Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

William Shakespeare
William Shakespeare is currently a Good Article and has recently been the subject of an intensive effort by WikiProject Shakespeare and others to bring the article to featured article status. Since this article is ranked among the 50 most viewed articles on Wikipedia, we feel it is of vital importance that this article reach FA status. To this end, the article has undergone several peer reviews, with the suggestions in the Wikiproject Biography peer review and the general peer review being extremely detailed and useful. After detailed discussions on these reviews, all relevant changes were made. Because a number of superlatives (such as greatest and pre-eminent) are often used with regards to Shakespeare, we have been extremely careful to both achieve consensus on the article's NPOV language and to cite as much information as possible. In all, there are 175+ citations. To reflect the dedicated work of the large number of editors who have taken part in the editing of William Shakespeare, a number of us are jointly nominating this article as a featured article candidate. Sincerely, --Alabamaboy 00:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Wrad 00:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC) AndyJones 07:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Romeo in love 17:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support This article is simply incredible. I see nothing in this article to go against the featured article criteria. --HHermans 22:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Comment  This is a good article on a key subject, but needs some tidying up, and maybe some expansion yet. Some suggestions:
 * There are many claims in the opening, but no mention or analysis of why he might deserve these accolades. Is it prefacing an article about Shakespeare, his life and work; or Shakespeare, his fame.
 * Possibly done. I'm waiting to see if the revised lead is what Ceoil had in mind. --Alabamaboy 01:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is improved, but I still don't get a sence of why he is held in such high regard. eg: "works like Macbeth, Hamlet and King Lear rank among the greatest plays of Western literature"...for their... Ceoil 22:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * " Two neighbours of Hathaway posted bond that there were no impediments to the marriage" - bonds.
 * "There appears to have been some haste" - Needs to be attributed.
 * "There appears to have been some haste" - Needs to be attributed.

✅
 * "Modern criticism has also labeled some of his plays" - drop 'also', 'described'.
 * ✅ Wrad 23:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Therefore there are signficant textual problems (difficulties in identifying which plays he wrote)" 'Therefore' is not needed, 'textual problems' is explained by the blue link, no need to explain in parenthesis.
 * ✅ Wrad 23:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * At 27 kB text, is the article a comprehensive treatment. Ceoil 23:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Unless someone can point out a notable fact that is missing. Wrad 23:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Its more about context and analysis than facts. Ceoil 23:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I should note that the article is 71 KB long, not 27. The reason we didn't go into greater detail in the lead on why Shakespeare has all those accolades is because of space concerns; the article does go into that detail later on. Are you sure that info belongs in the lead? Otherwise, I totally agree with your other changes Best,--Alabamaboy 23:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alabamaboy, it's 71kb incl. html and images; 27kb of text. Don't get me wrong, the article is very good - my point is that it would benifit if ye stated explicitly in the lead why Shakespeare is important in his own right, and not just from  accolades. Ceoil 23:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the misunderstanding. I'll add in that info to the lead shortly. I also think the article is extremely comprehensive, as Wrad said. I'll let you know when I've made the changes you've referred to. Best,--Alabamaboy 23:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. Ceoil 23:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes, comprehensive in context and analysis, too. There are quite an array of points of view in the group that has worked on this article, and all seem to be satisfied on this. Wrad 23:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In the lead I see neither context nor analysis, only what others attribute. Ceoil 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I thought you were talking about the article as a whole. I believe Alabama is addressing your concern. Wrad 23:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wrad, I'll post more suggestions later; great work so far. Ceoil 23:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of work since I last posted and its encouraging to see the editors respond so quickly. Reading further however, I think the entire text would benefit from a copy edit. To take one paragraph to give examples:
 * "The twentieth century saw the development of the a professional field of study known as English" - Typo, and meaning is unclear - surely there is a tighter definition than 'English'.
 * ✅ I recognize these are just examples, but I see no harm in fixing them. Wrad 22:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "and his works were analysed from feminist and Marxist perspectives" - Left me hanging; needs to be developed rather than just mentioned.
 * This has been dealt with. ✅ RedRabbit1983 11:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * " an ironic fate considering the social mix of Shakespeare's original audience" - I didn't notice, but have you explained who his original audience comprised of earlier in the text. Ceoil 11:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I found this earlier in the article: Stories of various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated and the poor and illiterate. Can I consider it done? RedRabbit1983 15:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Shakespeare's plays remain more frequently staged" - are more.
 * ✅ Wrad 22:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "more frequently staged than the works of any other playwright. In addition, Shakespeare's plays are frequently adapted into film" - 'Frequently' apprears in consecutive sentences.
 * ✅ Wrad 23:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "including Hollywood movies specifically marketed to broad teenage audiences" - No need for specifically, 'for' a broad...
 * ✅ Wrad 23:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As a last point, there are a lot of stubby one or two sentence paragraphs, often on different aspects of the same thread. Could these be merged. Ceoil 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The first three paras of "London and theatrical career" begin with the words "By 15** Shakespeare...".
 * ✅ Wrad 23:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I count ten instances of the word also in the body text; eliminate as many as ye can, per the style guide redundancy (though this is not policy).
 * "Today, scholars assign Hamlet to a status of its own" - not explained.
 * Explained now. ✅ RedRabbit1983 15:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "because they seem to mingle comic and tragic motifs" - 'mix', or 'incorporate both'. Ceoil 22:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed this a while ago. ✅ RedRabbit1983 15:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Have switched to support in light of the extensive work over the last few days. Ceoil 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fix needed Some dates in the footnotes need wikilinking. Epbr123 00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not too familiar with the format for this. Could you enlighten me? Wrad 00:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Full dates in the footnotes need linking, such as the access dates of ref numbers 156 and 97. Epbr123 00:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll handle this. And due to some added footnotes, those ref numbers are now 162 and 98. --Alabamaboy 00:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Already ✅ Had to fix quite few of them. Should be fine now. Wrad 00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The dates are linked if you use the proper citation templates, available on Citation templates--Romeo in love 01:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything seems to be alright in that area for now. Wrad 01:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Object on 1a - this article's prose is at times repetitious, wordy and awkward. I suggest that the editors find someone who has not worked on the article, someone with fresh eyes, to copy edit it. Here are some examples:
 * The first paragraph of the lead has three sentences in a row that begin "He [verb]"; such repetition of structure is not effective here - it is only monotonous.
 * ✅ I can't find this in the lead. RedRabbit1983 06:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As a result of all this, Shakespeare is the most quoted writer in the history of the English-speaking world and has been adulated by eminent figures through the centuries. - Very awkward use of "adulated."
 * ✅ I changed this to "revered", and I split up the sentence so it makes logical sense. RedRabbit1983 06:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * At the age of eighteen, he married Anne Hathaway, aged twenty-six, under the authority of a bond dated 28 November 1582. - "under the authority of a bond" is unfamiliar language to the average reader.
 * ✅ Wrad 02:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Two neighbours of Hathaway posted bonds that there were no impediments to the marriage. - a verb instead of "that" perhaps?
 * ✅ changed to "stating". Wrad 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of Shakespeare's plays have the reputation of being among the greatest in the English language and in Western literature. - wordy
 * ✅ adjusted sentence. Wrad 02:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * - still wordy - it is the "being" part that needs to be removed
 * I changed it to "are reputed to be". RedRabbit1983 05:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Modern criticism has described some of his plays as "problem plays." This term is applied to overlapping groups of plays by scholars beginning with F. S. Boas, W. W. Lawrence, and E. M. W. Tillyard. The common element in the definition is that the plays so labelled present "a perplexing or distressing problem" in a way that raises rather than answers ethical questions. - wordy
 * ✅ I believe this has been fixed. Wrad 18:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, "drama became the ideal means to capture and convey the diverse interests of the time." Stories of various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated and the poor and illiterate. - Inline citation should go after the quotation.
 * I object to this statement of opposition, since the inline citation is positioned a sentence later. The citation applies to the first two sentences in the paragraph.--Romeo in love 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All quotations need to be cited immediately after the quotation marks so that there is absolutely no confusion about where they are being cited from. This is just a common courtesy to the person being quoted and the reader. Awadewit | talk  03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've copied the citation to the first sentence. RedRabbit1983 06:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ by RedRabbit1983--Romeo in love 14:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Around one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death in 1616, doubts began to be expressed about the authorship of the plays and poetry attributed to him. - placement of date is confusing
 * ✅ eliminated date altogether ("in 1616" not needed) Wrad 02:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

General points:
 * Question: While it is generally accepted in academic circles that Shakespeare's plays were written by Shakespeare of Stratford and not another author, popular interest in the subject, particularly the Oxfordian theory,[150][151] has continued into the 21st century.[152] - Then why does the page discuss the authorship question at all? Academics are the experts here and their work should be the basis of the page, not popular speculation. Note that your other two subsections in the "Speculation" section draw their arguments from academics.
 * The entire speculations section was already shortened quite a bit, based on your earlier proposals on the peer review. The authorship section was decided on very precisely over an agonizing debate.  Some say that it isn't academic, others disagree.  I think it is best to leave this section as it is.  It is a notable argument about Shakespeare which has extended over centuries.  Sure, it's debatable, but I don't see how we can make it any shorter without completely deleting it, and I don't see how deleting it would keep the article comprehensive. Wrad 02:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on the best sources available, which here would be literary critics and historians, removing this section would not make the article incomplete because the vast majority of academics believe that Shakespeare wrote the plays. Including the section only perpetuates the false idea that there is a "controversy." There isn't. The controversy wages outside the walls of academe. It would seem more responsible to include a link to the page on authorship in the "See also" section rather than granting it legitimacy with an entire subsection. I assume that the editors desire more space for other topics - removing this subsection would give them that. (Side note: I was surprised that the editors limited themselves to 27kb of text - that is a very short article for a writer as important as Shakespeare. I would suggest that editors think about expanding it, since they have the room. They could then include details so that each section doesn't sound so vague.)

Awadewit | talk  02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll leave it to others to decide on this, but I will say that your point was brought up in the discussion, and again, that this was the result of a consensus involving a very large number of editors. I would also say that while academics largely deny the question of authorship, they do not deny that it has been questioned.  The section does acknowledge that most academics don't accept it, so I don't know that it will mislead anyone.  May I suggest a rewording, rather than a removal? Switching it around to say "although popular opinion still explores the issue, academics..." instead of the other way around? Wrad 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, literary critics do not deny that the authorship has been questioned (I never said that - strawman argument), they just know that the theories are bogus. Similarly, biologists accept that others question evolution, but because biologists themselves know that there is no "controversy" over the acceptance of evolution within science, the current debates over evolution in the United States do not merit a large section on the page (note that the evolution page discusses that issue in a single sentence that is embedded within a useful history of how evolutionary thought has been received). Nothing similar is being done here. The "controversy" is being granted legitimacy because it is being given a whole subsection on the main Shakespeare page. It should be its own separate page and linked to this article. Awadewit | talk  03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The section is called "speculations" not "controversies". The areas of sexuality, religion and authorship inspire passionate well sourced debates that continue, and for some unexplained reason, seem to grow as the years go by. There are those who will argue tooth and nail that Shakespeare was or was not a Catholic. Many say the issue is settled but the debates rage on.  Same with those surrounding Shakespeare's bisexuality. With ongoing hubbub in the media, amongst the populace, and even small pockets of academia, I think these areas of "speculation" certainly should be addressed. This article does that and no more.Smatprt 04:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the "Sexuality" and "Religion" subsections, as I made clear, because those are debates that the Shakespeare experts (literary critics and historians) are engaged in. The article is not obliged to present the "speculation" of uninformed writers, though. Just as the evolution article does not need to discuss creationism, which is not an accepted viewpoint within biology, the Shakespeare article does not need to discuss the authorship "controversy" because it is not accepted by literary critics and historians (the academic experts). As I said before, the authorship "controversy" should have its own page and be linked to the Shakespeare page, as is creationism. Awadewit | talk  11:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I came off as trying to set up a strawman against you. I wasn't.  I was just pointing out that in my opinion, the authorship question is an important part of Shakespeare history, and should be included. You say the evolution section has one sentence on creation.  This article has only three on this issue.  I just don't think that this is giving it undue weight, though I would like to reword it.  I'm also interested in where else you would put the information?  It needs at least a sentence. Wrad 18:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that comparing authorship research with creationism is way off the mark. The authorship question has attracted interest from the likes of Mark Twain and Walt Whitman to Supreme Court Justices. Great men and deep thinkers throughout history have sincerely doubted the Stratford attribution. This is simply not true of fringe theories such as creationism, holocaust denial or moon landing doubters.  The article, as is, does justice to all concerned. If anything, there should still be a sentence explaining why the speculation exists in the first place. This is currently missing from the Authorship section.Smatprt 20:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have great trouble agreeing that great men and deep thinkers have not believed in the creation! However I do agree that parallels with creationism are extremely unhelpful in a discussion of this subject. AndyJones 20:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Point by point answers:
 * in my opinion, the authorship question is an important part of Shakespeare history - The opinions of wikipedia editors are irrelevant - it is the opinions of the experts that determine what is included on a page. Awadewit | talk  21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You say the evolution section has one sentence on creation. This article has only three on this issue. - That one sentence is embedded within a larger section outlining the reception of evolution which is very different than three sentences occupying their own subsection. Making something a subsection draws attention to its importance simply through the layout and argues for its significance. Awadewit |  talk  21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The authorship question has attracted interest from the likes of Mark Twain and Walt Whitman to Supreme Court Justices. Great men and deep thinkers throughout history have sincerely doubted the Stratford attribution. - It doesn't matter - they were wrong. Awadewit |  talk  21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is simply not true of fringe theories such as creationism, holocaust denial or moon landing doubters. - This is incorrect. Until Darwin, nearly everyone, including such great thinkers as Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler believed in some form of creationism. Creationism is only fringe now because we have a scientific explanation for how life evolved. It obviously used to be a mainstream idea, even among scientists. Awadewit | talk  21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I made this parallel is because I have found in my discussions at wikipedia that examples are almost always necessary to explain an argument; it is often impossible to argue only in the abstract. The argument I made, which no one has yet responded to, is that "Because the authorship question is not one explored by the experts, it should not be included in the page per wikipedia policy of only mentioning the topics raised by reliable sources." Please note that I tried to make this argument twice without invoking any examples. When that failed, I tried using an example to make my point clearer. And, typically, the conversation has now focused on the example rather than the argument it was meant to illustrate. Please try to address the argument directly. Thank you. Awadewit | talk  21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe we did address it directly, at least Alabamaboy and I did. Some scholars do think the idea has merit, and it is an important historical fact that the authorship has been questioned. Also, if the example is so persuasive, what's wrong with addressing it if we think it's faulty? Give us some credit. We're not out to get you.  We have just been over this all before and came to the end we did after a lot of debate. Wrad 22:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am happy to address the argument and your example directly:
 * YES, you are, of course, correct about the many deep thinkers on creationism - I am afraid my intention was not clear due to the way I constructed my answer (my bad). To rephrase:  What I meant to say was that in spite of TODAY'S science there are still as many, if not more, great writers, artists, statesmen and even "experts" who still question the mainstream attribution, than there were 150 years ago when the first doubts were published.  That is not so with creationism and true "fringe" theories.
 * Who are they? Awadewit | talk  02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And YES - the science vs. creationism debate is over because science now has a proven explanation - and there's the rub - there have been NO groundbreaking discoveries in the recent past that have provided any scientific proof of the mainstream attribution.
 * But the whole point is that the mainstream attribution has some evidence (such as the Folio, etc.) while the other theories have little or none. Awadewit | talk  02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If your main argument is "Because the authorship question is not one explored by the experts, it should not be included ..." then you have not seen that there are numerous experts who have been cited on the topic in full compliance with RS policy, including both academics and persons of note.
 * I hope I have addressed your argument directly. Thank you. Smatprt 23:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that none of the sources you quote is a reliable academic source: I have, as yet, seen no evidence that academics debate this issue. As I said before, it is immaterial if others do, they are not the experts and it is experts that wikipedia relies on. Awadewit | talk  02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delia Bacon, writing in 1857, is not considered a modern academic source.
 * Calvin Hoffman, "a Broadway press agent and sometime writer" is not considered an academic source.
 * The Ogburns: a family dedicated to proving that Shakespeare didn't write the plays. They are not academics. (By the way, the citation should say Charlton Ogburn, Jr.)
 * The Britannica citation actually relies on the work of "a 1920 book by J. Thomas Looney"; he was an English "schoolmaster," not an academic.
 * A U.S. News and World Report article by a journalist is not an academic source.
 * A self-published website by a professor is not the same as a peer-reviewed publication, thus the "Oxford and Music" article is also suspect. See WP:RS and WP:ATT.
 * See here for dozens of academics who debate the subject or doubt the mainstream attribution.Smatprt 04:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link; but are you serious? The site itself even admits that the topic is taboo in academia. Apart from the fact that a lot of their two hundred plus signatories don't even claim to be academics, who's auditing the signatures and the academic backgrounds (of which few are in any case appropriate)? It's a classic unreliable website and inadmissable as proof of anything.qp10qp 07:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. There is still no evidence to support the claim that academics take this debate seriously. Awadewit | talk  07:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The "See Also" section seems to contain a random assortment of unnecessary links. Why do we need "Famous English People" and why isn't the "Globe Theatre" linked in the article? "King's Men" is already linked the article, so it is unnecessary to list it here. Please carefully consider what to include here.
 * I'm unfamiliar with the protocol on this. Are we not supposed to list articles linked in the text?  What is supposed to be there?  If an article is comprehensive, why does it need this section, since all relevant articles would be linked in the text, supposedly? Wrad 02:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Many editors agree with you that there should be no "See also" section, but sometimes it is necessary. See here in the MOS in regards to this section. Awadewit | talk  03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed "Famous English People" and "King's Men" RedRabbit1983 09:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favor of deleting the section, and adding a bit about Globe Theater. I'm surprised it isn't already in there. Wrad 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just deleted it and added a bit about the theatre. After thinking about this a lot.  I honestly can't see any links that legitimately belong in a see also section for this article without being repetitious or random. If anyone can see a way to make a good See also, please do. Wrad 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't need a See also section. ✅ RedRabbit1983 15:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please give complete publication information for linked articles - author, website/organization/journal, etc. The user shouldn't have to click to obtain this information.
 * With all due respect, do the citation templates even provide parameters for this?--Romeo in love 02:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do. I thought we had covered this.  Are there any in particular that are missing information?  We may have missed some. Wrad 02:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I am new here, so I'll have to pass this job onto another editor to correct. I think we have to provide information such as: author, publisher, publication city, publication year, medium of access, etc.--Romeo in love 02:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the information I am looking for. Awadewit | talk  03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added as much as I could find for all web citations. Wrad 22:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The notes are not cited consistently (for example, the author's last name does not always come first). Please decide on a style use the same style for every note. Awadewit | talk  17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please include complete publication information in the "Further Reading" section and be sure that the descriptions of the books don't awkwardly run into the citations - they are hard to read right now.
 * ✅ Wrad 22:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is a fictionalized biography cited as further reading? Awadewit | talk  17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't any longer. RedRabbit1983 06:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My change was reverted. Apparently the reason is: "I haven't read this but Greenblatt recommends it in "Will in the World," I don't think it's unreasonable to include it". RedRabbit1983 06:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just now noticed a reference to Sparknotes. That must have been added recently. Please find a more respectable publication to quote from for the sonnet, one that has been carefully edited rather than something thrown together by someone to make money off of desperate students. Awadewit | talk  03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha ✅ Sparknotes replaced with a .edu page. Wrad 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the description of the page and their editors: "      A few years ago, my best friend, Ted, and I decided to assemble an       on-line collection of some of our favorite poems." Surely there is a reliable Shakespeare edition online somewhere? Awadewit |  talk  17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Once these issues have been addressed, I will reconsider my "object." I think that the page is almost ready for FA, but is missing that attention to detail in language, citation and layout that make an article "professional" (1a) and the "best wikipedia has to offer" (FA). Awadewit | talk  02:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we can fix almost all of these issues. I agree that the authorship issue isn't supported by most mainstream academics, but that's why it's been cut back to a single short paragraph and placed in the "speculations" section. To remove this info totally might be seen as POV by many editors b/c there have been some academics who have explored this issue, as well as other well-known writers. Also, you raised the 27kb length. I want to state that this is a very long, in-depth article as is. At almost 9,000 words long (with over 5000 words of main body text, not counting citations and such), it's longer than almost most other literature featured articles like W. B. Yeats, on par with Thomas Pynchon, and only a bit below Uncle Tom's Cabin (another long, in-depth subject). We could easily make the article longer but we have followed Wikipedia policy and spun off large sections of this article into subarticles, such as Shakespeare's reputation and Timeline of Shakespeare criticism. Placing all that info back into this article would, I think, be excessive. Instead, the main article should sumarize and cover the main facts and present a complete picture (including context and analysis); readers can then go to the sub articles for more details. But if you think we are missing important info here, please let me know and we'll add it in. Best,--Alabamaboy 10:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a whole 1,000 words to work with! I am not suggesting that the subarticles be reintegrated (strawman arguments all over this FAC). I was simply pointing out that the page has some room to work with - frankly, I was surprised it wasn't bursting at the seams. (Yeats is missing significant areas and is under FARC, I believe, so that is not a good comparison.) My concern with the lack of detail on this page (summary without meaning in some places, I feel) is that I am not convinced that readers will bother to read all of the subpages. Teaching freshman to write has made me too cynical, perhaps, but I feel that whatever information you feel readers must know about Shakespeare should be included here. That is why I would recommend deleting the authorship controversy, which academics don't take seriously (see evolution analogy above), and including more detail regarding Shakespeare's works or his life. Here are two examples that occur to me immediately:
 * Ex: There is next to nothing about the history of the performance of Shakespeare's plays here.
 * ✅ Just added this subsection in.--Alabamaboy 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ex: The "Other poems" section does not even mention the topics or general themes of the poems - it only lists their titles. Awadewit | talk  11:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅Just added all this in. Can't believe we were missing this. Can't believe I didn't realize we were missing this. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can add all of this in. It will take me a day or so since I can't edit much at the moment. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Awadewit, I'm still working on making your other suggestions, but I did want to bring an item to your attention. The subsection on the authorship debate has a parallel in the Encyclopedia Britannica article about Shakespeare. They actually give far more space in the main Shakespeare article than we do to this subject. While we're not trying to mirror them, the fact that they consider it important to include in their main Shakespeare article indicates that the subject should at least have a short paragraph here. Best, --Alabamaboy 23:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because the Britannica is wrong doesn't mean we have to be. Again, Britannica is not the most reliable source here - literary scholars and historians are. Wikipedia is under no obligation to make the same editorial choices (here editorial mistakes) as the Britannica. I might ask also mention that the authorship question is discussed within a historical framework in the Britannica article, explaining how it arose and why it is discounted. Such a framework does not lend the same sort of legitimacy to the debate as a subsection in a wikipedia article does. I might also mention that wikipedia has an entire article on this topic while Britannica does not, thus I am not surprised that they mention it in the main Shakespeare article. Awadewit | talk  00:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you. Personally, I'd love to take out that tiny paragraph on the authorship debate b/c I have no desire to read conspiracy theories and hate having them in an article such as this. The problem, though, is that Wikipedia works under consensus. This article had a long--extremely long, way too long--debate about whether or not to include this info. In the end, the consensus was to cut back to the short paragraph you see here and leave the vast majority of the info in the authorship debate article. So while I personally agree with you on this subject, I am hesitant to go against a hard-won consensus view. Just my personal view of things. Best,--Alabamaboy 01:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but just because it is a consensus does not mean it is the correct consensus. I have seen many consensuses (consensi?) on wikipedia that were blatantly wrong simply because the editors did not have appropriate information with which to make the decision. Here, it would seem that the editors' desires or interests are overriding wikipedia policy. Awadewit | talk  02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what I think personally about the whole authorship debate yet, but I did a simple search of academic journals and came up with thousands of articles, of which these are just a few:
 * Richmond Crinkley. "New Perspectives on The Authorship Question." Shakespeare Quarterly. (Jan 1985) 36.4 pgs. 515-522
 * This article, written by a former librarian at the Folger, is a critique of Ogburn's book. He explains why the Oxford thesis fails. Awadewit | talk  05:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Latvijas Zinatnu Akademijas Vestis. "On the Problem of William Shakespeare's Authorship." (Jan 1994) 3.560 pg. 38. ISSN: 08686556
 * "A Statistical Approach to the Shakespeare Authorship Question." The Elizabethan Review. (Sep 1993) 1.2 pg. 36 ISSN: 10667059. Subject: attribution of authorship; De Vere, Edward, Earl of Oxford; statistical approach
 * "The Shakespeare Authorship Question Revisited". Romantist. (Jan 1985) 9-10 pgs. 43 ISSN: 0161682X
 * "A Brief Review of the Shakespeare Authorship Controversies." Romantist. (Jan 1979) 3.23
 * Huston, Craig. "The Shakespeare Authorship Question: Evidence for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford." Dorrance. (Jan 1971)

Whether or not this or that is the correct view, if these scholarly, peer reviewed journals (Shakespeare Quarterly, The Elizabethan Review, etc.) aren't shy about printing something about the Shakespearean Authorship question, then we shouldn't be either. There is academic support in favor of at least addressing the question, which is pretty much all we do in the article, as agreed on by a larger group of editors than are presently here.
 * Unfortunately I only have direct access at the moment to one of the sources you listed. It supports none of the theories outlined in the article and specifically criticizes one of the works the article relies on. If the other articles are like this, they are not support for an authorship debate within academia. Do you have abstracts for these articles? I looked all of them up in EBSCO but none did. Titles alone don't tell you much about an article. Awadewit | talk  05:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is true that these articles support a debate among academics, why aren't they being used on the page, rather than the current unreliable sources? Awadewit | talk  05:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I would be fully willing to accept the subsection, if the editors could demonstrate that there is a debate on Shakespeare's authorship within the realm of Shakespearean scholarship. Because I have been repeatedly taught as both an undergraduate and a graduate student in English literature that such debates do not exist, I am skeptical. But I am willing to look at all of the evidence as it is presented to me. So far, I do not see any evidence of such a debate existing in academia. If I did see that evidence presented here, I would obviously retract my objection to the subsection. Awadewit | talk  05:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I see two universities (Concordia and Brunel) are now teaching Authorship courses. Concordia is establishing a research center. Dr. David Wright is surely an academic Shakespeare expert. I would hope these institutions and their professors would demonstrate what you ask.Smatprt 09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

On a lighter note, on the first page of the first article listed above, it says: "Reconciliation [is] a daunting task, for the question of the authorship of Shakespeare's work rouses wild passions in people otherwise placid and uncontentious." How true! :) Wrad 04:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, and this was specifically about the Folger and the Ogburns. I am not a fan of quoting out of context. It often leads to serious misrepresentations. Awadewit | talk  05:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It was just a joke, which I think applies here. Just see below for examples :) Our Shakespeare project has had a long history with this issue, and I was just poking fun at it.  Just was hoping to get a few good laughs, nothing serious. Wrad 15:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Awadewit that having a whole section about this phantom authorship question (if you go to Warwickshire and hear the rural speech rhythms, it is uncannily like listening to Shakespeare's rustic characters—and it's a very localised phenomenon) is a blot on the article. Why do academics and scholarly article writers even stoop to address this, then? For the same reason that Awadewit does and I am doing now: pure frustration, a desperate attempt to finish the notion off once and for all. You can bet your life that no respectable academic would support the idea that Shakespeare didn't write his plays. Having said all this, maybe the hope that Wikipedia could stay properly aloof is too idealistic: therefore perhaps a sentence on the authorship red herrings could be included—preferably one containing an angrily worded and damning dismissal from a respectable scholar—but surely not a whole section. qp10qp 06:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised by these statements. Are you really saying that Wikipedia needs anger and aloofness? "No respectable academic"? So any professor who researches the subject is suddenly not "respectable"? Can we attempt a bit of civility? Smatprt 10:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the first time I've been accused of incivility on Wikipedia. (I don't agree with you that I was; but I apologise if you feel offended at something in that paragraph). The point is that when it comes to conspiracy theories Wikipedia should find a way of staying aloof from them, preferably, or dismissing them in no uncertain terms, if really they have to be mentioned. Like Awadewit, I would welcome information on respectable literary academics who have advanced the theory that Shakespeare didn't write his plays; if such people exist, let them be referenced in the article. qp10qp 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree too. But I am concerned removing it would be impractical; it would just spring up again. It's a weed that will keep growing, despite its irrelevancy. Let's leave it in its section and prune it if it grows too long. We can all be good gardeners. RedRabbit1983 08:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we please not turn this into an authoship debate. It's only reasonable that the issue is mentioned, since it's a part of the public reputation of Shakespeare's work, and a lot has been written about it, even though almost all of it is amateur. It's only a small section. Awadewit writes "I would be fully willing to accept the subsection, if the editors could demonstrate that there is a debate on Shakespeare's authorship within the realm of Shakespearean scholarship." I think this is the wrong approach. It only encourages Smatprt to find more "evidence" of scholarly debate, which is then disputed, and so on. The fact is that this has been an issue for at least a century and a half, and it merits a mention. Paul B 11:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Paul--let's not reopen this debate here. The debate went on forever on the article's talk page (see Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive_4 for more) and involved edit warring, 3RR blocks, and more. As people can see from the debate which sprang up here overnight, this is a passionate issue. Let's simply leave the issue alone and worry about fixing up the rest of the article. If this one section--all 69 words of it--keeps anyone from supporting this article for FA status, I'll totally understand. That said, perhaps a possible compromise on this issue would be to discuss all of this on the article's talk page once this FAC is finished. We can then see if consensus has changed. If it has, we can either keep or remove that section at that time. But going through another two months of discussions and debate on this at this time seems counterproductive.--Alabamaboy 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's move on. I hate long, heated debates leading to nowhere.  Especially when they go over the same things again and again. There really hasn't been anything said here that hasn't already been said a million times. Let's just put this issue in a box and set it aside for later. Wrad 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's only reasonable that the issue is mentioned, since it's a part of the public reputation of Shakespeare's work, and a lot has been written about it, even though almost all of it is amateur. - I am not sure why some editors feel that the Shakespeare page should not follow wikipedia's policies regarding reliable sources. However difficult the issue may be to decide (and it isn't according to wikipedia policy), that does not mean that it can simply be abandoned. The fact that there isn't really consensus on this issue does not mean that the material should be included. Moreover, it is the job of the page's editors to keep it from "springing up" again on the page if it were to be deleted just like other editors on other controversial subjects do. As far as I can tell, the only reason this is a passionate issue is because some editors are unwilling to follow wikipedia's policy and are more interested in including information interesting to themselves. It is not editors who determine that - it is expert sources. Awadewit | talk  16:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing the issue of what reliable sources are for. We have reliable sources that such a debate has occurred and is part of Shakespeare's public reputation. We do not have reliable sources that say "scholarly consensus is that this is a real issue" because the article does not claim that. It simply says that this debate has occurred. That is undisputed. Paul B 17:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the page does not use academic sources to prove anything. As I demonstrated in my analysis of your sources above, neither the sources discussing the authorship question nor the sources proving that the question has been raised are scholarly. One of the sources demonstrating that the authorship question exists, for example, is an article from U.S. News and World Report. Awadewit | talk  17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, frankly, you seem to be concerned with more than such a very minor point, since these pages of postings on the subject seem to be about more than that. You know and I know that such a debate has occurred. There' no need to argue about it. Here's some published literature - Schoenbaum, S. Shakespeare's Lives, passim (esp part V1 pp. 385-451), OUP, 1993 edition. Holderness, Graham ed, The Shakespeare Myth, MUP, 1998 pp. 11-15. Kathmann, D. The Question of Authorship" in Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide, Stanley Wells and Lena Cowen Orlin (ed), OUP, 2003. Paul B 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While I would be willing to lay-off this discussion for the time being, if Awadewit and qp10qp want to continue discussion, I really have only this to offer:
 * If the issue has boiled down to this objection: “So far, I do not see any evidence of such a debate existing in academia. If I did see that evidence presented here, I would obviously retract my objection to the subsection”, then I would ask that you consider:


 * Two universities (Concordia and Brunel) that now teaching Authorship courses. Concordia is establishing a research center. Dr. David Wright has been acknowledged previously on these pages (even my most mainstream editors) as a Shakespeare expert. I prefer not to rehash that argument unless requested.
 * Dr. Roger Strittmater, 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.
 * Dr. David Richardson, a retired Spenser specialist from Cleveland State University and editor of the Spenser Encyclopedia (not an Oxfordian but 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 by Routledge and Kegan Paul;
 * Dr. Ren Draya at Blackburn college, is a trained and tenured Renaissance scholar holding a PhD.

I am not trying to start a war or appear unreasonable - I am attempting to show that there is indeed academic research and debate on the subject. Thank you for at least considering this information. Smatprt 19:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Brunel University!qp10qp 02:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So how about sourcing the subsection from these more reliable sources? Could we compromise on that? Awadewit | talk  19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added several Strittmater cites. On this subject, can someone fine a better cite for  Kathman, David. The Spelling and Pronunciation of Shakespeare's Name. Surely there is a better cite than this personal website with no oversight.Smatprt 14:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * New sources have been added. Is the current version, with the current sources, acceptable to you?--Alabamaboy 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is no one reading the policy on reliable sources? I quote: "Wikipedia welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals." (And why am I forced to recopy my objections to these sources?):
 * Delia Bacon, writing in 1857, is not considered a modern academic source. Find an academic source for the Baconian claim.
 * Calvin Hoffman, "a Broadway press agent and sometime writer" is not considered an academic source. Find an academic source for the Marlowe claim.
 * Dr. Daniel Wright. A Few Curiosities Regarding Edward de Vere and the Writer Who Called Himself Shakespeare. This is a self-published website - you need a peer reviewed source. Has he published anything?
 * Dr. Daniel Wright has been a member of the Concordia University faculty since 1991. He is the author of the acclaimed book, The Anglican Shakespeare, as well as over three dozen scholarly articles and reviews in publications such as Germany's Neues Shakespeare Journal, Studies in the Novel, International Fiction Review, The Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, Renaissance and Reformation, The Sixteenth Century Journal, The Elizabethan Review, The Oxfordian and Harper's. He currently is completing another book, The Gothic Antichrist, a work that examines the inversion of sacred iconography and rhetoric in 19th-century British Gothic fiction. He teaches Shakespeare, British Literature, The Gothic Novel, Russian Literature, The European Novel, The Psychology of Authorship, Sports Literature, and a number of other engaging and popular courses. Professor Wright is the founder and director of the Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference, the world's largest academic symposium dedicated to the investigation of the origins of the works by the writer who called himself Shakespeare. Among many affiliations, Professor Wright is an Associate Trustee of the Shakespeare Authorship Trust of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London, and he is a Patron of the Shakespeare Fellowship--from whom he also is a recipient of the Outstanding Achievement in Elizabethan Studies Award. He is the Faculty Advisor to Sigma Tau Delta, the English honor society; and he is the Faculty Marshal for the College of Theology, Arts and Sciences. He lectures worldwide, leads study abroad tours, and directs residential study programs for CU in the United Kingdom.Smatprt 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Ogburns: a family dedicated to proving that Shakespeare didn't write the plays. They are not academics. Please find an academic source for the Oxford claim.
 * Dr. Daniel Wright. The Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference. Concordia University. Retrieved on 21 June 2007. This is also a self-published description of the conference - it is an advertisement.
 * Note that on the page it says "The conference is especially dedicated to the presentation of publishable research that thoughtfully addresses, affirmatively or negatively, the possibility that a writer other than the orthodox candidate—a butcher's apprentice from Stratford-Upon-Avon—was the pseudonymous author of the Shakespeare canon." - Find that published material.

Like qp10qp, I also think that the sentences should be more strongly worded. It should be absolutely clear that this debate is summarily dismissed by all the major Shakespeare scholars. Awadewit | talk  04:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now, all that can be proven is that "popular debate persists" despite the fact that academics have dismissed it.
 * ✅ 06:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional point: 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. - This comes from the article's talk page. Might I reiterate that it is immaterial what the editors' viewpoints are. The viewpoints that count are those published in scholarly, peer-reviewed sources. Awadewit | talk  05:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

*Support Compared to most FA articles, I think this one is excellent. I also believe the length is appropriate, especially considering all the sub-articles. I also think the editors have been more than thorough in their work sourcing the information and have been quite sensitive honoring POV issues. Along with HHermans above, I see nothing in this article to go against the featured article criteria. Smatprt 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Object way too many footnotes in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the body and as such if well written, the lead will need few if any footnotes. The vast majority of details should be in the body.Rlevse 16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)...chg to support.Rlevse 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rlevse, could you add to that? In itself, your objection about footnotes in the lead is a matter of taste rather than policy. Many FAs have references in the lead. Maybe you could suggest a principle for reducing the number of them in this case, and then the editors would have something to work with? qp10qp 18:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅We're already fixed this issue. See comments below.--Alabamaboy 19:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I did see below; but I don't agree that it has been fully fixed. There's still an aesthetic difficulty at the very beginning, which is so disruptively tagged that I think it might put readers off:

''William Shakespeare (IPA: ['wɪliəm 'ʃeɪkspɪə]) (baptised 26 April 1564 – died 23 April 1616)[I] was an English poet and playwright. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language[1] and the world's pre-eminent dramatist.[2] His surviving works include approximately[II] 38 plays and 154 sonnets, as well as a variety of other poems.''

Firstly, I don't think there's any need to reference the dates of birth and death here; although there's certainly an academic issue on the matter, I don't think any reader would dream of challenging this without also looking at the treatment of the issue in the main article. So I would remove that note tag. I would also remove the tag after "language", because the note at the end of that sentence covers that point too (one of the encyclopedias says he had "unparalleled use of language"). Finally, I would move the tag after "approximately" to the end of the sentence. Together, these modifications would make the opening read much better, in my opinion (and perhaps help meet Rlevse's objection).qp10qp 19:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised what readers do to this article. Over the last two years, endless numbers of people have changed the baptism date in the lead to a birth date without checking the rest of the article. I'd prefer to keep note I about the Gregorian calendar (which is another point a lot of editors question about those dates), especially since this note doesn't really break up the flow of a sentence. But I've made your other suggested changes.--Alabamaboy 19:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Footnotes were added at the request of previous reviewers. Careful perusal of the article will, I believe, reveal that the Lead is a summary of the body, despite the footnotes. Wrad 16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I find all of the notes unaesthetic as well. Is there a way to cite only the controversial statements or are they all controversial? WP:LEAD does say the lead should be referenced, but I've seen people argue against that since all of the information should be presented and referenced again. Awadewit | talk  17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be more than happy to remove all the citations from the lead, since those facts are also cited in the main body of the article. Unfortunately, previous people objected to not having the citations there. But if this is a condition of support, we will remove the cites. --Alabamaboy 17:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not a condition of support for me. If the citations could be reduced somewhat to make reading the paragraph easier, that would be nice. If not, then readers will have to make do. Awadewit | talk  17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reduced them to only a few cites. As has been said, previous editors wanted these cites, but I wonder if they just didn't bother to read the rest of the article where this info was already cited. Best,--Alabamaboy 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree here, it looks much better now. Wrad 18:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Question How is the copy editing coming? Several reviewers have noted that the article needs a thorough copy edit by unfamiliar eyes. Awadewit | talk  17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears the copy edit is complete. Different editors have cleaned up different sections. A quick read through leads me to believe all the article's copy problems have been corrected; the few problems that remained I fixed myself. If I'm wrong, though, please let me know what still needs to be fixed.--Alabamaboy 18:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree, although on each reading I still seem to find something that needs tightening. I agree this would be a good moment for those with worries about the copy-editing to take another look, though. AndyJones 18:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Readers who want lots of footnotes in the lead simply don't understand article structure.Rlevse 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment and reply I've highlighted my concerns regarding copyeding on the talk page. RedRabbit1983 05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To be done

 * Headache - Reading this page is giving me a headache. Even with all of the checkmarks put in to track the work being done, I really can't tell what still needs to be done. Can we highlight everything so that we can tell what we still need to do?--Romeo in love 16:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyediting and fixing citations, I think. Am I right? RedRabbit1983 17:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's it??? :-D Romeo in love 17:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe so. It appears that Ceoil's issue with the lead has been addressed, and that the issue with the authorship section has been resolved. That leave the cites and the copyedit.--Alabamaboy 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What citations need fixing? I know of a few I've pointed out on the talk page, but are there any others? Wrad 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL@Romeo, as they say at AOL. Headache is right! Anyway, I see plenty of work that still needs doing, especially copy-editing. AndyJones 18:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few examples (I did not go through everything - the editors can do that):
 * Brown, Calvin Smith; Harrison, Robert L. Masterworks of World Literature Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970, 4.
 * Craig, Leon Harold (2003). Of Philosophers and Kings: Political Philosophy in Shakespeare's "Macbeth" and "King Lear". University of Toronto Press, 3.
 * The dates are not in the same place - here and throughout the notes.


 * Dr. Mobley, Jonnie Patricia (1996). Manual for Hamlet: Access to Shakespeare. Lorenz Educational Publishers, 5.
 * Why is there a "Dr." in the author's name?


 * Ackroyd, Peter (2005). Shakespeare: The Biography. London: Chatto and Windus, pp 53-61. ISBN 1-856-19726-3.
 * Decide whether or not ISBNs are going to be included - inconsistent here and elsewhere. Also, decide whether or not to include hyphens - some ISBNs have them, some not.


 * Gray, Terry A. (2002) "The Lost Years," Shakespeare Timeline, accessed 7 Nov 2006.
 * Sometimes the notes say "accessed" and sometimes they say "retrieved."


 * NAGLER, A.M. (1958). Shakespeare's Stage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 8. ISBN 0300026897.
 * Why is Nagler's name in all caps?


 * Ackroyd, Peter (2005). Shakespeare: The Biography. London: Chatto and Windus, p220. ISBN 1-856-19726-3.
 * Once you introduce a citation, you do not need to repeat all of the information. You need only use the author's last name and page number (title if you are including other works by that author).


 * Schoenbaum, Samuel (1975). William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford University Press, 24-26 and 296. ISBN 0195051610.
 * If a book is listed in the "References," you do not need to introduce all of the information here, especially when you have already used the "author, page" format. Awadewit | talk  21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What needs to be done (recopied for ease of reading). Feel free to add to this list.
 * The article is in need of general copy editing.
 * The notes are not cited consistently (for example, the author's last name does not always come first). Please decide on a style use the same style for every note. Awadewit | talk  17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This should be easy to do for anyone familiar with the protocol. Can we get this out of the way now? RedRabbit1983 19:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think it is a bad idea to include a fictionalized biography on a page purporting to put forth the "real" history of Shakespeare, whether or not Greenblatt liked it.
 * My change was reverted. Apparently the reason is: "I haven't read this but Greenblatt recommends it in "Will in the World," I don't think it's unreasonable to include it". RedRabbit1983 06:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * P4k is the person to take the issue up with. RedRabbit1983 19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Message left on P4k's talk page. Awadewit | talk  20:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted per . Awadewit | talk  21:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The sonnet quotation still doesn't come from a reliable source.
 * Please see the description of the page and their editors: "A few years ago, my best friend, Ted, and I decided to assemble an on-line collection of some of our favorite poems." Surely there is a reliable Shakespeare edition online somewhere? Awadewit | talk  17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Haha, didn't notice that. I replaced this.  It should be good now. Wrad 18:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Replaced with an even better one, but I don't know how to add the editor's name (W. J. Craig). Could someone do that? Awadewit | talk  21:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Wrad 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried my best. Craig's name shows up now.--Romeo in love 21:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Awadewit | talk  21:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources used for the authorship claim are not reliable. Please replace them with reliable, academic sources.
 * Delia Bacon, writing in 1857, is not considered a modern academic source. Find an academic source for the Baconian claim.
 * Calvin Hoffman, "a Broadway press agent and sometime writer" is not considered an academic source. Find an academic source for the Marlowe claim.
 * Dr. Daniel Wright. A Few Curiosities Regarding Edward de Vere and the Writer Who Called Himself Shakespeare. This is a self-published website - you need a peer reviewed source. Has he published anything?
 * Dr. Daniel Wright has been a member of the Concordia University faculty since 1991. He is the author of the acclaimed book, The Anglican Shakespeare, as well as over three dozen scholarly articles and reviews in publications such as Germany's Neues Shakespeare Journal, Studies in the Novel, International Fiction Review, The Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, Renaissance and Reformation, The Sixteenth Century Journal, The Elizabethan Review, The Oxfordian and Harper's. He currently is completing another book, The Gothic Antichrist, a work that examines the inversion of sacred iconography and rhetoric in 19th-century British Gothic fiction. He teaches Shakespeare, British Literature, The Gothic Novel, Russian Literature, The European Novel, The Psychology of Authorship, Sports Literature, and a number of other engaging and popular courses. Professor Wright is the founder and director of the Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference, the world's largest academic symposium dedicated to the investigation of the origins of the works by the writer who called himself Shakespeare. Among many affiliations, Professor Wright is an Associate Trustee of the Shakespeare Authorship Trust of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London, and he is a Patron of the Shakespeare Fellowship--from whom he also is a recipient of the Outstanding Achievement in Elizabethan Studies Award. He is the Faculty Advisor to Sigma Tau Delta, the English honor society; and he is the Faculty Marshal for the College of Theology, Arts and Sciences. He lectures worldwide, leads study abroad tours, and directs residential study programs for CU in the United Kingdom.Smatprt 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The point of my question "has he published anything" is that the article must rely on his peer-reviewed publications, not his self-published website. Please read wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. You cannot use a self-published website for this claim and it is absurd to do so when, as you claim, there are peer-reviewed publications available. Awadewit | talk  18:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Ogburns: a family dedicated to proving that Shakespeare didn't write the plays. They are not academics. Please find an academic source for the Oxford claim.
 * Dr. Daniel Wright. The Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference. Concordia University. Retrieved on 21 June 2007. This is also a self-published description of the conference - it is an advertisement.
 * Note that on the page it says "The conference is especially dedicated to the presentation of publishable research that thoughtfully addresses, affirmatively or negatively, the possibility that a writer other than the orthodox candidate—a butcher's apprentice from Stratford-Upon-Avon—was the pseudonymous author of the Shakespeare canon." - Find that published material.
 * I found it in the work of Dr. Stritmatter. I referenced it as requested.  Someone else has deleted it.Smatprt 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now, all that can be proven is that "popular debate persists" despite the fact that academics have dismissed it. Awadewit | talk  04:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are some current sources that might not stand up to scrutiny. Not sure if any of these are published scholars. Most look like personal websites - even
 * 21. ^ Gray, Terry A. (2002) "The Lost Years," Shakespeare Timeline, accessed 7 Nov 2006.
 * Yes, this is a self-published website. Even if it is written by a scholar, which it might be, that is not good enough for a citation that is supposed to support this statement: However, no direct evidence supports these stories, and they all appear to have begun circulating after Shakespeare's death. Awadewit | talk  23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 25. ^ Alchin, L. K.. William Shakespeare in London. William Shakespeare info. Retrieved on 2007-06-06.
 * Also seems to be self-published. Surely this fact can be referenced to a standard Shakespeare biography? In 1596, Shakespeare moved to the parish of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate. Awadewit | talk  23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 28. ^ Shapiro, James (2005). 1599 A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare. Faber and Faber, p122. ISBN 0-571-21480-0. (James Shapiro, MD was born in Leeds, England and obtained his medical degree at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. He is currently a Canadian Research Chair in transplantation and the Director of the Clinical Islet Transplant Program at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. Not sure shy that makes him a Shakespeare expert.)
 * Wrong Shapiro. This book is reliable - it is written by one of the foremost Shakespeare scholars who is a professor at Columbia University. See James A. Shapiro. He's cool - I took a Shakespeare class from him. Awadewit | talk  23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahhh - the link in the article reference was wrong. Go figure. I disabled it. If someone wants to link to the RIGHT James Shapiro, feel free.Smatprt 01:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 38. Wilson, Ian; Wilson, Ann (1999). Shakespeare: The Evidence. St. Martin's Press, 309. According to the acedmians on Shaxper.net, the Wilsons are not scholars.
 * Apparently Ian Wilson is a historian (see this book and since his book is published by St. Martin's Press, it is definitely more reliable. Looking at reviews of it in academic journals would let you know now good it is. I would not dispute this one. Awadewit | talk  23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 82. Weller, Philip. Hamlet's Puns and Paradoxes (HTML). Shakespeare Navigators. Retrieved on 2007-06-08. (Clicknotes??)
 * The author claims to be a professor who teaches Shakespeare see here. That would have to be verified somehow (checking the university's website, perhaps?). I don't think you need this cite anyway, since you have another one for the same statement.


 * 154. Knight, Kevin. The Religion of Shakespeare Catholic Encyclopedia on CD-ROM. Copyright 2007. (Accessed 23 Dec 2005.)   Religious/commercial site?
 * I've known people to quote this before. Note, though, that it was written in 1917 see here. For a claim like this: The Catholic Encyclopedia questions not only his Catholicism but his Christianity, enquiring whether "Shakespeare was not infected with the atheism, which... was rampant in the more cultured society of the Elizabethan age I would try to find another source. It is just the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia who think Shakespeare might have been an atheist? If so, that sentence should be deleted. (I am skeptical of this statement since atheism was far from "rampant" even among the educated elite during Shakespeare's lifetime. See this history of atheism.) Awadewit | talk  23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 165 Kathman, David. The Spelling and Pronunciation of Shakespeare's Name. Retrieved on 2007-06-14. (this site is certainly a personal blog with no oversite)
 * Agreed, but the author seems very reliable - see here. Perhaps he has published on this topic and you can use his published material. Awadewit | talk  23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking over the Kathman website, it seems pretty unprofessional, angry even. Can't find anything that has been properly edited and published that relates to the topic at hand. Still looking. Smatprt 01:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 169. Asquith, Claire (2006). Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William Shakespeare. US: PublicAffairs, 121. ISBN 1586483870. (Not sure if Lady Claire is RS!) Smatprt 22:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I spent a couple of unpleasant hours reading parts of this one on Amazon Search Inside. Yes, it's a published book; but it's by a diplomat's wife (seems to be her only book) who has the pet theory that pretty much every word of Shakespeare is written in a special Catholic code: it just goes to show that Shakespeare is a magnet for offbeat theories. If the article is to use only the best sources, it will find another one for the argument that Shakespeare might have been a Catholic, of which there should be many.qp10qp 23:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree - we should use the most reliable sources. But the book did receive some praise from at least one academic. Here is the opening line from one review in Notes and Queries in 2006: "This well-written, informative work is stimulating and controversial." Awadewit | talk  23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's stimulating and controversial, all right. It's a properly published and edited book, so I suppose it might stand. It made my jaw drop, I must say. qp10qp 00:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Awadewit for the research. Qp10qp, I'm not sure what "properly published and edited" means anymore. The Charlton Ogburn book meets that criteria, for example, but I've been given contrary advice in that case: SingingBadger (and other editors) have written that Ogburn is RS for the same reasons you mentioned. Awadewit says that Ogburn is not RS because he himself is not academic (though, based on the comment above, if Ogburn received praise from "at least one acedemic" (like Lady Claire) then would he be permitted? Can you see why I am confused?Smatprt 01:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ogburn and his family are on a crusade (mom, pop and junior). That is one reason to look for another source. Second, the book was published by "EPM Publications." What is that? I've never heard of it before. Show me that it is a reliable publishing house. Awadewit | talk  01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about EPM but the 1984 Ogburn was published by Dodd, Mead and Company in London, then re-edited and re-published by Viking Penguin in New York and Cardinal in London. I thought they were reliable houses, but you would know better than I their reputation as publishers. Smatprt 02:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the name of the book? I may have been looking at the father's book. Awadewit | talk  08:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Mysterious William Shakespeare (1984). Yes, it's by Ogburn, Jr. Please let me know what you think regarding it's publishers. Smatprt 14:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I was right - first published by Dodd and Mead and then by EPM Publications, according to amazon.com. I have never heard of these publishing houses and I have heard of all of the major academic publishing houses since I am an academic. Who are these firms? As of now, I am skeptical of the book because it is not written by an expert and was not published by a major academic press. Awadewit | talk  21:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I wouldn't touch Clare Asquith's book with a bargepole. I agree with Smatprt that "properly published and edited" doesn't mean much in itself, especially in the overcrowded Shakespeare market, since any non-self-published book might claim that status. The way I look at it is that when the Verifiability policy says that verifiabilty is the "threshold", it means that is the lowest qualifier; the source should then pass other tests of reliability. As noted in the Reliability guideline: "A publication by a world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable sources available to its editors." In the case of Shakespeare, the most reliable would for me be the sources with the highest academic credibility: certain presses and certain academic reviews act as a good touchstone in this regard. But even then, I would avoid any source I didn't trust: that's where judgement comes in (as soon as I spot a couple of mistakes, it's goodbye book, as far as I'm concerned).


 * There's an overdue process of source-weeding going on at the WS talk page at the moment (even though the peer review recommended sources be rinsed): I think the trouble has been that all and any material about Shakespeare has been drawn upon for that article, including much of dubious academic rigour, rather than only the very best. This was done in good faith, but FAC requires raised standards. qp10qp 01:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this qp10qp. Awadewit | talk  08:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done this at the Authorship section (note also the new footnote after "circles") and I'd be grateful for comments on the extent to which it satisfies people's concerns as expressed on this page. AndyJones 09:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that the concerns have barely been addressed. There are still no academic citations for the authorship claims. They cannot be included unless their academic citations for them. Moreover, how many readers are going to click on all of those notes? It is not an elegant nor a responsible solution. Smatprt keeps claiming that there are reliable sources for these claims, but I have yet to see any for Bacon, Marlowe or Oxford. I reiterate my objection to including material that isn't cited to Shakespearean scholars on this issue. If no reliable sources can be found, the subsection should be deleted and a single sentence should be inserted in the "Works" section such as: "Over the years, Shakespeare's authorship of the plays has been challenged, but scholars have dismissed all such claims as unsupportable." Awadewit | talk  19:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Stritmatter, Roger A. 'The Marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential Discovery, Literary Reasoning, and Historical Consequence', APPENDIX M: AN ABBREVIATED HISTORY OF THE AUTHORSHIP QUESTION. University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 2001. Retrieved on 22 June 2007. - Why are we using a dissertation? Dissertations should only be used when there is next to nothing published on a subject. That is not true of Shakespeare. Also, dissertations are notoriously unreliable because they are written by students just starting out in the field. Awadewit | talk  21:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because you asked for published material by one of the list of academians that I provided.Smatprt 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The references in this section have just been overhauled and are due for another look. Wrad 22:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I amended, adding "most", in deference to those academic circles (like those surroudind stritmatter and wright) who don't flatly reject. Is that a fair compromise?Smatprt 14:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You amended a lot more than that; I've restored AndyJones's version, which is more accurate. - Nunh-huh 15:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also brought over the consensus wording from the lead. Had no idea that would be controversial. Amazed that one can say "flatly rejected by academic circles" when such an all-encompassing statement is not accurate accoding to the cites withing the paragraph. I'll try the solo "most" edit one more time (without the lead wording) and would like comment. Also would like comment on why the wording in the lead is not suitable for this paragraph.  I understand Nun-huh's POV about class warfare, even though it is inaccurate. Smatprt 15:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Oppose Even though I was one of those who nominated this article for FAC, I am withdrawing support b/c of concerns about POV pushing around the authorship issue. While I'm still open to supporting the article, I won't do so unless true consensus is reached on this issue, as described at Talk:William_Shakespeare. --Alabamaboy 22:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Changing since there seems to be consensus on the authorship wording.--Alabamaboy 16:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. This needs to be resolved.  I'm confident that it can be if we're willing to let it be. Wrad 22:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please contact me once the authorship issue is resolved (it is making the article unstable), reliable sources have been added to the authorship section and the copy edit is complete. I will then reconsider my objection. Thanks. Awadewit | talk  22:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ with Reliable sources in Authorship section, though the rest needs doing. Wrad 22:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree--the authorship section is making the article unstable. Unless this is resolved ASAP, I will not support.--Alabamaboy 22:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reposting comment: I would say that the concerns have barely been addressed. There are still no academic citations for the authorship claims. They cannot be included unless their academic citations for them. Moreover, how many readers are going to click on all of those notes? It is not an elegant nor a responsible solution. Smatprt keeps claiming that there are reliable sources for these claims, but I have yet to see any for Bacon, Marlowe or Oxford. I reiterate my objection to including material that isn't cited to Shakespearean scholars on this issue. If no reliable sources can be found, the subsection should be deleted and a single sentence should be inserted in the "Works" section such as: "Over the years, Shakespeare's authorship of the plays has been challenged, but scholars have dismissed all such claims as unsupportable." Awadewit | talk 19:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding comment: Who cares what Mark Twain thought about this issue? That is irrelevant. We do not include the thoughts of random people on topics - we include the opinions of experts. That has still not happened yet. Why must this be repeated ad nauseum? Awadewit | talk  23:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the article doesn't claim that these theories are true, just that they exist, and that scholars have rejected them, for the most part. These claims are all referenced with reliable, academic sources. Wrad 23:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Twain is not irrelevant. He represents the popularity of the idea among 'literati' at its height in the late 19th-early 20th century. It's a point about the history of Shakespeare's reputaton, not a claim about authoritative support for anti-Stratfordianism. If you are asking for reliable sources that modern scholars support Baconian, Marlovian etc ideas, you won't get it of course. As Wrad says, the cited scholars simply state that this has been a subject of debate and is a significant aspect of the history of Shakespeare's reputation. That's all that's being claimed. Paul B 10:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If all the editors want to claim is that there has been a popular debate which has been dismissed by academics, all they need is one sentence in the "Plays" or "Works" section, not an entire subsection under "Speculation." (I proposed this above.) Awadewit | talk  10:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I entirely disagree. It's quite an important part of his reputation in the public sphere, and has been widely debated. It's a very short section. Paul B 10:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter what you think is important. It matters what the experts think is worth talking about. And that is not this. There is no reason to perpetuate a false debate simply because random people have debated it. Awadewit | talk  10:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the experts do discuss this, repeatedly. There have been numerous books discussing this phenomenon written by experts. Why do you find this so difficult to grasp? My disagreement is with you not with the experts. Paul B 11:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish editors would consider the solution I've now suggested twice on the talk page. Simply remove the references/notes to Bacon, Hoffman and co. By leaving only references to serious academics like Schoenbaum, Awadewit's point about sources would be met. It's like this: the article should only reference reliable sources, which Bacon, Hoffman, Ogburn and co are not. So get rid of them. This might annoy Smartprt but no one else, as far as I can see. On the other hand, Smartprt will have won his main point that the issue should have a paragraph in the article. If this suggestion were taken up, we would have a passage which mentions the Bacon, Oxford claims, just as Schoenbaum does, through the prism of serious scholarship rather than through the distorting lens of unreliable sources. In which case, it would adhere to policy at last. qp10qp 23:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. Do whatever you want with the footnotes. I was just trying to add reliable sources.  At no time do I use refs from any of those people mentioned, except as primary source examples without anything they said directly mentioned.  All of what I said is referred to in the refs I added—peer reviewed articles.  I don't see the problem with leaving them there.  I also see no problem with taking them out.  Whatever we decide on.   Wrad 23:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with both of you - under references only source to accepted sources. But under "notes", make reference to the various theories and the crticial reaction to them. I left an attempt, consolidating the notes into one (under the note section)  and leaving all the refs to only reliable sources (in the reference section).For what it is worth, it is an attempt at a compromise. Smatprt 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support but recommend renomination -- these nomination comments are far too long to ask Raul to try to gauge them. When I faced a similar situation I withdrew the article's FAC nomination after the issues raised had been addressed and renominated it later.  I recommend that for Bill's article. BenB4 05:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to point out that though this thread seems to have gone somewhat dead, the article is being actively edited to meet the objections raised.qp10qp 06:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.