Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

The question is the argument

At this writing, the first sentence says

The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him.

No offense intended to whoever wrote that, but that sounds really bad. A question is not an argument; a question is a question. The question asks whether someone other than WS of SuA wrote the works.

I'm going to speculate that the intent here is that the only people who ask the question are the ones who make the argument that someone else wrote the works. That may be so; I don't know enough about the topic to say. But I'm afraid that doesn't save the sentence; it still looks really really bad.

Possible fixes include:

1. Change to The Shakespeare authorship question asks whether...
2. Move the article to some phrase that can be more cleanly repeated in the first sentence
3. Don't repeat the article title (at least, verbatim) in the first sentence at all

Option 3 is a little unusual but not unprecedented, especially for titles that are more descriptions of something than a standard name for that thing. Just off the top of my head, could be something like

A minority of scholars of the works attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon has proposed that someone else wrote the works attributed to him.

Not great, needs work, but I'm just trying to explain what I mean, not proposing actual text. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please search the archives; this question has been brought up more than once, and it is the main reason why the word "argument" is linked to an explanation. And WP style favors putting the title on the first sentence. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Very often in featured articles, questions have been hashed over many times, and I appreciate that. I'm coming to the article with new eyes, and letting you know that, to my eyes, it is still a problem. By the way, I don't see what you mean by "argument" being linked to an explanation, but in any case I'm sure you'll agree that links are not a substitute for clear writing.

As for the style, yes, in most cases, the title is repeated in the first sentence, but there are exceptions. WP:BEGIN says

However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text.

This case seems at least arguably an instance of "merely descriptive". --Trovatore (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw that the link was gone, and traced it back to an anonymous edit on 20 May 2014 and restored it. I don't agree that it "sounds really bad". It succinctly defines the term. And the term is not merely descriptive; other authorship terms exist that refer to attribution studies. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Does it define the term? It seems to me that the "authorship question", at least in principle, is about whether someone else wrote the works, not an argument that someone else did. (Or, perhaps, it's the question of who wrote the works, with WS of SuA being one possible answer.)

I don't actually see how the argument link helps; the first sentence of that article says that ... an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade .... But a question is not typically used to persuade; it is typically used to inquire. --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The term "Shakespeare authorship question" is not a question; it is a synecdoche for all the arguments against William Shakespeare being the author of the Shakespeare canon. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that's very clear to a naive reader. If this is the intent, then maybe it would be better to move the article to alternative Shakespeare authorship hypotheses or some such? --Trovatore (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I am going cycling now; I look forward to reading response(s) in a few hours. --Trovatore (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

As Tom says, we hashed this out after a long discussion several years ago. Yes, it helps, Trovatore, that you come to this with fresh eyes, and you are welcome to present your view from your own perspective. But—and you admit you "don't know enough about the topic"—what does not help is your charging in like gangbusters and changing the first sentence of a Featured Article while it is being so prominently displayed. We really need to wait for some responses to accumulate on the talk page. "It sounds really bad"? It sounds really bad to you. Maybe others will join in, agreeing with you, and adding their own reasons, and some change will be made that will, after all, be better. But this is too fast, much too fast, just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The link to argument to me does adequately account for this use of the term. Yes, it is a less than common use, which is why the link was there (as Tom says, someone removed it and no one restored it); but, as I recall, after I read all the, er, arguments, for and against, the first time around, I did come over to the point of view that this first sentence works, and it was better than any alternatives proposed. Agreed, you have the right to say your say and be heard. But, sheesh, a little patience, please? This is not a first stab at a new article that somebody just cobbled together yesterday. (I hope you enjoyed your ride.) --Alan W (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I thought my change was fairly mild — said basically the same thing, but in a way that made more sense according to usual English semantics — and I did invite a quick revert in the edit summary. So it doesn't seem to me like a radical over-bold edit.

As I explain elsewhere, my problem is not with "argument" in the sense of "thesis"; that's the way I read it anyway. It's the only available meaning. So the link really doesn't help at all (note that even if it did, it's bad practice to write text that is clear only if you follow the link, especially when the link is a common word that readers think they understand). --Trovatore (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Some reading for a rainy day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_17#Copyediting_the_lead_.28details.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_25#.22Question.22_and_.22argument.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_29#Unlinking_.22argument.22_in_the_introduction Tom Reedy (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions Trovatore but "is the argument that" is best. As explained above, SAQ is standard jargon so changing the title of the article is out of the question. Also, the reliable sources tell us that there is no question—that would be like portraying intelligent design as questioning evolution when in fact it is nonsense. Many people question whether the CIA blew up the twin towers (but there is no "question" according to RS), while those more interested in literature present arguments that Shakespeare did not do it. Note that "argument" does not mean flame war—that is why it is linked. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, well if it's genuinely a term of art, of course that's different. However it still gives the reader a problem, because ordinarily one is entitled to expect that something called a "question" is in fact a question, and while a question may be argumentative, it cannot ordinarily be an "argument" in and of itself.

(By the way, I always understood "argument" here as meaning "thesis with reasons"; that's the only available meaning, really, because of the way the sentence continues. But a question is not a thesis.)

So if this is indeed a standard term, then how about helping the intelligent and well-educated but naive reader out here? An explanatory footnote perhaps? Not for the "argument" part, but for the "question" part. --Trovatore (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 

Oh, and may I also ask, what is the specific objection to "asks whether"? It seems to fulfill all the functions of the existing text, without giving the reader the problem I alluded to. I don't see this proposed solution mentioned in the links --Trovatore (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work like that. Please present an argument for why the established text should be changed, and obtain consensus for your desired text. The current "is the argument" has been in the article for several years. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely; changes need to be justified. I think I have presented an argument, but let me recap:

• The current text gives the reader a problem, because a "question" is not ordinarily an "argument" (even in the sense of "thesis").
• Saying that the question "asks whether" rather than "is the argument that" removes that problem.

Now, ball's in your court. Do you disagree with either of those points? Which one, and why? Or do you agree with them, but think that the proposed text has some other problem that is just as bad or worse? --Trovatore (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I presented my arguments above at 00:23, 24 April 2017. Perfection would be great so readers who are unfamiliar with the encyclopedic meaning of "argument" would not suffer a problem. However, perfection ain't easy—it is always possible to niggle about wording. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, as I've explained more than once, the meaning of "argument" is not the issue. I was always assuming it was the meaning from the link. I think it's still problematic.

Can you say more specifically why you object to "asks whether"? I read your comments of 00:23 and I still don't see it. My best guess is that you think "asks whether" gives too much credence to the hypothesis, is that correct? But I don't see that. Even when the answer is completely known, it does not stop someone from asking the question.

To take an extreme example, let's examine "the question of the value of 2+2". For any common context, we all agree on the answer, but it does not make the "question" into an "argument". The parallel "argument" text would be something like "the question of the value of 2+2 is the argument that 2+2 is something other than 4". I think you can see that that is just very awkward English, and would be even if there were a notable group that asserted that 2+2 is something other than 4. --Trovatore (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It is commonly called the "Shakespeare Authorship Question", but it really is an argument, or a group of arguments. I see that more clearly now. For me, the Cambridge Dictionary defines both the relevant terms the way they are used here:

Question
question noun (PROBLEM)

a matter to be dealt with or discussed, or a problem to be solved:
[example] The question is, are they telling the truth?

You could substitute: "The question is, did the Earl of Oxford write the plays attributed to Shakespeare?"

Argument

argument noun (REASONS)

the reasons for your opinion about the truth of something or an explanation of why you believe something should be done:
[example] A good argument can be made for providing health insurance for all children.

You could substitute: "A good argument can be made that the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays."

As Tom puts it, "argument" here is a synecdoche for a collection of arguments, since this is not only about the Earl of Oxford's putative authorship.

After reading the present discussion, I can see better than ever that this "question" really is more an argument than a question. It doesn't question whether.... It presents an argument that so and so wrote the plays.

The more I think about it, the better what is written now works for me. --Alan W (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe you've thought about it too long, then :-). What about the person reading it for the first time? Anything that can be done to help that person out? That person may not be aware that "Shakespeare authorship question" is a term of art.

On another note, do the RSs really use "Shakespeare authorship question" in such a way that it (grammatically) refers to a thesis rather than a question? I defer to you on the weight of the RSs, as I am no expert and perhaps you are. But at least one RS that really does that would be nice. Example sentences that would demonstrate this:

Those who assert the Shakespeare authorship question claim....

The Shakespeare authorship question asserts that....

If you believe the Shakespeare authorship question, then you must also believe....

These are just examples; maybe there's some less awkward text that would be equally convincing. Can you find one? I'd really like to see even one. --Trovatore (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I leave that to others. I am not one of the experts in this area. About the person reading this for the first time, well, perhaps a footnote would help. I don't recall if that was discussed in the past, though of course it could be reconsidered. I certainly am always in favor of making things easier for the nonspecialist. As for thinking about it too long, well, though I'm no expert in most of the RSs (not those most germane to this discussion, anyway), I did reread the entire text of this article quite a few times over the years in the course of my editorial work here. I did not hesitate to make alterations to help the general reader. Others didn't always agree with me, but I tried; so it's not as if I would be content with leaving in overly technical or specialized language. On the other hand, I don't think we should dumb it down. After all that careful reading of the entire article, "question" and "argument", as used here, more than ever do seem right in their places, as I've said. Regarding those other nonspecialist readers ("other", because I certainly do not count myself among the real SAQ specialists), I am hoping that we get some of those to weigh in here. I see that 260 Wikipedians are "watching" this page. It would be nice to get some more input, given the interest in the topic. Whew, getting very late in this part of the world. Good night. --Alan W (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I don't want to dumb it down, not at all! I just want to write it so that it makes sense in (ordinary educated high-register formal) English, or failing that, at least explains why it doesn't. --Trovatore (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Shakespeare is now regarded as difficult to read because much of the language is 'outdated' and there is even a commissioned project, I think by Methuen, to have the works 'translated' /paraphrased into English younger generations can feel comfortable with. Well, by all means, let's dumb him down, and dumb down the secondary language as well, so that, when children read Shakespeare or come across the use of the word 'argument' they can understand everything instantly, even if this means they'll never understand Shakespeare, nor be enchanted by his strange, allusive style. That you had to stop in your reading, and look up 'argument' is one good reason for retaining it: the dumbing down of language means no one stops to mull over a word when doing so enriches one's mastery of the language, whereas altering it to a more familiar idiom only impoverishes the lexicon.Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, maybe you missed it. I don't know how many times I have to say this. I have no problem with "argument" in the sense of "thesis with reasons". That's what I was assuming was meant. --Trovatore (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your overture reads:'A question is not an argument; a question is a question.' (2) 'the meaning of "argument" is not the issue. I was always assuming it was the meaning from the link. I think it's still problematic.' I don't want to be hectoring, pal, and apologize if my remarks above appear so. The remarkable thing about this article is that it was driven to Fa by several editors who are hair-splitters to a man, and therefore the odds were that it would be bogged down. To the contrary, and somewhat miraculously, we always managed to iron out our differences. People who can comb through this with a fine eye for small issues are always welcome. Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a couple of degrees in English lit, even taught it as a TA at university and at college level for a time after graduation, and I have no problem reading, but apparently I am too thick to understand what the problem is. The term "Shakespeare Authorship Question" is a well-known phrase (hence the title of the article); the phrase gets 39,000 hits on Goggle; the definition is succinct and accurate; the page is FA status and has been FA of the day twice; and while I, like Nishidani, am always up for better and more accurate prose, I cannot see how these suggestions are an improvement. Given the number of readers this page reaches (600 hits a day average), it would be impossible to tweak the language to suit every theoretical naive first-time reader (if such a thing exists). Tom Reedy (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Back to the original assertion, that "A question is not an argument; a question is a question."

This is demonstrably not so, as anyone can learn by Googling such terms as "the race question", "the refugee question", "the Jewish question", etc.

Looking at the uses for the word "question", the definition for "research question" is helpful: "A research question is an interrogative statement that manifests the objective or line of scholarly or scientific inquiry designed to addresses a specific gap in knowledge. Research questions are expressed in a language that is appropriate for the academic community that has the greatest interest in answers that would address said gap. These interrogative statements serve as launching points for the academic pursuit of new knowledge by directing and delimiting an investigation of a topic, a set of studies, or an entire program of research." In this case, the so-called "gap" to be investigated, the Shakespeare authorship question, does not really exist in the eyes of professional Shakespeareans, except in the terms of attribution studies. So the idea that someone else wrote the works of Shakespeare while he acted as a front has to be made by argument. Those collective arguments make up what is commonly called the Shakespeare authorship question. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Responding to this: "On another note, do the RSs really use "Shakespeare authorship question" in such a way that it (grammatically) refers to a thesis rather than a question? I defer to you on the weight of the RSs, as I am no expert and perhaps you are. But at least one RS that really does that would be nice." https://books.google.com/books?id=W8KtHtT3jNYC&q=authorship+question#v=snippet&q=%22authorship%20question%22&f=false You can repeat that search with any of the sources used in this article. Helpful links to most of them are provided in the references section.

As far as I'm concerned, this topic has been exhausted. The article has had the same title since its inception 15 years ago. While we have seen several arguments about using the term "argument" in the lede, no one until now has found fault with the phrase "Shakespeare authorship question", and I feel confident that the issue can rest for another 15 years, by which time I'm sure I'll be beyond caring. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's focus on one bit from the above: "a research question is an interrogative statement". An argument (in the sense under discussion; that is, a set of statements intended to establish a thesis) is not an interrogative statement. It's in the indicative mood. A question does not assert anything; it asks.

Your examples don't really work. It makes no sense to say "the race question is an argument (attempt to establish a thesis)". You can say, if you like, that people who use the phrase "the race question" are making an argument (attempting to establish a thesis), but that is a different thing.

In any case, I will not insist much longer. I find it frustrating that I cannot get my point, which I feel I have expressed clearly and convincingly, across, and that people still seem able to read what I have written and think the issue is how I'm interpreting "argument". I am a mathematician; the meaning of "argument" under discussion is very natural to me, and I never even considered that it could mean "debate" here.

So you don't have to listen to me much longer, but the problem is still going to be there unless it is addressed. It is really there and will not go away. Let me take one more shot at restating it:

The "Shakespeare authorship question", in its natural reading, is the question of who wrote Shakespeare's works, or perhaps whether Shakespeare wrote them. It is not an assertion that Shakespeare did not write them. It may be that everyone who asks the question is in fact arguing that Shakespeare did not write them, but that is a different thing. --Trovatore (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this view: "The "Shakespeare authorship question", in its natural reading, is the question of who wrote Shakespeare's works, or perhaps whether Shakespeare wrote them. It is not an assertion that Shakespeare did not write them. It may be that everyone who asks the question is in fact arguing that Shakespeare did not write them, but that is a different thing." For a neutral statement, one could write: "The 'Shakespeare Authorship Question' concerns divergent opinion, past and present, as to the identity of the person, or, as some would have it, persons, responsible for the writings traditionally attributed, since the publication of the First Folio, to one by the name of "William Shakespeare," who, also according to tradition, was born in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, England in the 16th century." Proximity1 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC) proximity1

Trovatore, you feel you cannot get your point across. I feel I cannot get mine across. Nishidani and Tom Reedy have already defended what now one might call the "established" point of view, which is mine, and so much more ably than I can, that I will add just this. You wrote: "A question does not assert anything; it asks." In one definition, however, a "question" is a kind of "asssertion": "a subject or aspect in dispute or open for discussion" Merriam-Webster definition "b" of question. It asserts the existence of a controversy. My background and qualifications are not that different from Tom's. So perhaps we see this question over an article about a question through English-teacher-colored glasses. I would suggest that you are seeing it through mathematician-colored glasses. This is why I was hoping that dozens more Wikipedians from different backgrounds would weigh in here. (Credit to Tom, though: in a sense they have, as he says. Thousands have read the article, at least the lead, and no one questioned "question"; as for "argument", yes, that was challenged, but we hashed that out pretty thoroughly, and I would still stand by what I agreed to at that time.) --Alan W (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

So you have "a subject or aspect in dispute or open for discussion". Fine. Let's go with that. That is still not an assertion. You are finding a sort of implied assertion here, namely that the subject is "open for discussion". But an implied assertion is still not an assertion.

Note that even the implied assertion is not that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the works, but merely that the topic is in dispute. But the current text says that the question is an argument that someone else wrote the works, not an argument that the matter is in dispute.

Come on, this is just logic and grammar. It's a category error to say that a question is an argument. That's quite independent of the facts of the case and how thoroughly the heterodox view may have been debunked.

As for "challenging 'question'", I don't have a problem with "question", provided that it is talked about in the way one talks about questions. My proposal to write that the question "asks whether" the works were written by someone else, I thought, fairly neatly solved the issue; it wasn't the only possible solution, but I thought it worked. No one has explained to me what the objection to that was. You objected to it basically on procedural grounds; you thought my edit was over-bold. OK, maybe it was over-bold. But what is the objection to the proposal itself? --Trovatore (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion, and my feeling is that "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that..." is correct usage. I don't really like to simplify sentence structure and vocabulary too far, because it's hard to know when to stop, but I suppose it's possible that this is a usage that many readers will find hard to parse, from lack of familiarity. If we were to agree that that's the case (and I'm not yet convinced) I think the easiest way around it would be to change the first sentence so it no longer includes the phrase "Shakespeare authorship question". Per WP:BEGIN, that's acceptable in certain cases. I don't think this is one of them, but I think that's the argument that would have to be made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a specific objection to "[t]he Shakespeare authorship question asks whether"? --Trovatore (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do. That switches from one meaning of "question" to another, and it's not the same meaning as in the title of the article, so it would be an undesirable change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "switches meaning"? I'm not saying, of course, that the "question" is a particular sentence in the interrogative mood with a question mark at the end. I think this is a fairly idiomatic way of describing questions in the sense of "issues being discussed". --Trovatore (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Rather than repeat some of the long discussion above, I'll just say that Alan W's last comment covers the same ground I would cover. I should add, in the context of that comment, that my academic background is in mathematics, and my professional background is in computing, so perhaps I qualify as a non-English-specialist commenter (though I have published a very small amount of paid writing). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Alan W's last remark does not address the point, as far as I can see. In fact you are the first one in the whole discussion to have directly addressed the "asks whether" proposal. --Trovatore (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

One more proposal. How about "[t]he Shakespeare authorship question is the issue of whether..."? I don't like it as well as "asks whether", because it seems less elegant to me, but it does fix the category error, and I hope it addresses Mike Christie's complaint about changing meaning. Mike, do you agree that it addresses that complaint? (If not, I may have misunderstood you.) --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I said everything that needs to be said in response to this proposal at 00:23, 24 April 2017 above. It is possible to get too emotionally attached to an argument, and that may cause an editor to fail to grasp the replies that are given. Plenty of people have seen this discussion and many more saw the archived discussions—only a single editor wants a change. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I have understood the replies; I just don't agree with them. Realistically, sure, I'm not going to keep tilting at windmills here. But I am still correct. A question is not an argument, and even if it has implied assertions in its presuppositions, that does not make it formally an assertion in and of itself.

The remaining possibility is that "Shakespeare authorship question" is a term of art that does not refer to a question, but rather to an argument. However, looking at the sources provided by Tom, none of them appear to use it that way, or at least not in a way that could not also be reasonably read as referring to a question.

Now as to your response of 00:23, 24 April, it appears that your point is that all alternative hypotheses have been so firmly refuted that it is no longer possible to ask the "question" in good faith. But even if that is true, it does not make it formally an argument. --Trovatore (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder, would it help at all to think about "Shakespeare Authorship Question" as a proper noun? --Xover (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if you make it a proper noun, how does that make it an argument, in the sense of a collection of assertions intended to advance a thesis? I asked for RSs for that, and Tom responded with this link: https://books.google.com/books?id=W8KtHtT3jNYC&q=authorship+question#v=snippet&q=%22authorship%20question%22&f=false. I looked at a number of the hits, certainly not all of them (they're all from a book called Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?), and I do not see any that clearly support that characterization. For example, on page 164, we see:

As badly as Freud, then sixty-five, wanted to resolve the authorship question, he just wasn't sure.

So here the text is talking about the question as something that one resolves, not a thesis that one proves.

Some of the hits are a little more friendly to Tom's view. Here's one, page 213:

One of the first to recognize the extent to which the Shakespeare authorship question was fueled by the Higher Criticism was...

OK, that's a little closer; "questions" are not normally "fueled". But then again, neither are theses. I submit that this snippet can be read to mean "question" in the sense of "controversy". Maybe even "ginned-up controversy"; doesn't matter — a controversy is not a thesis. --Trovatore (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I meant in the sense of "There is an argument that the moon cannot be made of cheese as it would melt in the sun. We have named this argument Bob. Thus, Bob is the argument that the moon cannot be made of cheese in our universe. Most scientist do not consider Bob to be valid." Or, by extension, "There is an argument that Shakespeare cannot have written the plays. This argument is called 'the SAQ'. Thus, the SAQ is the argument that Shakespeare cannot have written the plays."

The reliable sources mostly avoid this formulation because the phrasing is really awkward to parse; but as an encyclopaedia article we really don't have that luxury. We must both use the generally accepted name for it, and work a brief summary explanation of it into the first sentence. And it really doesn't help that its adherents expend a lot of energy on semantics: a "theory" would put it on equal footing with mainstream scholarship; a "controversy" would elevate it to the status of genuine scientific disagreement; a "problem" likewise suggests a genuine, albeit unsolved, scientific issue. They land on "question", then, because like fringe movements of all stripes, notably antivaxxers, they are "Just asking questions™" whose dismissal is taken as proof of the weakness of mainstream scholarship's case, their fear of engaging in open debate, conspiratorial intent, or active suppression of dissent.

I dislike the current phrasing in the lead, but I do not find it unclear, as a practical matter, and I really can't see any good alternatives. Specifically, any phrasing that suggests that the "Shakespeare Authorship Question" is an actual, literal, question in the colloquial sense ("… asks whether …", e.g.) grates on my eyes even worse than the status quo. But, hey, what do I know? I have degrees in neither English, Literature, Mathematics, nor Logic; and any belief in my proficiency with language must raise suspicions that the believer is either mad, drunk, or high on coke (at least two of which may be literally true here). :) --Xover (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I hereby award you an honorary degree in English and Logic for "Bob is the argument that the moon cannot be made of cheese". That is a good explanation.

I also hereby declare that this discussion has exhausted all likelihood of a productive outcome. Per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:DEADHORSE, there is no need to respond further. Johnuniq (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless the snippets from the RS that was pointed to me do not appear to support the claim that this Bob is an argument, in the sense of a collection of assertions meant to establish a thesis.

Now, as for the avoid-false-equivalences motivation, I'm afraid I think that's not just wrong, but generally bad policy. There is no need to start refuting something at the same time you're trying to explain what it is. The article makes completely clear what the mainstream view is, very quickly, and says why. That is the correct approach, not trying to deny that it is a question in the first place. --Trovatore (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If you fail to grasp a quite straight-forward distinction in English usage that several other competent readers tell you exists, then questioning their arguments, or making an argument out of their questions will likely lead nowhere, as indeed this questionable argument has. That's it. Keep argufying by all means, but one is not obliged to enter the echo-chamber.Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, then, by all means, don't. However I have not failed to understand any distinction in English usage. It's the existing text that makes a category error. You still seem to think I have not understood this usage of "argument", but that is not so; that's the sense I always had in mind. --Trovatore (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Reading this, I feel I have to drop by just to say, Trovatore is correct and the opening sentence doesn't mesh. Indeed, the very fact that its writer felt obliged to link "argument" should be indicative enough that he/she knew it wasn't really the right word. The right word would stand up by itself without needing that kind of prop. 2.25.149.9 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is "politicworm.com" denied a place here in the "External Links" list?

Why is "politicworm.com" denied a place here in the "External Links" list?

"PoliticWorm.com" is a Shakespeare Authorship Question site-- no different from any of the various others already in the list. I added it. It has been removed without comment. Why? Proximity1 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)proximity1

The external link added was:

• Politicworm — A dedicated Authorship Question site edited by the researcher Stephanie Hopkins Hughes; she favors the Oxfordian view. "Essays on the Authorship Question, the history of the London commercial Stage, and plays by Shakespeare and other writers" and much more

There are a couple of issues. First, the text is far too promotional. Second, there are lots of websites commenting on the SAQ and in accordance with the external link guidelines, it is necessary to select a small number which have particular information that is useful yet which would be too detailed to be included in an article at Wikipedia. Is there a reason, based on the guidelines, that the proposed website should be added while not listing all the other such websites? Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

See No. 2 and No. 11. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I would be ashamed to offer such flimsy excuses (Try : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dog_ate_my_homework)  for what appears to be so blatant an example of a double-standard.  

 This: ..."Shakespeare's biography, particularly his humble origins and obscure life, seemed incompatible with his poetic eminence and his reputation for genius,"... 

appears to be a recent revision and it reeks of the insecurity which rightly attaches to this matter of Shakspere's education.

The excuses offered are "all over the map." E.g.

"First, the text is far too promotional." What, precisely, was "far too promotional" about the entry? You didn't bother to support that assertion by citing what you meant.

"Second, there are lots of websites"..."it is necessary to select a small number which have particular information that is useful yet which would be"... The passive-voice to the rescue-- "mistakes were made," "it was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it," etc.

As for "See No. 2 and No. 11. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)"

 No. 2 reads : "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting."

 As you well know, in fact, there is absolutely nothing in contemporary documented evidence to support today's Stratfordian scholars' echo-chamber of assertions that Shakspere "probably", "seems to have," "in all likelihood," attended the Stratford primary school of his day.  There is zero evidence in the historical record for this suggestion--always couched in carefully-crafted speculative terms. See, passim, T.W. Baldwin, (1944, University of Illinois).  Thus, all such sites fall afoul of this rule's prohibition, for they all peddle "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" about Shakspere's supposed education,  Yet they're allowed.

Proximity1 (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC) proximity1

Please see WP:TP for how-to information about formatting replies and WP:CIVIL for hints on what content in a comment might elicit a helpful response. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

'Stephanie Hopkins Hughes, is an artist, writer and editor (who lives in Nyack, New York),' like a million other people. To fish out of the vast ocean of conspiracy theories just her, or any other speculative blogger, for special mention can have no other end than promotional, which is disallowed. This article is compiled from sources mostly written by people with doctorates in the topic, or experienced writers who sum up that research. To get a doctorate you are grilled by a panel, often with scholars adopting an adversarial role, to test your mastery of language, scholarship, historical and textual methodologies. It is noticeable that the number of pumpkin heads pressing this tired, utterly exhausted nonsense have almost never endured and come through this cautionary process. But, they read enough to get the interrogatory method, which they apply to standard scholarship (which already uses it inframurally), but never to their own thought processes. Their own work is basically a plagiarizing titivation of things said and repeated for a century, a spin nmachine of washed-out opinions. Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh God. Another one.

Here's something else for you to read. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

These pseudo-polite, pseudo-replies ignore the salient point raised:

 there is _zero_ documentary evidence from contemporary sources which supports the hypothesis that Wm. Shakspere attended school--at all, anywhere, at any time. Yet sites which claim this are accepted for External Links.  Editors here are blatantly enforcing a double-standard. When challenged, they throw up smoke-screen pseudo-arguments devoid of merit.  This, by the way, is exemplary of the methodology of the professoriate

of Stratfordian proponents. A doctorate degree is not and has not been a signal feature of the people behind sites listed as External Links nor does it necessarily bear on the merits of reasoning in this particular matter. Since you've presumed to impute my motives, erroneously denouncing them as crassly commercial or "promotional"--as though your adherents aren't promoting just as well their views at External Links-- I'll express my candid thoughts on yours. It appears that people here are actually afraid of the cogency of the material at the site, Politicworm.

Proximity1 (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC) proximity1

Okay. You've said what you came to say. Read WP:NOTFORUM. Roger, over and out.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And you've ignored it and failed to offer any respectable reasoning. End of argument? Only because your view's dominance means you needn't listen and respond adequately. That's going to change eventually. Then I'll have said what I came to say.

Proximity1 —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Someone hasn't read the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

RE : the Read WP:NOTFORUM. 

Please note the following users' notes from Wikipedia's guides:

  "If you have a question, concern or comment related to improving a Wikipedia article, you can put a note on that article's talk page."

  Other help and discussion locations     

I want... Where to go

...help using Wikipedia Help desk ...to find my way around Wikipedia Department directory ...specific facts (e.g. Who was the first pope?) Reference desk ...constructive criticism from others for a specific article Peer review ...help resolving a specific article edit dispute or making a user conduct dispute complaint Requests for comment ...to comment on a specific article ----> Article's talk page

Proximity1 (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest Additions re: Authorship

Unified field, and the anonymous editor who added material: This is going to have to be reverted. This is a Featured Article, and everything in it was added after much debate and careful consideration over many years. This new material is inserted without integration into the rest of the article, using sources that are debatable, and has other issues. Please bring up these changes on the Talk Page first before adding anything. One example: I see a personal blog as one of the sources (maybe more, but I haven't checked all): not acceptable as a reliable source. --Alan W (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

See? I didn't even have to do the reverting myself. I knew that this was completely out of tune with the rest of the article and that someone far more knowledgeable in this area than I would soon object. If you are serious about what you are trying to add, please do discuss it all on this talk page before proceeding. After thinking it over some more, I'm not even sure that the subject is entirely the same. No one doubts that Shakespeare collaborated with others on at least some of his plays. Determining who his collaborators were and who wrote what portions of the plays is not the same subject of inquiry as the "Shakespeare authorship question"—which I won't take the trouble to explain because it's already explained on the article page. --Alan W (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm just gonna park this in case he ever decides to get off my talkpage and bring his questions here. William Shakespeare's collaborations Tom Reedy (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. Just as I thought (but I didn't recall if it already existed), what Unified field seems to want to add material to is properly not this article but that one. --Alan W (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This article has been challenged for lacking a neutral point of view

This article has generated controversy for years. It is wrong for one editor to stifle dissent. The article does present some alternative views but then summarily dismisses them without adequate consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.126.58 (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

'One editor?? Hey, hang on a tic. I thought there was/were a dozen of us stifling dys-sense? Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

On neutrality and bias

(Note: from the "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard":  ..."you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proximity1 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 

Specifically, as examples of undue bias, I cite the following (lettered, A, B, etc.)

(A) Paragraph #1

 In the very first paragraph of the present article about "The Shakespeare Authorship Question, this page disparages the "question" itself, describing the entirety of alternatives to William Shakespeare as author as being, in the opinions of 

"all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians," "a fringe belief."

As an invitation to a novice reader to simply dismiss the topic right then and there, I could not imagine a more clearly non-neutral view.  Why would someone be moved to continue reading after such an opening paragraph?  

---

 (B)   In the page's "External Links," eight links are presented.  Each and every one of them is by, from, for and about the Stratfordian view of the Authorship Question.  A recent addition of a link to a site presenting one of the alternative views here was promptly deleted.

 How is this page doing on the "Neutrality" score-board?

Proximity1 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

How is it doing in terms of neutrality? Quite well: we neutrally describe what mainstream academia has to say on the subject. We don't create artificial balance by giving unnecessary prominence to a position that received almost universal rejection from qualified academics. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Quite well--says Ian. But can he find anyone authentically (not a "ringer") from the non-Stratfordian POV who'd agree with his opinion?

Question: Did a partisan of the Stratfordian viewpoint write or amend as-now-stands the opening paragraph?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Proximity1 (talk • contribs)

Indent your posts with colons and sign them with four tildes. What adherents of a fringe position think doesn't matter -- we stick with mainstream academia. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Ian, "Fringe position" circumstances apply, per the cited page, in an article about a mainstream"  idea.  That is not the case here. See below.  Your edits are hostile and unsupported by Wikipedia policy.  Proximity1 (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream"  idea.  The "Shakespeare Authorship Question," by its very character, cannot be about "a mainstream idea-- yet.Proximity1 (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Indent your posts using colons. The article is about mainstream academia's perception of the idea. Your accusations of hostility fail WP:Assume good faith, one of the founding principles of this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm disputing the the neutrality of the present article as it shows, in my opinion, clear and undue bias favoring a partisan view by using terms ("Fringe ideas") which seem to have for their intent to pre-emptorily dismiss the entire premise of the page itself as unworthy of serious consideration at all, and, as supposed support for that opinion, that the majority view means that a minority's opinion is ipso facto not deserving of presentation on fair and equal terms--even where the page topic itself is devoted to describing the majority/minority difference of opinion. Proximity1 (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

New comments go at the bottom. Read WP:FRINGE. If mainstream academia rejects an idea, such as geocentrism, young earth creationism, or non-"Stratfordian" authorship, then Wikipedia does not pretend the two ideas are equal. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ian; the article as it stands fully complies with NPOV. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

So do I have this right: neither of you (i.e. Mike C. and Ian T.) would object to a partisan Stratfordian drafting the presentation of the case, opinions and arguments of any and all of those who dispute the Stratfordian point of view for them and in place of them? Is that correct? Proximity1 (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Quit using spaces to indent, use colons. And it's not a good idea to use strawman arguments to try to make others out as using strawman arguments.

The article neutrally presents mainstream academia's assessment of the subject. By your admission, this idea is not accepted by mainstream academia, so there's no reason for the article to pretend that it receives more than fringe acceptance. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

In fact, the language of paragraph one of the article simply dismisses the entire pertinence of the page itself. It does not merely avoid some "pretense" of the degree of popular support, rather, it pressupposes that the extent of popular support--which it makes no effort to gage or estimate (when it comes to alternatives to William Shaksper)--is of no importance whatsoever since these views, described pre-emptorily as "fringe" before they are even expounded, aren't worthy of anyone's consideration. That is prior bias, that is the epitome of a non-neutral presentation of a controversial topic. That the topic is controversial is a given. In that, we can all agree. The point of the discussion here on the Talk-Page is this: Given that the topic is controversial, how and what does and should "neutrality" apply in the page's drafting and presentation. Your argument seems to be simple: this controversial issue deserves nothing at all in neutral treatment because it happens not to have "mainstream academia's" imprimitur. Under such a principle, we could readily eliminate all controversial pages which do not square with orthodox scholarship of the moment--and, of course, restore them as soon as the winds shift. But, in either case, the underlying facts of the matter remain unchanged: whether or not "mainstream academics" have it right or wrong, the Shakespeare Authorship Question remains an issue of historical fact, not just some consensus of popular opinion. Proximity1 (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you twisting my words because you can't honestly address the actual points or work within the site's policies and guidelines or because you just can't understand that Wikipedia articles summarize mainstream academic views on subjects? Do you not understand that Wikipedia determines matters of history by citing professionally published sources by scholars who happened to be trained to study and assess these facts? Do you not understand that the introductory paragraph is a summary of the rest of the article, which cites the sources for statements in the lede? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

'Controversial'. The topic, Shakespeare's identity, is not 'controversial'. The topic is hammered away at by a fringe lunatic bunch of controversialists, who raise questions that were long analysed, dismissed and buried ages ago, and no one listens to the hack mill's Wiederholungszwang anymore, and haven't for some decades. By 'no one' I mean competent readers and scholars of Shakespeare and his period, period.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Shaksper's identification as author of the literary work attributed to the title-page name "William Shake-speare" is, yes, as a simple matter of historical fact, past and present, "controversial." Thus, the article is entitled "Shakespeare Authorship Question." The premise is disparaged in the article's lede--as though written by someone who would just as soon discourage those who find this article from actually reading it. Proximity1 (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This talk page has 29 huge archives which have explored every angle, objection, fringe lunatic thesis, etc., that the de Verean et al., fantasists have come up with. What you are doing is rehashing bits and pieces of things since settled (and reverting back into the article a dopey website that looks clearly promotional since the author appears to use airhead clichés from the 19th century) by collegial discussion. I'd suggest you read the archives through from first to last before coming back. If you have, then, something fresh to say, then by all means return here.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Did a partisan of the Stratfordian viewpoint write or amend as-now-stands the opening paragraph? Proximity1 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This is from the archive:

"There are significant problems with this article, but the editors who hold a biased and unfavorable view of the subject have managed to have their position prevail. These editors have misconstrued what a fringe belief is in this area. They have mischaracterized the debate. Just because they have gotten away with it for so long is no reason it should continue."

I agree with that. "Just because they have gotten away with it for so long is no reason it should continue." Proximity1 (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: "Discussion of minority views" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Final_decision) "5) While all articles must be neutral, the nature of an article is often relevant to how extensively non-majority views should be discussed. For example, a minority or fringe view about a given subject might properly receive little weight in the main article on the subject but, if the view is notable, may receive greater attention in an article on the minority or fringe view itself. Even in the latter article, however, the degree of scholarly acceptance of the non-majority view should not be overstated. Passed 13 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)."

(cited) The foregoing has not been respected here. Proximity1 (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You're confusing attention with validity. Our articles on Young earth creationism and Geocentrism do not pretend that there's any validity to those ideas at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any further responses to Proximity1 on this talk page are needed unless they post something that might (judging by the talk page history) actually gain consensus. There is no reason to continue such an unproductive discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That was quick. And bizarre. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 74.75.126.58 (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC) There is a raging debate about authorship. Wikipedia is badly out of step with current scholarship. Trying to stamp out dissenting views is never the answer -Waldron Bates

On the possible editorial contributions of John Florio

I am surprised that there is no mention of the John Florio Shakespeare authorship theory in this article. The article seems incomplete without it. Peaceray (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the "Alternative candidates" section, the current mention of the Florios at List of Shakespeare authorship candidates seems reasonable. What makes him more important than the other "more than 80"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I would refer you to the following.

• Frampton, Saul (2013-07-12). "Who edited Shakespeare?". the Guardian. Retrieved 2017-08-17.
• Rasmussen, Eric (2017). "Who edited the Shakespeare First Folio?". Cahiers Élisabéthains. 93 (1). SAGE Publications: 70–76. doi:10.1177/0184767817697300. ISSN 0184-7678.
• Tassinari, Lamberto (2009). John Florio : the man who was Shakespeare. translated by William McCuaig. Montréal, QC: Giano Books. ISBN 2981035819. OCLC 751858343. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-source= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)
• Yates, Frances A. (1934). John Florio: The Life of an Italian in Shakespeare's England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. OCLC 610362236.

Both Frampton & Tassinari have a fair number of citations among the +"John Florio" editor sheakespeare - Google Search results. I think that that the hypothesis that Florio edited the First Folio is worthy of putting it to the test, but only a thorough lexical analysis would resolve this & any other attibution / contribution claims. Peaceray (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

While Florio's candidacy is mentioned in the main article about him and in the list article, the theory hasn't penetrated public awareness enough to draw any rebuttal from reliable academic sources, so it hasn't risen to the level of notability to be included in this article, just like most of the other 80-some-odd "candidates". Tom Reedy (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You may have material for a Florioian theory of Shakespeare authorship article, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: much of the Florio speculation overlaps with material already at Crollalanza theory of Shakespeare authorship.--Mervyn (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Good note. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mervyn: Thank you for posting that here & wikilinking it at the John Florio article. I was unaware of it. Peaceray (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship: Is the article balanced?

Scholarship has moved significantly over the past 20 years and that the view presented on wikipedia does not reflect the mainstream. alot of space is devoted to he devere and bacon authorship theories in particular are on the decline while scholarly and linguistic theories connecting marlowe are on the ascent. I footnote some 2017 studies. I would say the article is particularly biased in implying that computer linguistic studies reinforce the hypothesis that shakespeare wrote everything himself. I believe they suggest the opposite.

3) everything I wrote is meticulously footnoted and documented and presented in a fair and neutral manner.

4) if you delete my post in its entirety, you deny the wikipedia community an important resource, namely a summation of all Shakespeare works in chronological order and present the arguments relevant to each text. the chronological pattern is very important, because it highlights the earliest works are thought to be collaborations with Kyd, the next several tragedies are strongly attributed to Marlowe, then Shakespeare starts writing more on his own, and then as his business matures he delegates more to Middleton and Fletcher.

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

2a) some other aspects of the existing article which troubles me: it is written as if people are binary. pro-stratfordian or anti-stratfordian. that mindset made sense 20 years ago, but many scholars today are assuming multiple hands worked on each play, trying to parse out which phrases were edited by which co-author.

another thing which troubles me; the article seems more interested in advocacy than unencumbered analysis. so, for example, the article takes the standard argument that shakespeare lacked the education or background to write these works and attempts to turn it on its head, maintaining his fallability shows he was a likely candidate. i dont buy this argument for a minute, because the author of these plays had a level of erudition far from what could be obtained with a grammar school education. but mostly the article is written in a style of someone trying to defend a view at all costs rather than in a manner which suggests intellectual honesty.

I am sympathetic because it sounds like wikipedia is getting barraged with edits which overwhelm the editors. but may I humbly suggest you are getting so many edits because the article as written does not adequately cover the material, does not reflect recent scholarship, and is not open enough to divergent viewpoints.

also, I was not attempting to espouse anything new and radical. merely to summarize what I believe be to the scholarly consensus in a concise chronological chart format which does not presently exist. perhaps you wish to have separate columns presenting arguments for and against shakesperian authorship of each play. other readers are free to annotate this chart if I missed relevant arguments.

but simply deleting the chart (and other edits) cannot be the right answer

I take your point that Shakespeare Authorship is technically different than collaboration. However, the contention is Shakespeare was largely an actor and businessman whose collaborative efforts were relatively minor in many plays. After the initial feedback from AW, I worked hard to integrate the article with meticulous documentation. These range from scholarly papers and published books to highly respected newspapers and periodicals. The current article has clear biases as noted above. My chart was merely a summation of current consensus and arguments. Surely a useful tool, not available elsewhere to my knowledge. if the chart is misplaced in SAQ, I am happy to relocate it or have you do so. If other Wikipedia readers disagree, they should be free to annotate as I previously suggested.

As Alan pointed out above, this page is a featured article, and as such is considered to be among the best Wikipedia articles. Such articles demand conformity with Wikipedia's editing standards, which includes reliable sourcing as determined by Wikipedia guidelines. Hardly any of the sources you used met those standards, and the ones that did were used to support original research. In any case, references to a blog promoting the fringe belief that Shakespeare was a front for Christopher Marlowe are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia.

In addition, as you should now know given that I posted it on your user talk page, this page has been the topic of an arbitration decision which requires that all edits meet certain standards at the peril of discretionary standards. I suggest you familiarize yourself with those standards and the history of this page before you make any more edits. Complaining about the "tone" of other editors will not advance your cause.

As to your edits, if they belonged anywhere, it would be on the William Shakespeare's collaborations page. You seem to have misunderstood the difference between the Shakespeare authorship question, which is a fringe belief that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the Shakespeare canon, with the issue of collaboration, which is a valid scholarly inquiry into how much of Shakespeare's works were collaborations with other writers. But given the deficiencies, some of which I have pointed out, I doubt your edits belong on that page, at least not without extensive revision to conform to Wikipedia standards.

I hope this helps. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for your response. Collaboration is a misnomer. If recent scholarship is correct, Shakespeare may have written very litle of the canon, borrowing, stealing, or subcontracting liberally from the likes of Marlowe, Kyd, and Middleton. I dont think that view is yet the majority, but Wikipedia errs in characterizing it as a fringe viewpoint. I lean to that view because of the linguistic, thematic, and cultural similarities between Shakespeare's plays and sonnets to the known works and life events of the other authors. Also, as best I can tell Shakespeare lacked the education, erudition, and time to write all which has been attributed to him. My fear is that in many cases he simply redacted and added the comic relief.

The standard of whether a source is reliable ought be more objective than whether you agree with it.

Query: For those of us approaching the topic with an open mind and intellectual honesty, what publication best makes the case that Shakespeare wrote the bulk of his plays and poetry substantially by himself? Unified field (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

If only there were an article on the topic, say Shakespeare authorship question. If there is any text in an article at Wikipedia which says that Shakespeare did not borrow any ideas or get assistance or collaborate with others, please identify it so it can be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I take strong exceptions to the characterization of anyone who disagrees as "fringe" elements. Here is an example of another publication which has a much more balanced treatment of the subject

http://www.folger.edu/shakespeare-faq Did Shakespeare write the plays and poems attributed to him?

Some have argued that a more noble writer was secretly behind the works attributed to Shakespeare; they doubt that someone without an aristocratic pedigree could have written the plays and poetry published under his name. Since the 19th century, several candidates for "hidden author" have been proposed, among them Queen Elizabeth, Sir Francis Bacon, and Edward de Vere (earl of Oxford). Such debates testify to the lasting importance of Shakespeare's works and call attention to the astonishing achievement that they represent.

In the century since these claims were first advanced, no decisive evidence has been unearthed proving that the plays were produced by anyone but the man from Stratford-upon-Avon, a man equipped with a very good "grammar-school" education and the experience gained working in a professional theater company in London. Unified field (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

"If recent scholarship is correct, Shakespeare may have written very litle of the canon ...."

Please cite this "scholarship" for us. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to my edits which were meticulously footnoted. Unified field (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Please identify which of the 'meticulously footnoted' non-fringe references supports the statement that 'Shakespeare may have written very litle of the canon'. I'm not going to do your work. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Shakespeare authorship question

This template has a group of people labeled "sceptics". If the SAQ is "the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him", wouldn´t something like "advocates" or "proponents" be better? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Mark Twain

Is mentioned in this article and the template, but the gist of the Is Shakespeare Dead? article seems to be that he wasn´t very serious. Should we remove him, or expand this article with that possibility? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

According to "Contested Will. Who Wrote Shakespeare?" by James Shapiro, Twain was an important proponent of the idea that Shakespeare didn't do it. His standpoint was that you could not write on a subject unless you had experienced it. According to Shapiro, Twain actually sent someone to South Africa to take notes so he could write a book set there. The man died on the way, so Twain had to write Tom Sawyer instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ben Elton: Only snobbish, elitist Britain could say that Shakespeare didn’t write his own plays

I don´t think this is anything that can be used as a source, but it was interesting, nonetheless.

• "Upstart Crow creator Ben Elton on the myth that Shakespeare didn't exist". Radio Times. 2016-05-09. Retrieved 2017-10-04.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an entertaining read, with some interesting observations. Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Friedman Couple's Claim Disproved

The Friedman couple's work, William & Elizabeth, to the effect that no cyphers are present in the Shake-Spearean corpus is false, & should be removed from the article, as it is easy to disprove based on the Sonnets (where we find the correct hyphenated spelling of the Bard's name), as follows. Here below is the 9x16 grille from the 144 letters in the Sonnets Dedication as published by Thorpe. Jonathan Bond in his book proves that the Dedication was written by the Bard himself, but he did not include the 9x16 grille. I myself managed easily to find cyphers in the Grille as follows:

  T–O–T–H–E–O–N–L–I  
  E–B–E–G–E–T–T–E–R
  O–F–T–H–E–S–E–I–N
  S–U–I–N–G–S–O–N–N
  E–T–S–M–R–W–H–A–L
  L–H–A–P–P–I–N–E–S
  S–E–A–N–D–T–H–A–T
  E–T–E–R–N–I–T–I–E
  P–R–O–M–I–S–E–D–B
  Y–O–U–R–E–V–E–R–L
  I–V–I–N–G–P–O–E–T
  W–I–S–H–E–T–H–T–H
  E–W–E–L–L–W–I–S–H
  I–N–G–A–D–V–E–N–T  
  U–R–E–R–I–N–S–E–T
  T–I–N–G–F–O–R–T–H

The word "RUNE" meaning "secret message" begins in row 9, columm 2, reading on the diagonal slanting to lower right. The words "ELSE WE" are in col. 1, beginning rows 5 and 12. Moving up and down the columns, we can read an entire admonition not to reveal secrets, presumably those detailed in the Sonnets themselves. The full message then reads as follows:

      RUNE ELSE WE SIT LEG IN IR[O]N A NO WIT BET

I.e, given the political circumstances of Elizabethan England, revealing secrets might result in Tower confinement, and usually did. The word "IR[O]N" always has the letter "O" missing, occurring eight times, up, down, diagonal and angular.

Furthermore, I found the name of the Earl of Southampton double-spaced in three parts "[WR][IOTH][ESLEY]" in col.s 1 & 2.hgwb 03:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope the Wikipedia editors will recognize a basic fault in the Friedman's conclusions and omit the reference. hgwb 10:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC) hgwb 03:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Shades of the chapter 'The Evidence of the Cipher' in Dorothy Sayers's Have His Carcase (1932) (any modern edition pp.285ff), or in her The Nine Tailors (1934). They almost inevirtably spoil her 'plots'.Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors will not recognize a basic fault in the Friedman's conclusions based on what you write above, per Wikipedia:No original research you are wasting your and other editors time. When your ideas have become the scholarly mainstream they will be in the article. The purpose of a WP-article is to summarize the scholarly view (if there is one) on a topic, not to try and change it. We are (supposed to be) the tail the dog wags, not the other way around. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I am a scholar and this is my view. Mainstream=the blind leadng the blind. You don't even know how to spell "Shake-Speare" correctly. hgwb 21:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC) hgwb 03:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A case of the fairy tale shagging the little god of amateurish skollarshit. The proverbial idiom for this is 'Everybody is out of step but my Johnnie':Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

...I think I got the gist of that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You guys are the really high-minded elite, judging by the exquisite intellectual purity of your discourse. hgwb 10:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC) hgwb 21:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This thread appears to no longer be regarding any proposed improvements to the article, and consequently no longer serves any valid purpose. I therefore encourage everyone to refrain from further participation in this thread. --Xover (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Glover

Could you add an explanation after "glover" in section 2.1 ("Shakespeare's father, John Shakespeare, was a glover (maker of gloves) and town official"), or otherwise explain what it is? In section 5.4 there's an explanation ("The poet and dramatist Christopher Marlowe was born into the same social class as Shakespeare—his father was a cobbler, Shakespeare's a glove-maker") that could be switched with this one if you'd like. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, it's not a very common word. [1] ok? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That works. Thank you. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Man, do we really not have an article on the profession and its history? What chance then whittawer, vintner, brogger, conner, and haberdasher… --Xover (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Glove seems to be as close as we get, and... Ok, machete-time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

More work needed

Much more work is needed here, but I've got off to a good start. --Susan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susandevere (talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I've reverted your contributions due to the fairly obvious POV you're pushing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

People keep trashing my changes, but they make the article much stronger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susandevere (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Susandevere: Your edits seem to indicate you have come here to push a specific point of view. This is frowned upon, but not necessarily a disqualifying problem. You are however, engaged in an edit war. Edit warring is in and of itself a blockable offense; furthermore, the Arbitration Committee has permitted discretionary sanctions, which means that any disruptive editing here will be even less tolerated. I must strongly advise you to stop reverting other editors and discuss your proposed changes here, with specific reasons why you think your version is better (not just "they are"). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Mister W.H.

I read in a Reader's Digest a long time ago that an early collection of Shakespeare's plays contained the note “To the only begetter of these plays, Mister W.H.” There has been speculation on who Mr W.H. was - if any one knows anything of this, it could be added to the article. Vorbee (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Vorbee, Was it about this? Has the mystery of Shakespeare’s Sonnets finally been solved? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Typo?

Tom, about your last edit, removing that "typo". That was no typo. It just looked bad as it was presented by the template. That keyword in the template provides for the name of a series, and "Doing..." is the series. I know, it was confusing as it was presented. What if it is restored so it looks like: '"Doing..." series', with the word "series" to make it clear? Do you, or anyone, have any objection if I restore it that way? --Alan W (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Alan, I thought it was a typo. Doing some googling, I see that it's most often referred to as "Doing... Series". Tom Reedy (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. Not only "most often referred to", but referred to as such by Routledge, the publisher, so your change is perfect. Glad you got around to this, as I had forgotten about it. --Alan W (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Authorship attribution and lack of written evidence

The article does not currently express the (uncontroversial) fact that the basis of the doubt regarding attribution, originally, arose from the lack of any written primary source text by the author. The so-called foul papers which are frequently referred to, i.e. the author's manuscripts, have not survived for any of the 36 plays: there is no case in which the source text is other than a printed quarto or folio.

The actual signature of the author (the only confirmed extant specimen of his handwriting) has the appearance, visually, of being the handwriting of a person who has actual difficulty in forming the letters in his own name, leading some critics in the intervening centuries to question whether he could in fact even read and write properly.

Given that public education was non-existant prior to the 19th Century, some acknowledgement ought to be made in the article that, in the 16th Century, any type of education was restricted to the aristocracy, and to the sons of Gentlemen, and to the clergy. The notion that a tradesman's son (he was the son of a glover, i.e. a craftsman) would have received sufficient education is remarkably unlikely. However, his theatre company might well have employed a secretary (typically this would have been a clerk with a religious background), to maintain its written archives - including writing down its plays - and perhaps to function as prompter.

Surely the article ought to at least mention Shakespeare's likely educational background in connection with the absence of any handwritten manuscripts (accurately summed-up as 'foul papers' if his handwriting is evidenced exclusively by his signature), since it is the lack of any surviving manuscript which gave rise to the original doubts regarding his authorship.

The fact that the company used a clerk or secretary to record his dialogue makes sense of the lack of surviving examples of his handwriting, and of the poor caligraphy evidenced by his signature; while (potentially) a multitude of differing handwriting of various clerks over the years also makes sense of the term 'foul papers', and of the difficulty of setting them in print (to judge from the extensive printing errors in the quartos and folios).

The fact that it is unlikely that he could have written down the plays himself, but merely dictated them to a secretary, provides a reasonable explanation for the doubts which later were expressed, based on there being no playscripts with the folio. But one may examine the article, as it presently stands, without obtaining any understanding from it that a reasonable explanation might exist for the doubts about authorship which the article expresses.

Stephen Poppitt 15:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The article as it currently is does not contain any mention to these so-called foul papers. If this is a common term in current Shakespeare research as your comment implies, there should be at least a number of reliable sources that refer to it. If this is the case, then these RS could be used to introduce the missing concept, in my view. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The author's foul papers are not exactly 'the author's manuscripts'. They have a very specific meaning, not commensurate with the generic 'manuscripts'. One could put 'foul papers' before 'manuscripts, were that specification needed. All the other issues are touched on, and explained, when they are not sheer misapprehensions (only aristocrats received education? Read Schoenbaum or Baldwin on Elizabethan 'petty schools'.) To judge from de Vere's atrocious spelling, he must have attended the latter, despite what the record attests.Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The existing Wikipedia article on foul papers ought to be linked to within the current article, as it gives reliable sources in published works concerning Shakespeare's plays (and Elizabethan/Jacobean drama in general), with a note to the effect that it is generally thought that the plays were probably dictated by the author to a clerk (or scribe), indeed probably various clerks over twenty years (i.e. 1592-1612); such that the term foul papers should be taken to refer to a collection of manuscript working drafts in various different handwriting. The lack of any manuscript fragments that can with any certainty be attributed to Wm. Shakespeare was certainly a contributory factor in the 19th Century, behind the attempt to discredit him as the author — yet the theory of foul papers provides an entirely natural, and reasonable, explanation of why that was so. Stephen Poppitt 07:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for deleting speculative, unsourced, and overly detailed paragraph

This paragraph is overly detailed for an entry of this sort, it is inconsistent, it is speculative, and it is not backed by citations.

Shakespeare co-authored half of his last 10 plays, collaborating closely with other playwrights. Oxfordians claim that those plays were finished by others after the death of Oxford. However, textual evidence from the late plays indicates that Shakespeare's collaborators were not always aware of what Shakespeare had done in a previous scene, and that they were following a rough outline rather than working from an unfinished script left by a long-dead playwright. For example, in The Two Noble Kinsmen (1612–1613), written with John Fletcher, Shakespeare has two characters meet and leaves them on stage at the end of one scene, yet Fletcher has them act as if they were meeting for the first time in the following scene.[134]

1. The claim that Shakespeare co-authored half of his last 10 plays is not the scholarly consensus. 2. The paragraph suggests that he "collaborated closely' and then suggests that Fletcher didn't even know what Shakespeare had written. 3. This paragraph is only relevant to the Oxfordian theory of authorship; it isn't appropriate to be included in a general entry such as this that deals in general with the Shakespeare authorship question 4. It speculates that "they were following a rough outline rather than working from an unfinished script" even though there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the process on how The Two Noble Kinsmen was written.

Overall, this entry should be providing a general overview of arguments for the Shakespeare Authorship Question, proposed candidates, and then scholarly responses to this in general. It shouldn't be engaged in speculative arguments about obscure topics like the composition of a single play like Two Noble Kinsmen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein (talk • contribs) 05:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Kfein (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and edited this paragraph for brevity and clarity. Kfein (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Problem with unsourced paragraph

This paragraph makes many dubious factual claims that are not sourced. I do not see how this is appropriate unless each suggested fact can be backed up by an independent reliable source. This appears to be original research? Or the wholesale lifting of a paragraph from a single source?

Shakespeare's plays differ from those of the University Wits in that they avoid ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin or of classical principles of drama, with the exceptions of co-authored plays such as the Henry VI series and Titus Andronicus. Instead, his classical allusions rely on the Elizabethan grammar school curriculum. The curriculum began with William Lily's Latin grammar Rudimenta Grammatices and progressed to Caesar, Livy, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Plautus, Terence, and Seneca, all of whom are quoted and echoed in the Shakespearean canon. Almost uniquely among his peers, Shakespeare's plays are full of phrases from grammar school texts and pedagogy, together with caricatures of schoolmasters. Lily's Grammar is referred to in a number of plays, including Titus Andronicus (4.10), The Taming of the Shrew (1.1), Love's Labour's Lost (5.1), Twelfth Night (2.3), and The Merry Wives of Windsor (4.1). Shakespeare alluded not only to grammar school but also to the petty school that children attended at age 5 to 7 to learn to read, a prerequisite for grammar school.[126]

1. "Shakespeare's plays differ from those of the University Wits in that they avoid ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin or of classical principles of drama" This needs to be independently sourced and verified that the works of Shakespeare have less Latin than plays by university-educated authors of the period. 2. "with the exceptions of co-authored plays such as the Henry VI series and Titus Andronicus" The co-authorship of these plays is a contentious issue in Shakespeare studies. It is not a settled question by any means. For instance, in his edition of Titus Andronicus, Jonathan Bate writes: "I believe that the play was wholly by Shakespeare and furthermore that it was not based on the chapbook; rather, it was one of the dramatist's most inventive plays, a complex and self-conscious improvisation upon classical sources" (page 3, Arden Series Three) 3. "his classical allusions rely on the Elizabethan grammar school curriculum." If this incredible claim is going to be included in the entry, it would need to be exhaustively sourced. For instance, the sources for Rape of Lucrece would need to be examined and aligned with the curriculum in the Stratford grammar school. 4. "Almost uniquely among his peers, Shakespeare's plays are full of phrases from grammar school texts and pedagogy, together with caricatures of schoolmasters." This needs to be independently sourced with evidence that this is a "unique" feature of Shakespeare. Kfein (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and edited this paragraph for brevity and clarity.

Kfein (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

proposing shortening the quote via paraphrase

It seems excessive to devote an entire paragraph to the mention of two books and very long quote:

Since then, Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells have written a short e-book, Shakespeare Bites Back (2011),[215] and edited a longer book of essays by prominent academic Shakespeareans, Shakespeare Beyond Doubt (2013), in which Edmondson says that they had "decided to lead the Shakespeare Authorship Campaign because we thought more questions would be asked by our visitors and students because of Anonymous, because we saw, and continue to see, something very wrong with the way doubts about Shakespeare's authorship are being given academic credibility by the Universities of Concordia and Brunel, and because we felt that merely ignoring the anti-Shakespearians was inappropriate at a time when their popular voice was likely to be gaining more ground".[216]

The publication of these books seem like very minor events in the history of the Shakespeare Authorship Question. I propose removing the quote and instead summarizing it in a short sentence. Kfein (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I shortened it and put it together with content in the previous paragraph. Reads much better now.

Kfein (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion of sentence

I propose deleting this sentence:

Even the omnivorous reading imputed to Shakespeare by critics in later years is exaggerated, and he may well have absorbed much learning from conversations. Love 2002, p. 81:"As has often been pointed out, if Shakespeare had read all the books claimed to have influenced him, he would never have had time to write a word of his own. He probably picked up many of his ideas from conversation. If he needed legal knowledge it was easier to extract this from Inns-of-Court drinkers in the Devil Tavern than to search volumes of precedents."

This is a very complicated issue. For each of Shakespeare's plays, specific source texts have been identified which Shakespeare must have read, and others source texts which he might have read. To treat this correctly would require a full paragraph of detailed, sourced exposition. The source cited here is just speculating about conversations Shakespeare might have had with "Inns-of-Court drinkers"; there is no documentary evidence whatsoever of such interactions. The assertion in the cited source that "if Shakespeare had read all the books claimed to have influenced him, he would never have had time to write a word of his own" is also speculative and would need to be independently sourced. It is also ridiculous on its face; if he had time to chat in taverns he could have used that time to read books.

I suggest deleting this sentence, and if someone can produce a paragraph of independently sourced information about Shakespeare's conversations and how they likely influenced his writing -- and his lack of time to read -- it should be added back to the article.

Kfein (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence. If people think this is a defensible and necessary aspect of the article, it needs to be sourced and explained more carefully. Kfein (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I've put it back, modified. One doesn't need a paragraph: the sentence is succinct, and the author's conjecture is in a note, not the main text. You dismiss as speculative a sentence that is prefaced with,'As has often been pointed out,' and thus Love is clearly alluding to a wide body of commentary. Nearly everything about Shakespeare and most premodern authors is 'speculative' in that sense (inferential exercises from scant evidence is at the heart of all research into premodern times).Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying reference to the publication of the sonnets

This sentence is odd:

He refers to Shakespeare's "sug[a]red Sonnets among his private friends" 11 years before the publication of the Sonnets.[86]

Two of Shakespeare's sonnets were published in 1599 in The Passionate Pilgrim.

So I suggest changing this sentence to:

He refers to Shakespeare's "sug[a]red Sonnets among his private friends" **one year before the publication of two sonnets in The Passionate Pilgrim and** 11 years before the publication of the *Quarto Shake-speares Sonnets.*[86] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

No. That would be ugly. the Sonnets refers to the collection in any man's reading. If you are unhappy, then just write '11 years before they were collected and published'.Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

We can't leave out the fact that they were published the next year, otherwise it creates a false impression. I'm happy with whatever wording people want to use, but this sentence creates the impression that Meres had special information about something when a year later Shakespeares Sonnets were published in a book with his name on it.

Kfein (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see what 'false impression' the given phrasing creates. It's a straightforward sentence. Virtually every sentence in any overview on any topic can, by virtue of its general nature, be tweaked expansively for greater factual integrity, but only if one persists in overreading. The relevant details are normally reserved for the sister sub pages.Nishidani (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The point is that in 1599 two of Shakespeare's Sonnets were published with his name on them. So it was publicly known that he wrote Sonnets a year after Meres' book. Someone reading this entry would think that it was only 11 years later that the public would have known about Shakespeare's sonnet writing. So it is misleading to the reader. We must strive for accuracy, clarity, and precision in an article as important as this.

Kfein (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that, but the sentence says',the sonnets', meaning to any average reader of English the book of sonnets. I can't imagine any 'someone' getting the impression you describe. The situation is identical to that of Ascanio Condivi's mention in his 1553 biography of Michelangelo that he had been collected M's sonnets and hoped to publish them. That they existed was known from Vasari's biography. If we write decades before the publication of the Sonnets of Michelangelo, all will take that as referring to one or another sonnet published in or alluded to, in his lifetime. It will naturally be taken as referring to the rifacimento of 1623. Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Flurry of changes

A lot of the changes being made by Kfein (talk) seem to be motivated by the incorrect perception that this is a generalized Shakespeare page and that all the information about Shakespeare should be exhaustive and inclusive of all known and inferred detail. While I applaud some of the changes, especially of organization and style, a good deal of it is just bloat, a lot of the sources are not of the quality needed for a featured article, and the formatting does not conform to the standards of an FA page. I'll be going through the individual edits in the coming weeks. It's probably time for a good rewrite anyway, though I don't know if I've got the energy for a long-drawn-out episode. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

All of my edits are excellent, as evidence by the fact that almost none of them have been changed by anyone, even though this is a featured article.

In some cases there is too much detail in the article, essentially there is original research in the article, but the details are inaccurate or incomplete. So I have added the missing information. That is not a misunderstanding on my part of how a Wikipedia article should be, it is a reaction to flaws in the article. The detail, for instance, on how many Quartos have hyphenated spellings of Shakespeare is completely unnecessary. But if the article is going to include such detail, it needs to be accurate. The correct way to handle it is to shorten that discussion into a single sentence. If you think that is a good idea, please start a talk discussion of how you propose it be edited.

Overall, the article is deeply flawed in that it over-emphasizes unimportant historical events, discusses only a very small number of authorship candidates, and wildly over-represents "Oxfordian" arguments. It also relies on a few sources over and over again. Even though it is a featured article, it really doesn't live up to the high standards we should expect from Wikipedia. Fortunately, the whole Wikipedia community can work together to improve this article. I welcome your help in doing that. Kfein (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Now you are engaging in an undo edit war. I really think you need to review the Wikipedia standard for editing. If you have a point to make, make it in Talk. If you need to add a reference to improve the article, then add a reference. Doing undo fights is inappropriate as you should know. Kfein (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"All of my edits are excellent, as evidence by the fact that almost none of them have been changed by anyone"

Not including the faulty grammar, I'm afraid we have a basic conflict of logic. That's the exact argument anti-Stratfordians make to "prove" that their surmises are correct. Not surprising.

We constructed this page over a period of two years with the input of the entire Wikipedia community. You have made a total of 60 page edits, most of them over the past 30 days and most of them relating to the SAQ. The page went through a long vetting process, including being the subject of a lengthy arbitration process. I suggest you read over that process and the result before you go much farther in your efforts to correct this article. You could also profit from reading the links in the tutorial that was posted on your talk page before instructing us on what Wikipedia requires. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of my edits are substantial stylistic improvements. Obviously if you have corrections or stylistic improvements to my edits, where there are actual errors or stylistic deficiencies, I welcome them. The standard expected from Wikipedia articles has increased greatly even over the past few years, so this article is nowhere near current standards. The whole Wikipedia community should work together to improve it. I welcome your help in this. Kfein (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It is also important to note that all of my major changes were first proposed and explained in the Talk page so that the reasoning behind them was clear and others could provide their own ideas and feedback. Only after waiting for responses did I go ahead and make the more substantial changes. My edits have improved both the style and content and accuracy of the article substantially. Kfein (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Revising section about circumstantial evidence

Tom Reedy is engaging in an undo edit war about the changes I suggested for this paragraph:

circumstantial evidence: similarities between the characters and events portrayed in the works and the biography of their preferred candidate; literary parallels with the known works of their candidate; and hidden codes and cryptographic allusions in Shakespeare's own works or texts written by contemporaries.[32]

Here is the version I posted:

circumstantial evidence. This includes similarities between the characters and events portrayed in the works and the biography of their preferred candidate; literary or linguistic parallels with the known works of their candidate; similarities to the political and/or religious positions of their candidate; literary allusions in works by contemporaries; and hidden allusions and cryptographic codes in Shakespeare's own works.

the original has "literary". I added "linguistic" because it clarifies the meaning. A "literary" parallel might be a common character, metaphor, or scene. A "linguistic" parallel might be a common word or phrase. By saying "literary or linguistic" it clarifies what we are talking about.

I added "similarities to the political and/or religious positions of their candidate". One of the originators of the Shakespeare Authorship Question was Delia Bacon whose main argument relates to political position of the plays, as is discussed in depth in the article. So leaving this out makes the list very incomplete.

I added "literary allusions in works by comtemporaries" since that is something highlighted in the rest of the article and is a key argument made by anti-Stratfordians.

I changed "and hidden allusions and cryptographic codes in Shakespeare's own works" for clarity.

If Tom Reedy or anyone else thinks that additional sources are required for these edits, I encourage them to add them. But if there is going to be a list like this, it must be complete and accurate, hitting the main arguments made by adherents of alternative authorship theories. Kfein (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

If you have any complaints about my behavior, I suggest you post it to the appropriate notice board. The article talk page is not the venue where those things are handled. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This talk section is about edits to a specific paragraph in the article. Please limit your discussion to that.Kfein (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I restored my edits of the section for clarity only, not adding any unsourced information:

circumstantial evidence: similarities between the characters and events portrayed in the works and the biography of their preferred candidate; literary parallels with the known works of their candidate; literary allusions in works by contemporaries; and hidden allusions and cryptographic codes in Shakespeare's own works.

Kfein (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The very first sentence in your edit refers to my alleged behavior.

As to your other points, it is incumbent upon the editor who adds copy to the article to furnish supporting citations, not other editors. Because something is discussed later in the article is not reliable support. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The proper way to have handled it would have been to added a "citation needed" flag to my edit, instead of simply undoing the entire contribution. In any case, I will find the appropriate page references in already cited books and add it in later. Kfein (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

While you're at it, learn how to use Harvard citation style to conform to the reference style used in this article. And since you insist on refusing to read what I post on your talk page, here's more information you can use. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Shakespeare authorship question. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Fortunately, my edits have been exemplary, and what you have posted:

It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Thank you for your continued support. I look forward to working with the Wikipedia community to bring this article up to the highest standards.Kfein (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't even know that anybody used NLP anymore. Live and learn. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kfein: Thanks for your edits but please be aware that this topic has been the subject of major disputes that were only resolved with an Arbitration Committee case, see WP:ARBPIA. The situation now is that edit summaries exhorting others to not engage in an undo war won't achieve anything you might want. Similarly, describing your edits as exemplary is not enough. I suspect that you have not had much feedback on your edits so far because, not counting the editors who were banned at WP:ARBPIA, everyone is rather tired of rehashing the subject and we were hoping that someone else would take the time to examine the changes in detail. I will look at the issues little later but wanted to let you know that it is necessary for everyone to engage with what others say. That must happen here, not in edit summaries. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I encourage you to look at my edits carefully and judge them on their own merits. I just started a new talk topic about an obviously unnecessary clause in the lede. If that clause is necessary and the lede reads better with it in and is more informative and meets Wikipedia standards, well, then I agree. I should not be involved in editing Wikipedia articles. In my view, this is not even a close call. Kfein (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I posted here rather than in the following section because I did not want to distract from the core issue there. Working at Wikipedia is useful and satisfying, but it comes with frustration because it is necessary to collaborate with others, even if the others are lacking clue. The good news is that no one here is lacking clue! It is necessary to develop a thick skin and not be bothered when opposition occurs—just stick to calmly discussing article content. Compromise is definitely required and control of content is only possible on a private website. The benefit of working at Wikipedia is that the results will be seen by hundreds of readers for many years. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to work within the community standards by posting detailed explanations in the Talk section before making major changes. When people have edited my work, I have worked with them to reach compromise. I am trying to work to improve this article so it can be a credit to the Wikipedia community. My edits and my posts demonstrate that clearly, that is my point about being "exemplary." I am not vandalizing the article or pushing a particular agenda.

The great irony here is that my edits are substantial improvements to the article and do not change the article's tone whatsoever. I have violated no standards and I have pushed no agenda. I have only improved things. But I am being attacked and accused and singled out. Once again, I hope you will look at my actual edits and compare the article before and after. Kfein (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There are no attacks and no accusations. Above I thanked you for your edits. I have a great deal of off-wiki chaos going on at the moment and won't have an opportunity to study the article for a while. Please bear in mind that the current article is the result of an enormous amount of work by a handful of very talented people, and every word was fought over and changed many times. That is the nature of Wikipedia, and patience is required. Let's get back to discussing content. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the work that was put into this article, and my understanding is that a lot of the disputes were about issues of tone, etc. I am not attempting to change the tone or stance of the article. What I want to do is to improve the quality of the research and accuracy of the writing so it meets the highest standards. It is also not up-to-date with regard to the Shakespeare Authorship Question. It has excruciating detail on the 19th and early 20th century and almost nothing on the last few years. That's not in keeping with the mission of Wikipedia.

I have been attacked by others on here, accused of being too inexperienced to edit this article, it has been suggested that I do not understand the purpose of the article, etc. etc. My edits have been a huge improvement to the article, even if the citation style was not correct or people can quibble about some of them. That is how Wikipedia works. People make edits, other people improve them. It's a process and I have engaged with that process so far openly as best as I could. Kfein (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this a Reliable Source?

So this book is written by someone with a PhD in English who studies the Shakespeare authorship question and teaches it in a Coursera course for the University of London: https://leanpub.com/shakespeare

Is this a Reliable Source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein (talk • contribs) 04:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Also is this a reliable source? It is published by a major academic publisher and the author has a PhD: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780429028540

Kfein (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

How does this meet the definition of a Reliable Source: https://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html Kfein (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a reliable source to me: https://www.amazon.com/Was-Shakespeare-Lawyer-Reviews-Evidence/dp/B0006BMVXW Kfein (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

On the first, per WP:SELFPUBLISH (looks that way to me, but I could be wrong) it's doubtful (same goes for anything selfpublished). On a topic with tons of universitypress etc, Is Ros Barber such a noted Shakespeare (related) scholar that we should use her SPS? My current opinion is no. If this book is not selfpublished I'd consider it, with in-text attribution, in WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Then David Kathman's self-published website is definitely not a Reliable Source. We must remove all references immediately if that's the case. Ros Barber is such an expert, she has a PhD, has a course on Shakespeare Authorship taught at the University of London on Coursera, and has half a dozen peer-reviewed articles on Shakespeare and related subjects. So I think she meets your standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein (talk • contribs) 15:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you do a search in the archives before suggesting further changes. Kathman's site has already been ruled RS long ago. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

As to your questions, here're the place to go: WP:RSN, WP:FTN. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

This is also relevant to sources used in this article: WP:IS. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks that's super helpful. We can use the exact same criteria to judge Ros Barber's RS-ness.Kfein (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed your indentation for you. Kfein (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

John Paul Stevens in Mainstream media

This is from 2009: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123998633934729551

So is this: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/justice_stevens_a_shakespeare_buff_says_real_author_was_nobleman

This article is from 2010: https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/justice-john-paul-stevenss-most-controversial-position/22472

These more recent:

• https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/an-unexpected-letter-from-john-paul-stevens-shakespeare-skeptic
• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/05/justice-stevens-dissenting-shakespeare-theory
• https://www.insidehook.com/article/books/inside-the-weird-world-of-shakespeare-conspiracy-theories

WSJ, ABA Journal, Chronicle of Higher Education, New Yorker... those seem like big names in media to me. Maybe it deserves more than just a name on the list. I don't know what your criteria are for this. Please inform me. Kfein (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Judgment is required in all things. A mess would result if every "reliable" mention of SAQ was included in the article. Please just make a proposal based on what you think and people might have an opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

John Paul Stevens, like almost all those who adopt the conspiracy theory, has no grounding whatsoever in the topic.Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the question at hand. Kfein (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Please iterate for us why you think he deserves more space in the article besides the existing mention. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It has been mentioned in the mainstream media for 10 years, very major publications. He is a major current person (who just died) of great national interest in the US and also worldwide. It involves other people connected to the Shakespeare Authorship Question (James Shapiro). It is of intrinsic interest to people, unlike much of the content in the article which is about things no one has ever heard about and no one cares about. You have historical references to completely obscure figures visiting some location in search of some documents, but you don't want to include mention of a Supreme Court Justice of the United States about something that is covered in major news publications? A wikipedia article should reflect that actual possible interests of the readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Please do us all a favor and read the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. All of them, including WP:WEIGHT. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

You have not replied to the clear points I made. As I said, I have a multi-year commitment to working with you on this, so I am sure this will take time, but we will have consensus in the end that improves this page for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein (talk • contribs) 04:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It has been suggested by Tom Reedy that this comment implies I have some kind of external contract to work on this wikipedia article. What I meant was, I have a long term interest in this article, and am willing to work with Tom Reedy in the coming years to make this article as good as it can be. To clarify, I have no commitment, formal or informal, with any person or entity, to edit this or any Wikipedia article. I am only doing this as an active Wikipedia user in my desire to give back to the Wikipedia community. Kfein (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for shortening this quote

Since there are so many topics not yet covered in this article, and this entire quote is only supported by a circular non-independent RS, I suggest this be shortened:

in which Edmondson says that they had "decided to lead the Shakespeare Authorship Campaign because we thought more questions would be asked by our visitors and students because of Anonymous, because we saw, and continue to see, something very wrong with the way doubts about Shakespeare's authorship are being given academic credibility by the Universities of Concordia and Brunel, and because we felt that merely ignoring the anti-Shakespearians was inappropriate at a time when their popular voice was likely to be gaining more ground".[219]

To this:

in which Edmondson says that they had "decided to lead the Shakespeare Authorship Campaign because we thought more questions would be asked by our visitors and students because of Anonymous, because we saw, and continue to see, something very wrong with the way doubts about Shakespeare's authorship are being given academic credibility by the Universities of Concordia and Brunel, and because we felt that merely ignoring the anti-Shakespearians was inappropriate at a time when their popular voice was likely to be gaining more ground".[219]

Kfein (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I left a very succinct edit summary when I restored that quotation. You need to address those points.

"this entire quote is only supported by a circular non-independent RS" A ref tells you where you can verify the quotation or information in the statement. Please read WP:RS. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no independent source that tells us why the e-book should be mentioned at all. The source given was written by the author of the e-book. I will explain in more detail later.

As far as the content of the quote, it is absolutely of no interest to anyone. This is not a current issue. By shortening it, it will free up room in the article to give newer, more pertinent information. Anyone can follow the reference if they want to read more. Or I guess you could move the extra text to the references. But it's just too long of a quote for the main article. Anyone who looks at it will see that immediately. It's quite obvious.Kfein (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to add link to Atlantic Monthly Article "Was Shakespeare a Woman?"

As far as I can tell, the article currently does not even mention the hypothesis that Shakespeare was written by a woman. This article received a lot of media attention:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/who-is-shakespeare-emilia-bassano/588076/

it is an RS and was carefully fact-checked.

The Atlantic published many essays from well-known academics and Mark Rylance in response to this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/06/was-shakespeare-woman-responses/590851/

I think this all should be discussed in the section on mainstream media. Or it could be added as an external link. I added it as an external link but it was deleted, even though it is a RS with valuable content, fact-checked, and is well-written. Kfein (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Here are mainstream media articles written in response to Elizabeth Winkler's original article:

• https://www.realclearbooks.com/2019/05/14/was_shakespeare_a_woman_of_course_he_was_17596.html
• https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2018701971/elizabeth-winkler-was-shakespeare-a-woman
• http://www.shakespearemagazine.com/2019/05/an-american-magazine-has-published-an-article-titled-was-shakespeare-a-woman-in-response-we-have-written-an-article-titled-shakespeare-derangement-syndrome/
• https://quillette.com/2019/05/16/conspiracism-at-the-atlantic/
• https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/13/no-shakespeare-not-jewish-woman-just-genius/
• https://theweek.com/articles/841609/what-shakespeare-shakespeare Kfein (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

True it's a yawning gap that the page fails to note that 'Shakespeare was written by a woman'. On the other hand, we do imply that Shakespeare was born to a woman'. I think in this sense we haven't fallen foul of political correctness.Nishidani (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Since this Article in such a prominent publication as the Atlantic generated a lot of interest and even produced response articles from very prominent academics and others, I think covering it would be appropriate in this Wikipedia article. Kfein (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

This has FA standards. We are averse to using current literary and legend-in-a-snack- time clickbait promo articles, that have no sense of being written sub specie aeternitatis. That is, wherever possible, we go for the studious results of long hard research, reliably published. Things like meme echoes at quillette.com, realclearbooks, rnz.co.nz, etc. just underline the desperate character of searching for some proof of notability. What you need is serious scholarly attention. The list of the 87 authors claimed to have written the works includes Lanier's name, and the suggestion has had no echo, like most of the others, hence WP:Undue.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

God, my dad forced me to read Spinoza when I was 12 years old and I never forgave him for it! Tom Reedy (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you read who wrote the response articles? Those are leading Shakespeare scholars. That is all the proof of "scholarly attention" you could possibly want. There is huge confusion here. Please read the response articles:

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/06/was-shakespeare-woman-responses/590851/

It is astounding to me that this is even an open discussion. The question is how best to work this material into the wiki page, not whether to. Kfein (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

One way of overcoming your astonishment is to look at the logic of what you are doing. In the section just above this, you argue we must trim a reference to a current response to Anonymous, which made quite a lot of noise. In this section you are arguing we must incorporate references- some soundbites or snippets- re the latest flutter in the fringe's dovecotes, which has received even less attention that the Anonymous farce. You can't have it both ways. We don't do blips on the internet here. Nishidani (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Another way is to look at the dates of the responses to your so-called "valuable ..., fact-checked, and ... well-written" piece. The piece was published in the June issue of Atlantic. The great "controversy" didn't even last a month. Anonymous, on the other hand, consumed the energy of Shakespeare newsgroups and academics for more than a year, and resulted in some quite substantive responses. Compared to the H-bomb of Anonymous, Winkler's piece was just another popcorn fart in a movie audience. Again, I refer you to WP:WEIGHT. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

OK I'm a bit confused. All of my responses above are to your insistence on including an external link to the article as per your title. Are you arguing for the link to be added or just a mention in the body of the article? Cos I can see adding a sentence containing a summary of the piece and a summary of the responses since it does qualify under the subhead. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I am saying that this is definitely something current and of interest to people who read this article. So it should be included. First I added it as an external link. No one removed it. So obviously other people thought it was a worthwhile addition to such a high profile page. Then you Tom Reedy decided to remove it.

It could also be added into the body of the article under mainstream media since it is obviously relevant. It could also be covered in both places. The lack of a reference to it is an obvious shortcoming to the article, that is why I added the link in the first place.

I am making very good suggestions. People are attacking me for what reason I don't know. It was not vandalism to add the link to the Atlantic Monthly article. It improved the wikipedia article. you removed it, so I created this talk topic to discuss how best to add it back in.

Kfein (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Your interlocutors are attentive readers. Please do not repeat yourself. You've convinced yourself of the merits of your proposals,and have a high regard for them. That is not sufficient to gain a consensus to adopt them. To do that, you must learn to listen to what others say, and to respond precisely to their objections.Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

My proposal is to add in a link to an extremely interesting article in a mainstream publication. You act like I have made some radical suggestion to completely transform the Shakespeare Authorship article. I am suggesting adding in a link to something that would be of interest to readers of this article.Kfein (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

"I added it as an external link. No one removed it. So obviously other people thought it was a worthwhile addition" This is how anti-Stratfordians think.

I said above that it and its rebuttals are worth a mention. Propose an appropriately-sourced edit and we will discuss it. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Once again attacking me personally. It is shocking how I am treated on here.Kfein (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say something similar as the two editors above, but decided to wait in the hope that somebody would do it for me. I don't know that "I added it as an external link. No one removed it. So obviously other people thought it was a worthwhile addition" is specifically anti-Stratfordian thinking, but it is not helpful reasoning. It's no more valid than "The EL I added was removed, so obviously other people thought it wasn't a worthwhile addition." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Once again, attacking me instead of working to improve the article. Kfein (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It is truly amazing to me how much time and energy I am wasting responding to attacks, responding to suggestions I stop working on this article and work on another one, responding to accusations that I am a vandal or representative of "anti-Stratfordian thinking", etc etc.

Paul Cantor spends a good deal of time in this video that came out today talking about the Atlantic Article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMM_Un6W_mQ

So now we have another top Shakespeare scholar responding to it. Kfein (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Woe is you. As I wrote above, propose an appropriately-sourced edit and we will discuss it. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I've made my proposal, offered links, etc. The Wikipedia community can do what they think is best with it. Kfein (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

" lack of mss and letters was not factor in the rise of the SAQ in the 19th C. In fact it was a relatively late argument."

" lack of mss and letters was not factor in the rise of the SAQ in the 19th C. In fact it was a relatively late argument."

This comment was made in an edit instead of in Talk. It would seem to me such a major factual claim would need to be discussed in detail. But I guess that is not how things are handled on this Wikipedia article?

This is obviously false. I sourced my edit and dozens more examples can be provided. I am not prepared to fight against a biased editor with a strong agenda, and as I said I cannot handle the personal attacks on me.

There is a VAST literature on Shakespeare authorship from the 19th century. They are easily accessible to anyone. All of them talk about the lack of manuscripts and letters. This is obviously the genesis of the Shakespeare Authorship Question. If there were extant letters and manuscripts that matched Shakespeare's signature, no one would have doubted his authorship. If he had a vast extant correspondence, as people like John Donne did, that showed his excellent writing style, no one would have doubted his authorship. To suggest that the lack of letters and manuscripts was "not a factor in the rise of the SAQ" is completely unreasonable.

I can't engage in an undo war. So I hope other editors will deal with this issue. This article should be objective and unbiased. The issue of Shakespeare's signatures and the lack of manuscripts was studied in great and excruciating detail in the 19th century.

The Shakespeare Authorship Question may be a "Fringe Theory" but there are still historical facts about it that should be reflected accurately. That is the job of Wikipedia, to reflect historical facts accurately and also to reflect the scholarly consensus on issues accurately.

I wish everyone well. Kfein (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I know this will come as a shock, but after a bit of digging I agree with you. I completely missed the reference.

I will be the first to admit that I don't know everything about the SAQ. So much nonsense has been written about it that after a while it just gets tiresome and my filters go up to 11. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Though it doesn't work as an appositive to "Shakespeare's biography." Tom Reedy (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason to phrase it that way. It's overly wordy and imprecise. "Shakespeare's humble origins, obscure life, and the lack of any extant letters or manuscripts, seemed incompatible with his poetic eminence and his reputation for genius" is a better and more accurate sentence. Kfein (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't checked myself, but this looks like a good catch. Well done, KFein. Just a further note. A lack of manuscripts in Shakespeare's home is a problem? It is not a problem that this perceived troublesome lacuna is shared by every alternative author. In their literary estates, there is no trace of manuscripts attesting to their having written any of 'Shakespeare's' works. Doubt about the former and an alternative proposal can only subsist if you apply a double but differential logic. An absence of what one might expect from William Shakespeare is grounds for doubt: an absence of what one might expect from any other contending alternative author is not grounds for doubting their claim to authorship. The dissonance can only be bridged by a conjecture of a cover-up, or a conspiracy of silence, in which the very author himself is intimately involved. That, in short, is why this type of argumentation usually goes nowhere.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You and I both know that this is just how anti-Shakespeareans think, which I believe is adequately captured in this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

This isn't the place to debate the Shakespeare authorship question and the value of the arguments made for and against it. I just want the article to reflect the facts on both sides fairly and objectively which is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. There is an implicit bias in the article that people may not realize because the article is almost entirely sourced from three or four polemic books which distort the history of the Shakespeare Authorship Question and also because it is obsessively focused on Oxfordian arguments. It wouldn't take much to move the article in the correct direction so it is unbiased and more accurate. I am not suggesting, once again, changing the stance of the article. The scholarly consensus is that Shakespeare authorship is a "fringe theory." That should be reflected in the article as it is now. But it needs better balance and some of the "pro-Shakespeare" stuff is original research or non-mainstream research. "one guy wrote something" is not a scholarly consensus.Kfein (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

There is an implicit bias in the article that people may not realize because the article is almost entirely sourced from three or four polemic books which distort the history of the Shakespeare Authorship Question and also because it is obsessively focused on Oxfordian arguments.

Try to be precise, rather than skew to caricature. It makes for wasting other editors’ time. The assertion above is counterrfactual. The page is sourced to 123 articles and books, of which 8 account for a significant percentage: Shapiro 2010 (61), Schoenbaum (26), Wadsworth 1958 (35), Nelson (11), McCrea 2005 (19), Matus 1994 (11), Price 2001 (7) and Bate (16) are frequently cited for no other reason than that they they happen to be quality RS (barring Price) that deal with the whole question. The late lamented Irvin Leigh Matus, not to speak of Shapiro, Schoenbaum, and Wadsworth, was not a polemicist. What wry irritation is there is there because one can get exasperated at hoeing through a vast glebe of sterile repetitiveness, and gentlemen like him preferred irony to aggravation.

some of the "pro-Shakespeare" stuff is original research or non-mainstream research. "one guy wrote something" is not a scholarly consensus

• If you can show a violation of WP:OR, then no one will object to its removal.
• 'Mainstream research' is misleading. What we use are mainstream sources, written by reliably published scholars specializing in the period. In any historical area, mainstream research is something of a non-sequitur, since scholars get a guernsey for originality of interpretation, not by paying lip-service to some mainstream idea. A consensus in scholarship can occur on fundamental issues of fact or strong probability, but the term does not mean that scholarship is consensual: it isn't, if it is any good. Nishidani (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to reflect the scholarly consensus. The point is that Shapiro's book is way over-represented and it is extremely skewed to a specific historical viewpoint. He has a polemic argument that recasts the history of the Shakespeare authorship question in a certain light even though that doesn't reflect the actual history. And that bias has crept into the Shakespeare Authorship article. Kfein (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You ignored what I wrote. You will get nowhere trying to talk down scholarly sources that are written by competent experts, merely on the basis of personal convictions. Whatever your original research might suggest (and who knows, some of it might be spot on), it has no relevance to this page. The 'actual history' of the SAQ is a meaningless phrase, in that it assumes a collective endeavor to master the contents of several thousand books, cast them into biographical historical content, and provide sociological rationales etc.etc., has never been written. All one can do on Wikipedia is sum up what scholars of repute and ability who have studied much of this, write up. Wikipedia is not about the truth: it is about how RS represent a set of theories and facts.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I have not included any of my original research on this page. I have introduced any of my own opinion into the article. Kfein (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Disingenuous. The judgments you have made on the RS on this page speak of an 'actual history' which doesn't exist. What exists is that history in the RS quoted on the page, which you dismiss as 'polemical'. Unless you bring RS which challenge the historical interpretations in those books, you are advancing a personal view of what you believe is the 'real' history of the SAQ. This is so obvious I shouldn't feel obliged to point it out.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Disingenuous Two. While polishing your halo as an unengaged seeker of clarity, you have spent half your time on this Talk page trying to accredit 'polemical' material—Barber's MOOC and leanpub website, Stevens etc—as Reliable Sources. On matters of evidence, Oxfraud.com is a far more reliable source than either of these sites but there would be years of work involved in making it acceptable to Wikipedia as an RS. Work we have no intention of carrying out. It is an adversarial site intended to combat defective claims about Shakespeare. Barber's sites and MOOC are also adversarial. Just less honest about it.

This is an encyclopaedia. Sicinius (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Barber's MOOC is sponsored by the University of London and is on Coursera. She has published many peer-reviewed articles on the authorship question. She is a recognized expert on the topic. These are simple facts. Kfein (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I corrected your tabulation. You placed your last post inside one of mine. Barber's MOOC wears UL rosettes because she is part of UL in her role as a teacher of Creative Writing. It is not sanctioned by any of the University of London's (or Goldsmiths') Shakespeare scholars. Or any other Shakespeare scholars. Because it is full of cant, nonsense and discredited argument, all intended to support a conspiracy theory, now long past its sell-by date. It masquerades as scholarship. In no sense can it be counted a RS. It's a very, very Unreliable Source. Sicinius (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to modify and clarify paragraph that claims multiple authorship for Titus Andonicus and Henry VI plays

This paragraph seems very lightly sourced, there are over a dozen extremely dramatic factual claims, and it is all sourced to one chapter in one book. It also does not reflect the scholarly consensus:

Shakespeare's plays differ from those of the University Wits in that they avoid ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin or of classical principles of drama, with the exceptions of co-authored plays such as the Henry VI series and Titus Andronicus. Instead, his classical allusions rely on the Elizabethan grammar school curriculum. The curriculum began with William Lily's Latin grammar Rudimenta Grammatices and progressed to Caesar, Livy, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Plautus, Terence, and Seneca, all of whom are quoted and echoed in the Shakespearean canon. Almost uniquely among his peers, Shakespeare's plays are full of phrases from grammar school texts and pedagogy, together with caricatures of schoolmasters. Lily's Grammar is referred to in a number of plays, including Titus Andronicus (4.10), The Taming of the Shrew (1.1), Love's Labour's Lost (5.1), Twelfth Night (2.3), and The Merry Wives of Windsor (4.1). Shakespeare alluded not only to grammar school but also to the petty school that children attended at age 5 to 7 to learn to read, a prerequisite for grammar school.[128]

I propose the deletion or modification of this sentence:

Shakespeare's plays differ from those of the University Wits in that they avoid ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin or of classical principles of drama, with the exceptions of co-authored plays such as the Henry VI series and Titus Andronicus.

There is not a scholarly consensus that the Henry VI series and Titus Andronicus were co-authored. This is a very contentious question, and really shouldn't stated as fact in this general article. For instance, Jonathan Bate writes in The Arden Shakespeare, Third Edition, page 83: "Computer analysis of these suggests what literary judgement confirms: that the whole of Titus is by a single hand and that at this level its linguistics habits are very different from Peele's" (citing Metz, G. Harold. 1985. "Disputed Shakespearean Texts and Stylometric Analysis.")

The claim about University Wits only really applies to Shakespeare's earliest plays and would need a great deal of exposition to make into a logical or meaningful point. Many university-educated playwrights of the time did not engage in "ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin". I think a lot more detail, and other references, would need to be added to make that a coherent and useful part of this article.

I therefore propose the shortening of this paragraph to:

Shakespeare's plays *generally* differ from those of the University Wits in that they avoid ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin or of classical principles of drama, with the exceptions of co-authored plays such as the Henry VI series and Titus Andronicus. Instead, his classical allusions rely on the Elizabethan grammar school curriculum. The curriculum began with William Lily's Latin grammar Rudimenta Grammatices and progressed to Caesar, Livy, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Plautus, Terence, and Seneca, all of whom are quoted and echoed in the Shakespearean canon. Almost uniquely among his peers, Shakespeare's plays *include references* are full of phrases from to grammar school texts and pedagogy, together with caricatures of schoolmasters. *They reference* Lily's Grammar is referred to in a number of plays, including *in* Titus Andronicus (4.10), The Taming of the Shrew (1.1), Love's Labour's Lost (5.1), Twelfth Night (2.3), and The Merry Wives of Windsor (4.1). Shakespeare *also* alluded not only to grammar school but also to the petty school that children attended at age 5 to 7 to learn to read, a prerequisite for grammar school.[128]

I believe the above rewrite is much easier to read, much more clear, removes questionable arguments, and is more brief.Kfein (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed the scholarly consensus that Titus is co-authored. The source you quoted is out of date.

It is not the scholarly consensus. The source I cite is the source cited by Jonathan Bate, he offers many other arguments in the latest 3rd edition Arden. There is also no scholarly consensus on the the Henry VI plays being co-authored. There are two factual claims made. Neither is the scholarly consensus and neither is appropriate for this article on the Shakespeare authorship question. Every fact in the article needs to be accurate and sourced and appropriate. Kfein (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

And it appears that you have read very little of Greene, Nash, Lodge, Marlowe, etc. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Shakespeare had a 20 year career. His early plays likely more closely mimicked those contemporaries and his style developed over time. Positing co-authorship for which there is not a scholarly consensus is unnecessary to account for the facts. But that is not the point. It is inappropriate for this article.

In addition, there is no scholarly consensus on who the supposed co-authors might have been or what they co-authored. It is simply not a consensus. there is a scholarly consensus about Henry VIII and Two Noble Kinsmen and perhaps Pericles. There is no scholarly consensus on the co-authorship of any other plays.

Here is a version that responds to every one of your concerns.

Shakespeare's plays *generally* differ from those of the University Wits in that they avoid ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin or of classical principles of drama, with the exceptions of co-authored *early* plays such as the Henry VI series and Titus Andronicus. Instead, his classical allusions rely on the Elizabethan grammar school curriculum. The curriculum began with William Lily's Latin grammar Rudimenta Grammatices and progressed to Caesar, Livy, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Plautus, Terence, and Seneca, all of whom are quoted and echoed in the Shakespearean canon. Almost uniquely among his peers, Shakespeare's plays *include references* are full of phrases from to grammar school texts and pedagogy, together with caricatures of schoolmasters. *They reference* Lily's Grammar is referred to in a number of plays, including *in* Titus Andronicus (4.10), The Taming of the Shrew (1.1), Love's Labour's Lost (5.1), Twelfth Night (2.3), and The Merry Wives of Windsor (4.1). Shakespeare *also* alluded not only to grammar school but also to the petty school that children attended at age 5 to 7 to learn to read, a prerequisite for grammar school.[128]

Kfein (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh FFS.

"I am in the privileged - or perhaps embarrassing - position of being able to confirm the accuracy of Vickers's diagnosis. Ten years ago, I completed a new Arden edition of Titus Andronicus that was inspired by the magnificent Deborah Warner production of the play. I so wanted to praise the play, instead of burying it as the Arden editor of the previous generation had done, that I uncritically accepted the arguments for solo authorship put forward both by usually trustworthy scholars and seemingly persuasive stylometricians brandishing computer printouts and big-number statistics. The profound methodological flaws of the latter have now been exposed and new research by MacDonald Jackson has been published which provides compelling evidence that the first act of the play was actually written by George Peele. Next time I edit Titus I will follow Vickers's example and credit it to 'William Shakespeare with George Peele', just as Timon of Athens should be credited to Shakespeare 'with Thomas Middleton', Pericles 'with George Wilkins, and Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsmen 'with John Fletcher'." --Jonathan Bate, 15/04/2003 review in TLS of Brian Vickers' Shakespeare, Co-Author.

Anti-Stratfordians stop researching just as soon as they find something that confirms their already-formed opinion. Stop being like them. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That's really funny. Thanks for sharing that. Kfein (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Editing the initial paragraph for clarity and brevity

The article began with this sentence:

all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory, and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims.

It is sufficient to say that "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory." There is no essential or substantial information added by "and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims." Even if there were substantial information added by that clause, it should be carefully sourced in the body of the article, not thrown into the first paragraph.

"and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims." should be deleted. If that is an important point, it can be worked into the article later. The first paragraph reads much better without that extra clause. The extra clause is actually quite confusing and it's not clear precisely what it means without further exposition.

Wikipedia entries should provide the essential information first. Adding extraneous verbiage to the beginning of an article makes it less useful to people who are using it as a quick reference. Those who need more detailed information can read further into the article.

This is just a basic principle of information design and organization. This article should be edited at a professional level with professional standards of clarity, precision, and organization. Removing "and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims" clearly improves the article as a whole. Kfein (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The lede paragraph, which was hammered out over a series of months, was changed on 1 October with the edit summary "removed redundant clause for brevity and precision." I reverted the edit with the edit summary "There is nothing redundant about this clause and it imparts information about the attitude of scholars towards the SAQ and explains why they don't spend all their time disproving it. Every word in this lede has been hammered out over a period of months. I suppose we're still hammering." I think it imparts information that is not implicit in the previous statement because it tells how Shakespeare scholars react to it being a fringe theory. This is an encyclopedia that explains things, not a precis from which readers are supposed to deduce the various implications of compact and succinct hints. "The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows." I would like to hear other opinions on this, and more importantly we need to discuss wholesale changes being made in a painstakingly-written featured article on the whim of a brand new editor with less than 100 edits, most of them on the SAQ. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting that I have made "wholesale changes" is disingenuous. I am happy to defend and explain every single change I made, and I made Talk posts for the major ones before making them. Almost all of them were not reverted by anyone, even though this is a high profile article, since they are obvious improvements. Many many more improvements are necessary to this article, and it may indeed take months or years of group work to bring it up to the current Wikipedia standards.

Please explain how and why that clause is appropriate or adds anything, since it is already clearly explained that scholars consider it a "fringe theory." Obviously most scholars do not rebut or engage with fringe theories. They are fringe theories. That is what fringe theory means. Since "fringe theory" links to a Wikipedia article on fringe theories, anyone who doesn't know what that means can easily check.

Brevity and clarity is the hallmark of good writing. Encyclopedia articles like those in Wikipedia should be exemplars of such clear and precise writing. This is really a clearcut case of an obvious improvement. If this idea is important, it can be fleshed out and explained in the body of the article. It doesn't need to be in the first paragraph. Anything that doesn't *need* to be in the first paragraph shouldn't be there. That is just common sense and a basic principle of information design. Kfein (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

In talkpage discussions, please use WP:INDENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Repeated assertions of the excellence of your own work, and the alleged hostility of editors who have been round for a decade and a half, and whose craftsmanship has been repeatedly subjected to close scrutiny and collaborative revision, do not furnish several editors familiar with the long, complex and disputatious history of this article, which has passed the severest tests of community review, with much confidence you are here to collaborate. All assertions of this kind carry the subtext,'other editors don't come any near my exemplary approach.' As to the gravamen of your most recent assertion:

There is no essential or substantial information added by "and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims."

Serious scholarship rarely wastes words on fringe theories, because their patent outlandishness speaks for itself. 'It's fringe,' tells you nothing. It could imply the silence of contempt, hence the qualifying clause: the overwhelming majority of the exiguous number of scholars who examine the fantasies of this fringe theory either rebut them, or/and, in doing so, disparage them. We once has an extensive footnote documenting the very harsh language of disparagement used by many scholars, and it was elided. Perhaps that should be reinserted, if Tom or anyone else can find it? Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Struck out, since part of it is there, but I do recall even harsher language.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If you call it a "fringe theory" that is enough. You do not need to go into an explanation of what a "fringe theory" is; even if you did, the clause doesn't really help explain it. This article has plenty of information about how the Shakespeare Authorship Question is not taken seriously by scholars. Calling it a "fringe theory" to begin with is extremely harsh and makes the point clearly. Removing the clause doesn't even make it less harsh. It just improves the article and makes it more polished. I am happy to build consensus and work together to improve this article, and if people want to discuss this issue in great depth I am happy to engage. But this really isn't a close call, it reads much better without the clause and no content is lost. It's an obvious improvement.

It seems like people might get the impression that I am trying to change the tone of the article. I am not, and none of my edits have done that. I am trying to improve the article and make it clearer and more accurate. A fact-based, clearly written, and balanced article helps everyone. I am not trying to relitigate the tone of the article or its stance that the Shakespeare authorship question is a "fringe theory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein (talk • contribs) 15:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Rather than trying to make Wikipedia conform to your subjective standards, I suggest you read out the links that were provided to you on your talk page when you first edited, especially WP:5P and the editing pages. Also in talkpage discussions, please conform to WP:INDENT, as you have been asked to do.

As to your objection to this particular edit, your idea that Wikipedia should read as smoothly as ad copy and that people can just look things up if they need more information is diametrically opposed to what an encyclopedia is about (See what I did there? I could have just written "opposed" and that would have been enough by your opinion, but it would not have had quite the same effect, would it?). The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is not aesthetic. While we don't talk down to readers, we give them enough information so that they don't need to have another reference work handy in order to fully understand the article they're reading. I agree that slick is good, except when it comes at the expense of necessary detail. That's why we often explain things parenthetically in reference articles. Don't get me wrong; I'm not claiming that this article is perfect as is and couldn't stand some improvement. While reading through your edit I caught some things that could stand some rewriting myself, but philosophically I'm in the "more information is better" camp, and I think most people who edit this page are also. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the idea that the lede should be overladen with extraneous text. The way Wikipedia entries are structured is that there is a concise overview and people who want more detail can read further into the article. By burdening the lede with extraneous text that adds no information, you are quite literally hiding other important information from the reader, since so many people read Wikipedia on the cell phone, etc.. The clause I am proposing to delete is not only awkward, it is imprecise and unclear. So if you want to include it, you need to include an explanation of the supposed explanation! It would be appropriate to include it later in the article if necessary (and similar content IS later in the article). "fringe theory" is very clear in meaning. If you feel the need to gloss it, then gloss it in a few words parenthetically. The extra clause elucidates nothing, it just is confusing and out of place. Whether you should write "opposed" or "diametrically opposed" is neither here nor there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein (talk • contribs) 17:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC) Kfein (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories See the lede paragraph here. There is no extraneous text. It is clear and concise. I can give you hundreds of examples of Wikipedia ledes with clear and concise ledes. I am happy to do so if it will help this discussion move foward. I am happy to spend weeks debating this clause too. Whatever works for the Wikipedia community works for me.Kfein (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please indent, as asked and yet ignored. I didn't get far into your response because the first line was incoherent. I.e.

If you call it a "fringe theory" that is enough. You do not need to go into an explanation of what a "fringe theory" is; even if you did, the clause doesn't really help explain it.

The bolded section of the original, namely

all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory, and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims

has no pretensions to be an explanation of what a 'fringe theory is' (which however is how you take it). The sentence simply adds what is amply documented, that those who take note of this crap only do so to refute or belittle it. It is pointless asking for a dialogue if, in practice, while engaging with others, you cannot construe the plain elementary meaning of a straight forward clause like this. The rest of your remarks yield the same misprisions, for which the phrases strawman argument or shifting the goalposts are apposite characterizations. Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reformatted this discussion to demonstrate talkpage formatting to Kfein (talk. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"The sentence simply adds what is amply documented, that those who take note of this crap only do so to refute or belittle it." You obviously are biased in a way that doesn't allow you to edit this Wikipedia article objectively. I will let other more experienced editors deal with this tantrum. Kfein (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please do not complicate discussions with tangential observations about other editors. This is a worldwide project and plain speaking is the norm—that is best to avoid the confusion that can arise from circumlocution. Nishidani made the simple point that "and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims" is not an attempt to explain anything so your comment that he quoted ("You do not need to go into an explanation...") was not applicable—the text is not an explanation. Are you willing to engage with that point either by agreeing or by providing further justification? Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Since more engagement is called for here, I will chime in now. First, I agree with those that believe that "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory, and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims" adds to the meaning, and it is helpful to retain that passage.

Also, I am little puzzled by your claim, above, Kfein, that "All of my edits are excellent, as evidence[d] by the fact that almost none of them have been changed by anyone, even though this is a featured article." I don't grasp the logic. There are many reasons others might have held back for a while. For my part, I waited until others who are more thoroughly conversant with the subject matter might weigh in (my contributions were for the most part editorial polishing, over many years). That no one immediately reverted or responded to your changes proves nothing. As others say above, almost every sentence in this article was hashed over and over for years before—and after—it was raised to Featured Article status. Now that it has been so raised, it behooves us all to discuss further changes here in a calm, rational, and open-minded manner, first, before further modifications are introduced, especially in the lede, which readers see first and many never venture beyond. --Alan W (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I have done my service to this article with my edits. You can undo them all or keep them as you see fit. They seem like excellent edits to me, but people on social media are accusing me of vandalizing the article. I'm not interested in being defamed like that, and if I continue working on this article, the attacks on me will intensify. I've been doing my edits under my real name so I need to put the safety and well-being of my family first. So I wish you all well! Kfein (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Social media? Do you mean this talk page? I doubt if anyone on social media cares about what is happening on this page, and I'm sure that experienced editors have no interest in what is said on social media. There is no need to leave, but Wikipedia and life itself work much better when people engage with core arguments and ignore side issues. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Kfein. As Johnuniq said. You'll find no interest in your real identity or personal life, let alone defamation, in this obscure nook of the woods. I've never in my life even glanced at social media: it's just a phrase I recognize as referring to a time sink where a large number of people like to loiter and waste each other's time chewing the vapid cud of unruminable opinions. You'll find no tolerance here of defamation. Argument is, yes, vigorous. Some of your points have merit, or at least provoke longterm editors to rethink. The essence is to be highly focused, precise and, above all, logical in your replies to whatever objections might arise. Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani you and I have been working cooperatively to improve the article, of course I would be pleased to work on that basis. I am talking about a Facebook group where I have already been accused of vandalizing this article. It is a Facebook group run by one of the editors on here. It was obviously a warning to me, and I really can't risk the escalation. I've been attacked on social media before (Twitter in particular) by members of this group, constant stuff. It's really unpleasant. Shakespeare authorship stuff is really contentious and it gets surprisingly ugly.

From my perspective I made mostly minor edits and then for more major ones I posted long Talk explanations before I did anything. No one objected so I went ahead and made the changes. Nishidani and I worked through some issues and came to a compromise. So from my perspective I was "exemplary". But I am being accused of vandalism, even on this Talk page I was attacked and insulted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Kfein is referring to a remark made by Mike Leadbetter in his Facebook group Oxfraud, of which I am a member. I have never mentioned this little brouhaha there, so it's irrelevant to what's going on here. At one time Kfein was a member, but was kicked out for reasons that are also irrelevant to this discussion. I seriously doubt that Mike's parenthetical remark was intended as a "warning" (of what, I wonder?). Of course Kfein is free to take any action he wants, but I can say that I have been involved in SAQ matters for more than two decades now, and never has any Oxfordian or Baconian shown up at my door threatening my family or myself, nor have I ever heard of such or even thought about it happening, but then I'm not prone to conspiratorial thinking. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I tried to post a reply to this but it didn't take apparently. The point is that I have been harassed by members of that group on Twitter, including someone starting to post about my livelihood. An accusation of vandalism is extremely serious. The fact that no response was made to that accusation, explaining that in fact, I was not vandalizing the Wikipedia page, was a real shock to me. I also think that the way my edits have been portrayed in Talk messages have created an impression that I wasn't doing edits in good faith. I'm not interested in detailing everything, people an go back and read for themselves. Kfein (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, this page was dominated for several years by a group of editors whose grip on scholarship was inversely proportional to their mastery of paranoid reading techniques, and anyone who tried to get the page back to a scholarly footing suffered a monstrous amount of exquisitely nice attrition. I came here when I happened to notice an editor, with a vast and minute knowledge of Shakespeareana expressing utter exasperation at the torturous conditions under which he, in a scarce minority, was compelled to work. Eventually the community saw who was responsible, and expelled him, but it still took over year of intense work to get this page back on its feet. And the people who enabled this were done were not combative, irredeemably stubborn types like myself, but wise, balanced men and women who corrected our excesses, fine-tuned the technical qualities required of articles, and governed with an intelligent neutrality the flow of talk page discussions. I can't see the aggravation you speak of, perhaps because I was taught at an early age that any disagreement, even vigorous, shouldn't be taken personally, that even what might look, if one is sensitive, as insulting, is a lot of things: impatience with inaccuracy, a decade of memories of having 'been there before', a certain frustration at what appears as discursive looseness or question-begging assumptions. Most of the hard qualitatively high work on Wikipedia requires a slightly manic profile, and editors who stay on and realize that, develop tough hides, and, as often as not, mutual respect develops.

I don't think calling something 'crap' is a tantrum, but if you were offended, it wasn't meant to be personal. Of the 5,000 books published on the alternative Shakespeare thesis, almost nothing has proved conducive to the field of Elizabethan studies. As a pagan, I think a huge volume of religious argufying is meaningless, but that doesn't stop me from having profound respect and deep friendships with several people in religious orders.

Taking a hint from your admission you have a more public profile, I found your blog where you espouse the Nevillean cause. It's generally well-written, and quite a bit of the material on word-usage interesting. I gather that you think that you might think he has a stronger claim that William Stanley. Perhaps the best way to get used to this place, learn some of the ropes, would be to apply your industry and learning to the Henry Neville page, which could do with some considerable expansion, since it is undeveloped? Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I am more severe of a critic of Shakespeare authorship research in the past than any of you. But the Shakespeare Authorship Question article needs to be objective and unbiased. The "pro-Shakespeare" arguments need to be clear and fact-based and to reflect the scholarly consensus. The descriptions of the anti-Stratfordians need to be clear and fact-based and reflect their actual arguments. There has been a lot of work on the authorship question in the last 10 years, none of it is reflected in the article. For instance, the University of London has a Coursera course on the Shakespeare Authorship Question. How is that not included in the article, when the article has references to obscure people who did obscure things 100 years ago? Wikipedia is not about creating articles and leaving them as static entities to age and become irrelevant. It is supposed to be up-to-date.Kfein (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not about creating articles and leaving them as static entities to age and become irrelevant. It is supposed to be up-to-date."

I know it must be frustrating being constantly told to read one thing or another, but WP:RECENT is certainly relevant, as well as WP:N. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to give Ros Barber's self-published book Shakespeare: The Evidence RS status

Dr. Ros Barber is a leading academic involved in Shakespeare authorship research. She is currently Senior Lecturer Goldsmiths, University of London, Dept of English & Comparative Literature.

She has a Coursera course sponsored by the University of London: https://www.coursera.org/learn/shakespeare

She has published many peer-reviewed articles on the subject of Shakespeare and Shakespeare authorship. Here is a selection:

• Barber, Ros. 2019. Function Word Adjacency Networks and Early Modern Plays. ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes and Reviews, ISSN 0895-769X
• Barber, Ros. 2019. 2 Henry VI and the Ashford Cage. Notes and Queries, ISSN 0029-3970
• Barber, Ros. 2019. Marlowe and Overreaching: A Misuse of Stylometry. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 34(1), pp. 1-12. ISSN 0268-1145
• Barber, Ros. 2018. Shakespeare and Warwickshire Dialect Claims. Notes and Queries, 65(4), pp. 549-551. ISSN 0029-3970
• Barber, Ros. 2016. Christopher Marlowe and Gervase Markham. Notes and Queries, ISSN 0029-3970
• Barber, Ros. 2016. Shakespeare and Warwickshire Dialect. Journal of Early Modern Studies(5), pp. 91-118. ISSN 2285-6382
• Barber, Rosalind. 2015. Sir John Davies as Guilpin’s Fuscus. Notes and Queries, 62(4), pp. 553-554. ISSN 0029-3970
• Barber, Ros. 2015. Bardolph and Poins. Notes and Queries, 62(1), pp. 104-107. ISSN 0029-3970
• Barber, Ros. 2015. Shakespeare's 'Honey-Stalks'. Notes and Queries, 62(1), pp. 92-93. ISSN 1471-6941
• Barber, Ros. 2010. Exploring biographical fictions: the role of imagination in writing and reading narrative. Rethinking History, 14(2), pp. 165-187. ISSN 1364-2529
• Barber, Ros. 2009. Shakespeare Authorship Doubt in 1593. Critical Survey, 21(2), ISSN 0011-1570

Just as David Kathman's self-published, not peer-reviewed website is judged a RS: https://shakespeareauthorship.com/

I believe that Ros Barber's self-published book should be judged a RS: https://leanpub.com/shakespeare

Kfein (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Bring it up at WP:RSN and see what happens. IMO that page itself contradicts WP:IS. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Why? Is that a requirement because of the status of this article in some way? Kfein (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Have you not read any of the links I posted for you? Including the one I posted on your talk page that you deleted? Tom Reedy (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't answer my question. Are you not willing to answer my question? Kfein (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

A soi-disant fast learner, such as yourself, ought to be able to pick up from that article why Barber's leanpub exercise is not acceptable. It dishonestly presents itself as a dispassionate review of the evidence yet Barber produced the whole thing herself. Her representations of the evidence against her own (Doubter's) case are all weak at best, completely disingenuous at worst. People at Oxfraud were invited to contribute but not to share in the commercial revenue from the project. The end result is partisan and unhelpful to enlightenment of the SAQ except as an illustration of the methods used to displace real evidence with distracting supposition, inference and guesswork.Sicinius (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying she asked you to contribute but she refused to offer you money, or are you referring to someone else? I'm confused exactly what you mean. In any case, Ros Barber's book is actually the most well-balanced, thorough and up-to-date reference work on the Shakespeare Authorship Question. She is a leading authority on the subject, please see the peer-reviewed publications above, plus she has the Coursera course sponsored by the University of London. Kfein (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

"Ros Barber's book is actually the most well-balanced, thorough and up-to-date reference work on the Shakespeare Authorship Question. She is a leading authority on the subject," If you wish to convince other editors of this, you should get some strong, independent WP:RS that says so. If true, it seems likely someone noticed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It really isn't good news that you choose Barber as an authority or believe her to be well-balanced. Or that you think her work is. As I explained, many Shakespeareans felt obliged to participate in the coursera MOOC to avoid unbridled, inaccurate, partisan nonsense, such as Waugh's craziness or Barber's Sogliardo or monument modules (they are all partisan and unscholarly), being offered to the public. And yes, she set the leanpub effort up as a commercial project without discussing payment for doing half the work. Neither site should be given RS status. Both are anti-Stratfordian enterprises. Barber, don't forget, is a Marlovian. Sicinius (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Talking of Marlovians, we used to have Peter Farey here for that case. He was the one non-Stratfordian you could count on to be totally amenable and responsive to intelligent criticism. He was graciously collaborative in helping this page over several years. Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I "met" him at Talk:Marlovian theory of Shakespeare authorship last year, seems like a good guy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There's an old proverb that goes, "Answer a man's question, and you give him an answer. Teach him to read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and he'll find out himself." Or something like that--maybe with a fish or something? Anyway, the great majority of your questions are answered in the links that I have provided which apparently you refuse to read. I don't have time to hold your hand during the years you say you'll devote to going through this page line-by-line. If you have the devotion to the Wikipedia community you claim to have, you'll read the links that were posted on your talk page when you made your first edit and the links I furnished. Also reading every page of the SAQ arbitration, including the talk pages, will save you a lot of time, trouble, and frustration over the many busy years ahead. Hardly anyone ever wants to do the preliminary work required for editing this page effectively, but it is necessary. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

However long and whatever it takes. Fortunately, Shakespeare authorship research is moving quite quickly, so a lot of this will dissolve quite soon. But in the meantime I will work with you to improve the quality of this article. It's obviously easier to focus on already approved sources to improve the article, so I will put most of my effort there. But Ros Barber's book is the truly outstanding and fair-minded scholarly work on this subject, Fortunately, Shakespeare authorship research is moving quite quickly, so a lot of this will dissolve quite soon.the only one yet written. So having it acknowledged as such is another high priority for me since it would improve the article so much. Kfein (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

"Fortunately, Shakespeare authorship research is moving quite quickly, so a lot of this will dissolve quite soon."

Ah, Jesus, I dunno how many more forays into this particular breach I've got in me. At least one more, I'm sure.

You've been told how to go about it. See you at WP:RSN. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that. But my point is that there are plenty of ways to improve the article just using the sources already cited in the article. Kfein (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Attempting to establish Barber's MOOC and leanpub work as Reliable Sources will not improve anything and will waste everyone's time. Sicinius (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Factual question about Shakespeare calling himself a gentleman

On this website: https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/shakespedia/william-shakespeare/shakespeare-coat-arms/

It says:

"On his father’s death in 1601, William continued to use the coat of arms and had the right to style himself a gentleman."

This seems to imply that it wasn't until his father died that Shakespeare could call himself a gentleman.

In the article it says:

Shakespeare was also allowed the use of the honorific "gentleman" after 1596 when his father was granted a coat of arms.[74]

This book also seems to make a similar point, I don't know if it is an RS:

https://books.google.com/books?id=65DmTg6OD7QC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PT68&dq=shakespeare%20becomes%20gentleman%20death%20father&pg=PT68#v=onepage&q=shakespeare%20becomes%20gentleman%20death%20father&f=false

So it seems to be that some people are saying it wasn't until his father's death -- and he acquired the coat of arms through inheritance -- that he could call himself a gentleman.

I am sorry if this topic has been discussed in the past.

Kfein (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A person could be a gentleman without a coat of arms; the term was not a title, but only a gentleman could have a coat of arms--the coat of arms recognized gentility; not the other way around. However, Shakespeare never called himself a gentleman until after the arms had been granted to his father. After his father's death he inherited the coat of arms, not the honorific. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

That may be the case, I have no idea, but what you are saying contradicts the article.Kfein (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

How so? It says he was allowed to use it after his father was granted a coat of arms. He did; it's in the documentary record. He never used it until after 1596. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for shortening paragraph about Delia Bacon

I do not understand how this much detail is appropriate for an article of this type:

In 1853, with the help of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Delia Bacon travelled to England to search for evidence to support her theories.[158] Instead of performing archival research, she sought to unearth buried manuscripts, and unsuccessfully tried to persuade a caretaker to open Bacon's tomb.[159] She believed she had deciphered instructions in Bacon's letters to look beneath Shakespeare's Stratford gravestone for papers that would prove the works were Bacon's, but after spending several nights in the chancel trying to summon the requisite courage, she left without prising up the stone slab.[160]

I recommend shortening it to:

In 1853, with the help of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Delia Bacon travelled to England to unearth buried manuscripts she expected to find in Bacon's tomb and under Shakespeare's gravestone. She failed to inspect either location and found no manuscripts.

Anything more than that isn't of any interest to anyone. If you want a longer version:

In 1853, with the help of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Delia Bacon travelled to England to search for evidence to support her theories.[158] Instead of performing archival research, she sought to unearth buried manuscripts, and unsuccessfully tried to persuade a caretaker *failed* to open Bacon's tomb.[159] She believed she had deciphered instructions in Bacon's letters to look beneath Shakespeare's Stratford gravestone for papers that would prove the works were Bacon's, but after spending several nights in the chancel trying to summon the requisite courage, she left without prising up the stone slab.[160]

Kfein (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

As with nearly all of your proposals, you are systematically trying to get rid of language that describes the way these crackpots went about their attempts to undo the historical record. Those details are well attested, a crucial part of the evidence of the hallucinated nature of SAQ doubters' techniques and methods, and are probably more illustrative of the stupidity of the 'theory' than any mere pseudo-empirical summary of the bare facts. 'He thought this' then 'the consensus disagrees' is true but dull. 'He thought 2+2=5 because he found a runic inscription that suggested to him alone this was so' then 'The consensus is that 2+2 =4' is far more cogent for most readers. Take illustrative colour from a description, esp. in a long text, and you lose those few who are patient enough to read to the end. The prose 'balance' you are aiming at looks like a strategy to put two contending 'theories' on the same footing by flensing the text of all such illustrative colour. But we don't have two theories: we have an empirical record, and the consensus on identity it has always enjoyed opposed to a paranoid reading where suspicion renders the evidence illusory to make way for the usual nuthouse rumour-mongering. I won't be myself replying to the many redrafting suggestions you appear to intend to make, for the above reasons. They look like a systematic tactic to put two 'theories' on the same footing. One only does that when the theories have competing competent advocates and the question is open, which is not the case here.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"Anything more than that isn't of any interest to anyone."

Several times you have made similar remarks. Why do you consider yourself the arbiter of what is interesting to readers? Wikipedia is not competing with the popular press. Apparently you're tired of me continually pointing you to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, because you don't seem to be reading them. "The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, 'just-the-facts style'. Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing." Tom Reedy (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that makes my point exactly. Thank you for making it so utterly clearly. Kfein (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Whoosh! Tom Reedy (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Then examine what 'fact' means. Ideas, for example, are not 'facts' and yet you assume they are in asserting we need more ideas, if one can call them that, here. Petitioning the bishop of Lichfield is a fact. Any good historian interweaves her succession of dates and names with a descriptive narrative of the actors(agents. Gradgrindism is a joke in Dickens for the idea that you can inform people by the mere enumeration of data, rather than by discursive embedding of that data within a framework rich in historical and logical context.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It is a very short article. There is a separate article devoted to the history of the Shakespeare Authorship Question. It seems like we would need to make judicious decisions about which facts to include and which to exclude.Kfein (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"It is a very short article." What is a very short article? Not this one. Article space is not a problem and hasn't been since the early 2000s. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)