Wikipedia:Peer review/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1

Shakespeare authorship question
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the article has expanded rather quickly and I have concerns due to the friction that has developed between anti-Stratfordian and Stratfordian editors on the article talk page. I am particularly concerned that the article maintains NPOV and that neither side of the debate makes disparaging statements about the other, but, rather, concentrates on the debate topics and rebuttals clearly.

Thanks, Smatprt (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The citation format is rather inconsistent.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 07:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some major problems in the article, but the first problem might be whether this belongs, at this point, in peer review. My conception of peer review is that it handles fairly non-controversial and technical issues - related to footnoting format, length of the lede, use of images, etc.  As I understand it, this PR was proposed as something of a conflict resolution procedure.  Please correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't think that Peer Review is intended as part of conflict resolution.  That said, here's a few things that caught my eye:
 * The pictures - especially the 2nd - tend to push a point of view
 * The topic is a classic example of a borderline "fringe theory." The anti- theory has been around a long time, but it's never been - to my knowledge - a mainstream theory.  It could be a fun article documenting the history - step-by-step - of the anti- theory - but any attempt to say that the anti-  theory is true, mainstream, or widely accepted is bound to be POV.
 * The tone through much of the article is breathless - you're simply arguing against each other, trying to blurt out everything at once - not taking the time to organize the documented facts.
 * Taking the time to properly and consistently document the facts would add a lot to the article. By facts - I mean that Mr. A said "xyz," but Miss B wrote "abc."  You will never find the FACT that Shakespeare did not write the plays, or that somebody else did - that doesn't seem possible at this late date.

So, in short, calm down. Smallbones (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Smallbones, your concept of FACT is not commensurate with the problems of the article. The dispute exists because 1) Not every agrees on what the facts are; 2) even those facts that everyone stipulates to have multiple possible interpretations. For example, the traditional attribution is based substantially on the name on title pages. But what does this mean? When you measure a man whose name is on the title page but for whom one can trace almost no real connection to the works beyond the name, with another whose name is not on the works, but whose life "reads like a rough draft of Hamlet," as Don Oldenburg put it in the Washington Post, how do you decide which is more important?  Of course there is no single "FACT that Shakespeare did not write the plays."  But, after almost twenty years studying this question as a topic in intellectual history, it is my personal opinion that your conclusion that "it doesn't seem possible" that there can be a definitive solution to the debate is wrong. In fact, the case for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford will, I predict, soon become far more well known and accepted than it is today. The only reason you don't know how well this theory has already been articulated is that there is an entrenched English literary establishment which does not understand the case itself, and doesn't want you to understand it either. I would be happy to elaborate at any time. --BenJonson (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Two different versions of this peer review were opened within a short time of each other. I have copied Smallbones comments from the second PR here, to the first. I agree that PR is not for dispute resolution. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)