply that you were an impoverished speller by my little joke. I'm not a Brit, but I played one once on an Oxfordian Web site, and I also was surprised to learn that they used -ize spellings where I thought they would use -ise. From what I understand, -ise is to be used with words of Latin origin, while -ise is reserved for words of Greek origin. Except when they're not. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm the only Brit around here, but, whatever the OED says, I have always understood that -ise is British English and -ize is American English. The Guardian's style guide ( - look for "ise") agrees, giving "capsize" as the only exception. --GuillaumeTell 00:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I finally looked it up in an authoritative source [].Tom Reedy (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I already linked you that "authoritative source" in my earlier post where I wrote: "(Although slightly more in favour of the "ize" spelling according to American and British English spelling differences". -The authoritative source clearly states its preferred form of spelling: "The -ize spelling is preferred by some authoritative British sources including the Oxford English Dictionary—which lists the -ise form separately, as "a frequent spelling of -IZE...".[48] The OED firmly deprecates usage of "-ise" for words of Greek origin". The authoritative source states that the "ize" spelling is preferred, even going as far as to label the "ise" spelling as deprecated. With this established, and considering that you yourself said that we should "just go with the preferred OED spelling", I say all the applicable words ending in "ise" be corrected to "ize". And to one of your earlier comments, English spelling may be inconsistent, but the spelling preferred by the OED is. So what is your opinion? -Should it be left as it is, or should it be changed to make them all "ise" or "ize"? Sincerely, Gilly of III (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, thanks for your input Guillaume. I know exactly what you mean by -ise being British and -ize being American, but this article, (As initially stated by Tom Reedy), is to be written in the way preffered by the Oxford English Dictionary -Which weirdly enough is -ize. This was the reason why I wasn't allowed to edit the word popularize to popularise.. In Australia, we generally use the spelling as everyday Britain: the -ise spelling. It can all seem very confusing at times. Sincerely, Gilly of III (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of standard British spelling. Following the OED's rules is too complex. Just go with -ise endings. Paul B (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care one way or another; all -ise or all -ize or both are all OK with me, or whatever Wikipedia policy calls for. I don't think anybody would be confused about the meaning no matter which one you use. (As to the link, I didn't follow them when you gave them in your post.) Tom Reedy (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We should use Brit spelling though there is an argument that popularizing etc can be Brit spelling. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for participating everyone. If I were to say my biggest problem with regards to the -ise/ize spelling it would be that popularize is the ONLY word in the article being subjected to the OED standards whilst words such as emphasise, stylise, etc are not. My initial reason for even commenting about the spelling was in regards to the spelling of "popularized, I presumed that it was an Americanis(z?)m due to all the other words being spelt in standard British. I wasn't aware that this article was meant to be written in OED spelling so I decided to comment about it. I was then informed by Mr. Reedy that not only the words were to be spelled in OED English, but that "Popularised doesn't even appear within his copy of the OED. I decided to look it up in the online OED (AskOxford)(-Because I only have the Aus OED which mentions popularise as the usual spelling). Upon searching the website I discovered that indeed, "ize" is the preferred spelling with -ise listed as a varient. The interesting thing I discovered though, is that these exact same conditions are applied to the spelling of many of the other words in the article (emphasise, stylise, authorise, etc). To condemn the spelling of one word yet allow the spelling of others which are set under the same conditions just doesn't make sense to me. My only argument so far is that the article should be consistently using either the "-ise" spelling or "-ize". I personally prefer the "-ise" spelling, from my knowledge (and other's input), it's the kind used by most Britons. But. The article's spelling is supposedly meant to revolve around what the Oxford English Dictionary prefers -If it's not using the OED preferred, then I don't see the problem with spelling populariZed as populariSed. My problem is with the consistency: I find the random inclusion of one zed spelling among a majority of S spellings to be completely out of place. I don't know why it bothers me so much, but the Wikipedia MoS seems to backs me up on it. Again, I know I'm being "a little"(very) pedantic, but, I'm just following the Wikipedia guidelines. Also, sorry about my bad grammar/spelling: I'm trying to improve :p. Thanks for your time everyone, Gilly of III (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

^My post(s) above are a bit long/confusing (-On account of my poor grammar)... So here's a quick summary of my argument: - There's not really much else I have to say about this, so I'm going to let you guys decide. You can even ignore me if you want: it doesn't bother me that much about it not following the OED rules. It's not like it detracts from the article already being very well written and interesting. Sincerely, Gilly of III (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 7/8 (maybe more) of the time within this article = "-ise" spelling -Standard British
 * 1/8 of the time within this article = "ize" spelling -OED British
 * From what I can remember, populariSed is the spelling used more often in standard British. (I may now be wrong about this though. Input, anyone?)
 * Populari"s/z"ed is the only word currently being subjected to the OED guidelines.
 * Consistency is necessary within articles: this applies to spelling.
 * To be properly correct, all the words applicable to the "-ize" spelling really should be spelled that way. Even if the OED rules are complex (and perhaps a little silly on occassions), even following part of the "unique" rules in a supposedly OED written article is better than not following them at all (with the exception of one word)... but no one seems to want to do that.
 * If the consensus is that you guys don't want to follow the OED rules, than I suggest removing the mention that this article is meant to be written in OED and changing it to just Standard British. If that's allowed... (I'm new to editing Wikipedia). (I assumed that there is a mention which appears at the top of the article when people are editing it. I can't tell until my account becomes official.)
 * OK, I changed it. Get some sleep. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether anyone's done a survey of what ordinary British people do, or even of what appears in most books. To the Oxford preference for ize mentioned above I can add that Cambridge regards it as optional. There are a number of exceptions in both directions, because the rule, whichever rule it is, applies only to words derived from the Greek ending izo. In America, other words, such as analyze, incorrectly follow analogy.


 * On the topic discussed in 2 sections above. If you can find a copy of the Oxford Guide to Shakespeare (2003) & look at the beginning of the authorship chapter, I think you'll find some word like universal. Peter jackson (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not consider Shakespeare to be significantly British as much as universal. Is Beethoven specifically Austrian? Of course this can be argued but it would be a sort of boring argument. As for American spellings and grammar, I certainly do prefer them as they are superior in clarity and logic. Gingermint (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)