Talk:William Shakespeare/Authorship Archive

Moved authorship material
I altered the article to contain more info and more focus on Shakespeare. Material on the Shakespeare/Bacon/de Vere controversy has been moved to a new, more extensive Shakespeare Authorship article. User:Amf


 * I reverted the article back to an "assumes Shakespeare wrote things" standpoint in the biography. The alternate-authorship theory has an article all to itself, and a link from this one; that's sufficient. Most scholars believe Shakespeare wrote the pla,sys, and that should be reflected in the main article. -- April


 * The alternate author article is pretty good, but making that a separate article does not relieve this article from the responsibility of not taking sides on the question.


 * I think you misunderstand the NPOV. Please note this excerpt: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argumentation on some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own.   Thus, the separate page is completely appropriate, with the majority view in the main article.  -- April

Excessive hacking of page
This page has recently been comprehensively stripped of a lot of material by User:Iago Dali. I find these actions to be excessive, since vast amounts of information have simply been deleted without any previous warnings. I hope this user will enter into discussion on this page to justify his/her actions. The Singing Badger 13:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Simple- articles are to be under 30 kb pref. Also, many links were redundant. There was also loads of gossip and the piece read like a National Enquirer entry. This is Shakespeare for god's sake, not Paris Hilton! The ideas that he wasn't Shakes and/or were gay are still there. But every theory and crackpot idea need not be ref'd. There are plenty of ancillary articles on Shakespeare's many works, theories, place in lit, etc. Just look at all the categories. Editing is not merely adding every bit of trivia. I think Shakes was a raccoon. Do I add it? I left extensive edit notes. Another item- look at all the photos- who cares what his geave or house looks like? Why was Dryden's pic there? This all wastes space. Then there's the NPOV angle. It's amazing, but when I first joined Wiki I had some doubts about it, but now I see admins don't follow it. Again, this is Shakespeare- like him or not, he's one of the twenty or so most important people in human history. And I say that as someone who's not his greatest fan, but give the man his due. He is not some minor celeb who'll vanish in 5 years. The National Enquirer approach is not needed. Please, show some restraint and some respect when edits are made. And for side issues on the texts, or critical theories, or rumors that he fathered a baby with Bigfoot, put them in sep categories. Imagine a 12 year old trying to research a term paper. Things shd be factual, npov, simple, and straight-forward, and space, esp. on a writer, shd be reserved for text, not any old pic of his mother's cousin, or his toe nail clippings. Really look at the entry before I 'edited' it- in the best meaning of the word- it was HORRIBLE, a disgrace. If Shakespeare cannot be accorded some respect, who can? And this is not HACKING, this is much needed professionalism brought to the page. I don't mean to sound condescending, but bio articles are horrible at Wikipedia. Movie stars and celebs- who cares? But the Shakespeares, Einsteins, Ghandis, well, they deserve better than Paris Hilton. Iago Dali 15:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, size and clarity, and a little respect are needed. But most of all sticking to facts, not tossing random quotes, and NPOV! I doubted it, and it still has flaws here and there, but no one can tell me that the older versions were NPOV and bloated. I urge those who edit to add only relevant or distinct info, and see if the info belongs in the dozens of ancillary articles on the man. Again, think of what a kid needs to know to write a good term paper. This is not a place for huge biographies or theories that get Jak the Ripperesque. Iago Dali 15:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking of editing this article for a while but now hadn't had the time until now. I agree with many of Iago Dali's recent edits and think it has improved the article massively. Yes, there are some information he removed that I wouldn't have removed (and which I will look at over the next hour or two and see about reinserting). However, the main problem with the article before is that was a lot of speculation and opinion WITHOUT any supporting references or citations. Very little is known about Shakespeare and this article now covers what is known. It is okay for an article to have speculation IF it is adequately labelled as speculation and is referenced so it doesn't violate the no original research rule of Wikipedia. Finally, as someone who edits mostly literary articles on Wikipedia, I have come across Iago Dali's edits a number of times in the last few months and he has struck me as a sincere and very capable editor. The title of this discussion--i.e., the reference to hacking--violates the the Wikipedia rule of assuming someone has good intentions.--Alabamaboy 16:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I was rather too rude in my language choice, I didn't mean every choice by Iago Dali was wrong, just that it needs some double-checking: As I said, I apologise for my poor choice of words, and also for the fact that I don't really have time to personally consider each Iago's choices in detail. But I wanted to draw the attention of other editors to these edits, to ensure that they are double-checked. The Singing Badger 17:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm rather concerned by the way information has been removed when it would be better to have placed it into a separate article. Stating that 'this is not the place for huge biographies' is a questionable assumption; maybe this page isn't, but that doesn't mean there isn't space on Wikipedia for another page that does the subject justice. Deleting the material on the textual history of the plays as 'irrelevant' means removing a major area of scholarly enquiry, as if it barely exists.
 * A related point is that there are longer pages that do such subjects justice, such as Shakespeare's reputation, but Iago has removed all the links to these pages, thus inhibiting readers from exploring the subject further. At the very least, put them back.
 * The assumption that Wikipedia exists to provide students with info for term papers is extremely questionable!
 * I just finished my edits to the page. Because Iago Dali is a newer user, I don't think he meant to remove the links to associated articles. I have reinserted many of these, along with more standard Wikipedia subhead formatting (which makes the subheads show up on the table of contents). I agree that some of the removed info should be spun into its own page. For example, there was originally enough text on the Shakespeare's sexuality to make that its own article. In addition, there was a ton of info on Shakespeare's collaborations and works he might have written, and I think all of that should be spun into its own article. With a subject as big as Shakespeare, we should spin off subjects (like his sexuality) that are excessively long so as not to distract from this article. If you'd like to join me in this, I think we can do it. Like I said, I don't agree with all of Iago Dali's edits. However, he hit the nail on the head by exposing the main weakness of the original article, which was that large amounts of less relevant info on Shakespeare distracted from the main info on his life and writings. All of this excessive info should be spun into its own articles. Why don't we do that, using the article as it is now as the base.--Alabamaboy 17:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * PS: I just did some of this by creating a new article on Shakespeare's plays. Actually, I'm surprised no one had ever made an article on this (they did ones on the tragedies and comedies and any other subsection of his plays, but no overview article). I will, of course, have to work more on the article to incorporate other info but I'll do this later. --Alabamaboy 17:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I can live with Alabamaboy's edits, but I have noticed a prevailing pattern amongst the bios of writers- especially those in the pantheon to degrade them with all sorts of extraneous info, and links. The Dryden photo- that was there merely because someone had a brief passage on Dryden's comments on Shakes. Well, every major writer, practically, has opined on Shakes. Do we add Twain and Whitman, etc? And while it's ok to talk if he was gay or not Shakes, there were passages on what his neighbor thought of him. If his barber wrote that Willy was a poor tipper- is this relevant? I think not. I agree many of these shd be spun off into other articles, but that's where much of what was here shd be. Shakespeare, dead 400 years, shd not be as controversial as Prez Bush. Iago Dali 18:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is looking much better now that we have the links back. OK, I can now see that Iago did a better job than it seemed at first glance, and this is definitely a great call to action; I will certainly do some work here when time permits. I disagree with Iago that information about Shakespeare's relationship with others is inherently irrelevant; when a writer's life story is so full of gaps, every bit of info can seem potentially valuable. Given that Shakespeare had a reputation for being 'gentle', a source that he was a poor tipper might make him seem a more rounded person... But anyway, I agree that such info belongs more properly in a full 'biography of Shakespeare' article.
 * What I think Iago is right to suggest is that too many literary articles focus on biography at the expense of what the author's writing was actually like. That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss their lives, but an article on the development of Shakespeare's literary style is long overdue... The Singing Badger 19:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have now created new articles on Shakespeare's sexuality and Shakespeare's life and they link from the sections of this main article. I think this allows people access to info on these subjects without diluting and obscuring the main focus of this article. I'll try to clean up and expand these articles soon. BTW, I think all of these articles (including this main one) need references. Anyone willing to help out there?--Alabamaboy 12:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't entered in the debate earlier. Totally agree with The Singing Badger's first complaint. This version is now not only excessively "lite" and reeks of one person's choice to sanitize the entire article. Anyone doing this should in the very least accord respect to the community by discussing before removal. It saves us time and effort. Alabamaboy, you shouldn't condone this reckless wholesale editing, whether the outcome is proper or not is besides the question. The attitude behind the excessive edits severely devalue a lot of Wikipedians' efforts. I agree with what Singing Badger has said, this is hacking. Iago has also done this to other articles; he/she should know that to rightly respect what is there before making massive changes is a basic requirement of being an editor. Mandel 15:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I wish to stress here that I changed my mind; I do now believe the page is improved, and that it was time to trim the fat. Iago's methods were impolite, but Alabamaboy's restructuring removed the problems he created while keeping the improvements. I suspect it's a good thing if the page is 'lite' - there is now so much info on Wikipedia about Shakespeare that it won't all fit on one page, and that's something to be pleased about. Although I disliked Iago's attitude, and I wish he'd given some warning beforehand, he has certainly given this page the kick in the pants that it needed. The Singing Badger 15:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Then you should take a good look at the other edits he, Iago, made to the other bio articles. They are all severely trimmed and hacked, whether oversized or not.  One can kick in the pants after seeking approval and discussion here, which is precisely what a talk page is for.  I'm not complaining about Alabamaboy. But Mr Iago, two months old into Wikipedia, have hacked and trimmed so many bio articles (a lot of them on literary figures). This is terrible attitude, as he has never deem it important to discuss anything he does, apparently out of whim.


 * I for one is interested in the house Shakespeare is born in, and the chapel where he is baptized. Mandel 15:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, but all that info is still in the article on Shakespeare's life, which branches off from this main article. This way people can still find the info they want while the excessive sections that were here before no longer distract from this article's aim of giving an overview of Shakespeare. That said, though, this article still needs more work, with the career and reputation section probably needing to be split into their own sections and a bit more info needed on his plays and sonnets. Finally, I believe this article needs a critical analysis page, covering the various critiques of his works. To my mind this is separate from the section and article about Shakespeare's reputation. --Alabamaboy 16:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you, Alabamaboy, as a pending admin, even warn Iago about what he should do before making wholesale changes or deletions to biographical entries? Are you in any way affiliated and/or a nanny or chaperon to everything Iago does on Wikipedia?  If so, please undo and restore the various extremely controversial trimmings he does to lots of biographical entries.  A lot of them aren't oversized. Mandel 16:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't warned him b/c I haven't seen these other articles you are refering to. I saw his edits here and at Miguel Piñero, along with more minor copyedits on other literary articles. With the Pinero stuff, I thought most of his edits were good and I encouraged him and the other user who had a disagreement to come to a censensus (which they seem to have done with the help of a mediator). On the Shakespeare article, his cuts were indeed excessive. However, I saw what he was trying to do and decided to assist in reaching the goal of a better and more focused article (which seemed to be a good way of following the don't bite the newbies advice). This is why I spun off the excessive information here into different articles. Other editors like The Singing Badger seem to think this has helped the article. Personally, I hope Iago Dali will raise issues on the talk pages prior to doing massive cuts. He is also sometimes too antagonistic. That said, he is doing some good copyedit work on many articles and seems to be a strong proponent of NPOV. As for the nanny comment, no, I am not (and this comment is slightly insulting and I hope we will avoid insults). Since he edits literary articles our paths cross a good bit. He has edited a number of articles I keep an eye on (I must admit I haven't agreed with all of his edits, but that's Wikipedia for you) and because of his edits on Shakespeare, I have become involved in this article to a large degree. As I said, this article still need a lot of work (such as the addition of references).--Alabamaboy 17:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No disrespect, he has hacked off lots of Anton Chekhov and I have a hard time looking back to restore lost edits. His idea of NPOV is also controversial.  Does this mean that we just simply sanitize parts of an article about a controversial person?  Shakespeare is controversial (to some extent); shouldn't we reflect that, or that we should merely reflect Iago's own view that Shakespeare should not be (rather than is not) a controversial figure?  Now that is not NPOV.  NPOV means giving due weightage to parts of controversy, not hacking them all off.  He seems to have done that too to Ezra Pound.


 * If he's a mere vandal, that'll be easy. He's not.  If he wants to work in Wikipedia he has to collaborate.  If not, he can start his own Wiki. Basic rule: he must discuss before he make those kind of edits. Mandel 17:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, I put info about Wikipedia style and other stuff on Iago Dali's talk page.--Alabamaboy 17:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've looked through the article. IMHO it's not a "better" article, just a "liter" one - more suitable for "Simple English" version.  I also object to certain things which have been done, for instance, starting a Shakespeare's plays.  There's already a Shakespearean tragedies, Shakespearean comedies, Shakespeare's dark comedies and Shakespeare's romances .  Doing this is spreading thin materials thinner.


 * Pardon my curtness, but that's what happens when you don't discuss beforehand. Mandel 17:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with those other play article is that they are all rather short (almost stubs) and don't give an overview of all of his plays. The play article still needs work (in fact, I was just working on it, adding a section on the source materials for his plays). Look, Shakespeare is a gigantic subject. The problem with the original article was that sections like on Shakespeare's sexuality totally overwhelmed the rest of the article. The article was a mess because it tried to do all things for all of the subjects revolving around Shakespeare. By branching off like this, we are able to accomplish the best of all worlds.--Alabamaboy 18:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * How about moving Shakespeare's sexuality out, but leaving the rest back in? Shakespeare's life will always be a short subject, because all that is known about his life is restricted to that few details. We need an overview of Shakespeare's play here.  Branching it off somewhere else is certainly not helpful (furthermore we're then separating more into various articles like Shakespearean histories) By all means branch overlong sections off, but don't drain the article dry.  Mandel 18:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the article is "bled dry." I mentioned the sexuality section b/c it was a glaring example, but the original section on Shakespeare's life was also way too long, the plays' section mostly consisted of lists of his plays, and the article was extremely disorganized (i.e.,one section did not logically follow or lead into another). I have no issue with expanding the article from this point on, but the original version was not very good (although it had many great elements, such as the section on Shakespeare's reputation, which was derived from a branching article). And, as I said before, the article was lacking, and still lacks, a critical analysis section. Any other editors wish to comment on this?--Alabamaboy 19:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW, I should add that I have no issue with adding in any missing info to this article. I just think we should keep it focused and not dump in everything and the kitchen sinks (the sub-articles are for this). For example, today I have greatly expanded the Shakespeare's plays article with new info on the stylistic groupings of his plays and so on. I then went back and briefly inserted this same info into the main Shakespeare article. I think this is a good thing to do. However, it would have been inappropriate for me to add all of the new info about his plays to the main Shakespeare article. Anyway, I'm about to log off for the day. Thanks to everyone for their work here.--Alabamaboy 20:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I obviously disagree with you. Looking at a pre-edited version at, sections of Shakespeare' life is much shorter than most writers in Wikipedia, for instance Ernest Hemingway. The "Works" section is much needed. You branched it off elsewhere, but in fact it's rather a pithy overview of Shakespeare's works.  "Identity and authorship" is alright too.  The only exception is Shakespeare's sexuality which is overlong and seems out of place for an article which deals with aspects of a writer's life.  I fail to see any lack of focus as addressed by you.


 * I would like Wikipedia to rival Britannica, but at present this version is not only "liter", it reads like it's explicitly written for a very young audience ("His earlier plays tend to be more light-hearted, while the middle dramatic plays address issues such as betrayal, murder, lust, power, and egoism. His late romances feature a redemptive plotline with a happy ending and the use of magic and other fantastical elements") If I may describe it, it reads like a JPEG version of a picture with details like freckles on Shakespeare's face airbrushed over.  You may argue this make Shakespeare "handsomer", but I don't like it.  This sort of writing reminds me more of Britannica Student's Encyclopedia than Britannica proper. Mandel 10:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Then may I suggest you work to improve the article. Several of us are working to do that. I agree that the sexuality section is still too long, so cut it back. Add any info that you feel is missing. Per your request, I have created a larger "work" head, with the plays, sonnets and so on as subheads. However, I still say the original article was not very good. For example, here is the complete section on Shakespeare's poetry from the original article (i.e., pre-iago edits):

The Authorship Question is NOT "under debate" by serious Shakespeare scholars
It is a lower middle class hobby horse which reconciles a fearful respect for Culture with an underlying destructive urge. It is directly comparable to Holocaust denial and Creationism.

Wack jobs with authoritarian personality disorders are pretty much the only subscribers to classist theories of aristocratic authorship.


 * whoever posted the above attack should be ashamed.  You violate wiki rules and then have the gall to diagnose the various "wack jobs". Comparisons to Holocaust denial???? Oh, Grow up!Smatprt 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Smatprt, I'd suggest not feeding anonymous trolls. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The comment above re: "lower middle class hobby horse" is quite remarkable for its hostility. What is it about the standard Stratfordian construct that leads so many of its adherents to cling to it so verbosely and with such violence? To question the Stratford construct of "Shakespeare" is tantamount to threatening the underpinnings of some rigourously defended religious dognma. To a non-specialist reader of Shakespeare, such as myself, such reflex hostility is BIZARRE.

Having read Charlton Ogburn's mammoth work, as well as numerous other works re: the authorship controversy, and, of course, the works of "Shakespeare", I humbly submit that one must be credulous to an extraordinary degree to accept as gospel truth a narrative as contrary to basic sense as the Stratford myth.

Paul Greif, Calgary, AB, CANADA

Shakespeare's works
There absolutely needs to be a sentence at the beginning of the article stating that it is not proven whether he did write the works actually.


 * It is proven. Those who believe otherwise are in a minority and have yet to provide conclusive evidence. The burden of proof is on them. And there is a sentence in the introduction saying "many people have speculated about ... the authorship of his works". The Singing Badger 11:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first comment. The inquisitive visitor is entitled to an accurate representation of the facts. To begin with, I challenge this uncritical view that Shakspere wrote 38 plays. To begin with, he did not write The Tempest see Shakespeare Authorship. QBrute
 * It should be noted that the preceeding comment is from an anonymous editor who vandalized a number of pages here.--Alabamaboy 20:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

To guard against being misrepresented, I added to the top of the article that some of the facts were not correct. For example, The Tempest could not have been written by Shakspere (see cited Wiki article). I can fully justify this claim. Am I correct in anticipating a policy of free speech in this forum? QBrute
 * If you can gain consensus for your changes on this talk page, then more power to you. But you must gain consensus for such controversial changes before making them. --Alabamaboy 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What does "gain consensus" mean? Is this a vote amongst Stratfordians or is it an analysis of an argument? QBrute
 * See Consensus. Also consider creating an account here to make it easier to have discussions.--Alabamaboy 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Equally logically, please send me a £20 postal order, or I will take it as a personal attack. AndyJones 21:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a joke here somewhere? I don't get it. barryispuzzled 00:49 2 September 2006
 * Don't worry, you didn't miss much. AndyJones 09:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a joke here, but it has been told better by a thousand other people, some seriously, like Freud, and some as an easy gag, like Joyce. Unfortunately, most like Freud, who feel threatened and will never be able to understand how a normal man from a provincial town was the biggest genius ever.--192.232.30.80 12:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor thing -- I noticed a typo in the spelling of "Juliet" in the section that describes his plays being divided into three basic categories. It's spelled "Juilet" by mistake. (Unless this is actually the correct classical spelling; I'm not a scholar by any means, so if that's the case, please disregard.)

Ahem. In the Signet Classic Shakespeare (edited by Sylvan Barnet of Tufts University), in several volumes weight is given to the theory that Fletcher wrote part of several "Shakespearean" plays, including The Two Noble Kinsmen and Henry VIII. This makes sense to me, as parts of these plays are in Fletcher's distinct style. But Prospero's "Ye elves of hills" speech, and his "These revels now are ended", both in The Tempest) are about as obviously Shakespeare as it is possible to be. The Tempest is, at least mostly, by William Shakespeare of Stratford.  William Shakespeare wrote most of the Shakespearean works (he naturally collaborated with others from time to time, most Elizabethan playwrights did) just as Ben Jonson and Milton believed (see Milton's poem about Shakespeare the "Dramaticke Poete").  Hemmings and Condell (who together edited the First Folio), also believed Shakespeare was the playmaking author of his works.  Jonson and Hemmings and Condell knew Shakespeare personally and assert in the First Folio that the works they gathered were of Shakespeare's making.  (In Jonson's First Folio dedicatory poem, he compares Shakespeare to Aeschylus (a playwright, you dig?). So it is hard to believe the three men were part of a conspiracy to assert the falsehood of Shakespeare's authorship. No, the theory that Shakespeare didn't write most of the Shakespearean works doesn't hold water. The fact that several of the supposed true candidates for authorship didn't live long enough or at the right period or lived too long to account for why more plays weren't written, pretty much shoots down the anti-Stratfordian theory. Grantsky 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Early life facts and citations: free schooling
Does anyone know why the (very often stated in the literature) assertion that Shakespeare probably had free schooling has been singled out for citation attack, when numerous other equally tendentious assertions in the article haven't? We could cite traditional scholarly sources such as "The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes, Volume V. The Drama to 1642, Part One. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; Cambridge, England: University Press, 1907–21." which show it to be hearsay or probable, but so is so much else on WS. This of course centres on the debate of His Existence or Was It All by A Renaissance Gentleman Such as Bacon. But pointless cite demands don't get us far. I propose to remove it, plus some other similarly pointless demands in the current article. MarkThomas 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Could anyone wanting to change this point again actually make a point here in the discussion rather than just going in and auto-reverting? I have made a good point above. If this small point of tradition needs special citation (and citation mania is usually a sign of POV'ist activity), why then for example does this much more important and equally tendentious point not need citation out of interest? "Shakespeare is believed to have produced most of his work between 1586 and 1612, although the exact dates and chronology of the plays attributed to him are often uncertain"? MarkThomas 12:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's quite simple: Half that sentence has a citation. But the citation does not cover the first half of that. Without a Fact tag, it would appear the citation for the first half is covered by the later cite, so, when adding in some cites to that paragraph, I was very clear what was and wasn't cited. Of course much else in the article needs citation, but to mark everything that needs citation would make it unreadable in the interim. Adam Cuerden talk 13:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

On the general point though, the central problem is that in the case of Shakespeare nearly all "scholarship" about his early life and much of his later life as well is based on "traditions", "beliefs", "historical research about people and places he might have had something to do with" etc, etc, etc. Therefore all the cites in the world will only refer to these guesswork sources. How valuable is that to the casual WP reader? The traditions about Shakespeare are very well entrenched and widely regarded. Would it not be better to simply make a general statement about this core problem in Shakespeare studies and then say in effect "all the following may or may not be true and has been believed for centuries..."? MarkThomas 13:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not considering we're making an effort to try and get this to FA-class, which requires full citation. Adam Cuerden talk 13:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying we don't cite as per my para above. I'm suggesting we don't randomly spray cite tags all over the place onto key points to support a hidden POV-ist agenda of "Shakespeare was not the real writer of those plays", on which the subject of his schooling alleged or otherwise is a key point. I'm suggesting that we show a little bit to the casual user of how Shakespeare scholarship evolved (cited of course), how it tends to support certain traditions on which there is no provable basis of "fact" (cite) and how this contains the following non-provable assertions - a, b, c, etc. (not separately cited in each case). Otherwise what we end up with is the usual scrappy little WP faction fights over each cite tag which ends up shedding little light to the end user and not advancing things. How does that scenario contribute positively to FA status other than via some bureacratic box-ticking exercize? MarkThomas 13:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * With respect, verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia, not a "beaurocratic box-ticking exercise". I won't even try to answer most of your points in this thread because they seem to me to be based on a fundamental mistunderstanding of WP:V, or a fundamental disregard for its importance to the project. I can only suggest you spend more time reading it, and its related articles like WP:RS. AndyJones 14:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Andy, but you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, and with respect to you, can I propose you actually read my paragraph and not make unjustified statements about my lack of understanding of WP guidelines. I am not arguing against verifiability, just making a suggestion about how the verifiability of the whole early life of Shakespeare, all of which is basically unverifiable by any provable source, be presented to our readers. Or are you suggesting that we should remove all of the early life material as it is not verifiable by reference to a website. (the usual WP citation!) MarkThomas 16:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I put in the cite tag because I was trying to cite it up, found I could only cite half th e sentence, and wanted to make it clear what was cited. You removed it, making it look like the whole sentence was cited, so I put the tag back. If the tag is removed, it will be presumed that the first half of the sentence is cited, and so the information will never be fully covered by the cite.
 * Where the hell do those Oxfordian kooks come into that? Adam Cuerden talk 17:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Where the Hell"; "Oxfordian kooks"; - it seems that Adam Cuerden has already resorted to foul language and name calling. Sorry, Adam, but your POV is obvious and your name-calling (bullying) has no place on Wiki. Please grow up!Smatprt 05:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

...I was being accused of being an Oxfordian because I put in a cite needed tag. Given I'm allowed to express my opinion on the talk page, and, in addition, was stating my denial more forcefully because it's a position I can see no support for, I see nothing wrong with what I said. However, if you have good reasons to believe in the Oxfordian view, I apologise. Adam Cuerden talk 23:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

To quote Wiki (on THIS page):Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers! Yes, I do have good reasons to believe in aspects of the Oxfordian view, but I have been harrassed, attacked and ridiculed by stratfordian editors ever since my first edit on the subject. If you read the Shakespeare Authorship talk page, you will see how much bullying has gone on - to the effect of chasing off contributors. This harrassment (and a number of complete deletions) has only hardened my resolve not to be bullied or chased off, but to contribute as best I can for as long as I can. Smatprt 15:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just think it's wrong (and not Wiki policy) to call anyone a "kook" (not polite and definitely a personal attack)- talk page or article itself.

FYI - This is right out of WikiPolicy on NPOV: "For instance, that Shakespeare is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. However, in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there are strong cases being made that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was one of his contemporaries, such as the Earl of Oxford or Christopher Marlowe. Notice that determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research — but once determined, a clear statement of that reception (unlike an idiosyncratic opinion by a Wikipedia article writer) is an opinion that really matters." Smatprt 16:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the section on Undue Weight of WP:NPOV. I really don't think Oxfordians and Marlovians are very widespread. Adam Cuerden talk 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

(And I still disagree with calling anyone a "kook"!)Smatprt 04:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Now here is where you might do a little research on your own. While I would agree with your statement regarding Marlovians (and Baconians for that matter), you are off the mark when it comes to the popularity of the Oxfordian case. There are now a number of University's that currently teach Oxford-related authorship courses and/or seminars, there are several national and international Oxford-related acedemic conferences that attracts hundreds of scholars and researchers, and, more importantly, in the last decades alone there have been numerous Oxfordian-related research books published, along with countless websites. And finally, in the more public eye, there have been more Oxford-related articles in the world's major newspapers and periodicals than all the other alternate candidates combined.  Therefore, while I might agree that Undue Weight would apply to the lessor candidates, when it comes to Oxford, to quote Wiki "in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there are strong cases being made that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was one of his contemporaries".  A number of nuetral Wiki editors have already made this a policy - specifying the authorship issue as one worth learning about.


 * I apologise for my language - I was just somewhat upset at bein g assigned viewpoints that I disagree with, due to certain worries that some (not all, and not necessarily part of the motive for any individual) of the reason to doubt Shakespeare's authorship is due to snobbery, e.g. not wanting a great author to be of the lower/middle classes. Hence, and since I wasn't aware of more than a handful of people objecting, and hadn't seen mention of them in anything in several decades, I was probably a bit more forceful in my denial than I ought to have been. Adam Cuerden talk 06:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * is there any evidence to back up your assertation that there are numerous reputable scholars that believe Oxford is the author? I think undue weight does apply to Oxford.  I have no figures myself but a quick scanning of the last few issues of Shakespeare Quarterly reveals that everyone just takes orthodox authorship for granted and pays no attention to Oxford.  It is still just a handful of people objecting.  Jvbishop 18:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * well, for starters try Professor Daniel Wright, Director of The Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre at Concordia University. Start at this website:, then read up on the annual conference and check out the various scholars who are presenting new research.  This is only one of dozens of annual conferences held world wide, including at Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London, each featuring more than a "handful" of scholars and researchers. One might also consider the number of Oxfordian research books that have been published in the last decade alone as a sign of continued scholarly research.  Also interesting to note that the various Shakespeare Authorhsip websites report hundreds of thousands of hits in the past few years alone. I'd say the issue is actually thriving. Smatprt 18:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok so you have a Professor at a small private college. An annual conference that looks like it is always held at this same private college.  A conference program that is full of MD's presenting papers on subjects that have nothing to do with medicine such as :

8:00 - 9:00 "Exit Shakspere, Enter Oxford: Evidence That the Shakespeare Plays Were Not Written for the Public Stage"; Dr Eric Altschuler, M.D., Ph.D., Assistant Director of the Brain and Perception Laboratory of the Institute for Neural Computation at the University of California at San Diego; and William Jansen, independent scholar; Forest Grove, Oregon

I hope the other conferences are better than that one. If so you will be almost as thriving as the creationists. Hey and they also publish tons of books and get lots of website hits too!! Jvbishop 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW -I answered your question in good faith. You respond with insults and snobbishness. Whenever you Stratfordians start making comparisons to creationism or holocost denials, it's time to stop the conversation. TaTa. Smatprt 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You might check out Dr. Roger Stritmatter and his research associates.

Authorship section
In the authorship speculation section, shouldn't a new paragraph start when it says "Christopher Marlowe" ? It seems to me like the two theories shouldn't be lumped together like that, plus it sounds abrupt. Coppelia 03:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are rig. I fixed it.Smatprt 06:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit 2
The "major edit" is up, tentatively, at User talk:Mandel/Shakespeareedit. Actually, I'm not even sure it constitutes a 'major edit', so little has been changed. I was busy, and the work is still in progress. Please let me know if the edits are uncontroversial enough; I've mainly done structuring and ironed out the flow, making it more accurate as I can see, and removing over-speculative bits. As I worked on an earlier version, this edit may not incorporate the latest text changes. Please let me know here if you suggest anything. I propose moving some parts to a new article, eg. Shakespeare's religion, but the edited version retains a summary. Mandel 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bear with me as I get links in and bugs out, ASAP.Mandel 15:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Up. Please note it is still very much a work in progress, and any suggestions are welcomed.  I'll try to justify edits and removals if I have time. Also, if anyone do think it's so terrible as to be pointless, I'll cease working on it. :) Mandel 16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My critique is below. Overall, you've made a number of excellent edits and changes. However, I couldn't support this version unless the following changes were made:
 * 1) Add "and as the world's preeminent dramatist." back into the lead. That is the general consensus on Shakespeare and the current article provides multiple references to the statement.
 * Thanks for the comments. At present there's no hurry to work my edit in.  Let me justify the edits.
 * Actually, to be honest, this statement was inserted by me aeons ago (you can check out in history section). I'm not having second thoughts but I thought it better moved to the "Works" section and with ample explanation.  In the lead it's a very big claim that goes unjustified. Mandel 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the statement in the lead has three citations backing it up.--Alabamaboy 19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations do not justify such an opinion unless they cite quantitative surveys. Explanations do, and the lead doesn't have space for a more detailed explanation. Mandel 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, literary studies are, by their nature, not open to quantitative surveys. I'm going to raise this in a separate section to see what the consensus on this point it. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) In the lead, fold "authorship of the works attributed to him" into the last sentence of the lead "Many speculations about Shakespeare's life, including his sexuality and religious affiliation, continue to be under constant ongoing debates by scholars." My reason for this is that as it currently reads makes it sound like this is a source of major academic debate, with lots of evidence to support the issue. However, this is a minority view and should be ranked along with debates about his sexuality and religious affiliation. (Note: I should add that this is a problem with the current article and didn't originate with your revision).
 * It's problematic, I admit. I'll rethink and reword this. Mandel 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Reinsert into lead something about his style along the lines of "He is counted among the few playwrights who have excelled in both tragedy and comedy; his plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation, and poetic grandeur with philosophical depth."
 * Ditto above; I thought it better moved to the "Works" section and with ample explanation. In the lead it's a very big claim that goes unjustified. Mandel 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Remove statement: "No autobiographical writings of Shakespeare have been discovered. Like most of his contemporaries, his biographical details and evidences are sketchy, backed by brief anecdotal recollections by friends, and legal and property documents recording his movements and financial dealings in adult life.' …---" That has no place in any article. WP doesn't do disclaimers.
 * It's not a disclaimer but a very unhappy introduction which tries to explain why there are so much speculation on Shakespeare, and that Wikipedia sticks to a factual basis. Poorly worded but it is at least truthful, and may sound pro-Oxfordian (I'm Stratfordian), but I welcome rewording. It's true, unlike Jonson, S never make any comments about his life - which was why he is so elusive. Mandel 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we'll need a good citation on this. The irony is that we actually know more about Shakespeare's life than most of his contemporary poets and playwrights (except for perhaps Ben Jonson b/c Jonson was a massive self-promoter. --Alabamaboy 19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) In fact, almost all the statements you insert throughout the article, such as "It is clear from this reference that Shakespeare was working concurrently an actor and a playwright," are POV and should be removed. There is nothing wrong with debunking rumor or false ideas (such as in the current article, where mention is made of the tales about Shakespeare poaching deer and so on--after giving these stories comes the REFERENCED sentence "However, there is no direct evidence to support these stories and they all appear to have begun circulating after Shakespeare's death.") but you have added in so many of these statements that you appear to be trying to push a POV with the article. As a side note, your statement of "some" in the deer poaching statement is not correct. All these stories appeared after his death, as the reference states.
 * It's not POV. Read carefully: Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde. So my statement "it is clear from this reference that Shakespeare was working concurrently an actor and a playwright" is factual, not POV.
 * Phrases like "It is clear..." are what sound POV to me. Sounds like you're trying to convince people of this fact instead of just presenting the info.--Alabamaboy 19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is fairly NPOV, but I welcome rewording. There's no question what Greene means though, and it remains a fact. Mandel 16:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some is not POV too. While these statements are made after his death, biographers and academics don't generally have a consensus on their truthfulness.  In Shakespeare Revealed, by Prof René Weis - the latest biography - Weis thinks the deer-poaching story could be factual.  I think Katherine Duncan-Jones think he might have been a butcher.  Some biographers think Aubrey is right, and he did know some of Shakespeare's friends.  So it's not POV (seriously, I don't have a stand on this).  Like anything unverifiable either way, some is much safer than all. Mandel 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I added very little. I could justify them if you could pinpoint where my POV is. Mandel 22:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose removing info from bio sections. Don't see the need for this.
 * Actually I don't remove info unless there's a problem with POV or accuracy. Mandel 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me double check this. I thought you'd removed info from the bio section. If not, then ignore this comment.--Alabamaboy 19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Your edits from the section "His Works" down are (including the "Influence and Style" and "Speculations about Shakespeare" sections) excellent and I support all the changes. The only catch is that these changes need reliable citations for us to make them.
 * Yes, hope someone could help out. References should be easy to find. Mandel 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Thanks for all the work you're making on this article. --Alabamaboy 14:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see you are working hard and have made some well chosen grammatical clean-ups. However, I too have some worries that your new statements (as cited by Alabamaboy) appear to be pushing a POV.  Alabamaboy has hit on a number of them.  I suggest instead of making a wholesale rewrite with edits spread over numerous sections that you post your edits one section at a time, so editors knowledgable about those sections can respond without searching thru your an entire rewrite.  Otherwise you are bound to see a mass revert.
 * I do disagree with Alabamaboy regarding his proposed movement of the authorship statement. As it stands now, it not only acknowledges the ongoing Shakespeare Authorship debate (which I believe is larger than Alabamaboy believes), but it also covers orthodox debate over plays such as Pericles, Timon, Titus, etc. and other plays that even Orthodox scholars argue over how much of them Shakespeare wrote.Smatprt 15:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I just re-reviewd your proposed edits to the Authorship section and find that all the proposed edits are POV. I would not support any of those changes. Also, as this is a summary of a very complex topic, I would be very careful of adding anything that is already covered on the main authorship page.
 * Actually, no. They reflect Stratfordian views and so balances the Section, pushing toward NPOV.  Anti-Stratfordian views are not rejected or censored. It states clearly why mainstream academia rejects them and why mot most scholars are unconvinced.  I cut some redundancy and verbosity simply because the section is too long, and there's a separate article on them. Mandel 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work on many of the Shakespeare pages.Smatprt 15:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * After looking at the authorship section a second time, I must agree with Smatprt that they are also POV. Because I'm not a support of these authorship claims, they didn't ring any bells at first. But Smatprt is right, they are POV. That said, the authorship section in the currect article is also flawed b/c it doesn't state that these authorship doubts are not currently the general view of scholars. We should fix that.--Alabamaboy 19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, i have just attempted a fix that should satisfy both sides of the debate.Smatprt 20:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neatly done. Will it stick in this form?--Old Moonraker 21:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. I support Smatprt's change.--Alabamaboy 01:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on authorship section
There appears to be debate over the Authorship section. The current section (as seen in Smatprt's edits at ) is essentially the consensus version we've had for a number of months (with the exception of a statement that Smatprt inserted with the support of myself and other editors, which says that "it is well accepted in academic circles that Shakespeare's plays were written by William Shakespeare and not another author."). However, since two editors have questioned having this much info on the authorship debate, we should see if consensus exists to keep the section as is or change it. The change would be to Nunh-huh's version at.

Personally, I believe we should keep the original version. While I don't believe in these theories, they do have some academic support and should be mentioned here.--Alabamaboy 14:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I much prefer the shorter version. I admit that's partly due to an aversion to "alternative author" theories; I think too much space gives too much credibility to these ideas in what is the main Shakespeare article. But I also think that the details are covered in the existing alternative author article, which even has its own sub-articles on Oxford and Bacon. Paul B 15:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer the shorter version also, in an article of this length. WP:NPOV requires that we don't give undue weight to fringe theories. All of this material is covered in considerable detail, just one click away. AndyJones 17:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alabamaboy that enough academic support exists to keep the version that we have been developing. We seem to be working together reasonably well and have our hands full with the vandals so I am loath to repeat all the same arguments all over again. Unless something new has developed in the last few months, I question the need for further discussion.Smatprt 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no "academic support", which is why the section is so notably devoid of any citations evidencing it. You appear to have confused "self-deluded nut jobs" with "academics". The short version is the only one which does not privilege this fringe POV thorough undue emphasis, and therefore the only one consistent with our NPOV policy, and the only one which does not mislead the reader by suggesting that this is in any sense disputed by anyone they need take seriously. - Nunh-huh 19:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I support the shorter version. Much more than a paragraph in this article gives undue weight to the authorship issue, which already has (at least) five articles all to itself: A single paragraph summarising Shakespearean authorship question, with links to the other articles, ought to be enough on this. — mholland (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Shakespearean authorship question
 * Oxfordian theory
 * Chronology of Shakespeare's Plays - Oxfordian
 * Baconian theory
 * Marlovian theory

I would also agree with having a shorter section, not necessarily because it has no scholarly support, but because it is covered very well in other articles. A paragraph and sub-article link would be plenty, I think. Having gone over a lot of the shakespeare project articles over the past few days, I've noticed a lot of similar overlap between Shakespeare article, which seems unnecessary, though the information may be important. Wrad 21:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The name calling by Nunh-huh should really be condemned on this page and wherever it appears. "Self-deluded nut jobs" should be apologized for. "no academic support" for the authorship issue is grossly incorrect, as everyone else on the page seems to acknowledge, even reluctantly. The previous discussions on this included editors from all sides. Right now we are certainly hearing from the Stratfordian editors. I would like to hear from the Baconian and Marlovian editors, unless the standard Stratfordian bullying tactics have chased them off. In support of their positions, most of which I personally disagree with, I strongly oppose shortening the already very short paragraphs that each major candidate has been alotted.Smatprt 22:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there's not academic support, and you have evinced no references to academic journals that might indicate that there is. This is not about "sides", it's about not misrepresenting facts by suggesting they are disputed by someone significant. They aren't, and it's wrong and misleading for our article to suggest they are. "Self-deluded nut jobs" is an apt description of those who initially "found" the "codes" that "prove" that Shakespeare "wasn't" the author, and an apology is neither necessary or forthcoming. - Nunh-huh 23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we have a pretty strong consensus for the shorter version. Somebody please restore that version (I don't want to, as I'd prefer not to because I want this to be clear consensus of multiple editors). Here is the edit to show what it looked like: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Shakespeare&diff=125082533&oldid=125016909 DreamGuy 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First we should discount Nunh-huh's behaviour, and therefore his opinion. Next - I see no concensus. I see two editors (on either side of the issue) proposing no change. I see several clearly Stratfordian editors advocating for a super quick "concensus" among themselves that coincides with their POV. The structure in place was built, by consensus, with input from all sides of the issue. Please review those earlier discussions to verify lack of concensus for any further changes.Smatprt 00:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First we should discount Nunh-huh's behaviour, and therefore his opinion. Uhhhhh. No. that's not how things work. So if somebody came by here and said that only nutjobs believe Shakespeare really wrote his plays then we should discount his opinion just because he said something other people didn't think was polite? So one bad comment means nothing anybody says has any merit, and anyone agrees with him must also be ignored? Nonsense. And on top of that, just because he has strong opinions it doesn't mean the edits he is proposing end up slanting the article. He's not suggesting the article say that all those people are nutjobs, and nobody else is either.  DreamGuy 01:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, or course. The occasional outburst should be forgiven. I, like many of us, have been guilty in the past and probably will be in the future. I guess I got used to the civility that has been, for the most part, achieved on these pages. The "nut-job" reference got to me and then the ongoing denial just fed me more. But, realisticly, in the middle of a decent group conversation, when someone drops in just to call names and spout sheer nonsense ("no" academic support), it immediately shoots down their own validity. At least in my eyes.Smatprt 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also - to directly quote WP:NPOV: "For instance, that Shakespeare is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. However, in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there are strong cases being made that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was one of his contemporaries, such as the Earl of Oxford or Christopher Marlowe. Notice that determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research — but once determined, a clear statement of that reception (unlike an idiosyncratic opinion by a Wikipedia article writer) is an opinion that really matters." I'm still looking for the section where WIKI condones calling fellow editors "Self-deluded nut jobs". Where is that exactly? Smatprt 00:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably right next to the section where it condones misrepresenting fellow editors' statements. - Nunh-huh 00:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S.S. Unless someone comes up with some names of those "number of reputable scholars", the NPOV page will have to come up with a better example. - Nunh-huh 00:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Most recently, Professor Daniel Wright & Dr. Roger Strittmater have both made valuable contributions to the field. By the way, I'm not sure how old the books are that Nunh-huh is reading, but the leading anti-candidate (Oxford) relys on no "codes" - in fact I think only the Bacon theory even references them. Thankfully, the NOPV editors can do simple research on researchers. Also - simply look at the numerous wiki citations that support the Oxfordian candidacy. They reference scores of scholars and researchers - none of which rely on secret codes!Smatprt 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Glad to Nunh-huh attempt to restate his offensive statement. If no offense to anti-strats was intended, then none should be taken.Smatprt 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're the only one here commenting on a fellow editor. - Nunh-huh 01:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe we should keep this discussion open for a few more days. At this point, though, consensus seems to be to go with the short version. I'm going to insert that version for now. If consensus changes, we can revert to the original version. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Copied this over from the other discussion as it pertains... I'm with Smatprt on this. We can't ignore these opinions. Sure, it's a mainstream idea that Shakespeare was the author, but other notables have thought otherwise. This is something everyone talks about, in colleges all over the country, and even if the theories are wrong, we can say why (or why they are thought to be wrong. It may be a relatively agreed-upon issue, but it isn't a "settled" issue by any means. As long is it has clear citations in it (which I believe can be found) the authorship question holds a firm place in wikipedia, and doesn't violate NPOV. Wrad 00:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Smatprt 01:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be hesitant to bring over someone's comments to this discussion without that editor doing it himself. The discussions on the two article's talk pages differ. This discussion is about whether or not to include more or less info on this subject in the main article. The other discussion is about NPOV and other concerns with the authorship article. --Alabamaboy 01:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That comment doesn't apply here anyway... How on earth can anyone be suggesting that having a whole big article on the topic, and apparently with other offshoot articles (unless those got redirected at some point), is "ignoring the opinions"? Ignoring them would be erasing the article completely and not mentioning at all. Ignoring them would be to have an article saying that they are nutjobs. Pointing out what they say, but included much-needed context that it is no way a widely accepted opinion by Shakespeare scholars is NOT ignoring them. Sheesh. DreamGuy 01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrad has already quite clearly stated (on this very page) that he favors the short version. Let's let him speak for himself instead of applying his comments on one subject to another entirely. - Nunh-huh 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think these two discussions overlap, but you are right and I should probably not have moved anything. I do, however, question this rush to "consensus". This discussion has not reached a consensus (except among strats) and has not even included those most likely to oppose this edit. This "vote" feels stacked. Smatprt 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you feel that strongly about it, we can leave the discussion open for a few more days. Is everyone ok with that? --Alabamaboy 01:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I do feel strongly that we should leave it as is until we get additional input (if any). I would appreciate that courtesy.Smatprt 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nunh-huh is right: the Anti-Strafordian nonsense is given undue weight. The subject already has separate pages, and we shouldn't muddle the general reader with poorly supported conspiracies. RedRabbit1983 02:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the editors of this page would be interested in considering the results of a poll conducted by The New York Times, as referenced in the "Education Life" section of the paper on April 22, 2007. (Here is the article, and here are the survey results.) Of the 265 Shakespeare professors surveyed, 17 percent are either on the fence (11%) or agreed with the statement that "there is good reason to question that William Shakespeare of Stratford was the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon." It also bears noting that, as The Times's article points out, "Next fall Brunel University, one of England’s plate-glass universities of the 1960s, will offer what is thought to be the first graduate program in Shakespeare authorship studies."

In other words, there is of course no denying that the "anti-Stratfordian" position on the Shakespeare authorship issue is a minority viewpoint in the academy today. But 17 percent of Shakespeare professors plus a bona fide graduate program dedicated to this subfield of Shakespeare studies certainly moves the authorship question out of the fringes, wouldn't you say? --Verkinto 03:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well put. Of course.--71.206.25.146 03:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone inclined to take the NYT story seriously needs to check out the thread "Are you now or have you ever been..." at Shaksper. AndyJones 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is well known that Hardy Cook, the coordinator of the Shaksper listserve, has banned all discussion of authorship except by those with whom he happens to agree. His own McCarthyite tactics are a regretable example of the tendency of academcians to adopt a herd mentality whenever they encounter facts they find uncomfortable.--71.206.25.146 03:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Two more comments - one for, one against. As I keep saying, there is no consensus here and no amount of bullying will make it so.Smatprt 03:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I just need to clarify my statements. I agree with Smatprt on the "Authorship question" article discussion. Since that is the main article for this topic, I think it should cover all aspects. However, since this is the Shakespeare article, I think that a briefer version is fine, with a link to the other main article on the question. I don't think it's an issue of whether a position is authoritative or not, as much as whether it is needed in the article. Those who are totally against any representation of alternative authors on wikipedia, I think, are overshooting a bit. I would support letting this debate settle a little bit, in the mean time, so we can cool our heads and let others come in. Smatprt and I have some experience with this :) . Wrad 04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It shpuld be noted that the "Dr. Roger Strittmater" referred to in Smatprt's comment is not an established academic but an ideologically committed Oxfordian who signed up for a PhD with the express intention of proving that the so-called "Oxford's bible" was evidence of links to Shakespeare. The PhD consists of lists of verbal connections and commentaries. Its acceptance was quite controversial at the the time. Professor Daniel Wright is rather more important. The circumstances and content of the NYT questionnaire are so obscure that its findings are vitually unintelligable.Paul B 09:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that Paul Barlow's knowledge of Dr. Stritmatter is about as reliable and informative as his summary of Dr. Marcus'comments on the first folio or his spelling of names. Dr. Stritmatter, an Assistant Professor of Humanities and Literary Studies at Coppin State University, holds an MA in Anthropology from the New School for Social Research and a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Massachussets at Amherst. He has published articles in Notes and Queries (Oxford University Press), Review of English Studies (Oxford University Press), The Tennessee Law Review, and The Shakespeare Yearbook (forthcoming), a leading quarterly journal of Shakespearean studies. What are your qualifications, or what is your evidence (which is not the same thing as "prejudgement," or argument by definition), for stating that Dr. Stritmatter is "not an established academic"? This list of publications sounds pretty established to me. Nor does his dissertation "consist of lists of verbal connections and commentaries,"whatever that is supposed to mean. It is a detailed examination of the markings and marginal notations in the copy of the De Vere Geneva Bible owned by the Folger Shakespeare library, arguing the thesis that these markings constitute an independent confirmation of the hypothesis propsed by Looney, Ogburn, and many others. Nor did he, as you state, "sign up (sic) for a Phd with the express intention of proving that the so-called 'Oxford's Bible'was evidence of links to Shakespeare." He could not have done this, because he had already been a PhD student in his program -- to which he applied and was accepted in a competitive application process -- for almost two years before ever laying eyes on the document in question, and had in fact proposed to write a dissertation of the anonymous Elizabethan History Play, Richard II, Part 1, before he undertook to write about Oxford's bible. Please, Paul, confine your remarks to subjects on which you actually know something and refrain from these invidious statements about persons about whom you know next to nothing. --71.206.25.146 03:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If PaulB and Nunh-huh are really backing the "no academics" statement, then please explain the following official "doubters":Smatprt 04:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Art:

Mrs. Bonner M Cutting, M.F.A. Independent Researcher

Richard G Kurman, M.A. Art Historian, Educator

Education:

Frederick Kuri, M.S. Lecturer, USC and UCLA; advisor, Division of Career and Continuing Education, Los Angeles Unified School District.

English Literature: 

Brian R Bechtold, M.A. Shakespeare & British literature Instructor Flathead Valley Community College, Kalispell, Montana

Dr. Patrick J Buckridge, Ph.D. Professor of English, Griffith University, Australia

Dr. Michael Delahoyde, Ph.D. Clinical Associate Professor of English, Washington State University

Ren Draya, Ph.D. Professor of British and American Literature, Blackburn College, Carlinville, Illinois

Warren T Hope, Ph.D. Visiting Assistant Professor of English, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

Dr. Raymond Thom Hunter, Ph.D. Independent Researcher

Dr. William Leahy, Ph.D. Professor of English, Brunel University, Uxbridge, U.K.

Dr. Joseph E Riehl, Ph.D.

Joe Riehl, Ph.D.: Professor of English, University of Louisiana

William R Warner, Ph.D. Daniel L Wright, Ph.D. Director, The Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre, Concordia University, Portland, Oregon

History: Dr. William Rubinstein, Ph.D. Professor of History, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, U.K

Law:

Thomas Regnier, J.D. Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law Library Science

Mr. John B Wood, M.L.S. Librarian Emeritus (Cal. State Univ., Los Angeles)

Management: 

Mr. Gary B Goldstein, M.A. Editor and Publisher, The Elizabethan Review (1993-2001)

Math/Eng/Computers: Richard D Mabry, Ph.D.

Prof. Sam C Saunders, Ph.D. Prof. Emer. Mathematics, Washington State University

Prof. Matthew Fair Wyneken, Ph.D. Grand Valley State University & University of Michigan-Flint

Medicine/Healthcare: Paul H Altrocchi, M.D. former Prof. of Neurology, Stanford Medical School

Dr. Richard N Joyrich, M.D. Clinical Assistant Professor of Radiology, Wayne State University

Dr. Frank M Kline, M.D. Frank Kline: Professor Emeritus USC. Who's Who in the World

Natural Sciences: 

Martin Hyatt, Ph.D. Biologist, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA

Donald F Nelson, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics

Psychology: 

Dean Keith Simonton, Ph.D. Distinguished Professor and Vice Chair, Department of Psychology, University of California at Davis; Sir Francis Galton Award for the Study of Creativity, 1996.

Social Sciences: Robin Fox University Professor of Social Theory, Rutgers University, see www.robinfoxbooks.com

Theatre Arts:

Joe Legate, M.F.A. Production Manager/Program Director

Kristin Linklater Professor of Theater Arts, Columbia University School of the Arts; Guggenheim Fellow, 1983; author of "Freeing Shakespeare's Voice"

Felicia Londré, Ph.D. Curators’ Professor of Theatre, University of Missouri-Kansas City Smatprt 04:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a largely meaningless list, most of whom are not specialists in the field. Being an academic in 'Management Studies', 'Biology' or any other non-Elizabethan field of research has no relevance to expertise in Shakespeare studies, and some of these titles are clearly virtually meaningless. A "visiting assistant professor" is basically someone who does a few part time lectures now and again. What is a "clinical associate professor"? Clinical? It seems to be a job title used in Nursing and yet this person is listed as a literature professional. Paul B 07:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I don't knw why he has the weird title of "Clinical associate professor" but he does appear to teach English, but is clearly a bit of an oddball judging by his webpages Paul B 07:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does the word "odball" make me immediately think of weasels?--71.206.25.146 03:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We have to accept that there is a hierarchy of experise here. The real experts are specialists in Elizabethan history and literature. Generic Eng Lit lecturers are of less worth as supporters, and well also have to take into account their positions in the scholarly hierarchy (job titles and status of institution). Excluding all the non-Eng Lit people, whose qualifications are irrelevant, we have a list of 11 names, one of which appears to be the same person mentioned twice (Dr. Joseph E Riehl, Ph.D.; Joe Riehl, Ph.D.). Of course in reality - if you include anyone who lectures anywhere ("community colleges" etc) and even part time lecturers - there must be hundreds of thousands of people in the English-speaking world who could be eligable for a list such as this. How many of these are specialists in the Elizabethan period? Patrick Buckridge appears, according to his CV to be a specialist in Australian literature . He appears to have published one essay of Marsden. Michael Delahoyde appears to be a professional maverick. Ren Drya works in a community college and does not appear to be Renaissance specialist, but rather a drama teacher. Warren T Hope is a part time lecturer at "The University of Sciences", which does not suggest a strong Eng Lit relevance. Raymond Thom Hunter has no affiliation, and I can find no evidence of any publications (that may just be because of the way the name is written). William Leahy is a genuine writer on Renaissance topics . His website says he is "very interested in projects dealing with Shakespeare and Authorship in some way", which does not make his position very clear. Joseph E Riehl appears to specialise in the 19th century writer Charles Lamb. So apart from Wright, there appears to be only one person on this list who can be said to be specialist in the area, and that is Leahy, whose own position remains unclear. Elsewhere he describes himself as an "agnostic". Paul B 11:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the debate will never end. But more on the page itself.  My feeling is that this short version will inevitably re-swell in size after some time.  Give them some meat and satisfy them at least. Mandel 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have to accept anything like this. One can just as easily argue that the specialists are those who have been indoctrinated into the traditional paradigm and are therefore, from a critical perspective, the least likely to understand the possibilities and implications of the proposed alternative. If you ask William Leahy, whose credentials you apparently do accept, he will tell you that this is exactly what has gone on. If, moreover, you study the history of contested ideas you will find that it is very often the case that established scholars resist innovations that are perceived to threaten their expertise or presumptions. Moreover, there are a number of established specialists whose names are not yet on the list, who like Leahy have either questioned the traditional view of authorship, or are even outright Oxfordians. And there are some whose credentials you are mistaken about. These include:

Dr. David Richardson, a retired Spenser specialist from Cleveland State University and editor of the Spenser Encyclopedia (not an Oxfordian but, like Leahy, very supportive of the debate);

Dr. Jack Shuttleworth, retired chair of the English Department of the U.S. Air Force Academy, author of several books on early modern literature and a committed Oxfordian;

Dr. Felicia Londre, if you take a look at her resume, is a very distinguished theatrical historian who has written several (perhaps dozens) of books, including editing a collection of essays on Love's Labour's Lost (http://www.amazon.com/Loves-Labours-Lost-Shakespeare-Criticism/dp/0815338880/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/002-9385511-4627208) published, if I am not mistaken, by Routledge and Kegan Paul;

Dr. Ren Draya at Blackburn college, already a signatory, is a trained and tenured Renaissance scholar holding a PhD; her credentials are every bit as respectable as Leahy's and unlike him she happens to be an Oxfordian;

Kristin Linklater, who teaches acting and diction at Columbia University, has had books on theatrical voice coaching translated into Russian and is the author of an acclaimed book, Freeing Shakespeare's Voice, which prominently features her conviction that Oxford was the real author of the canon. I respectfully suggest to those in this discussion who persist in the dogma that the authorship question is not real, that you are going to be very disappointed by what happens next, because this list is only going to grow as time goes on. I hope that as it does, and as the available evidence becomes more accessible, we are all alert to the implications for keeping this page current, accurate, and informative.--71.206.25.146 03:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I detect a double standard in Paul B's comments above. If the "real experts" are defined as only specialists in eliz hist and lit, then why is Paul B citing art experts in his discussion over the Droeshout portrait.  I accept this use of Art experts in this circumstance, just as I accept the opinions of Law experts as it pertains to Shakespeare and the Law and Theatre experts when it comes to Shakespeare and the Theatre. But PaulB and those editors who agree with him on the "no academic support" can't have it both ways.  If the only scholars who count are Eliz hist. and lit. specialists, then why, Paul, are you bringing in other academics to support your arguments?Smatprt 17:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Also - if the only scholarly consensus is really only among Eliz his. and lit. specialists, then shouldn't we clairfy that in the opening paragraph (and elsewhere) instead of the more weasally term "academics" ?Smatprt 17:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Now you are not making sense. The portrait is a work of art innit? The arguments about the picture are purely art historical, but art historians are not experts on Shakespeare authorship. The points I am making about the picture are simply that art historians don't see anthing strange about it, not that they use it to prove Shakespeare was Shakespeare. Experts on Shakespeare and the law would be people who have published in peer reviewed journals on the subject, presumably they would specialise in Tudor/Jacobean law. Again, though, that's not in itself an authorship issue. Paul B 22:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Has sufficient time passed to return to the concise version here? - Nunh-huh 21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it has, for my money. AndyJones 17:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is going on in at least three locations now. Based on the numerous comments on those pages, I find no consensus and agree with Alabamaboy's opening statement (and reasons cited) that the original "consensus" version is preferable. Smatprt 17:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this conversation is taking place on the talk page of the article concerned, and on this page only. The only question to be addressed is whether the short or long version is to be preferred, and it seems the short one (the one inserted at least once by Alabamaboy, though later removed by Smatprt) is the one which most—indeed, nearly all—prefer. - Nunh-huh 17:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nunh-huh is correct. As I've said before, this discussion is only about whether the long or short section on authorship questions is included in this main article. This discussion is totally separate from the other discussions on other pages. I agree that sufficient time has passed for consensus on this issue, which is to go with the short version here.--Alabamaboy 23:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I thought we were there: Nunh-huh inserts a short, well-balanced and nicely readable version, seemingly in accord with the consensus. It didn't last the morning (sorry, I'm using UTC). Please don't start this all again! --Old Moonraker 08:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As stated above by Alabamaboy - "The change would be to Nunh-huh's version at ." However this was not the change that was made. User Nunh-huh cleverly deleted the reference regarding the Oxford Theory still growing in popularity, which is the only theory that can make this claim and acknowledges Oxford's clear frontrunner status amond the anti-strats. I am changing it back to this short "concensus" version.Smatprt 14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your change restored links previously deleted. The place for detailed discussion about the popular "debate" about Shakespeare's authorship is in the subarticles, not here. - Nunh-huh 14:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bard is probably the Bard and that's it
Although I have been a proponent of the Cervantes theory, I readily admit that The Bard is probably (and most likely) just that, The Bard. Not Marlowe, Not Oxford, Not Nelville, and certainly not Sir Francis Bacon.

However, I do want to say that we need to discuss the subject of the authorial crisis, and that all ideas (however ridiculous or far-fetched they may be) need to be respected Ladb2000

Why does it not surprise me that someone who would support the mucking up of these pages with nonsense about Cervantes is actually a dedicated proponent of the traditional view of the bard. The two positions have a great deal in common.--BenJonson 21:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is discussion of the author in crisis? The discussion of the moon landing is not in crisis, even though some dispute it. The majority of scholars accept that William Shakespeare is in fact William Shakespeare. The alternative viewpoints ignore the strong connection between William Shakespeare the man and his works: acknowledgement by his contempories, official attribution, and so on. Instead, they attempt explain these away with bizarre conspiracies, and rely on circumstantial evidence and coincidences to build their case, and then attempt to consolidate it by adding speculation. It is considered impossible that William Shakespeare could have gained sufficient education, yet some of England's eminent men of letters did not receive a university education.


 * We can respect those ideas, but we don't need to include them all. RedRabbit1983 16:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the authorship question is real, unlike the "dispute" over the moon landings. Indeed, your comparison is completely "out of left field" and indicates a failure to grasp the nature of the special biographical problems presented by Shakespeare. These have been noted by many outstanding orthodox scholars, for example the late Dr. Samuel Schoenbaum, who revised his 1991 edition of Shakespeare's Lives, after reading Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare (1984), by adding this intriguing admission: "it is tempting to despair of ever bridging the vertiginous expanse between the sublimity of the subject and the mundane inconsequence of the documentary life" (Schoenbaum 1991 568). Pay attention to that quote. It gives the answer to your question. Those who have followed the case closely go on from there and find abundant evidence that the real author was de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. That is why 17% of Shakespearean professors, who by definition are going to be the most conservative of any group in their views of this topic, believe there is considerable (8%) or at least some (11%) reason to doubt the traditional account of authorship. Can you find numbers like that about the moon landing? I didn't think so.--BenJonson 21:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, those poll numbers are pretty much what you'd expect: there's about 10% "noise" in such polls. 10% of people will believe anything. A 1999 Gallup poll found 89% of the population believed the moon landing was "real", leaving 11% thinking it might be faked. - Nunh-huh 23:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, the evidence for an alternative author is circumstantial. The main evidence for William Shakespeare is not: the folios and quartos name Shakespeare; documentary evidence, too, names him. If this were in fact fraud, some conspiracy must have produced it; enduring lies about the authorship of very famous plays require an extroadinary situation. If circumstantial evidence is required, look at Shakespeare's situation: he was an actor and shareholder of his company; he was in a good position to author plays that his company performed in. The double-lives of the supposed authors require a stretch of the imagination; so too do the conspiracies and analyses that prove alternative authorship. That some of the candidates had travelled to Italy and were learned, for instance, means very little. If Shakespeare's contempories knew about the silly controversy that would play out, they would have left more evidence for us, and the alternative candidates might have signed an affidavit swearing they weren't the authors. A general article on Shakespeare ought to dicuss the question, but not to turn it into an essay and to overstate its importance. RedRabbit1983 11:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"What was cleverly inserted instead"
Thanks for assuming bad faith in your edit summary, Smatprt. Are you really going to put up a separate fight to retain the ugly and illogical use of "term" on each of the involved pages? After there was 100% support for my rewrite at Shakespearean authorship question,, I was hoping you'd have the grace to let it go when I inserted the same changes here. May I ask what exactly it is you suspect me of? My changes at Shakespearean authorship question were intended as neutral stylistic improvements; everybody else thought that's what they were; but you keep implying I have some evil agenda (and therefore keep reverting me). What is that agenda, exactly? Can't we try to assume that we're all trying to improve William Shakespeare and it's subarticles? Bishonen | talk 15:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

The phrase, "particulary in the Oxfordian theory" was cleverly changed to delete Oxfords position as frontrunner among the anti-strats. Soemthing like "popular interest in the subject remians" was insterted instead. That is why I see bad faith. sure - lost "term" if it bothers you here. That is not the issue. Smatprt 15:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If it bothers me? Well, yeah. I'm kind of disappointed to encounter this kind of behaviour at a page like this. Try reading what you revert before going into automatic mode. Since you've violated the WP:3RR despite being warned on your own Talk, I expect you'll get some time off to reconsider your editing practices. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

you avoided my question very nicely.Smatprt 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your sarcasm is charming. I "avoid" the question because it's nothing to do with me. Why don't you check the history to see who actually removed the Oxfordian theory? Since you make such a point of it, I expect they'd tell you why, if asked directly and in person. Bishonen | talk 04:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen - I beleive you supported the concensus that included the Oxford status, as well as participated in the revert war over that particular deletion. I thought you would be prepared to defend the edit.Smatprt 05:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You asked what was inserted that was not agreed to by consensus. I answered and neither you or anyone else has answered that charge. I am fine with the various issues "term", "Hyphen", "Pen-name" - however I have not seen any discussion regarding this edit: "particulary in the Oxfordian theory", which is an entirely different discussion than those that had to do with your original edits. Please explain why this additional edit is being made.Smatprt 17:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly what part of "don't revert five times" don't you understand? - Nunh-huh 18:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

you also avoided my question.Smatprt 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has answered my question about why the above additional deletion has been made - without any discussion or consensus building - I will assume that there is no reasonable or defensible answer and will reinsert and adjust wording for the following: "particulary in the Oxfordian theory". This acknowledgement of Oxford's frontrunner status was part of the consensus on the lead paragraph of the Shakespeare Authorship Question that was built (and that included at least one anti-strat) by Bishonen. I have no issue bringing in the other edits that were discussed from that page to this one, but the information on both pages should at least match.Smatprt 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad assumption. There's no reason to discuss the merits of any particular "alternative" theory in this article. And once again, discussions on other articles have no bearing here. - Nunh-huh 04:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nunh-huh - this is what you said last week: (no, alabama's wrong. This is a more than adequate summary for a non-question.) "Around one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death in 1616, doubts began to be expressed by some researchers about the authorship of the plays and poetry attributed to him. The terms Shakespearean authorship, and the Shakespeare Authorship Question normally refer to the debates inspired by these researchers, who consider the works to have been written by another playwright, or group of playwrights, using either William Shakespeare, or the hyphenated "Shake-speare", as a pen-name. While many candidates for alternative authorship have been proposed, including Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe and Edward de Vere (Earl of Oxford), it is well accepted in academic circles that Shakespeare's plays were written by William Shakespeare and not another author. In spite of this, popular interest in the subject, particularly in the Oxfordian theory, continues to grow." You defended this edit as the concensus, including the last line acknowledging Oxford's status. Please read your own words and explain your change. Has this become personal with you or are you just pretending not understand my question. Why the deletion when the deleted segment was part of the consensus?Smatprt 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the version Dreamguy reverted to on April 23: "Around one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death in 1616, doubts began to be expressed by some researchers about the authorship of the plays and poetry attributed to him. The terms Shakespearean authorship, and the Shakespeare Authorship Question normally refer to the debates inspired by these researchers, who consider the works to have been written by another playwright, or group of playwrights, using either William Shakespeare, or the hyphenated "Shake-speare", as a pen-name. While many candidates for alternative authorship have been proposed, including Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe and Edward de Vere (Earl of Oxford). It is well accepted in academic circles that Shakespeare's plays were written by William Shakespeare and not another author. In spite of this, popular interest in the subject, particularly in the Oxfordian theory, continues to grow." Note the Oxfordian reference in the final lineSmatprt 05:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do try to focus on improving the article rather than trying to score debating points. This article is not the place to discuss the merits of the various "authorship" theories, and you seem to be the only one who wants the "Oxfordian" link. And stop placing more than one link to the authorship manual in the article. It gets one link, not multiple links, per the manual of style. - Nunh-huh 06:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir: Who died and elected you God? You write that "This article is not the place to discuss the merits of the various "authorship" theories". Yes it is. That's what the article is about. It is undoubtedly the case that the full merits of a case as cumulative and effective as that adumbrated by Looney (1920), Ogburn (1984, 1991), Fowler (1986), Stritmatter (2001), and Anderson (2005), not to mention hundreds of articulate and impressive articles in several publications and numerous other full length books, cannot adequetly by summarized here. That is what makes your attempt to remove the Oxfordian link particularly disengenous and offensive. Several contributors to this page, who have all been working on the page longer than you, and all of whom seem to understand more about the subject than you do, oppose your plan. Speaking for my own part, I -- who have readily agreed to many compromises by sincere and thoughtful Stratfordians on this page -- will simply continue reinserting the link should you presume to remove it. You have not achieved consensus on this removal, and you have attempted to falsify the record of discussion by claiming that only Smtprt is against your proposed change. This does not inspire confidence in your either your sincerity or your self-confidence. And it won't work.--BenJonson 23:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Try to be civil. God is not an elected position. The place to discuss the various "authorship" theories is in the article on them, which is linked to here. And false accusations and hyperbole about the "strength" of Looney should guide those who will assess your ability to weigh evidence in a neutral way. - Nunh-huh 23:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is appropriate that this page continue to include a direct link to the Oxfordian position. As Encyclopedia Brittannica and other authoritative works attest, the Oxfordian theory is, next to the traditional view of authorship, by far and away the most robust and credible of any of the alternatives. There is a problem of civility on all sides of this controversy. I apologize if my remarks were intemperate. However, many worse comments have been made, directed against Oxfordians and other doubters, by defenders of the traditional view, on these forums.--71.206.25.146 02:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC) [Ben]

Paul B - I honestly feel that I am trying to make it better, by making up for the damage (my personal feeling) that I believe certain overzealous and meanspritied Stratfordians are doing throughout the Wikipedia website. I would ask you the same thing. Since you feel that the authorship issue is so insignificant, why are you spending so much time on it?

Serious question - Have you checked the article for other duplicate links adn MOS issues? Or are you only interested in deleting anything Oxfordian.?

You are incorrect by the way. I am pretty certain that BenJonson voted for the consensus that included the Oxford reference.Smatprt 13:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, please stop stating what I know and what I do not know. Isn't that presumtious? I actually had not read the Wiki article on Sonnet 145 or Shakes sexuality. Besides, it does not matter. If you want to add Shakes puns into the article, would it be okay to list the various Vere puns? (not that I want to, as I feel puns are off point and completely speculative.Smatprt


 * Smatprt, do you think you could retain a modicum of relevance to debates on actual pages in your responses. The pun is not and -I think - never has been referred to on this page. It is referred to on the Authorship page, so don't add comments here about it here. And the alleged "POV deletions" I am supposed to have made here have nothing whatever to do with me. Your comment is rather rich since you have just deleted material on the Authorship page simply because it contradicts your POV. It is not, BTW, presumptuous. You know it because you have already been informed of the fact in the past. Paul B 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Internal links
Nunh-huh is completely misquoting the MOS, saying it prohibits the same link appearing more than once in an article. His recent edit is, in fact, against the MOS that recommends linking in opening paragraphs, as well as elsewhere in the article - just not in the same line or paragraph. Specifically:

"These links should be included where it is most likely that a reader would want to follow them elsewhere; for example, in article introductions, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions. Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page.

and:

"A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking which follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen.

Misquoting the MOS to conduct continued pOV harrassment is surely unacceptable. Eventually some neutral editors are going to become aware of these antics. Smatprt 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't misquoted; rather, you have misinterpreted. The MOS doesn't mean all links need to be in the introduction: that's ridiculous. The place the reader is MOST LIKELY to look for a link to the authorship "question" is in the section devoted to that question, and not in the introduction. - Nunh-huh 01:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please make up your mind. You quoted MOS as having a 1 per article limit. You were clearly mistaken.Now you are rephrasing, and still clearly wrong. You see, as a catagorie that has its own subhead and is listed in the contents, it clearly qualifies for first paragraph usage. Just like "sexuality" - which is linked just previous for the same exact reasons.Smatprt 02:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, wait and see if others agree with your analogy. - Nunh-huh 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And yet you don't wait. - Nunh-huh 03:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you seriously think that every time I want to make an edit that I am going to discuss it at talk, you are mistaken. When you misquote the MOS and then expect me to run MOS edits by you whenever I want to make a style edit, you are also mistaken. I am not going to argue with you about whether the links for "he wrote ..."plays"... and... "sonnets" should go to definitions of plays and or sonnets or to the article's "Shakespeare's Plays" and "Shakespeare's Sonnets." It's called linking in context and is not controversial.  If you believe that it is a controversial edit, as opposed to an obvious one, then we are going to disagree on alot more than just the authorship. And playing a tag team revert war is your choice.  BTW, I see another oxfordian editor has been weighing in on various subjects.  So please now refrain from playing the "only you oppose these edits" game. Smatprt 03:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Addressing the portion of your comments I can make sense of: Not before you make an edit. Before you revert one. Yes, you've been recruiting, and it doesn't alter the fact that you are attempting to falsely depict a fringe view as more mainstream than it is. And lighten up on the labeling. - Nunh-huh 04:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll lighten up on everything if you will. Before I assume anything, what do you mean labeling? And btw - you know that I am not the only oxfordian editor, just the only one who moniters these pages daily. Hopefully, most are out doing research. If you all would discuss before a revert, than I would, but after your own reverts without discussion (like eliminating links), how on earth can you ask for like consideration? Smatprt 04:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Labelling: Oxfordian, Stratfordian. Do as you wish, then, and you will see what progress you make. - Nunh-huh 05:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the following edit
The words "particulary in the Oxfordian theory" were deleted, eliminating Oxfords position as frontrunner among the anti-strats, a point that has been acknowledged on other pages, and in the last major consensus, for some time now. I'd like to see where we stand on this, since it was never addressed in the original discussion. Can the editors of this page please explain this deletion and if there was consensus on this, please show where?Smatprt 05:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to add this, you should first find a citation for it in a reliable source. Agreement between Wikipedians at another article is not a reliable source. And then we will discuss where this "valuable" information belongs; I believe you will find that mostly everyone but you feels the authorship article is the place for it, not here. - Nunh-huh 05:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Authorship: Sourcing
I despair that the whole discussion at FA has become yet another Authorship Controversy argument. However, in my view it would be wrong to remove any mention of the subject from the article. This has been discussed so many times I'm reluctant to set out my argument in detail unless someone really needs me to. However, I agree that there are valid criticisms on the sourcing of this subject, which I suppose is inevitable when (as I've pointed out elsewhere on Wikipedia) the anti-strats tend to be enthusiastic amateurs.

Can I please therefore ask if anyone has access to Schoenbaum's "Shakespeare's Lives" or Stanley Wells' "Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide" and if yes can our material be rewritten and sourced from there? I doubt the FA reviewers would have WP:RS problems with those sources (and of course if they do, we can discuss further). AndyJones 08:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I just added Concordia University's website discussion of the authorship as a source. Is this valid?Smatprt 10:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What exactly were you hoping to cite? I'm somewhat bemused about what is at issue here. That such debate has existed is undisputed. All that is disputed is whether there is current scholarly debate about it. I think we should not confuse scholarly discussion of it with scholarly acceptance that it is a real issue. That would be like saying "scholars discuss Ancient Greek mythology" and confusing it with "there is dispute among scholars whether or not Ancient Greek mythology is true". Since the second statement is not being made here, I can't see what needs to be cited. I think we need to stop the FAC turing into an authorship debate, which means please no pro and con arguments there. Paul B 10:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This citation seems to refer to an account of a conference held at Concordia University during April 2007, and not a publication of the University itself. It may not satisfy the reservations of the FAC. --Old Moonraker 11:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Concordia conference is an annual event organised by Daniel Wright, a member of staff who is an Oxfordian. He is a member of the College of Theology, Arts and Sciences. Paul B 11:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Still not good enough, yet. AndyJones 12:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have raised a possible compromise on the FAC page, which is to keep the 69 word paragraph as is until the FAC is over. We can then have another discussion on this talk page to see if consensus on keeping the paragraph in has changed. I also totally agree with Paul--no more debate on this issue on the FAC page! Best,--Alabamaboy 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll agree to that compromise. Then I'll smoke my axe with hot blood as I hack through it afterward. I'll lay low all of your sentinels! RedRabbit1983 16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think us agreeing is enough. We all do. It's our FA reviewers who are pressing the point (and have continued to do so since Alabamaboy's suggestion) and it's them who have to be impressed. AndyJones 18:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've talked to Awadewit and while he's not happy with the situation, he said this issue isn't a deal breaker with regards to him possibly supporting the FAC. So let's continue to avoid dragging the FAC through this debate.--Alabamaboy 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems as though FAC is precisely the mechanism to deal with inappropriate emphasis on fringe theories. We don't want featured articles to be embarassing, which means that we must remove embarassing things from articles for them to become features. - Nunh-huh 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added Schoenbaum to the refs, and another book. The whole screen-filling screeds of prose over at the FAC seem to be about nothing more than having citation of scholars saying "the authorship controversy exists". Other possible texts would be Kaufman's 2003 article in the OUP book, or the Shakespeare Encyclopedia, 1974, which has entries on Bacon and Oxford as candidates. I added Holderness's The Shakespeare Myth, which discusses the issues on pp.11-14. Holderness asserts that mythology of secret aristocratic ancestry of an apparently low-born hero is behind the authorship issue (he cites Robin Hood/Earl of Huntingdon) "ultimately it is this myth that explains the old quarrels about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays...These controversies still rumble on in the peripheries of the scholarly world." (p.11). Schoenbaum has pages and pages on the stuff of course. (pp.385-451 1993 edition), and also sees the issue as a product of bardolotry. He's very dismissive, "an irresistable passion in these men and women: the inexorable compulsion that usurps thought, courts ridicule, even (at times) unseats reason" (p.450) He adds hat the "continual flow of publication" on the subject means that any professor of English will regularly be asked about the issue by people who have heard of it and yielded to "the dark power of anti-Stafordian obsession". Paul B 18:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * At last some good, solid refs. Brilliant, Paul! --Old Moonraker 18:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, much improved. However we are now sourcing the statement that "popular interest in the subject ... has continued into the 21st century" citing one Samuel Schoenbaum (6 March 1927 – 27 March 1996). Lets not pat ourselves on the back just yet. AndyJones 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think adding Kaufman 2003 would cover that. Paul B 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, OK, but the wording of the section hasn't changed. The point of a source is that the text of the article has to reflect what that source actually says about the subject. We're getting there, but someone with access to these books needs to check what they say. If they say the same as our article says then that's fine, we just amend the ref to include a page number. If they don't then the article has to be changed to match the source. AndyJones 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Postscript to previous comment: I see some good stuff in Paul's comments above. If only the article contained some of it! AndyJones 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope it is not thought that the people at FAC are a sort of "them": they (me included) care about this article and they are only too aware that if it becomes a flagship article, which it will if featured, it should be able to resist scrutiny from the press, likely to include this article in any survey, and from academia. But you are getting there with the sourcing: when academics mention the matter, they do so to dismiss it, and that is starting to be reflected. I've read Schoenbaum, and I felt sorry for him having to drag through this matter, but his dismissive tone is typical of scholars. At the moment, that is not reflected in the over-fair article text, which I think needs to quote a pretty scornful dismissal like the one quoted above. Only by this means will the article make clear to the reader who doesn't check the sources that the idea that someone else wrote Shakespeare's plays is a pile of nonsense. Imagine that you came to the following paragraph not knowing anything about the matter. What would be your impression?


 * Around one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death, doubts began to be expressed about the authorship of Shakespeare's works. Alternative candidates proposed include Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. Although William Shakespeare of Stratford is accepted in academic circles as the author, popular interest in the subject continues.


 * You might be forgiven for thinking "typical old fuddy duddy academics; who needs them?" qp10qp 20:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Almost all the editors here would agree with you. But we also have user:smatprt, who is very dedicated Oxfordian, insistent on presenting the issue as a real matter of doubt rather than of curiosity. Paul B 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the people at FAC are some "them" trying to stop this article from reaching FA status. Almost all of the FAC suggestions have been good ones and have greatly improved the article. I just want people to remember that Wikipedia works by consensus and the authorship section has been an extremely consensus-testing issue here. While I disagree with smatprt on this authorship issue, he has been a valued editor of this article. Please keep that in mind as we improve this section with better sources and info. Creating a version that won't keep consensus in the coming years will not be useful. --Alabamaboy 20:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"To do" Proposal
The base of the entire authorship issue is reliable sources, thus, I believe we should first do some research among peer-reveiwed scholars and replace the sources, then work on the wording of the section, then work on the intro. There's no use clipping branches when the trunk is out of whack. Let me outline my plan:


 * 1) Replace all sources in the Authorship section with reliable, scholarly ones.
 * ✅ I think. All refs questioned in FAC are now replaced. Wrad 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Carefully reword the section according to consensus and according to the sources.
 * Other than the "Why" issue discussed later on this page. I think it is fine, except I would like to make this change:
 * Although all alternative candidates are flatly rejected in academic circles,[145] popular interest in the subject continues.[146][147][148]
 * I'd like to change this to: Although popular interest in the subject continues,[146][147][148] all alternative candidates for authorship are flatly rejected in academic circles.[145]


 * 1) Finally, reconsider the Lead according to whatever changes have been made.

Wrad 16:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening
While removing a reference that was being mischaracterized, it occured to me that there's really no particular reason for "There have been many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright, as well as questions pertaining to his sexuality and religious beliefs." to be in the lead of the article. This is adequately covered later, and it's not important enough to be in the lead. It's excess verbiage we don't particularly need. - Nunh-huh 16:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never liked that sentence. I won't be sad if it goes. RedRabbit1983 16:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the lead is supposed to summarize the article and the speculations about Shakespeare are a part of the article. The current language of "There have been many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright, as well as questions pertaining to his sexuality and religious beliefs." works for me. It doesn't imply support for the speculations but states that these speculations exist. The earlier statement that there isn't much historical info about Shakespeare was rightly removed b/c that isn't true; there's actually a lot of historical info about Shakespeare, at least compared to other playwrights and poets of that period (aside from the self-promoting Ben Jonson and literary writers who were aristocrats).--Alabamaboy 16:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see someone has already removed the sentence. I wish people would reach consensus on the controversial aspects of this article before making such edits.--Alabamaboy 16:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why I raised the question here rather than just doing it. However, it's well gone: a summary should include only major, important points, rather than each and every subject addressed by the article. - Nunh-huh 16:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the sentence is a problem, but it's not ideal to have disputed Oxfordian literature as our source. I'd suggest using Gary Taylor's Reinventing Shakespeare, Hogarth Press, 1990, which discusses in detail disputes about authorship (pp.210-23), sexuality (pp.261-3; 342; 394) and religious affiliation (p.145). Paul B 16:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether RedRabbit was right or wrong (and personally I can see his point) I propose we all leave the lead in the form he left it in, while we hammer this out, here. I have invited Smatprt to join this conversation. AndyJones 16:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. As I said, I support the sentence above, for the reasons I previously stated.--Alabamaboy 16:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry - just read your request. So here I am. I agree with Paul and Alabamaboy and support the sentence as well.  But we were responding to the first (or 2nd) FA that said the sentence just hung there. It obviously needed a "why" that applied to all the speculations.  Whoever came up with "lack of historical facts", solved it for all of us (or so I thought).  And yes, while we have lots of historical data and stories and traditions, the list of actual "facts" is pretty short.  And his "lost years" - also leave a historical gap. I also agree with Paul that using Gary Taylor is preferable as he addresses ALL the speculations.  Well done, Paul. Smatprt 16:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So of course, now having read the request, you'll return to the previous version. A "why" made up by Wikipedians, and that is in fact, in error, doesn't improve the article. - Nunh-huh 16:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at my recent "To do" Authorship post above for my thoughts on this. Wrad 16:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a reliable ref for the "not enough info" bit. Whatever else there is can be added, but please take a look at my proposal above about this whole thing. Wrad 16:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrad - I am content with the format you propose.Smatprt 17:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * after two edit conflicts:not read you guys through thoroughly yet OK. A few 2p-worth issues from me:
 * To me, it seems POV to talk about "the works attributed to" our man. If the reliable sources say he wrote them it's not open to wikipedians to cast doubt upon that consensus by using words that suggest that a matter which is not in question, is in question. I appreciate that an anti-Strat would take an opposite view, and I respect that, but the article must run with what we can reliably source, and we cannot reliably source that anti-Strafordianism is credible. However, I will not press this point if the consensus is against me.
 * I'm strongly in favour of including the authorship question on this page, and I'm well aware that we've all had a tougher ride through the FA process by taking that stance. It's a good sign that we're mostly prepared to stand our ground when it matters.
 * Paul, am I correct to understand that you are saying Gary Taylor's book supports the sentence in the intro, pretty-much as we had it before? If yes (and subject to my first point, and a bit of copy-editing perhaps) I'd support its restoration. No-one is going to question GT's reliability.
 * As I say, just my 2p worth. I'm inviting comments rather than trying to lay down the law. AndyJones 16:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: the matter under discussion here is not whether the authorship "question" should be treated in the article, but whether it needs to be included in the lede. - Nunh-huh 17:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, since we clearly aren't all mature enough to handle my "lets keep it as it is until we've hammered it out" suggestion, how about we all agree to keep it as it is NOW until we've hammered it out? And, yes, I am banging the keys. Does anyone have a problem with THAT? AndyJones 17:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Apologies to everyone. Forget I spoke. Choler overblown with walking round the quadrangle, and all that. AndyJones 17:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether it would be entirely accurate to say Taylor can be said to support the intro to the sentence ('Because so few historical facts...'), but it's not an unreasonable generalisation, since if there were much more information, some of these disputes would go away. Taylor's book is an examination of Shakespeare's changing reputation and its relation to changing social values. His opinion of the authorship controversy is similar to Schoenbaum's, though much less aggressive. He sees it in the context of the sacralisation and desacralisation of canonical texts as a discursive mode in Victorian culture, tied in with Darwinianism, Higher Criticism of the Bible etc. He also sees it as a parallel to the emergence of modern scholarly "authorship" debates at the same time (were bits of Macbeth written by someone else? etc). The religion issue is discussed in the context of 18th C critics who have either pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic sympathies (esp Edmund Malone's anti-Catholicism). The sexuality issue crops up throughout the book in connection with the desire of authors to either associate WS with homosexuality, or dissociate him from it. Paul B 17:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there's no reference to support it (and frankly, if Taylor had made the assertion, all we could say is "According to Taylor....", or as seems more to be the case "One explanation that we think we can read into Taylor, among many others we might also mention here but have chosen not to....), we hardly need include it in the lead. It's not a viewpoint that is generally held, it's just a "just so" explanation that might be held. Since there are references that support the fact that we have a great number of historical facts about Shakespeare, we'd wind up with dueling references, something clearly not appropriate for the lead paragraph in an article. If we can find a reputable scholar who has posited this explanation, that reference and any consequent discussion can be placed in the daughter article. - Nunh-huh 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are arguing here. By "this explanation" do you mean the lack of information? That these matters have - on and off - been discussed over the centuries is not in dispute is it? Paul B 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, by "this explanation" I mean "It was a lack of facts that made people posit a different author". That people have speculated about these things is not in issue; that they were motivated by lack of evidence is. - Nunh-huh 19:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll fess up. I'm the one who added it, at a time when the debate was calm and things were being less microscoped. I got it from the Shakespearean authorship page, which points out several arguments used by anti-Stratfordians about the lack of evidence about his background. For example, the lack of proof that he attended the Grammar School or a University, is used by theorists. Whether or not this is complete balderdash, it is one of the reasons such a theory exists. If we had pictures of Shakespeare and an autobiography written by him, there would probably be fewer theories about him. Anyway, there may be sources to be garnered from the Shakespearean authorship page, but if not... we still have the problem. Wrad 18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously people tend not to make things up that can be directly contradicted by known facts, but that doesn't mean that it was the absence of those known facts that motivated them to make the stuff up. There's no reason to try to "save" this explanation: it's wrong. - Nunh-huh 18:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since there are no surviving records of Stratford school the lack of direct evidence is hardly surprising. Of course there is much less evidence about many other writers, but we don't get conspiracy theories developing, so there's clearly more to it than mere lack of evidence. In some ways it's about the kind of evidence that is available (S's business dealings; his writing as a money-making job) and its claimed incompatability with a "bardolatry" view of S as a pure-minded poet and great thinker. Both Schoenbaum and Taylor discuss this in detail. Frankly I'd like the authorship section to concisely discuss these arguments and the history - while also treating fairly the views of anti-Statfordians - rather than be a kind-of sop to doubters. Paul B 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Nunh's right. None of the other speculations sections talk about why. We're trying to keep those sections short. Why not just leave out any mention of why, since it is so difficult to prove that kind of thing? I don't think it would hurt the article. I do think it would hurt to put in a faulty speculation about it, though. Wrad 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It has certainly been argued, almost as a cliché, that there are few facts about Shakespeare's life, but as a historian, I'm always surprised at how many there are. That case can be argued, too (the following came up as my first Google Books hit, from Sylvan Barnet's edition: "More facts are known about William Shakespeare than about any other playwright of the period except Ben Jonson."). My guess is that literary scholars will tend to point out the paucity of facts while historians will not. I recently had a terrible time trying to find information about the Jacobean painters John de Critz and Paul van Somer I in order to start articles about them. These were important royal painters (de Critz was the king's serjeant painter) and many paintings by them remain, though, as with the playwrights, attribution always leaves doubts). The sorts of bits and pieces of information about them that remain are similar (though fewer) to those for Shakespeare: in de Critz's case, our main piece of evidence is a bill! Someone above suggested that we know more about Jonson than Shakespeare because he was self-publicising, but I daresay Shakespeare was too, since he was part of the commercial theatre; the real difference, I think, is that Jonson worked for the king and queen as one of the two principal creators of the court masques, about which we know a good deal, at least until records dry up after about 1610, and that role made him a prominent figure of the day, since the queen's masques were one of the events of the year in aristocratic and diplomatic circles.qp10qp 20:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well my own specialism is actually art. Since I have an interest in engravers of the period, the claim that little is know about WS seems quite strange in contrast to the f-all that is known about most Brit artists - even the "big names" of the period such as Hilliard; still, the fact remains that paucity of information helps sustain the doubters, even if it's not really the cause. Paul B 20:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So the consensus is leaning heavily towards removing the statement. Wrad 21:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly seem to have talked myself into it! Paul B 21:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

True consensus needed
Despite the statement directly above, the removal of the speculations sentence from the lead is not consensus. Smatprt and myself have both stated we were okay with this sentence in the lead: "There have been many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright, as well as questions pertaining to his sexuality and religious beliefs." I'd also be ok changing the words "attributed to him" to "written by him" and Smatprt probably would also be ok. But I must admit I'm growing increasingly disturbed by this FAC. Smatprt has now removed support for the FAC for what I must agree it is beginning to look like excessive POV pushing on this authorship issue. I agree that mainstream academic support for these speculations is almost nonexistance, but there is popular support and some academic support. While I don't support these speculations and have tried over the years to keep them in their proper perspective within the article, the attempt to totally whitewash the article with regards to these issues is silly. The statement "Although all alternative candidates are flatly rejected in academic circles" is POV and wrong, even if sourced. There are some academics who support alternative candidates (even if they are not mainstream, top-flight academics). As such, I'm removing my support from this FAC until true consensus can be found on this issue.

In my opinion, having this statement in the lead would be accurate and NPOV:


 * "There have been many speculations about the man, including whether his works were actually written by another playwright, as well as questions pertaining to his sexuality and religious beliefs."

As for the actual authorship section, this seems like accurate and NPOV language:


 * Around one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death, doubts began to be expressed about the authorship of Shakespeare's works. Alternative candidates proposed include Francis Bacon,[143] Christopher Marlowe,[144] and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.[145][146] Although William Shakespeare of Stratford is widely accepted in academic circles, popular interest in the subject continues,[147] albeit well outside serious scholarship.[148][149]

The wording above seemed to be something that people here could agree on and support.

I know a number of us have worked really hard on this article, but if true consensus can't be found on this, then the FAC does not deserve to pass. The above wording won't satisfy everyone totally, but it seems to be something we can all come together on. Please let me know what people think.--Alabamaboy 22:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of every word. Not only in favor. Very satisfied. I would like to point out as well that the references in the Authorship section have been overhauled and replaced with more reliable ones and footnotes. When I said consensus, I merely meant on the removal of the "Because so little is known" part. Wrad 22:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, then apologies for my misunderstanding. Still, I want people to come together and agree on either this wording or a different wording so this silly reverting and borderline edit warring stops. Unless this happens, I will continue to oppose. Best,--Alabamaboy 22:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, if the article can't address this without misrepresentation, it should not be a featured article. The paragraph quoted above has one major flaw, which is "Although William Shakespeare of Stratford is widely accepted in academic circles," which fails to indicate exactly what he's accepted as. It's incomplete, and sounds funny. I'd suggest "Around one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death, doubts began to be expressed about the authorship of Shakespeare's works. Serious scholars agree with near unanimity that William Shakespeare is the author of the plays attributed to him. Outside serious scholarship, popular speculation about authorship continues.[147][148][149] The proposed alternative candidates include Francis Bacon,[143] Christopher Marlowe,[144] and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.[145][146] ".  The only real question is if this is a formulation that Smatprt could resist the temptation of tinkering with. Nunh-huh 22:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not just say: "Although William Shakespeare of Stratford is widely accepted as the author in academic circles..."? That is a lot simpler, and seems to address your concern. Wrad 22:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I object very strongly to the efforts of some of the FAC editors to excise the authorship section, and I say that as a card-carrying "Stratfordian". However, the real issue about the intro sentence seems to be about the phrase about the paucity of evidence, not about the rest of the sentence. As I've said, ideally, I think the authorship section should be written differently. I think it should be more like this:


 * Almost as soon as Shakespeare's works began to be canonised as models of dramatic art and of intellectual sophistication, some critics also began to doubt that a mere provincial actor could have been their author. Several Victorian writers suggested that the philosopher Francis Bacon may have been the true author, a theory first proposed by James Wilmot. By the early twentieth century these ideas had been taken up by several distinguished writers including Mark Twain and Sigmund Freud. In the later twentieth century the candidacy of Edward de Vere, earl of Oxford became more popular. Nevertheless, the great majority of professional scholars have rejected the theory, suggesting that it is motivated more by snobbery and mythology than solid evidence.


 * Of course that's just a draft. Paul B 22:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I could support your version but I strongly doubt we could get consensus on it. Nunh-huh, "Serious scholars" also strikes me as POV (especially repeating this phrase twice). How about this:


 * Around one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death, doubts began to be expressed about the authorship of Shakespeare's works. Proposed alternative candidates include Francis Bacon,[143] Christopher Marlowe,[144] and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.[145][146] Among academics and scholars, there is near unanimity that William Shakespeare is the author of the plays attributed to him, but popular interest in the subject continues.[147]"

That wording keeps things simple and NPOV. If people want more info, they can read the main article on the subject. I should also add that, as Awadewit stated in the FAC, this authorship debate is making the article unstable. We need to come to consensus ASAP or the FAC will fail. --Alabamaboy 22:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine. Maybe just change the last sentence to: "Although popular interest in the subject continues, among academics there is near unanimity that William Shakespeare is the author of the plays attributed to him." This places more stress on the academic viewpoint. Wrad 22:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable, and I agree that Wrad's revision makes it flow better. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And Paul, when it comes to evidence, I would call your attention to the overhaul of references recently done on the section, along with footnotes making several of the points your proposal does. Wrad 22:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's simple but it does not explain anything. I think Awadewit is as much of an evangelistic ideologue on this matter as some other editors. My wording fits the evidence of the RSs that have been produced. Paul B 22:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alabamaboy, I think you misunderstood: when Wrad referred to consensus, he meant on the point in the intro about so little being known (it has also been argued by some writers that quite a lot is known). I don't think the whole sentence that you mention; should be trashed, but it needs copyediting ("Many speculations" is odd English, for example: surely the usual form is "much speculation") and isn't fully integrated with what went before.


 * As far as the paragraph on authorship is concerned, even Awadewit has said that a brief dismissal would be sufferable; and so cutting it is not on the agenda, by majority verdict (I am in the minority but realistic). In which case, discussion is bound to continue on how to improve the passage and its references. For a start, it is badly written, starting as it does with an unnecessary passive construction. I do not believe that Smatprt has made his case that any serious academics question Shakespeare's authorship, but he has made the case that some serious academics have discussed the matter. Therefore, Awadewit's problem with the weaker sources in this paragraph can be addressed by removing them and allowing the references to Schoenbaum and Holderness and other serious academics to cover the whole matter (since the article is not endorsing the theories of Delia Bacon and co, references to those sources is not needed: all that is needed are references to serious academic sources who, in dismissing the theories, would mention Bacon, Oxford, and co. en passant).qp10qp 23:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The bigger point, though, is that by going back and forth on all this we have been making the article so unstable that it is about to fail the FAC (IMHO). Please see possible final language below.--Alabamaboy 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not going back and forth, it's gradually improving. Raul has made it very clear that he doesn't regard editing work in response to the FAC process as instability. Instability is destructive edit warring. Chill for a moment and go with the process: the article is getting closer each day.qp10qp 23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are right. I'm going to step away from this and work on other projects. I've proposed a final version below.--Alabamaboy 23:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Final consensus versions?
This statement in the lead:


 * "There have been many speculations about the man, including whether his works were actually written by another playwright, as well as questions pertaining to his sexuality and religious beliefs."

The actual authorship section:


 * Around one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death, doubts began to be expressed about the authorship of Shakespeare's works. Proposed alternative candidates include Francis Bacon,[143] Christopher Marlowe,[144] and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.[145][146] Although popular interest in the subject continues, among academics there is near unanimity that William Shakespeare is the author of the plays attributed to him.[147]"

Is everyone ok with this? If you are, please state so here ASAP. And if everyone agrees with these versions, please don't make any further changes to the authorship and speculations sections.--Alabamaboy 23:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I will support this, if only to resolve the issue and get the FA process back on track. However, I do wish there was some context provided, as requested on the last FAC. Paul made an attempt at this that was on the right track. Smatprt 00:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am. And again, Paul and Qp, look at the recent changes to the section, including the new references and footnotes. Wrad 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Meaning what? I know what the current text says. Paul B 23:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Meaning the footnotes contain all the information you wanted in your proposal. Wrad 23:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No they don't. They just list names. My version contexualises and creates a chronology supported by the sources. Anyway, the first rule of academic writing is to put it in the text rather than the note unless you have a very good reason to do otherwise. Paul B 23:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Kudos to Wrad for those edits (Kofi Annan's job is up for grabs, by the way), but it would be much simpler just to remove any reference to Delia Bacon, Hoffman and Looney. A mere reference to Schoenbaum would cover all that very simply.qp10qp 23:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My good reason for making them notes was because I knew if I touched the main text everyone would have a catfight :) Well, this is supposed to be a summary of the Authorship issue, so I don't know how much more you want to add, but I'm all ears. I would like the vast majority of information to remain in the Shakespearean authorship article, though, as I'm sure you would. A list of names and scholarly input on the theories is about all we can handle, although context might be a good add. Though Qp seems in favor of keeping it simple. I am too. Wrad 23:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the recent changes and before providing any statement of support, I have a question for the group - I was successful in locating several true academics, including a Dr. Strittmater who has indeed published on the issue, I obtained his published material, as well as an online version for you to check. I provided three different cites to his work that supported the history of the authorship, the reasoning behind it, and cites for Oxford. (Bacon was also mentioned in Strittmater's published material.)  This was all done as a response to the FAC and requests from awadewit. my quesiton is - why were each and every one of those references cut?  What made them not a RS? If at least one of these can be restored, I would feel less like censorship is being employed and would be inclined to support these statements. If the non-academic Kathman has been added back in, and (and whith other non-academics) is considered reliable, then the deletion of Stritmatter cannot stand without accusations of POV and censorshipSmatprt 23:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And while I disagree with Paul's conclusions (that it all boils down to snobbery), I do appreciate his attempt to provide some context for the existance of the issue. That is what the paragraph has been missing. I also agree with Paul that the lack of historical data is a fair generalization.  If we had a script in his hand, any autobigraphical statements, if the names of Heminges and Condel were'nt added to the will after the fact, or if the folio contained anything other than circumstantial evidence, we would not be having these conversations. But lacking concrete evidence, speculations continue. Smatprt 23:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not my conclusion, it's the conclusion of most academics who have written about this. We don't have to agree to accept that that's the majority view. I tried to be be fair by describing Freud and Twain as "distinguished" rather than as "amateur", which I could have done had I been pushing a POV. Paul B 23:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * They were taken because of Awadewit's comment on the FAC stating that they were unreliable. Wrad 23:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrad/Everyone - Please explain why Stritmatter (academic) is not reliable and David Kathman (distinguished amateur) is.Smatprt 23:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Awadewit's comment. Basically he says it was a dissertation and dissertations are notoriously faulty. Wrad 23:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Very true. And I've read some stinkers. Kathman isn't an amateur. His publication record demonstrates that he's accepted by the best as a legitimate scholar. Stritmatter is far less accepted. Paul B 00:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

By publication record, do you mean the one chapter in someone else's book? What other authorship writing of his has been published (except on his own website?)Smatprt 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Smatprt, you miss the point entirely because you are so obsessed with point-scoring about Oxfordianism. In fact Kathman has published in several other places, as has already been pointed out to you. As it happens, I think that Awadewit is as irrational on this matter as, IMO, you are. You can think I'm wrong, of course, but Awadewit is making a big issue out of this, for reasons I think are unfair. I think my verson of the text - plus notes - would meet his objections. Your need constantly to argue in favour of anti-Statfordianism is just making matters worse by, as it were, jabbing at open wounds.


 * How about:


 * As soon as Shakespeare's works began to be canonised as models of dramatic art and of intellectual sophistication, some critics also began to doubt that a mere provincial actor could have been their author. Several Victorian writers suggested that the philosopher Francis Bacon may have been the true author, a theory first proposed by James Wilmot [ref to schoenbaum]. By the early twentieth century these ideas had been taken up by several distinguished writers including Mark Twain and Sigmund Freud.[ref to ogburn?] In the later twentieth century the candidacy of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford became more popular.[ref to looney, ogburn] Nevertheless, the great majority of professional scholars have rejected the theory, suggesting that it is motivated more by snobbery and mythology than solid evidence.[ref to Holderness, Schoenaum, Taylor] Dissenters, known as anti-Stratfordians, continue to disagree [ref to Stritmatter etc]. Paul B 00:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Refs to Stritmatter and Ogburn aren't going to get us FA status. We need academic, peer-reviewed sources. And please cool it with the personal attacks.  Just respond to the argument, not the person. Also, Smatprt, by publication record I believe he means peer-reviewed, scholarly articles by him or her have been published. Wrad 00:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since Kathman is opening old wounds, why not just find a better source. Surely academia has better to offer, yes?Smatprt 00:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool it yourself. I dobt that Smatprt is insulted by the fact that I am being honest. The most important point is to create a workable text. There is a difference between citing texts as evidence of what people think, and citing them as authorities. My proposal is clear on that difference. WP:RS is actually quite unambiguous about this. We can cite David Icke as evidence of what David thinks, but not as evidence that the Queen of England is actually a Reptile. Paul B 00:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Paul's version - it seems informative and neutral. john k 00:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul - I liked what you attempted (providing context), just not all that snobbery business, which just reopens old wounds. We had a version that was approved (if not wildly) by all the FA editors. Now, based on the controversial edits of the last few days, it is up for grabs once again. Ah well. BTW - With a minor change or two, I would support your version as well.Smatprt 00:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the theory isn't held by scholars, it's not going to be propounded by scholars. It's reasonable to cite the more famous amateur theorists for their own views, but no reason to cite the obscure ones. I'd like to see the time frame made more concrete, e.g. "Some one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death, as his works began to be canonised as models of dramatic art and intellectual sophistication, some commentators also began to express doubts that a "mere provincial actor" could have been their author. Several Victorian writers suggested that the philosopher Francis Bacon may have been the true author, a theory first proposed by James Wilmot [ref to schoenbaum]. By the early twentieth century these ideas had been taken up by several distinguished writers including Mark Twain and Sigmund Freud[ref to ogburn?]. In the later twentieth century the candidacy of Edward de Vere, earl of Oxford became more popular.[ref to looney, ogburn] Nevertheless, the great majority of professional scholars have rejected the theory, suggesting that it is motivated more by snobbery and mythology than solid evidence. [ref to Holderness, Schoenaum, Taylor]" ? - Nunh-huh 00:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm about to go. I still think Alabamaboy's version is the best proposal so far. Wrad 00:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * After all that has been said, I think at this point I agree with Wrad and will support Alabamaboy's version, as it has the best chance to pass FA. Smatprt 01:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just read a chapter called "Shakespeare and co." on Google Books (with much chicanery, I managed to read it all) in a book by Harold Love about attribution, published by Cambridge University Press. Since it goes through all theories methodically, I have used it to reference the sentence about Bacon, Oxford and Marlowe, which really didn't need three reference tags. I also combined it with the Kathman reference for the next sentence, since Love is wholly dismissive and calls the dissidents "a small splinter group", and also since Smartprt objects to Kathman. On the latter point, I am surprised at Smatprt, whom I usually respect for his arguments without agreeing with him. It is not valid for Smartprt to point out that Kathman hasn't had any more published than some of the authors he favours, like Ogburn; you have to take the editor as the key to the volume's peer review process, and since the book in which Kathman's contribution appears is edited by respected Shakespeare scholar Stanley Wells, it counts as a reliable source. Even so, the reference no longer depends only on Kathman.qp10qp 01:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

qp10qp- I only object to Kathman if we are deleting Stritmatter's published material, as Stritmatter is an academic who conducts ongoing research on the same subjects and using much the same source material as Kathman. Does that clarify my objection better? Smatprt 01:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked into Stritmatter; but the validity of Kathman has nothing to do with the validity of Stritmatter. Whatever the case with Stritmatter, Kathman is a reliable source.qp10qp 01:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was only addressing your statement that I compared Kathman to Ogburn, which was not the case. Smatprt 01:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I will add that in the past I held more esteem for Kathman than I do presently. As his personal website has grown, it becomes more angry and preachy - in essense, less professional. He also has begun to make more far reaching conclusions that simply don't make sense, given the sources he provides (or doesn't). Scan thru his website and form your own conclusion, but now he strikes me more as a lightning rod for anti-stratfordians, than a serious scholar. And I'm pretty sure Shakespearean academia has better to offer. However, that is simply MO and I realize others will disagree.Smatprt 02:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read neither his chapter nor his website; but the book's qualification as a reliable source is inarguable. Like most authors, Kathman is probably much improved by academic peer review and scholarly editing. No one is suggesting citing Kathman's website. qp10qp 02:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good morning, everyone
OK, I've got up and I'm in a marginally better temper, so let's review where things stand.

1. The Authorship section now reads:


 * ''Around 150 years after Shakespeare's death, doubts began to be expressed about the authorship of Shakespeare's works. Alternative candidates proposed include Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.[144] Although all alternative candidates are rejected in academic circles, popular interest in the subject continues.[145]


 * I still think historical context and details of scholarly opinion are better in the text than in the notes. This version reads almost like a disclaimer. Paul B 10:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but just so we are clear, that stuff is now not in the notes either. It is nowhere. See my point 2, below. AndyJones 11:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See here. AndyJones 11:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All the worse then! Paul B 11:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, It's better with the notes. Two questions - are the rules as stringent for notes as they are for references? and - what exactly is the harm in Wrad's notes that both Paul & I support? Smatprt 14:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that most of us have accepted that that is a stable version. WILL ANY DISSENTERS PLEASE SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HEREAFTER HOLD YOUR PEACE?

2. QP has removed Wrad's {note|Authorship} reference from the text, and for consistency I just removed it from the the notes section, also. I understand Wrad is happy with this (although Kudos for the hard work on it, which may be useful at another page).

WILL ANY DISSENTERS PLEASE SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HEREAFTER HOLD YOUR PEACE?

3. The sentence from the lead has been removed completely. I'm not sure I see a consensus for that but I think we definitely have a consensus for its opening words being removed since we are unable to source them. (Oh, how I wish the Singing Badger was here!) Correction, it seems only the opening words from that sentence have been removed, and I believe we DO have a consensus for that.

As before, WILL ANY DISSENTERS PLEASE SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HEREAFTER HOLD YOUR PEACE?

My understanding is that this little edit skirmish will not of itself harm our FA application, since it arose out of the FA process itself and therefore doesn't count as "instability".

Assuming those points are settled, I presume we can move on from the authorship issue.

4. This is the first featured article nomination I've been involved with, so can someone give me an idea of the procedure from here. Does the nomination stay open until we either get the star or people stop talking? Or is it like AfD where they give you five days, and then recycle your article for firelighters?

5. Have we got a current to-do list of matters still needing action if the FA application is to succeed? It's Sunday so you've got me and my small library for the whole day and I'm happy to rewrite and rewrite and to keep rewriting until no more rewriting will help. (Or until my wife drags me off on a trip somewhere, so pray for rain!)

6. With all the arguments above, has anyone noticed my utterly brilliant work on the "style" section? And will people now look it over and correct all of my mistakes, please?

AndyJones 07:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're sprightly this Sunday! I'm not: I'm hungover. I have noticed your "utterly brilliant work"; kudos, my friend. As for your other question, copyediting and citations are the only remaining issues. I had a quick look over the article and no sections offended me, except the introduction. I still don't like these sentences:


 * Shakespeare produced most of his known work between 1590 and 1612, although the exact dates and chronology of the plays attributed to him are uncertain. He is one of the few playwrights considered to have excelled in both tragedy and comedy, with works like Macbeth, Hamlet and King Lear ranking among the greatest plays of Western literature[2] and greatly influencing subsequent theatre and literature through their innovative use of plot, language, and genre.


 * There are many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright, as well as questions pertaining to his sexuality and religious beliefs.


 * Other than that, I think we've done very well and everyone should be applauded for their hard work. I'll read over the article properly when I'm not hungover. I hope to find that copyediting is no longer an issue. RedRabbit1983 08:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I got through a bottle of pinot grigio last night while editing this, which may account for my occasionally bad tempered responses. Hopefully my edits to the article itself aren't tainted by that too much. I'm sober as a judge, now, and drinking my fourth coffee of the morning. Oh dear. Anyway Wikipedia is not an alcoholics self-help group so let's get back to the copyediting. I'll have a look at those points you've just raised if you'll have a look at the opening sentences of "Stlye" and see if there's anything there that can be improved, replaced or removed. AndyJones 09:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * More specifically, I mean this bit:
 * ''Shakespeare's stagecraft and verse style bear the marks of the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods in which he lived,[70] his style developing not only with his own tastes and skills as a playwright but also in response to the tastes and requirements of his audiences.[71]
 * which (a) rather states the obvious when you get down to its meaning and (b) seems to be in more difficult language than the next few sentences. AndyJones 09:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the intro. I'm a bit scared of touching the sentence about speculations: my previous changes have, um, not found favour. I will give it some thought but I think any improvement to that sentence should be discussed here rather than made on the article itself. AndyJones 10:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done some copyediting on the intro. Can I have a view on this:


 * ''Because of Shakespeare's popularity, his works have been translated into every major living language.

...which seems to me to get the causality the wrong way round: ie he's popular because people have read his works, not the other way about. Am I just being too pedantic about this? I won't change it: I'll just let that thought rest for another editor to consider. AndyJones 10:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it is surely because of his high reputation. It's true of most "classic" writers, but I think it's fair to say that Shakespeare travels better than many other canonical authors, so popularity is probably the most concise way of saying "both admired and still widely read". Paul B 10:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good morning everyone. I just added in another academic source to the authorship section. Paul, I understand you view on this section, but can we simply keep this simple consensus version? I also understand Awadewit's objections on all this, but his desire to remove the section doesn't seem to have consensus. I believe we've met Awadewit's call for reliable sources, but at this point I strongly suggest we simply don't touch the authorship section anymore and simply go with this consensus version (which has the support of almost all the editors). If people can't support the article's FAC b/c of this 48-word section, so be it.--Alabamaboy 13:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus is consensus. I'm just expressing my view. If others don't agree, so be it. As for Awadewit It seems to me that s/he seems to find it almost impossible to distinguish between reporting on the fact that such an issue has arisen in the history of Shakespeare's reputation and endorsing the view that there is real doubt. Since the EB, Staney Wells, the Shakespeare Encyclopedia, Shoenbaum, Taylor, Irvin Mathus and others all report and comment on this too, I think we have a strong case. Paul B 14:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more...
 * I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
 * Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
 * Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
 * Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'"

Just a little morale boost for us all on this, again, sprightly morning:) This article has come a long way and will only get better. Wrad 13:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And Good Morning from the west coast! No wine for me, but I saw a great production of The Crucible last night. Ah...the blind leading the blind..."Will she fly, I hear she flys!" I guess the consensus on witches has changed a bit since then! Like Paul, I wish there was some context provided in both the lead and the short section, but I will support the current version (though not blindly! - thank you John Proctor). I do think the notes should be restored though. Thanks to Alabamaboy, Wrad and AndyJones for not giving up.Smatprt 14:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For those who still feel that the footnote was better than no footnote, can I ask if could take some comfort from the fact that the page contains several wikilinks to our article on the subject? And that those links are far more likely to be followed than the fottnote tag ever was? AndyJones 15:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the one who created the note, and I have little to no regrets about its leaving us, personally. I agree. Wrad 15:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing Authorship
I've just undone a QP edit which purported to remove duplicate sources. In fact they seem to have been three separate references to the same book but with different page references. I've no objection to, for example, consolidating into one note, but I don't think removing two of them completely does the job. AndyJones 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had another go at this. Is everyone happy? AndyJones 15:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Andy, give me time, for goodness' sake. I hadn't finished. See my note on your talk.qp10qp 15:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And what you've done is exactly what I was going to do. Always leave people's edits for a little time until they have finished their sequence.qp10qp 15:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I entered those sources and yes, they were to three separate page numbers. But I don't have a problem with consolidating them into one entry, as long as the page numbers remain. I must say, though, I'm troubled by the comment you made on Andy's talk page that Gibson isn't a major academic. The book was published by Routledge, for Pete's sake, and is a classic text that's been reprinted a number of times over the decades. I first encountered it while reading The Case For Shakespeare: the end of the authorship question by Scott McCrea, which is a great book that cites Gibson a number of times. Gibson's work has also been cited in a large number of other academic books. Gibson may not be a "major academic" but his work is of the highest academic caliber.--Alabamaboy 15:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, which is why I haven't objected to the book. I've been trying to look for the best sources, and I passed over McCrea and Gibson for that reason. But that comment was made because your replacing of the Love reference for the Gibson effectively replaced one that I had thought was better than Gibson. But don't worry about that: it's just a matter of opinion; and, of course, the Gibson is an acceptable reference.qp10qp 15:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to put the Love reference back in. Ironically, I thought people would object to having the Love reference b/c it was in the intro to a popular edition of one of Shakespeare's plays (i.e., might be seen as not academic enough, even though that's not the case. Please stick that reference back in if you want.--Alabamaboy 15:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the Love is an entire book about techniques of attribution, the leading one in the field. You are thinking of Orgel's introduction to the Penguin Classic edition. qp10qp 16:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a related question. Can anyone explain to me the reference to "about 150 years after Shakespeare's death" which starts this section? Does the source quoted at the end of the first sentence support it? If yes can the relevant passage be posted here so we can see it (sorry, no access to it myself). I've done a bit of digging which suggests that the first public intimation of anti-Stratfordianism was a paper presented to the Ipswich Philisophical Society by one James Cowell in 1805, which is closer to 200 years from our man's death. In any event, Cowell's paper doesn't seem to have created a great stir: it was not that which lit the flames of anti-Stratfordianism. The Oxford Guide to Shakespeare (published 2003) tells us that anti-Stratfordians have been active for around 150 years, which would take us back approx. 250 years from the poet's death.

I'm sorry to dig this up, but the sources really do have to demonstrably support the specific statements in the sentence they follow. AndyJones 16:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alabamaboy, your removal of the reference to Orgel's introduction to the Penguin Classic Shakespeare was a separate matter, which I haven't complained about simply because it was part of a four-source combined reference and so doesn't affect the referencing (though it is not really the done thing to remove valid references without making the proposal on the talk page). On the other hand, I chose that reference after hours and hours of reading because a) unlike the others, it was short (the Bacon, Marlow and de Vere theories were covered in three pages); b) it seemed to me much more likely that the readers would be able to check that source than all the others; c) the introduction not only described the theories but dismissed them quite pithily, reinforcing our assertion that the theories are rejected in academic circles: "Besides snobbery, one other quality characterizes the authorship controversy: lack of evidence". By the way, when Awadewit objected to the introductions to certain popular editions in the references, she was referring to the fact that the author wasn't named, not deprecating those sources per se: in fact, it takes considerable scholarship to edit an edition of Shakespeare. I thought that that particular introduction contained the best summary of the theories that I had come across. But it has gone now; and because there are other references, no matter.qp10qp 16:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Andy, as you know, I didn't add that source to that sentence; I added it to the one after it, which it referenced perfectly; another editor moved it up. You're asking me to go check it again, and, frankly, I only managed to read that whole chapter through a very slow process of cracking Google Books. As I don't recall the chapter referencing that I50 year date, and as the dating of the first questioning of authorship should be very easy to reference from other sources, I'd rather see that reference removed.qp10qp 16:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * qp10qp, apologies for removing the Orgel source. I also thought that was a great source but foolishly thought others might not believe it was academic enough. As said, if you want it in, feel free to put it back, but I agree that the other sources also work. For the record, this whole process has been confusing b/c it's hard to keep track of all that's going on with this article. I'm going to take a long Wikibreak from this point on. Before I go, I'll change my oppose to support on the FAC. Otherwise, I'm out of here. Take care.--Alabamaboy 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, please don't get me wrong, I have no criticism whatever of the sources, merely of the opening words of the sentence. I'm not asking anyone to go back and do any work they don't want to do: we're all volunteers, here, and I'm in no danger of forgetting that.

All I'm saying is that if I don't get a satisfactory reply I will amend the sentence to something I can reliably source from the Oxford guide. I think everyone should be happy with that. AndyJones 16:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'm happy. RedRabbit1983 16:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The earliest reference I am aware of has to do with Dr. James Wilmont, a fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. He conducted research in Stratford from 1781-1785 hoping to find information about Shakespeare. Based on missing records and other evidence he concluded that the author was not the Stratford man. It was these events that James Cowell related in his 1805 address to the IPS to which you refer, having been told by Wilmont himself. Cowell's own research was stimied by the lack of information he could find about the stratford man's life.
 * Also, see the 1786 work "The Story of the Learned Pig", an historical allegory whose chief character maintains that Shakespeare did not write Hamlet, Othello, and several others. The Learned Pig - Bacon - get it?
 * As far as sourcing this, mine is the Ogburn (1984)pgs 113-114. I have no idea if the Wilmont research is reported elsewhere, although it does jive with the Cowell information Andy mentions. This brings my back to the RS debate.  In this case, the best source available may not be found in standard academia.  As with other researchers you have mentioned on these pages that may not be "academic" but still a reliable source, when it come to the history of the authorship debate, a researcher like Ogburn should be considered reliable.  On this, we have the word of The Singing Badger, who assured us that on questions of S. Authorship, Ogburn was indeed a reliable source.
 * Also - both these sources betray nothing of snobbery as the source of their discontent. On the contrary - they both reference lack of historical data as the primary motivator. Did we not just cut "due to lack of historical information"?  This should really go back now (and I believe Wrad found an academic source for the same "lack of info" bit. Please restore so we have some context.Smatprt 19:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I have found a new source for much of this information - It's called "Shakespeare and his Rivals: A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy" by George McMichael and Edgar M. Glenn, a pair of college professors. It is copyright 1962, and published by The Odyssey Press, in NY. lib of congess card #62-11942. It is strictly informative, providing source documents, contemp. reference, first signs of doubt, etc. It makes it clear on the first page that "most academic scholars aceept that Shakespeare was Shakespeare", and in presenting each theory, pretty much dismisses them.
 * In the above "casebook", it states that the first to question Shakespeare's authorship was a "Captain Goulding" in book called "An Essay Against Too Much Reading", 1726, where the author, refering to Shakespeare, states that in "all probability cou'd not write English." According to the "Casebook", this was also reported in 1957 in "The Great Controversy" - The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined, by William F and Elisabeth S. Friedman, Cambridge University Press, pp1-4.Smatprt 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's James Wilmot who is normally identified as the first doubter, but his comments were not published and were not known, I think, until after Delia Bacon. I've never heard of Goulding, but it sounds as though he might just be saying that Shakespeare was a bad writer. We'd need a clearer sense of the context. Anyway, that's the kind of detail that goes in the Authorship article. Paul B 09:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction - as Andy says, Cowell published Wilmot's thoughts, but the locally published proceedings of the Ipswich Lit&Phil was so obscure that - apart from a few soon-forgotten people in Ipswich - no-one noticed it until the 1930s. The Victorian Baconianism is an entirely independent phenomenon. Paul B 10:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that this is what Goulding actually wrote:


 * Shakexpear has frighten'd three parts of the World from attempting to write; and he was no Scholar, no Grammarian, no Historian, and in all probability cou'd not write English. Although his Plays were historical...the History Part was given him in concise and short, by one of those Chuckles that could give him nothing else....I will give you a short Account of Mr. Shake­spear's Proceeding; and that I had from one of his intimate Acquaintance. His being imperfect in some Things, was owing to his not being a Scholar, which obliged him to have one of those chuckle pated Historians for his particular Associate...and he maintain'd him, or he might have starv'd upon his History. And when he wanted anything in his Way...he sent to him....Then with his natural flowing Wit, he work'd it into all Shapes and Forms, as his beautiful Thoughts directed. The other put it into Grammar.


 * Goulding's tone seems to be satirical, so it's difficult to know how seriously to take this, but he's not saying that S didn't write the plays. He's saying that S was rather like a modern film nmaker who might have to hire "historical consultants" to get facts right, and that another assistant corrected his grammar because his "natural flowing wit" was too unconstrained. That's a view typical of the period (S "warbles his native woodnotes wild"); his chaotic works needs to be corrected by more "learned" writers - just like Nahum Tate et al did. The "intimate acquaintance" he got ihis info from must have been very old! Paul B 11:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The 'Learned Pig' seems to have nothing to do with Bacon. The pig was a real "fairground" attraction at the time, supposed to be able to anwser questions. The story is a satirical account of the pig as a reincarnation of someone who first lived in Ancient Rome and was reincarnated many times since (which is why he knows so much). In the story he's responsible for half of human history from ancient times on. Writing Hamlet is just a very minor aspect of his many activities. Paul B 11:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)