Talk:Shakespeare's handwriting

Signature in Florio

What grounds are given for the Shakespeare signature in Florio's Montaigne being a forgery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.206.131 (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Mainly the fact that the handwriting is completely different from other known signatures. Paul B (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Rant

This entire article is basically nonsense. The supposed "signatures" on the mortgage deed are merely the result of the legal clerks writing Shakespeare's name on the tabs of the document to identify his seal; look at the two "signatures." They are not remotely similar, although they were supposed to have been made at the same time. They were obviously written by two different people: the law clerk for the buyer and the clerk for the seller. The so-called signature on the deposition in the Mountjoy case isn't a signature, either. Witnesses did not sign their depositions in Elizabethan times; the person who took down Shakespeare's testimony wrote his name at the bottom of the page to identify who gave the testimony. Shakespeare did not sign the document! Of the three alleged signatures on the will, only the one on the last page is a real signature, and that is a partial one. It does not take a handwriting expert to see that the words "By me, William" are written in a competely different hand than "Shakespeare." There are not six surviving signatures of Shakespeare; there's half a signature. 98.215.208.184 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)daver852

Utter rubbish. Read some books. And read WP:RS too. Paul B (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that you do the same. And buy some glasses - if you think these "signatures" were written by the same hand, you must be blind. 11:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)daver852

Then the experts are blind too. The kind of vacuous arrogance you display is typical of ignorance. Paul B (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

James Shapiro video regarding Tabard Inn "carving"

In a youtube video published in September, 2015, James Shapiro says, "Shakespeare was found to have cut or carved his name unto the panelling of the Tabard Inn...," along with Burbage, Jonson, and others. The video shows a Shakespeare signature scrolling across the screen as if it is a representation of the signature found at the tavern. A look online indicates that it is a manuscript dated 1643 that says something to this effect, and that the tavern itself burned down in 1676. Neither fact is mentioned by Shapiro in the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsz4jC8ubSY

A Folger Library interview with the scholar who found the manuscript (author unknown) seems to make a few unquestioning inferences:

http://www.folger.edu/shakespeare-unlimited-episode-28

Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Both the Youtube video and the Folger-dot-edu webpage appear to be promotional or some form of advertising. When Shapiro says the name-carving was “found” he is apparently referring to the person who found the carving and who then wrote the entry dated “November 1643” in the manuscript. In both links, Shapiro’s and Folger’s, the story is described as an anecdote. The handwriting shown as a graphic in the Youtube video doesn’t appear to represent something carved in wood, and it doesn’t appear to be intended to resemble wood carving. The video devotes only 30 seconds to the story, but there is more description of this manuscript in an article, “The Bard at the Tabard”, written by Martha Carlin and published in The Times Literary Supplement 24 September 2014. The inn is the same one mentioned in The Canterbury Tales. This anecdote is interesting (I think so), and the 1643 manuscript would seem to have value to scholars. Name carving is not exactly “handwriting”, which is what this WP article is about, but it’s close. DagTruffle (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ben Jonson

User:Tom Reedy, you deleted a reference to Ben Jonson’s comment regarding Shakespeare’s handwriting. The topic of the article is “Shakespeare’s handwriting”. This content was properly sourced to the 2010 Arden book on Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Ben Jonson was a friend of Shakespeare’s and a fellow playwright, and certainly knew his friend’s handwriting. The Arden book is a reliable source. The author of the introduction to the Arden book (Duncan-Jones, who is cited) felt that the comment by Ben Jonson was pertinent regarding not only Shakespeare’s handwriting, but also how Jonson’s comment might lead to a consideration of the authorial authenticity of the 1609 Quarto. It seems to me that a student or a scholar of the quarto might someday see this article, and Ben Jonson’s comment, and they might be inspired to pursue it with further research. But that couldn’t happen if it’s not there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with plenty of room. This is a primary source. Jonson was a contemporary. I think it belongs. Gaustaag (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The quotation says nothing about Shakespeare's handwriting. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Tom Reedy, when Ben Jonson refers to Shakespeare’s writing and seeming to “shake a Lance”, it evokes for some the image of Shakespeare with pen in hand. That kind of thing — the technique of evoking or implying — is something that is common in poetry, and which Ben Jonson used effectively often. And since Ben Jonson knew Shakespeare’s handwriting, that passage gives to his eulogy a vivid sense of Jonson seeing Shakespeare using a pen — in Jonson’s mind’s eye. I don’t think that’s an accident, and I don’t think it can be assumed that Jonson didn’t intend it. This is why Duncan-Jones included this in her discussion of Shakespeare’s handwriting in the introduction to the Arden edition. I think it should be included. If you have access to the source, perhaps you might consider it, and suggest a way of wording this properly-sourced content to make it more acceptable in your opinion? Gaustaag (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The issue concerns this edit. I don't know the context in which that poem was presented but to me it reads as a testimonial to the works left by Shakespeare and has nothing to say about his hand writing. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Leaving aside that fact that Duncan-Jones' speculation would have Jonson calling himself ignorant--a very unlikely scenario given Jonson's bloated self-image--her speculation appears to be her floating an idea, one that has not been picked up by any other critic that I'm aware of. Jonson actually did comment upon Shakespeare's handwriting, or at least commented upon what Heminges and Condell said about it. I suppose Duncan-Jones remark could conceivably be tied in some way to Jonson's remark about Heminges' and Condell's admiration of his blot-free copy, but that would be OR on our part (and it just illustrates how speculation leads to more elaborate speculation). Wikipedia is not a list of everything that's ever been said about a topic; we're supposed to be editors, not trainspotters. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Tom Reedy, I see your point, I can't agree with it completely, because there is a fallacy in the idea that anyone has suggested that we "list everything that's ever been said”. But a minor fallacy is perhaps a small price to pay, maybe even worth it, if it ends in your great line: “We're supposed to be editors, not trainspotters!” Good one, Tom Reedy. I also admire the careful reading it took for you to mine the suggestion that Duncan-Jones’ reading would have Jonson calling himself “ignorant”. That’s good, but it’s a bit of a stretch to think your reading can claim the field and exclude Duncan-Jones’, because as brilliant as Jonson was, this wouldn’t be the first time he inadvertently made himself appear a bit foolish. At least to some. But I suppose a little hyperbole on your part, gives your ideas a bit of “zing”, and might help you as you go around batting down a lot of stupid trollish ideas that do occur on talk pages. I certainly don’t want to discourage you in that. In fact, I probably would like to include "everything that's ever been said" on this topic if (I say if) it occurs in a current Arden or Oxford publication, as in this case.Gaustaag (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, there’s not too much interest here. In this discussion, comments were made, but those who made them have not respond in a while. So, to summarize this discussion: I think all agree that a small amount of content that was supported by an extremely reliable source was deleted. The content accurately reflected the source, and the source considers that the content is pertinent. The disagreement is this: The reason the Wikipedia editor (User:Tom Reedy) deleted the content seems to be that he disagrees with the reliable source, and suggests that her speculation suggests something unlikely (It would have Jonson “calling himself ignorant”). Also Tom Reedy (the Wikipedia editor) doesn’t seem to see much value in speculation: as he says, it only “leads to more elaborate speculation”. So it seems that he considers speculation has no place in Wikipedia. If I may respond to that: speculation has great value in every field of study. Every great theory and idea in the history of the world began with speculation. Hegel discusses and defines speculative thinking, and he’s not the only one. I think the real issue (in this discussion) is that Wikipedia editors often have very strong opinions on the topic of an article, and often think that their own opinion trumps the opinion of a reliable source. Though it is common for Wikipedia editors to value their own opinions greatly, and to assert them, that is not the way Wikipedia works. It’s not the democratic “idea” of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is built on nothing but content supported by reliable sources, and it shouldn't be removed without good reason. So, as it stands, I’m inclined to restore this content.Gaustaag (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing my objection, and I take umbrage at your accusation that I object simply because I disagree with it. ["A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." See this final decision from a 2004 arbitration. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gaustaag: Tom edits somewhat intermittently. As do I, and so too for a lot of people here. It's the nature of the thing for an entirely volunteer-driven project of this scope. Lack of responses for a week does not mean other editors aren't interested or have abandoned the discussion: it just means they're otherwise occupied, have missed further responses, or did not realise there was something to respond to. As an example, I have somewhere north of 3000 articles on my watchlist and can easily miss whole discussions unless my attention is specifically called to it. As a general rule of thumb I prescribe patience (lots and lots of it) and a gentle {{ping}} now and again.

Regarding the content in question: the problem isn't that Tom disagrees with Duncan-Jones, it's that Duncan-Jones is alone in that particular take (and she even, if I understand correctly, puts it as speculative). For uncontroversial facts, Wikipedia reports them in its own voice: "The moon is made out of cheese." In principle it doesn't matter whether Wikipedia editors believe that: if that's what all (or the vast majority) of the relevant reliable sources say about the matter, that's what and how it gets reported on Wikipedia. And let me just say, we do report quite a few things that I, personally, think is purest nonsense, but which, unfortunately, is widely discussed or considered relevant in the literature. If the fact or point in question is not such a universally or widely held position, the issues become more complicated. For one thing, it means we can no longer report it in Wikipedia's voice, but must attribute the opinion to its source: "Dr. Seuss asserts that the moon is made of cheese." That also often requires explaining the reasoning behind the source's opinion, and it often requires explaining how widely held the opinion is and possibly, where relevant, the demographics of those who hold it (e.g. "German theatre critics generally hold Die Hamletmaschine to be superior to Hamlet"). At this point we will have devoted quite a lot of space in the article to whatever the point or position is: and letting something take up a lot of space gives it prominence and weight. In other words, we must also consider whether our coverage is commensurate with its inherent importance in the literature: whether we accord it due weight.

In this case, that Duncan-Jones once briefly speculates on a point is a miniscule and insignificant detail compared to even just all the major critical editions (all three series of the Arden, at least two Oxford editions, two Cambridges (iirc), etc.), and much less when you start taking into account the many biographers (a more natural source for this issue), and the many hundreds of scholarly articles published in the field each year. By including it at all we lend it undue weight, and privilege Duncan-Jones disproportionately; by covering it in the depth we'd need to satisfy other policies, we'd be vastly overblowing it compared to its significance.

There is some room for debate and judgement here (it's not a bright line rule): Duncan-Jones' prominence lends it weight, and appearing in an Arden edition is in itself notable. But Duncan-Jones being alone on this point, in an extremely crowded field, speaks against it. As does the fact that Duncan-Jones herself doesn't spend (iiuc) a lot of space on it, nor argue it more forcefully than as speculation. In other words, I think Tom is correct here. --Xover (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Tom Reedy, I really didn’t mean to cause you umbrage. Not at all. And if I did, as you say I did, I honestly regret that. I consider that you are an excellent editor, you’re knowledgable, you make a lot of excellent contributions. I also appreciate your interest in uncommonly fascinating topics. (Including Tarlton’s play, and I admire you for fighting the good fight regarding the discussion regarding James Shapiro, etc.) I don’t claim to know your entire objection here, I only know what you’ve posted. And I consider that you mischaracterize what I said — I didn’t say your objection was “simply” because you disagree with the source, as you put it. I was trying to be fair to what you expressed. I tried. But what ever the reason, I believe I did indeed cause you umbrage, I take you at your word, and I take responsibility for that, and I’m glad to drop this whole thing if only to avoid doing that. Regarding the links you suggested — they lead to some lengthy and varied content, and I would need a bit of guidance from you to know exactly how you mean them to apply to this discussion. But I’m going to be respectful and considerate and let this all go anyway, so …

To respond to User:Xover: Xover, correct me if I’m wrong, but, in good faith, your first two sentences appear to be not at all accurate (based on your own “User contribution” pages). And you follow that comment by seeming to suggest that “Tom” as you call him, doesn’t disagree with the source. He does, too, Xover, and he expressed his disagreement in a very interesting and thoughtful way. His recent point is that his objection is not “simply” that. Xover, in this way, you seem to be mischaracterizing Tom Reedy’s opinion, and this is the exact thing that caused him umbrage. I learned this the hard way. I don’t claim to be an expert on the topic of Tom Reedy’s opinion, I may not even be the one to be discussing it right now, and I’m very much open to being corrected, but I think — considering what’s already been said — I think that Tom Reedy’s opinion needs to be treated with more exactness than that. Anyway, Xover, no disrespect intended, but I stopped reading your comments at that point. I’m bailing on this topic anyway for the reason I stated above. Sincere best wishes to all.Gaustaag (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gaustaag: I'm not sure what you refer to as inaccurate here. That I edit intermittently? Right now I've had a bit more time available for Wikipedia, but come August my contributions will likely become more erratic again. By intermittent, here, I mean unpredictable and with possible gaps. Last week, for example, I was travelling without a laptop Sunday through Thursday and didn't edit for that reason. In any case, my point there was that you should never expect that other editors have promptly read, or been able to respond, to discussions here. People have other stuff going on in their lives, and Wikipedia is, and should be, a low priority activity.

As for "Tom" and possibly mischaracterizing his position; we've both been editing in this area for over a decade now and know each other quite well. I'm as confident he won't take umbrage to my familiar mode of reference as I am that he will correct me if I have mischaracterized his position (on Wikipedia we have the concept of the WP:TROUT for such situations).

In any case, I belive you are correct that Tom disagrees with Duncan-Jones on this point. However, I don't think Tom's argument about what we should do in this article is based on his disagreement with Duncan-Jones, because Wikipedia editors' opinions about such matters is irrelevant by policy. If you'd read past the first two sentences of my above reply you would have found that I explain this at length. --Xover (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Archaionomia edits

1. Gregory Heyworth is no longer head of the spectral imimaging program, and in fact he isn't even at the same university anymore, but the intro is in the present tense.

2. The quotation that the signature "has been judged by several authorities to be from the Bard himself" is out of context and misleading.

3. The quotation from Heyworth is newspaper filler that adds nothing to the article.

Also if you're going to change what the source says (Strong/some edit), you need to find another ref and delete the present one. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Fellow editor Tom Reedy — about your point number four, both statements are true — to say Wells noted either some support or strong support. The word some encompasses either strong or weak. Wells saying that that there is “strong support” is vague — it could mean all kinds of things: It involves an unstated quantity, of undefined persons (scholars, scientists, graphologists … ). And his word support is diluted by being open to a variety of meanings as well. And Wells dilutes the comment further by applying the same comment to two completely different situations. That’s a whole lot of vagueness, as the number of Wells’ possible meanings branches out, if you ask me. In the decades since Wells made that comment the question remains: Where can a person find the “strong support” he’s talking about? It seems to me that scholarship of any note is nearly ignoring the Archaionomia book, and no one’s willing to stick their neck out. I think that Wells in a spirit of enthusiasm may have over-stepped, and the decades since indicate that. Wikipedia could be more accurate and not contradict Wells, and say that there has been some support. Also it shouldn’t be surprising if Wikipedia rewords what sources say — that’s what WP does when there are no quote marks involved.

Regarding your point number 1, so just change the tense — change is to was. Problem solved.

Regarding your point number 2, you have to explain that one. No one will know what you mean if you don’t say it.

And as to point number 3, that quote shows Heyworth expressing the most important point about the purpose of his scientific project. It’s not to “authenticate”, it’s to provide data and the tools and information and knowledge that can be used by others. If you leave that bit out then the paragraph in the section gives the idea that the only end is authentication. I understand the appeal of wanting to have a black & white answer. (Is it Shakespeare or is it not!!) But that’s the difference between really serious scholarship, and a lot of the looney fringe ideas that are muddying the waters of Shakespeare studies these days. One side wants to make a lot of absolutist proclamations — truth and accuracy be damned. I think you would agree we need to avoid that. I think we need Heyworth’s comment just to be accurate on that point. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, Wells was talking about the initial support for the signatures, not the (then) current support. As to your other point about Heyworth's quotation, your point would be well-taken if this article was the Lazarus Project, but the article's scope is supposedly confined to Shakespeare's handwriting. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

As to your question on #2, read the source. You write "The results [of the Lazarus study] have been encouraging, and the signature 'has been judged by several authorities to be from the Bard himself'", implying two things: that the results have been assessed (not true), and that those results have caused some authorities to accept the signature as genuine (also not true). The sentence is dishonestly taking the source out of context. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Fellow editor Reedy, I object to your accusation of dishonesty, and I don’t think that it is merited, because editors are encouraged to assume good faith, and also because the sentence that you deleted from the WP article is this: 'The results have been encouraging, and the signature "has been judged by several authorities to be from the Bard himself”', and the source referenced says this: “Since the collection of images [images of what may be Shakespeare’s signature] just finished as I write these words, we have implemented only the most preliminary processing of the data, but the images provide encouraging results,” and also this: “One of the many treasures at the Folger Shakespeare Library is a copy of William Lambarde’s Archaionomia, a book on Anglo-Saxon law published in 1568 and acquired by the Library in 1938. Buried amidst the decorative border of the title page is a faded signature that has been judged by several authorities to be from the Bard himself.”

Your suggestion that there is an “implication” of some kind of assessment seems to be your invention, while there have probably been various assessments, there is no such claim or implication in the quote. And as to your suggestion that it is not true that “some authorities to accept the signature as genuine” — that is in fact what the article states. (See the quote of the article I just quoted in the previous paragraph or you may read the source for yourself).

Mr. Reedy, I respectfully think you are also mistaken in your suggestion that the quote of Heyworth was not pertinent to the article about Shakespeare’s handwriting. Please consider that this is the quote you deleted: “Whether this is Shakespeare’s signature is something that we will not be able to determine for certain, perhaps ever, but we will have far better and more compelling data on which to make an adjudication”. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to read your comment to see what argument supports the text but the non-standard approach is very off-putting and is more than I can handle. In the future please do not address other editors or waffle on about good faith etc. Just stick to a discussion of article content. What text is desired? What reliable sources support it? What do sources say that contradict the points made in the opening comment above? Johnuniq (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for using the description "dishonest"; "misleading" would have been a better term. I did not mean to say or imply that you were dishonest, just that the sentence was.

You took the introductory sentence that stated that the signature under question had been accepted in the past as genuine by several authorities, and married it to another, later statement that the results of the tests had been encouraging. If you can't see how the sentence implies the the test results have caused some authorities to accept the signature as genuine, I'm afraid you and I have radically different interpretations of what words and word order signify.

The Archaionomia part of the Lazarus project has been over for more than six years now, and the promised report has never been issued. I doubt that it will ever be. Including an outdated and obviously invalid about any data the project will furnish in the future seems to be irrelevant at this point. If we could get any kind of report on it we could note that in the article, but I have not been able to get any response from Heyworth or his replacement about when or even if that might happen. I have my own ideas about what that is, but those are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom Reedy, for what you said about “word choice”, I get it, it’s not a problem at all, I appreciate what you said. I’m not exactly sure what “promised report” you’re referring to, but maybe the idea comes from the article “Restored Scribble May Be Shakespeare's Signature” by Stephanie Pappas, which is one of the sources in this section. That source/article says: “The team hasn't yet begun the process of authenticating the signature as Shakespeare's, but they did reconstruct it.”

I think that source is mistaken to imply that the goal of the Lazarus Project is to authenticate the signature, or if it’s suggesting that the signature will certainly someday be authenticated (or ruled out). The reason I think that it’s mistaken is because it contradicts the Lazarus Project’s mission statement (which doesn’t say anything about authenticating), and it contradicts Heyworth (who is still on the board of directors) in the quote I added. I think that scholars will be delighted to accept this signature as an excellent possibility, and can add it (and the idea that Shakespeare may have owned this book) to other interesting possibilities (and facts) to help develop theories and greater understandings. The section as it stands over-emphasizes “authenticating”, it promises more than science can deliver, and it is contradicted by other sources. That’s why I think a slightly bigger picture is needed. I very much appreciate and value your impulse to be cautious and conservative with protecting this article, and not let it get too bent out of shape by a lot of editorial messing with it. It’s fascinating that you took a step to find out about where things stand with the Lazarus Project — I’d love to know if you learn anything (and your thoughts). There certainly must be reports— at least to the Folger and kept in their files. It might be something that is up to the Folger’s discretion. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

If you want to inquire, Heather Wolfe at the Folger is the person to contact. The last I checked (2017), Helen Davies of the University of Rochester was the contact for the Lazarus Project. Perhaps you can learn where the project is in relation to the signature. And Heyworth himself stated that the project would be able to determine whether the signature was a forgery. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Heather Wolfe?! She’s a like a rock star. The Guardian last year called her "the Sherlock of the Library”, a “willowy, bright-eyed” scholar who “discovered the smoking gun”, the one who “cracked the case of Shakespeare’s identity”. I’d love to converse with her. Since you mentioned the doctor, maybe you should create an article for her — she deserves it. It would enhance WP’s Shakespeare department. But we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves. I think my edits to this section were good, and I’m thinking maybe I should put them back in — maybe with a bit of an adjustment based on what’s been said here. You could take a second look at them, and see if maybe you might allow them to remain or not. Yes? To respond to your last comment, if Heyworth said (as you say) that he thought he could determine whether the signature is a forgery or not, and also contradicted himself, this article could easily include both statements. “He said X, [citation] however he later said Y. [citation]”. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I added a source (with a link) -- partly because it has some great images that pertain. Plus I added a brief mention of the Lazarus Project, which the source supports. I also made sure it was in the past tense, based on the discussion above. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Need for a complete rewrite of this article

This article does not agree with the scholarly consensus on the issue of Shakespeare's handwriting. It assumes that Hand D is his handwriting, even though that is not the scholarly consensus. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should always reflect the scholarly consensus. All discussion of Hand D needs to be broken out into a separate section and evaluated separately citing the most recently scholarly research on the topic.

To quote the Folger Library website:

On the basis of poetic style, many scholars believe that a three page revision to the play is in Shakespeare’s handwriting. However, we don’t really know what Shakespeare’s handwriting looks like. Six signatures of Shakespeare, found on four legal documents, are the only handwriting that we know for certain are his. This is too small a sample size to make any sort of reliable comparison.

https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/exhibition/document/shakespeares-handwriting-hand-d-booke-sir-thomas-more

This article was written by Shakespeare expert Paul Werstine

https://www.kings.uwo.ca/academics/faculty-info/?dept=Department%20of%20English%2C%20French%2C%20and%20Writing&id=werstine

Kfein (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I have edited the page to reflect more accurately the scholarly consensus on this issue.Kfein (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be editing to add your own opinions, which you do not properly support with reliable sources, which is considered original research. I changed what you put in the lead section to correct an example of that. - Bitwixen (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The Folger Research Library is a much more reliable source than the others used on this page. It is a worldwide center for Shakespeare research and its articles are written by experts on the subject:

https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/exhibition/document/shakespeares-handwriting-hand-d-booke-sir-thomas-more

Kfein (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Kfein, that's your opinion regarding the Folger. Other editors may or may not agree with you, but on Wikipedia editor's opinions should generally be avoided or at least less valued when it comes to editing, particularly in contrast to opinions and content found in reliable sources, which are greatly valued in Wikipedia. All content here should be supported by reliable sources. And your original research is original research - Bitwixen (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

In no way, shape, or form did I interject my personal opinion into the article. Anyone can look at my edits and see that they are not based on opinion and do not even express a viewpoint. I simply changed the article to reflect the scholarly consensus. There is no scholarly consensus that Hand D is the handwriting of William Shakespeare and I edited the article to reflect that.

No one could possibly disagree that the Folger Research Library and its publications are RS regarding William Shakespeare. It is the premier scholarly institution in the world focused on Shakespeare studies.Kfein (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Certainly it is a better source than newspaper articles. Better still would be the latest scholarly work directly concerned with the three pages that summarizes the scholarly consensus. Paul Werstine is a noted skeptic on the attribution to Shakespeare, perhaps the most notable. As it is I think this article hews fairly close to the consensus, but it could stand some reorganization. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

---

• Shakespeare's handwriting → Handwriting by William Shakespeare
• Shakespeare's influence → Influence of William Shakespeare
• Shakespeare's late romances → Late romances by William Shakespeare
• Shakespeare's writing style → Writing style of William Shakespeare

– These titles sound more natural. I am unsure about whether it is better to use by or of in the titles. I'm proposing what I think is best. Interstellarity (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don’t agree that the proposed titles sound more natural, which I think may be a matter of taste. The proposal doesn’t provide any reason beyond the sound of the titles. It should be mentioned that three of these articles have undergone “moves” to change the title, and at least two of the titles have had “move discussions” by a number of editors in the past — discussions that resulted in the current titles. Those discussions are still valid, they are pertinent here, and should be included here. I think changing titles should be taken seriously—especially several at a time—and any proposal should have stronger justification. The proposed titles use the full name — “William Shakespeare” —and in the earlier discussions — that was by consensus already rejected in favor of the more simple “Shakespeare”. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose all. Google Ngrams shows the possesive/attributive form to be far more common for "plays". The possessive form, "X's Y" is more natural than "Y of X" (unless X is a phrase of several words). Indeed, often I hear or read the "of" form from people whose first language is not English; it's a tell-tale in translations from Latinate languages. With titles like Portnoy's Complaint and Kafka's Dick from notable playwrights (but not J. Alfred Prufrock's Love Song) there is little doubt this is a natural form.

Since the article Shakespeare's handwriting has the tautology "handwritten manuscript" it's moot whether "by" or "of" is better. I've no objection to creating the redlinks nominated as redirects. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, the present titles seem fine, direct, and descriptive. The handwriting proposal should probably contain 'of' instead of 'by'. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: All proposed titles are clunky and go against WP:CONCISE. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support I don't think we should use just surnames for article titles per WP:NCP even if the context is clear. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The article WP:NCP doesn’t really apply in these cases — that article begins by saying that it pertains to "articles about individual people" and that the article should be read "in conjunction with the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy". It goes on to give over one hundred examples of Wikipedia articles to illustrate what's being referring to — all of those one-hundred-plus examples, living and dead, are biographies. The articles discussed here are not biographies, and they’re not about individual persons. They are articles about a person's handwriting, etc. This also applies to the comment over on the talk page of Shakespeare's Sonnets that contains a link to this page. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.