Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Article is now a featured article candidate

Unless people have an objection I'm going to go ahead and make the FAC live. I think we're ready. Of course, there will be a number of requests and comments as the FAC goes through the steps, so I hope everyone will pay attention and make any fixes that are required (or bring to the attention of editors previous discussions in the peer reviews about any relevant issues). This should be a great a discussion, along the lines of the ones we had in the previous peer reviews. Best,--Alabamaboy 22:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No offense to the editors that are commenting on the nomination, but this already feels like we've been summoned to a hearing in court. We are the defendants, and the featured article reviewers are the judges. Does anyone else feel this way? Also, I don't feel comfortable about the fact that a Director holds control over what can be chosen or not. :(

PS I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm just expressing an opinion. Hey, it's a free country, right?Romeo in love 02:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope ye don't take the various comments that way, I get the impression that the reviewers are acting just as a "fresh set of eyes", appreciate the effort made, and want the page promoted. Ceoil 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd advice everyone to not take this FAC as a trial or an attack on our work. I've been through two of these FACs before and in both cases I had to make a large number of changes to the articles. The great news, though, is that in the end both articles were better for having so much excellent input and succeeded as Featured Articles. Best,--Alabamaboy 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And generally reviews don't make detailed comments unless they think the article will be deserving of the star. Ceoil 23:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, even as someone who has a hard time exposing work to criticism. This is going to make the article better. Wrad 23:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit like being on trial, but you get used to it. I think that is fair enough if we are asking for an article to be officially considered one of Wikipedia's best: the press is full of people who can't wait to attack anything they see as low standards on this site, and so the process needs to be rigorous. The trouble is that it is actually very difficult to make criticisms without sounding adversial: if one softens the tone of comments too much, there is a danger that they may not be taken seriously. But it must be assumed that if someone goes to the trouble of commenting in detaIl on an FAC, and especially if they make constructive suggestions or have a good featured-article record themselves, they care about the article. Having said that, it is perfectly OK not to act on an objection if you can make a good case not to. Not every suggestion is going to be good. qp10qp 23:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Trimming

The article is now at 71 kilobytes and bound to swell abit during the next process. Any way we can all look for opportunies to trim a bit? For example, I think the Reputation section has swelled maybe a bit too much - especially considering there is a sub-article to link to. Smatprt 23:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on the FAC it has been brought up that the article is quite short. Might want to wait on this. Let's just focus on the FAC, for now. Wrad 23:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I was just concerned about little extra words and phrases that might be removed, but I am happy to wait and see. After reading the latest "Reputaion" section, it just struck me that some of the material was too far expanded and would be better left in the subarticle.Smatprt 01:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the consensus on the FAC so far is that the article is too short, not too long, I wouldn't trim anything. Best,--Alabamaboy 02:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sentence

Modern criticism has described some of his plays as "problem plays." This term is applied to overlapping groups of plays by scholars beginning with F. S. Boas, W. W. Lawrence, and E. M. W. Tillyard. The common element in the definition is that the plays so labelled present "a perplexing or distressing problem" in a way that raises rather than answers ethical questions.

What does this mean?! Can someone rewrite this in simple, or comprehensible, English? RedRabbit1983 06:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Given it a try.--Old Moonraker 07:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In very simple terms the PROBLEM with a problem play is that you have a problem classifying it as a tragedy or a comedy. AndyJones 07:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Old Moonraker's version very good IMO. AndyJones 07:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's much better, but still confusing: Grouping four of them—All’s Well that Ends Well, Measure for Measure, Troilus and Cressida and Hamlet—under this title was a coinage of critic F. S. Boas in 1896.

"Grouping [them]... under this title was a coinage by..." Surely grouping is not a coinage? I am reluctant to edit this myself, though. RedRabbit1983 09:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten that bit and cut the first sentence (1896 isn't all that modern, and the final sentence of the para states the position today). --GuillaumeTell 10:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's better—I was trying to say that the title was coined, not the grouping!--Old Moonraker 11:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Second Example:

Hamlet (c. 1601) is believed to be a reworking of an older, lost play (the so-called Ur-Hamlet),[71] and King Lear may be an adaptation of an earlier play, King Leir.

This says Hamlet is a reworking and King Lear an adaption. Is there a difference between a reworking and an adaption? Why the difference in terms? RedRabbit1983 04:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Third example:

Many of Shakespeare's plays first appeared in print as quartos; but the rest remained unpublished until 1623 when the posthumous First Folio was published by John Heminges and Henry Condell.[8] The traditional division of his plays into tragedies, comedies, and histories follows the pattern of the First Folio

Why is this is in the section on Sources? RedRabbit1983 04:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see this has been resolved. RedRabbit1983 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourth example:

In Hamlet he found the obscurity of motivation and psychology justification for inclusion.

This is vague: "obscurity of motivation" and "psychology justification for inclusion". This needs to be stated in clearer English. RedRabbit1983 04:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reworded, following more closely the phrasing of the source work. --Old Moonraker 06:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fifth example:

Little is definitely known about the exact chronology of Shakespeare's plays.

Combining "definitely" and "exact" is overkill. Surely only one is needed? RedRabbit1983 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• This has also been resolved. RedRabbit1983 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sixth example:

Because so few historical facts are known about Shakespeare, there are many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright [28][29] as well as questions pertaining to his sexuality[30] and religious beliefs.[31]

This has far too many words. RedRabbit1983 14:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Seventh example:

The term "romances" has also been applied to several later comedies.[80]

Why is this in Problem Plays? RedRabbit1983 14:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Eighth example:

Many so-called bad quartos so badly mangled that they are assumed to be among the "stol'n and surreptitious copies" that the editors of the First Folio complain about.

How are they mangled? Little is said about the "stol'n and surreptitious copies". RedRabbit1983 14:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ref 66

This ref seems odd. I guess it is citing the fact that Thomas North was the translator, but shouldn't the ref lead to an attribution of the broader facts involved? Does citation 67 cover this issue? Wrad 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

sonnets problem

There are technical issues going on in the middle of this section. I'm not sure what it was before. Can anyone fix this? Wrad 21:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it and added content that was in the intro of Shakespeare's sonnets. It looks to me as if something had been deleted sometime in the past, thus tampering with the reference markup. --Kyoko 22:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Other influences

Scholars have pointed out the influences of Shakespeare beyond the page and the theater. I just don't know where to find the sources for them. Here are some examples:

• Psychology: Shakespeare strongly influenced Sigmund Freud's theories, and thus much of the psychiatric world to this day.
• Human Consciousness in general: Scholars have also proposed that we are who we are and that we think the way we think because of Shakespeare's writing. In other words, Shakespeare created the human mindset of today.

Does anyone know where to get sources for this? I've been trying for awhile, but haven't had much luck so far. Wrad 02:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also read that before, but I don't know how much stock to put in it. I've also read that Shakespeare greatly influenced 19th century medical doctors. Perhaps all of this should be put into Shakespeare's influence but not the main article (once we get references for the items, that is).--Alabamaboy 02:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• The second of your blobs is the general theme of Bloom, Harold "Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human". I'm not sure I set much store by it, though, particularly. I've a copy at home and I could have a look in the next day or so to see if there is anything we can use. AndyJones 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting

Chronology and Performance need copyediting. They don't match the preceding sections in quality. RedRabbit1983 06:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a start but I only had a few minutes free. There is a chapter on this in one of the Cambridge companions, which I have at home, so I may be able to fill in some of the gaps in the sourcing. AndyJones 13:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of Chronology is long and knotted. The reader most likely will lose interest very quickly. RedRabbit1983 14:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done a little more tidying there and removed the comment at the end - there are plenty of citations, except that a ref is required for Doran's activities (I don't have easy access to a copy of her book, assuming that's what is being referred to).

Is "chronology" really the right header for this section? It's almost entirely about textual matters except for the first sentence! --GuillaumeTell 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See below for a more thorough analysis. RedRabbit1983 05:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Authorship: Sourcing

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

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

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

What exactly were you hoping to cite? I'm somewhat bemused about what is at issue here. That such debate has existed is undisputed. All that is disputed is whether there is current scholarly debate about it. I think we should not confuse scholarly discussion of it with scholarly acceptance that it is a real issue. That would be like saying "scholars discuss Ancient Greek mythology" and confusing it with "there is dispute among scholars whether or not Ancient Greek mythology is true". Since the second statement is not being made here, I can't see what needs to be cited. I think we need to stop the FAC turing into an authorship debate, which means please no pro and con arguments there. Paul B 10:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This citation seems to refer to an account of a conference held at Concordia University during April 2007, and not a publication of the University itself. It may not satisfy the reservations of the FAC. --Old Moonraker 11:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The Concordia conference is an annual event organised by Daniel Wright, a member of staff who is an Oxfordian. He is a member of the College of Theology, Arts and Sciences. [1] Paul B 11:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Still not good enough, yet. AndyJones 12:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have raised a possible compromise on the FAC page, which is to keep the 69 word paragraph as is until the FAC is over. We can then have another discussion on this talk page to see if consensus on keeping the paragraph in has changed. I also totally agree with Paul--no more debate on this issue on the FAC page! Best,--Alabamaboy 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll agree to that compromise. Then I'll smoke my axe with hot blood as I hack through it afterward. I'll lay low all of your sentinels! RedRabbit1983 16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think us agreeing is enough. We all do. It's our FA reviewers who are pressing the point (and have continued to do so since Alabamaboy's suggestion) and it's them who have to be impressed. AndyJones 18:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've talked to Awadewit and while he's not happy with the situation, he said this issue isn't a deal breaker with regards to him possibly supporting the FAC. So let's continue to avoid dragging the FAC through this debate.--Alabamaboy 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though FAC is precisely the mechanism to deal with inappropriate emphasis on fringe theories. We don't want featured articles to be embarassing, which means that we must remove embarassing things from articles for them to become features. - Nunh-huh 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added Schoenbaum to the refs, and another book. The whole screen-filling screeds of prose over at the FAC seem to be about nothing more than having citation of scholars saying "the authorship controversy exists". Other possible texts would be Kaufman's 2003 article in the OUP book, or the Shakespeare Encyclopedia, 1974, which has entries on Bacon and Oxford as candidates. I added Holderness's The Shakespeare Myth, which discusses the issues on pp.11-14. Holderness asserts that mythology of secret aristocratic ancestry of an apparently low-born hero is behind the authorship issue (he cites Robin Hood/Earl of Huntingdon) "ultimately it is this myth that explains the old quarrels about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays...These controversies still rumble on in the peripheries of the scholarly world." (p.11). Schoenbaum has pages and pages on the stuff of course. (pp.385-451 1993 edition), and also sees the issue as a product of bardolotry. He's very dismissive, "an irresistable passion in these men and women: the inexorable compulsion that usurps thought, courts ridicule, even (at times) unseats reason" (p.450) He adds hat the "continual flow of publication" on the subject means that any professor of English will regularly be asked about the issue by people who have heard of it and yielded to "the dark power of anti-Stafordian obsession". Paul B 18:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

At last some good, solid refs. Brilliant, Paul! --Old Moonraker 18:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much improved. However we are now sourcing the statement that "popular interest in the subject ... has continued into the 21st century" citing one Samuel Schoenbaum (6 March 1927 – 27 March 1996). Lets not pat ourselves on the back just yet. AndyJones 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think adding Kaufman 2003 would cover that. Paul B 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, OK, but the wording of the section hasn't changed. The point of a source is that the text of the article has to reflect what that source actually says about the subject. We're getting there, but someone with access to these books needs to check what they say. If they say the same as our article says then that's fine, we just amend the ref to include a page number. If they don't then the article has to be changed to match the source. AndyJones 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Postscript to previous comment: I see some good stuff in Paul's comments above. If only the article contained some of it! AndyJones 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

"To do" Proposal

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

1. Replace all sources in the Authorship section with reliable, scholarly ones.

 Done I think. All refs questioned in FAC are now replaced. Wrad 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Carefully reword the section according to consensus and according to the sources.

Other than the "Why" issue discussed later on this page. I think it is fine, except I would like to make this change:

Although all alternative candidates are flatly rejected in academic circles,[145] popular interest in the subject continues.[146][147][148]

I'd like to change this to: Although popular interest in the subject continues,[146][147][148] all alternative candidates for authorship are flatly rejected in academic circles.[145]

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

Wrad 16:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Performance History

Can I ask if the "performance history" section is intended to stop where it does or whether it's the intention to expand it? If the latter I can probably have a go this evening, but I'd like to be clear what the author's intention was. Incidentally, am I the only one who's finding it hard to keep up with the pace of change of the article and the discussions on it? AndyJones 12:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend to expand this section any more. Since this is an article about Shakespeare, I feel only the original performances during his lifetime are relevant. If you follow the link in that last sentence, you will see that there's far too much into on subsequent performances to add in here. Of course, that's just my opinion.--Alabamaboy 14:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't touch it, then. I wonder if maybe the heading needs to change a little, though? As it is, it encourages you to think you'll be reading about Garrick, Kemble, Irving and so forth. AndyJones 18:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Alabamaboy 18:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Kiddie boredom

I think we can do away with these sentences, even though they are sourced: The widespread reverence for Shakespeare has provoked an unforeseen negative reaction in some of today's youth. Because most people in the English-speaking world encounter Shakespeare at school at a young age, there is an association by some students of his work with boredom[161][162] and of "high art" not easily appreciated by popular culture;[163] an ironic fate considering the social mix of Shakespeare's original audience. I remember as a 15 year old I was bored too, yet I hadn't read any of his plays. Anyway, half-hearted teenagers can make any play sound dull while reading monotonously. The next sentence has to pull out an awkward transition: "Neverthless...".

Can we agree to the sentences' removal? RedRabbit1983 15:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't fight you on this. But my view is that it's better to say this than to have an article with a wholly positive POV! (But the irony bit in the last 11 words seems pretty irrelevant to me, and isn't sourced.) AndyJones 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any depth to the issue of kiddie boredom. Maybe some bored, angsty teenagers will disagree; though I don't know. If we need balance, i.e. a negative counterweight, we should chose something else to that end. RedRabbit1983

Teens will always get bored with Shakespeare. And they'll also get bored with Rebecca, Tom Sawyer, A Separate Peace, and almost every other fucking classical novel that exists in the English-speaking world!!! What classical book DOES a teen like?--Romeo in love 23:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph

This is under-developed: The twentieth century saw the development of the professional field of study known as English studies, covering English literature and language fields.[159] Critical methods applied to Shakespeare's works included structuralism, poststructuralism and semiotics, and his works were analysed from feminist and Marxist perspectives.

The first sentence is irrelevant: readers want to know about the study of Shakespeare, not about a general field of study. The next sentence is poorly linked, and is just a laundry list of critical methods. Inject some life into it.

Everything in the Reputation section before the last two paragraphs is well written, though. RedRabbit1983 15:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Needs someone to look it over, though, please. AndyJones 22:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I think it's much better than it was, but the structuralist parts still read more like a history of literary theory than a summary of the history of Shakespeare's reputation. Just needs a few more applications of these criticisms to Shakespeare, specifically, in my opinion. Wrad 23:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • It's a scholarly paragraph now. Well done. RedRabbit1983 05:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

More copyediting

Because I am too familiar with the article, I won't attempt to copyedit it. Here are my concerns for those who are interested:

They have been translated into every major living language[44] and are continually performed all over the world.—This sentence looks misplaced besides the two adjacent sentences.

For the second sentence of Sources, see Talk:William Shakespeare#Sentence

Shakespeare may also have borrowed stylistic elements from contemporary playwrights like Christopher Marlowe.—Who else? Or should I say, whom else?

Common to all four...—The paragraph jumps from Hamlet to all four plays and then back to Hamlet.

leaving the other three in the "problem" category.—Unless there is something I am missing, this doesn't need to be stated.

Many of the plays have been alternatively classified as tragicomedies—Only four are discussed: "Many" is imprecise. Anyway, this raises the question: all four? Three of them? How many exactly? Or this referring to plays other than the Problem Plays as well?

No authoritative print version appeared in his lifetime, and there is no evidence that Shakespeare supervised the publication of any of his plays.—The sentence has improved, but it's still awkward. The jumping of tenses is probably causing my unease.

There are signficant textual problems and textual variants, small and large, in every play of which multiple texts have survived.—The subject should be "Every play..."

Unlike some other dramatists of the time—How about, "Unlike some of his fellow dramatists"?

As a result, textual variations resulted from printers' errors...—Does this follow? Printers don't seem to be forced to make errors because Shakespeare took no interest in publication. Perhaps another way of linking the sentence should be found.

The text in many of the so-called bad quartos is so badly mangled that they are assumed to be among the "stol'n and surreptitious copies" that the editors of the First Folio complain about.—How are they mangled? Nothing else is said about "stol'n and surreptitious copies" yet the sentence assumes the reader is familiar with this.

The quarto and folio versions of King Lear, for instance, differ to a significant degree.—"for instance" shouldn't be in the middle of the sentence.

Traditionally, editors have arrived at a conflated Lear, including all scenes from both versions. How about replacing "including..." with "which includes"?

However, Madeleine Doran saw the two as meaningfully distinct, and Gary Taylor and Roger Warren's The Division of the Kingdom made the case that textual differences such as those in the texts of Lear arose from different provenances for the two texts.—This doesn't read well. Nor does the next sentence.

I am uncomfortable with the next paragraph.

During Shakespeare's lifetime, many of his plays were performed in the Globe and Blackfriars Theatres[60] by the playing company the Lord Chamberlain's Men —Can we remove "the playing company"? "in" should be "at".

The other main location where Shakespeare's original plays were performed—This is unbalanced. The previous sentence has "were staged at"; then this sentence follows with "The other main location ...was".

The King's Men played in Blackfriars during the winter, and at the Globe during the summer.—Same problem with "in". I don't think this sentence needs a comma.

Shakespeare's fellow playing company members acted in his plays.—Awkward. Anyway, this is repeating information.

Among these actors were Richard Burbage (who played the title role in the first performances of many of Shakespeare's plays, including Hamlet, Othello, Richard III and King Lear),[62] Richard Cowley (who played Verges in Much Ado About Nothing), William Kempe, (who played Peter in Romeo and Juliet and, possibly, Bottom in A Midsummer Night's Dream) and Henry Condell and John Heminges, known today for collecting and editing the plays of Shakespeare's First Folio (1623).—There is problem with syntax.I suggest changing the commas to semi-colons and the parentheses to commas.

In the centuries since Shakespeare's death, his plays have been performed numerous times in different venues, formats, and versions. This seems redundant. It might bore the reader.

These are narrative poems, with both "Venus and Adonis" and "The Rape of Lucrece" based on classical works by the Roman poet Ovid, while "A Lover's Complaint" tells the original story of a scorned love (although a few scholars question if Shakespeare was the poem's actual author).—The with- phrase constitutes most of this sentence and has most of the information—an awkward syntax. The "while" is wrong: "while" should only be used for "at the same as" or "whereas".

These poems were all written in the rhyme royal (with the rhyme scheme ababbcc)[69][70] and appear to have been written either in an attempt to win the patronage of a rich benefactor (a common practice of the time) or as the result of such patronage.—Sentence jumps tense mid-way.

In addition, the anthology The Passionate Pilgrim was attributed to him...—"In addition" doesn't work here as a transition; it appears cheap.

Shakespeare served his dramatic apprenticeship at the height of the Elizabethan era—"dramatic apprenticeship" is too vague.

During this period, "drama became the ideal means to capture and convey the diverse interests of the time."—Paraphrase this instead of quoting.

Stories of various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated and the poor and illiterate—Can we find something better than "Stories of various genres"? The word "enacted" seems eccentric here.

His style changed not only in accordance with his own tastes and developing mastery, but also in accord with the tastes of the audiences for whom he wrote—"accordance", not "accord". Also, "His style changed... in accordance with his... developing mastery" doesn't read well.

While many passages in Shakespeare's plays are written in prose, he usually wrote a large proportion—How about, "Although Shakespeare wrote many passages in prose..."? The voice will be consistent and the sentence balanced.

He and other dramatists at the time used this form of blank verse... Does "this form of blank verse" refer to iambic pentameter with the end of lines punctuated or just simply "blank verse"?

A typical example is provided in Macbeth:—Can we remove "provided"? Or at least change it to "occurs"?

His plays are further notable for their use of soliloquies in which a character makes a solitary speech so the audience is given insight into the character's motivations and inner conflict.—Shouldn't there be a comma after soliloquies? Can we change "so the audience..." to "giving the audience..."?

The character either speaks to the audience directly (such as choruses, or characters that become epilogues) or, more commonly, speaks to him- or herself in the fictional realm—"such as" should be "such as in". Is "him- or herself" really necessary? Normally it should be avoided at all cost.

Shakespeare's writing—in particular his plays— feature extensive wordplay in which double entendres and clever rhetorical flourishes are repeatedly used.—Change "in which... are used" to "of". The dashes probably should be commas.

Humor is a key element in all of Shakespeare's plays.—How?

The next sentence is too long.

The last three sentences of the paragraph don't flow. That's all I have time for. RedRabbit1983 05:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Chronology and publication

"Is this an improvement?" asks User:AndyJones. Yes! --Old Moonraker 17:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. RedRabbit1983 19:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sections most in need of copyedit

Please target the following sections:

• last sentence of intro;
• 2nd paragraph of Performance;
• 1st and last paragraph of Style;
• and Influence on theatre, literature, and language.

These are most in need of copyediting. RedRabbit1983 19:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• WOW! Amazing work by everyone - I took a copy of the article to bed with a blue pencil last night and pretty much everything I marked has been fixed this morning. Good work! Still, no rest for the wicked, plenty more work to do. AndyJones 07:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad refs

• 167. Christopher Marlowe by Brian Robert Morris, 1968, pages 65-94.

 Done Wrad 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• 143. The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare Unfolded, available at Project Gutenberg. by Delia Bacon, 1857.

This is part of the whole authorship thing and will probably eventually be gone when replaced by a better ref. May be best to just leave it for now. Wrad 20:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• 115. Introduction to The Comedy of Errors by William Shakespeare, Penguin Classics, 1999, xix.—This should name the author of the introduction.

 Done I found an alternative source with the quotation. Amazingly, the quotation in the text was wrong, and weaker than the real thing. AndyJones 20:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• 110. Introduction to Hamlet by William Shakespeare, Barron's Educational Series, 2002, 12.—As above.
• 79. Shakespeare's Soliloquies by Wolfgang H. Clemen, translated by Charity S. Stokes, Routledge, 1987, 11

 Done Wrad 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• 78. Macbeth Act 2, Scene 1—Which edition?

This is a pretty standard way of citing Shakespeare. I don't think it needs any more. Wrad 19:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

RedRabbit1983 19:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

49. Plutarch - I brought this up earlier on the talk page.

59. Editor's Preface

 Done. Used a different - perhaps better - source. AndyJones 21:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

63. Proquest

73. Proquest

76. Introduction

99. bad punctuation, may not be complete

I adjusted it, but it can still be expanded. Is this a book? Wrad 20:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A quick check on Amazon suggests this author (Roland Frye) didn't write a book that was just called "Shakespeare". Unless the person who added this source can fix this, can we source it from elsewhere?

Front cover qp10qp 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done Wrad 23:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that there's another reference to this book, about Hamlet, which has a different ISBN. The editor who added that info must have used a different edition, but I've just checked the Hamlet ref and the pagination is the same as in the other edition, so the first ISBN can be used in both cases. Would be tidier.qp10qp 23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

127. Stendhal's pamphlets

• I put this in. I've just checked my source and I cannot improve on it. If your problem is the plurality of 'pamphlets' then my source uses the plural, too, and since Grady dates them 1823-25, I assume that he means they were a series. AndyJones 21:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Incidentally, Stendhal is a one word pen-name, so if the problem is the lack of a first name, it's because there isn't one. AndyJones 11:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Can I consider this  Done unless I've guessed at the wrong objections? AndyJones 11:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure. I was just looking for the name of the author, but if that's all we have, that's all we have. Wrad 15:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

164. Ackroyd is odd

 Done Wrad 20:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We can check these off as they are done. Wrad 19:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Copied the following from the FAC page:

• Brown, Calvin Smith; Harrison, Robert L. Masterworks of World Literature Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970, 4.
• Craig, Leon Harold (2003). Of Philosophers and Kings: Political Philosophy in Shakespeare's "Macbeth" and "King Lear". University of Toronto Press, 3.

• The dates are not in the same place - here and throughout the notes.

• Dr. Mobley, Jonnie Patricia (1996). Manual for Hamlet: Access to Shakespeare. Lorenz Educational Publishers, 5.

• Why is there a "Dr." in the author's name?
  • I fixed all of these except the ones in the authorship section. Wrad 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ackroyd, Peter (2005). Shakespeare: The Biography. London: Chatto and Windus, pp 53-61. ISBN 1-856-19726-3.
  •  Not done Cannot see anything wrong with this one. What's the issue, please?
    • Awadewit just comapared this one to the one below to show inconsistency in ISBN format. That's all. Wrad 15:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Decide whether or not ISBNs are going to be included - inconsistent here and elsewhere. Also, decide whether or not to include hyphens - some ISBNs have them, some not.
  • I'm in favor of having as many ISBNs as we can. They are an invaluable resource to locating sources. I am also in favor of adding dashes, as that makes them more readable. Wrad 23:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • All now have dashes. The hard part will be adding ISBNs to the rest of the books. Wrad 23:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Gray, Terry A. (2002) "The Lost Years," Shakespeare Timeline, accessed 7 Nov 2006.

• Sometimes the notes say "accessed" and sometimes they say "retrieved."
  •  Done All now say "Retrieved".

• NAGLER, A.M. (1958). Shakespeare's Stage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 8. ISBN 0300026897.

• Why is Nagler's name in all caps?
  •  Done Wrad 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ackroyd, Peter (2005). Shakespeare: The Biography. London: Chatto and Windus, p220. ISBN 1-856-19726-3.
  •  Not done Cannot see anything wrong with this one. What's the issue, please?
    • This has alread been fixed, anyway, so no worries. Wrad 15:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Once you introduce a citation, you do not need to repeat all of the information. You need only use the author's last name and page number (title if you are including other works by that author).

• Schoenbaum, Samuel (1975). William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford University Press, 24-26 and 296. ISBN 0195051610.

• If a book is listed in the "References," you do not need to introduce all of the information here, especially when you have already used the "author, page" format. Awadewit | talk 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• •  Done All these refs have now been shortened accordingly. Thanks for changing the name of the Further reading section. Wrad 23:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please see FAC for a few more references that need work. Didn't know whether to move here or not. Thanks.Smatprt 02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Style section

I mentioned my problem with the "Style" section at the peer review and since another editor has now queried the opening paragraph of it, I have taken what seems to me the most useful action and cut that opening paragraph, which has almost nothing directly to do with style. Apart from which, it is fraught with other problems, as I pointed out at peer review. I place it here for appraisal, in case anyone disagrees with my edit. qp10qp 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare started his career in drama at the height of the Elizabethan era, in the years following the defeat of the Spanish Armada; he retired at the height of the Jacobean period, not long before the start of the Thirty Years' War. During this time, "drama became the ideal means to capture and convey the diverse interests of the time." Stories of various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated and the poor and illiterate.

No problem with that: a good edit. AndyJones 22:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence shouldn't stand alone in the paragraph. Another sentence is needed to elaborate its content. RedRabbit1983 06:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Humor is a key element in all of Shakespeare's plays. Although a large amount of his comical talent is evident in his comedies, some of the most entertaining scenes and characters are found in tragedies such as Hamlet and histories such as Henry IV, Part 1. Shakespeare's humor was largely influenced by Plautus.[82]

These three sentences are awkward to read. How is humour a key element? The second sentence is too long. The third looks as though it were added as an afterthought. Can we fix these, please? RedRabbit1983 06:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

First Folio

Exactly which plays are listed in the First Folio? According to the article, all 6 categories of Shakespeare's works are in the First Folio, but can we say for sure that that is true?--Romeo in love 22:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The 36 plays in the First Folio are listed in that article. - Nunh-huh 22:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see that, but the Poems, Lost Plays, and Apocrypha aren't listed, are they?--Romeo in love 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

They're not listed because they are not in the First Folio. The First Folio was a collection of plays, and so the Poems do not appear. The so-called "Lost Plays" would not be lost if they were known to be in the First Folio (there's some question as to whether Love's Labour's Won is an alternate title or a lost play), and the "Apochrypha" wouldn't be apochryphal if they did. - Nunh-huh 23:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they are listed, and I see what Romeo is saying. The Bibliography section says "The following are in the first folio," but then lists everything, not just the first folio. Wrad 23:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they are not listed in the First Folio article. Which is as it should be. The Bibliography section here doesn't quite say what you say it says, but what it says is not quite right and needs fixing. I would suggest it be changed to something like "Shakespeare's works include the plays which appear in the First Folio, (listed here according to their classification there), two plays which do not appear in the First Folio (Pericles, Prince of Tyre and The Two Noble Kinsmen), and the Poems. Other works attributed to him are classified here as Lost Plays or Apocrypha."- Nunh-huh 23:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent plan. I'm glad there isn't any similar confusion in the folio article. Wrad 23:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, that's what I meant. Sorry for any confusion. Nunh-huh's idea is fine.--Romeo in love 01:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Editors' names at which format?

When we cite a work editing by someone, does the editor's name go LAST, FIRST MI. or FIRST MI. LAST? I can see that the authors' names go LAST, FIRST MI. but does the same apply to editors?--Romeo in love 01:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it depends. If the Author is listed, then first last. If the Author isn't, and the editor goes first, then last, first. Citations are still being worked on too, so don't feel too worried about it. Wrad 01:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

An FAC shouldn't be affected by the niceties on this, since the main thing is to give full information about the source. Style guides vary, but on the whole the footnotes should go first name, second name, and the references list or bibliography should go second name, first name. The reason for the difference is that the bibliography is an alphabetical list, where one looks authors up by surname, whereas you can't look books up alphabetically in the footnotes so there's no need to put the second name first. On the other hand, consistency is important, so the second name, first name method used in this article's footnotes should be observed, obviously. Editors are treated in the same way as authors; though when a book has an editor and an author, the author takes precedence and the editor goes after the book title. Any editor or co-author who isn't named first in the book details in the bibliography goes first name, second name, as Wrad points out. qp10qp 02:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The only other point to add is that because {citebook} goes LAST, FIRST I've tried to follow that in any citation which doesn't use that template, for consistency. AndyJones 07:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Influence on theatre, literature, and language

I have pulled out some of the fluff in the prose. However, there are still some sentences that need editing.

he expanded the dramatic possibilities of characterisation, plot, language, and genre

Something more precise than dramatic possibilities?

Hamlet's failings cause his downfall, even though he is merely exhibiting some of the most basic of human reactions and emotions.

Awkward. Why do we need an "even though" clause? This should be rewritten.

Shakespeare's characters were complex and all too human.

Tacky. RedRabbit1983 06:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have done more work on the section. I hope it is to people's satisfaction. RedRabbit1983 07:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Peacock / Sourcing problem

We are now saying the following unsourced:

Many of Shakespeare's plays are reputed to be among the greatest—not only in the English language but in all of Western literature. They have been translated into every major living language[41] and are continually performed all over the world.

I feel sure we've dealt with this in the past, so I'm not sure where the sources have got to. It needs fixing, though: it's the basis of Alabamaboy's introductory paragraph at the FA that we've fixed the article's WP:PEACOCK problems. AndyJones 08:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wait! I see sources in the first paragraph of influence and the last paragraph of reputation that could be used to fix this. (Although I am now wondering whether the article makes the same point three times - plus the intro makes four.) I'll look into this and report back here. AndyJones 08:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK I'm back. I've re-sourced the section I was worried about. I'm not overly-worried about the redundancy problem so I'll let it stand - but I've raised it and if others are concerned, they can delete. AndyJones 12:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A plea on deleting footnotes

I appreciate we are all editing very fast. However, can I make a special plea that we please all take care if deleting footnotes, to ensure that they are not referred to elsewhere?

I know what the footnote which is now [8] means:

Michell, 62-63

...but it is difficult to see how the average reader will work it out. AndyJones 12:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. That change was made about a week ago... Wrad 15:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening

While removing a reference that was being mischaracterized, it occured to me that there's really no particular reason for "There have been many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright, as well as questions pertaining to his sexuality and religious beliefs." to be in the lead of the article. This is adequately covered later, and it's not important enough to be in the lead. It's excess verbiage we don't particularly need. - Nunh-huh 16:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never liked that sentence. I won't be sad if it goes. RedRabbit1983 16:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the lead is supposed to summarize the article and the speculations about Shakespeare are a part of the article. The current language of "There have been many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright, as well as questions pertaining to his sexuality and religious beliefs." works for me. It doesn't imply support for the speculations but states that these speculations exist. The earlier statement that there isn't much historical info about Shakespeare was rightly removed b/c that isn't true; there's actually a lot of historical info about Shakespeare, at least compared to other playwrights and poets of that period (aside from the self-promoting Ben Jonson and literary writers who were aristocrats).--Alabamaboy 16:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I see someone has already removed the sentence. I wish people would reach consensus on the controversial aspects of this article before making such edits.--Alabamaboy 16:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I raised the question here rather than just doing it. However, it's well gone: a summary should include only major, important points, rather than each and every subject addressed by the article. - Nunh-huh 16:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Whether RedRabbit was right or wrong (and personally I can see his point) I propose we all leave the lead in the form he left it in, while we hammer this out, here. I have invited Smatprt to join this conversation. AndyJones 16:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. As I said, I support the sentence above, for the reasons I previously stated.--Alabamaboy 16:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - just read your request. So here I am. I agree with Paul and Alabamaboy and support the sentence as well. But we were responding to the first (or 2nd) FA that said the sentence just hung there. It obviously needed a "why" that applied to all the speculations. Whoever came up with "lack of historical facts", solved it for all of us (or so I thought). And yes, while we have lots of historical data and stories and traditions, the list of actual "facts" is pretty short. And his "lost years" - also leave a historical gap. I also agree with Paul that using Gary Taylor is preferable as he addresses ALL the speculations. Well done, Paul. Smatprt 16:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So of course, now having read the request, you'll return to the previous version. A "why" made up by Wikipedians, and that is in fact, in error, doesn't improve the article. - Nunh-huh 16:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

after two edit conflicts:not read you guys through thoroughly yetOK. A few 2p-worth issues from me:

1. To me, it seems POV to talk about "the works attributed to" our man. If the reliable sources say he wrote them it's not open to wikipedians to cast doubt upon that consensus by using words that suggest that a matter which is not in question, is in question. I appreciate that an anti-Strat would take an opposite view, and I respect that, but the article must run with what we can reliably source, and we cannot reliably source that anti-Strafordianism is credible. However, I will not press this point if the consensus is against me.
2. I'm strongly in favour of including the authorship question on this page, and I'm well aware that we've all had a tougher ride through the FA process by taking that stance. It's a good sign that we're mostly prepared to stand our ground when it matters.
3. Paul, am I correct to understand that you are saying Gary Taylor's book supports the sentence in the intro, pretty-much as we had it before? If yes (and subject to my first point, and a bit of copy-editing perhaps) I'd support its restoration. No-one is going to question GT's reliability.

As I say, just my 2p worth. I'm inviting comments rather than trying to lay down the law. AndyJones 16:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the matter under discussion here is not whether the authorship "question" should be treated in the article, but whether it needs to be included in the lede. - Nunh-huh 17:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I don't know whether it would be entirely accurate to say Taylor can be said to support the intro to the sentence ('Because so few historical facts...'), but it's not an unreasonable generalisation, since if there were much more information, some of these disputes would go away. Taylor's book is an examination of Shakespeare's changing reputation and its relation to changing social values. His opinion of the authorship controversy is similar to Schoenbaum's, though much less aggressive. He sees it in the context of the sacralisation and desacralisation of canonical texts as a discursive mode in Victorian culture, tied in with Darwinianism, Higher Criticism of the Bible etc. He also sees it as a parallel to the emergence of modern scholarly "authorship" debates at the same time (were bits of Macbeth written by someone else? etc). The religion issue is discussed in the context of 18th C critics who have either pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic sympathies (esp Edmund Malone's anti-Catholicism). The sexuality issue crops up throughout the book in connection with the desire of authors to either associate WS with homosexuality, or dissociate him from it. Paul B 17:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there's no reference to support it (and frankly, if Taylor had made the assertion, all we could say is "According to Taylor....", or as seems more to be the case "One explanation that we think we can read into Taylor, among many others we might also mention here but have chosen not to....), we hardly need include it in the lead. It's not a viewpoint that is generally held, it's just a "just so" explanation that might be held. Since there are references that support the fact that we have a great number of historical facts about Shakespeare, we'd wind up with dueling references, something clearly not appropriate for the lead paragraph in an article. If we can find a reputable scholar who has posited this explanation, that reference and any consequent discussion can be placed in the daughter article. - Nunh-huh 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. By "this explanation" do you mean the lack of information? That these matters have - on and off - been discussed over the centuries is not in dispute is it? Paul B 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by "this explanation" I mean "It was a lack of facts that made people posit a different author". That people have speculated about these things is not in issue; that they were motivated by lack of evidence is. - Nunh-huh 19:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll fess up. I'm the one who added it, at a time when the debate was calm and things were being less microscoped. I got it from the Shakespearean authorship page, which points out several arguments used by anti-Stratfordians about the lack of evidence about his background. For example, the lack of proof that he attended the Grammar School or a University, is used by theorists. Whether or not this is complete balderdash, it is one of the reasons such a theory exists. If we had pictures of Shakespeare and an autobiography written by him, there would probably be fewer theories about him. Anyway, there may be sources to be garnered from the Shakespearean authorship page, but if not... we still have the problem. Wrad 18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously people tend not to make things up that can be directly contradicted by known facts, but that doesn't mean that it was the absence of those known facts that motivated them to make the stuff up. There's no reason to try to "save" this explanation: it's wrong. - Nunh-huh 18:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

It has certainly been argued, almost as a cliché, that there are few facts about Shakespeare's life, but as a historian, I'm always surprised at how many there are. That case can be argued, too (the following came up as my first Google Books hit, from Sylvan Barnet's edition: "More facts are known about William Shakespeare than about any other playwright of the period except Ben Jonson."). My guess is that literary scholars will tend to point out the paucity of facts while historians will not. I recently had a terrible time trying to find information about the Jacobean painters John de Critz and Paul van Somer I in order to start articles about them. These were important royal painters (de Critz was the king's serjeant painter) and many paintings by them remain, though, as with the playwrights, attribution always leaves doubts). The sorts of bits and pieces of information about them that remain are similar (though fewer) to those for Shakespeare: in de Critz's case, our main piece of evidence is a bill! Someone above suggested that we know more about Jonson than Shakespeare because he was self-publicising, but I daresay Shakespeare was too, since he was part of the commercial theatre; the real difference, I think, is that Jonson worked for the king and queen as one of the two principal creators of the court masques, about which we know a good deal, at least until records dry up after about 1610, and that role made him a prominent figure of the day, since the queen's masques were one of the events of the year in aristocratic and diplomatic circles.qp10qp 20:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well my own specialism is actually art. Since I have an interest in engravers of the period, the claim that little is know about WS seems quite strange in contrast to the f-all that is known about most Brit artists - even the "big names" of the period such as Hilliard; still, the fact remains that paucity of information helps sustain the doubters, even if it's not really the cause. Paul B 20:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So the consensus is leaning heavily towards removing the statement. Wrad 21:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly seem to have talked myself into it! Paul B 21:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

True consensus needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am in favor of every word. Not only in favor. Very satisfied. I would like to point out as well that the references in the Authorship section have been overhauled and replaced with more reliable ones and footnotes. When I said consensus, I merely meant on the removal of the "Because so little is known" part. Wrad 22:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, then apologies for my misunderstanding. Still, I want people to come together and agree on either this wording or a different wording so this silly reverting and borderline edit warring stops. Unless this happens, I will continue to oppose. Best,--Alabamaboy 22:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it's fine. Maybe just change the last sentence to: "Although popular interest in the subject continues, among academics there is near unanimity that William Shakespeare is the author of the plays attributed to him." This places more stress on the academic viewpoint. Wrad 22:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, and I agree that Wrad's revision makes it flow better. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And Paul, when it comes to evidence, I would call your attention to the overhaul of references recently done on the section, along with footnotes making several of the points your proposal does. Wrad 22:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It's not going back and forth, it's gradually improving. Raul has made it very clear that he doesn't regard editing work in response to the FAC process as instability. Instability is destructive edit warring. Chill for a moment and go with the process: the article is getting closer each day.qp10qp 23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. I'm going to step away from this and work on other projects. I've proposed a final version below.--Alabamaboy 23:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Final consensus versions?

This statement in the lead:

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

The actual authorship section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good morning, everyone

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

1. The Authorship section now reads:

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

I still think historical context and details of scholarly opinion are better in the text than in the notes. This version reads almost like a disclaimer. Paul B 10:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but just so we are clear, that stuff is now not in the notes either. It is nowhere. See my point 2, below. AndyJones 11:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

See here. AndyJones 11:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

All the worse then! Paul B 11:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, It's better with the notes. Two questions - are the rules as stringent for notes as they are for references? and - what exactly is the harm in Wrad's notes that both Paul & I support? Smatprt 14:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AndyJones 07:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yeah, I got through a bottle of pinot grigio last night while editing this, which may account for my occasionally bad tempered responses. Hopefully my edits to the article itself aren't tainted by that too much. I'm sober as a judge, now, and drinking my fourth coffee of the morning. Oh dear. Anyway Wikipedia is not an alcoholics self-help group so let's get back to the copyediting. I'll have a look at those points you've just raised if you'll have a look at the opening sentences of "Stlye" and see if there's anything there that can be improved, replaced or removed. AndyJones 09:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, I mean this bit:

Shakespeare's stagecraft and verse style bear the marks of the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods in which he lived,[70] his style developing not only with his own tastes and skills as a playwright but also in response to the tastes and requirements of his audiences.[71]

which (a) rather states the obvious when you get down to its meaning and (b) seems to be in more difficult language than the next few sentences. AndyJones 09:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at the intro. I'm a bit scared of touching the sentence about speculations: my previous changes have, um, not found favour. I will give it some thought but I think any improvement to that sentence should be discussed here rather than made on the article itself. AndyJones 10:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more...

I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit, and upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'"

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

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

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

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

Sourcing Authorship

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

• I've had another go at this. Is everyone happy? AndyJones 15:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

You're right, which is why I haven't objected to the book. I've been trying to look for the best sources, and I passed over McCrea and Gibson for that reason. But that comment was made because your replacing of the Love reference for the Gibson effectively replaced one that I had thought was better than Gibson. But don't worry about that: it's just a matter of opinion; and, of course, the Gibson is an acceptable reference.qp10qp 15:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to put the Love reference back in. Ironically, I thought people would object to having the Love reference b/c it was in the intro to a popular edition of one of Shakespeare's plays (i.e., might be seen as not academic enough, even though that's not the case. Please stick that reference back in if you want.--Alabamaboy 15:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Andy, as you know, I didn't add that source to that sentence; I added it to the one after it, which it referenced perfectly; another editor moved it up. You're asking me to go check it again, and, frankly, I only managed to read that whole chapter through a very slow process of cracking Google Books. As I don't recall the chapter referencing that I50 year date, and as the dating of the first questioning of authorship should be very easy to reference from other sources, I'd rather see that reference removed.qp10qp 16:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

qp10qp, apologies for removing the Orgel source. I also thought that was a great source but foolishly thought others might not believe it was academic enough. As said, if you want it in, feel free to put it back, but I agree that the other sources also work. For the record, this whole process has been confusing b/c it's hard to keep track of all that's going on with this article. I'm going to take a long Wikibreak from this point on. Before I go, I'll change my oppose to support on the FAC. Otherwise, I'm out of here. Take care.--Alabamaboy 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It's James Wilmot who is normally identified as the first doubter, but his comments were not published and were not known, I think, until after Delia Bacon. I've never heard of Goulding, but it sounds as though he might just be saying that Shakespeare was a bad writer. We'd need a clearer sense of the context. Anyway, that's the kind of detail that goes in the Authorship article. Paul B 09:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction - as Andy says, Cowell published Wilmot's thoughts, but the locally published proceedings of the Ipswich Lit&Phil was so obscure that - apart from a few soon-forgotten people in Ipswich - no-one noticed it until the 1930s. The Victorian Baconianism is an entirely independent phenomenon. Paul B 10:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this is what Goulding actually wrote:

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

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

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

Paul - I generally agree with your Learned Pig remarks but whether you or I think these two references are authorship related matters very little. The fact is that the editors of Shakespeare and his Rivals do, and that is the source for the statement. (Actually I can understand the Goulding reference as authorship related as it seems to support a small group theory that included Shakespeare and at least one chuckle pated historian!) Smatprt 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Goulding the chuckle-pated historian provided a "concise and short" summary of the historical events. There's no suggestion that he was involved in actually writing poetry or drama. I don't have access to the book, but there is a difference between saying that anti-Statfordians have picked up on these obscure tracts as evidence and saying that these tracts are proof of dispute since the early 18th C. Anyway, just because a Casebook says something that does not mean we can present it as fact. Paul B 11:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul - later in the same paragraph, refering to the chuckle pated historian, Golding stated "the other put in into Grammer..." Combine that with "cou'd not write English" and and you do have someone else involved in the writing. But, as Andy notes, this does not address his point.Smatprt 14:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. See the quotation above. It means that someone corrected his grammar. It's consistent with the standard view of the day that S was an untutored writer whose work needed to be corrected by more learned ones. Paul B 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all of this is very interesting, but I'm not sure we've answered the fundamental - indeed, for me, only - point. Does our source, or does it not, say, in so many words, that doubts about Shakespeare's authorship started to be expressed about 150 years after Shakespeare's death. If yes, can someone please copytype the relevant sentence here? AndyJones 12:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Here Andy - "the first man to question Shakespeare's sole authorship of the plays was a certain'Captain Goulding'. In a small book called An Essay Against Too Much Reading, published in 1728, he hinted at one of the anti-stratfordian arugments."(page 56).Smatprt 14:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Remaining issues

Besides those of the Authorship section, have we fixed citations? How are we going to resolve the Authorship issue? If this article doesn't pass because of a three sentence paragraph, I will be very, very annoyed. Ideas, please. RedRabbit1983 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No one's decision rests on that section; that's been made clear. And it is in excellent shape at the moment; so provided people don't start adding bad sources to it, that is no longer the issue. The issue for me is the soggy second half of the article, which in places I find virtually unreadable; and I am not convinced that the article displays much grasp of style or influence in particular. The "Style" section seems to address form more than style and simply tells us that he used soliloquies, couplets, etc., forms used by all other playwrights in Shakespeare's day and before. And the influence section contains a central paragraph that has nothing to do with influence (apart from the tacked on final sentence). The copy editing issue is major: the article repeatedly uses slightly the wrong word ("speculations" for "speculation", "pertaining (to his sexuality)". Infelicities of expression occur at regular intervals, sapping the reader: a few random ones:

Not only did he create some of the most admired plays in Western literature[43]... but also expanded the dramatic possibilities of characterisation, plot, language ...

Shakespeare's influence stretches beyond drama and includes novelists...

Shakespeare influenced several British poets

his language became integral to English

Shakespeare's reputation among his contemporaries was generous

Neoclassicism ceased to be regarded as a weakness of Shakespeare in the Romantic era, when his genius began to be acknowledged by other, more individual standards:

qp10qp 17:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have two sections of "Style": One describing the forms he used that were common, and another describing those which were more unique to him. Both seem vital to any summary of his style. Wrad 17:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph of "Influences" could conceivably be moved to "style". Wrad 17:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that move. Seems to be its more logical home. AndyJones 17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've edited all of those except the "integral" one. Can you list more infelicities? Random or otherwise. RedRabbit1983 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good one. I've been worrying for days what I was going to do with that neoclassical paragraph. I was beginning to hope nobody would notice it was wrong!! AndyJones 17:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I look for these sentences like easter eggs, but qp10qp has found more than I have. My familiarity with the article hides them from me. RedRabbit1983 17:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Influences

This section may need more, as QP said. Some scholars claim Shakespeare influenced the way we think as humans today. Shakespeare also strongly influenced psychology, through Sigmund Freud and others. He also may have changed views of history through several of his plays, as well. We may need to broaden the scope of the section to include these issues. Wrad 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a colourful closing paragraph to the section. Also there's an article on Shakespeare's Influence by John Gross in a book that landed on my doorstep from Amazon this week. I'll take a look. AndyJones 18:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice, I'm looking into psychology now. With the right wording and sources, I should be able to work it into your paragraph. Wrad 18:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I added some psychology and did a little copy edit. I'm going to look into history now. Wrad 18:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No luck on history. I don't know if there is much to say there that would be notable enough. Wrad 19:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak, but a cancelled train means I'm actually here on wikipedia: at least for an hour or so, so I'll try to help. I have read John Gross. It's a well written article, but I felt that for our purposes it was rather too much of a laundry list - he gives many examples of works influenced by WS, whereas I think QP had in mind a better qualitative analysis: what type of influence Shakespeare has had, and why. Anyway, I'll skim Gross again, and add something to the page. After that I'm away until Wednesday, so others will have to mess around with it. AndyJones 10:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There's an interesting paragraph in the Oxford bio about Shakespeare's effect on playwrights immediately after his death. Apparently playwrights were quoting and borrowing from his work very frequently even then. Wrad 01:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sentence

There are many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright, as well as questions pertaining to his sexuality and religious beliefs.[4]

Let's do something about this sentence - it's terrible! RedRabbit1983 18:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How about, "While most information known about Shakespeare is upheld by tradition and factual evidence and supported by many academics studying this dramaturge, there are many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright, as well as questions pertaining to his sexuality and religious beliefs."--Romeo in love 18:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. There are too many words. RedRabbit1983 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It was much better before: Because so few historical facts are known about Shakespeare, there are many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright,[19] questions pertaining to his sexuality,[20] as well as those concerning his religious beliefs.[21].

Based on the sourcing discussion going on about the "150 years" statement that appears later, the first seeds of doubt about the authorship were indeed due to a lack of adequate information about the man.Smatprt 21:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Either way, it's bad. We need someone fresh to rewrite it. We've meddled with it enough, to no avail. RedRabbit1983 10:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with RedRabbit about this. We've already argued the "because we have so few facts" point, and the sentence is better without that. Obviously the lack of facts is the reason there's wriggle room for speculation. But it's not the cause of the speculation. There are almost no known facts about my great-great-great-great-grandfather User:OwainGlendowerJones either, but nobody speculates about him. (Although feel free to do so now, if you like.) The problem with the sentence is just that it's a bad sentence that needs copy-editing. AndyJones 11:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We all agree that the sentence needs work. After reading this academic review by Earl L. Dachslager, professor emeritus, etc, etc,[2] of Shakespeare:A Life by Park Honan, Oxford University Press, it gave me a few ideas on how this might be worded. I'll have a go shortly. If you hate it, just revert or better, have a go at a rewrite. I do think this may be on the right track, at least.Smatprt 03:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is still not good: Due, in part, to the period known as Shakespeare's "lost years" biographers know very little about his private life. Even if biographers remain totally ignorant of the lost years, they could still know every detail of S's life before and after the lost years. The lost years hardly account for ignorance of other years. RedRabbit1983 04:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I rearranged the info so it makes more sense. What we do know about him is primarily from legal records, which betray very little of Shakespeares personal beliefs or habits, or from his name appearing on various lists, which again are pretty impersonal. I think that was gist of Dachslager's review anyway. I've seen this expressed on numerous occasions, but the way Dachslager put it together reminded me of what we are trying to do here. Smatprt 05:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Style

This section has been pointed out by Qp as not having a good grasp of the subject yet. The section talks mostly about forms he used that were popular in his day, but could possibly go more in depth on his differences in style from his contemporaries. Maybe what the section needs is some sort of division: the first part discussing forms popular in the day, and the second showing forms unique to him, comparing him to his contemporaries. Wrad 19:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked my school's databases. I couldn't find anything.--Romeo in love 19:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Some possible additions/changes (I have solid refs for all of these):

1. His style is similar to that of Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher, his contemporaries.
2. His style was influenced by Christopher Marlowe, as well as the performances of the Queen's Men.
3. Borrowed heavily from earlier plays
4. Defined the style of his day
5. Scholars have compared the style of his known works to some anonymous works of the time, in order to tell if Shakespeare wrote them.
6. Wrote in a dramatic, poetic style.
7. He adjusted his style to the subject matter. For example, his plays Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra utilize a more austere, logical, practical style than his other plays. In other words, they use a Roman style typical of the subject of those plays
8. In his early plays, line breaks tend to be placed in accord with clauses in the sentence, while later plays break up such clauses more often.

Just a few, if we want to add them. Still struggling to find a real analysis of his style itself, though. Everything goes about it in a roundabout way.

Perhaps it would be best if we created a subarticle on Shakespeare's style and expanded that the best we could. This would help us see general trends. Here are a few I am seeing as I research:

• Studies of Shakespeare's style in comparison to others of the day
• Studies of Shakespeare's change in style over time
• Of course, studies of his form (soliloquies, sonnets, etc.)

Wrad 01:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and started the new article, Shakespeare's style. I'll add what I can, but I feel inadequate to the task, and any help I can get is welcome. I feel that expanding that article will improve the quality of the "style" section in the long run. Wrad 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reputation

"Others, such as Leo Tolstoy, dismissed the plays of Shakespeare. [131]" Do we really need this sentence? It doesn't actually say anything meaningful. The reputation section as a whole is a bit list-like. Perhaps it would be better to have sense of S's reputation as an "untutored" writers in the 17th c; the rewriting of his plays etc, and the nature of the emerging Romantic and Victorian conception of him. Paul B 20:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the Reputation section myself, pretty much from scratch, so I'm probably far too close to the subject to comment. If you recognise weaknesses, go ahead and fix them. The Tolstoy sentence wasn't mine, and seemed to be sourced to a book, rather than a particular page within a book as I always do, so I've no objection to removing it: although the better course, as always, would be to check out the situation and write a better sentence on Tolstoy. AndyJones 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

He talks about S in What is Art? The gist is that S is a bad writer because - unlike the much greater writer Tolstoy - he doesn't have a message and he uses dramatic conventions and narrative tricks rather than seeks to see the truth. In other words he wasn't a 19th century Social Realist. It's a kind of "Ruskinian" attack on Shakespeare, with elements in common with Shaw's view in Shakes versus Shav. I could discuss it in more detail, but we don't want to go off too much on tangents. Paul B 21:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove it. This stuck out to me as odd earlier, too. Wrad 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

First Folio the only extant source for .....

... "around sixteen" of the 36 plays included therein. So, would that be fourteen? Fifteen? Seventeen? Eighteen? Surely there must be some easily identifiable authoritative source which can produce an exact figure for the number of plays for which the First Folio is the only extant source? --GuillaumeTell 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Quite right, my error. Have fixed it. Or, at least, I've said something I can source. 17.AndyJones 10:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• PS First Folio article says "about 20" AndyJones 11:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I was just looking at that. If there were 36 plays in the FF and it is the only extant source for 17 of them, then 19 must have been published previously. However, the FF article says that only 18 had been published in quarto prior to 1623 and that the FF is "the only reliable source for about 20 of the plays". I thought that the discrepancies might be explicable if one or two had been only previously published as bad quartos, but that seems not to be the case. (There is, though, the question of the 1594 Taming of a Shrew.) It would be nice if the two articles said exactly the same thing (but I am not the person to determine what it should be - my last serious study of Shakespeare was 40 years ago). --GuillaumeTell 15:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Yes, my sources are absolutely unambiguous that it's 19 Folio plays that have pre-1623 Quarto/Octavo versions, and my sources agree with each other. I guess First Folio needs a bit more work. AndyJones 18:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliable refs

I just replaced several refs to the Shakespeare-info.com and Shakespeare.org page with more scholarly sources. Are there any more in question which need replacing? Wrad 23:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's one: "The Catholic Encyclopedia questions not only his Catholicism but his Christianity, enquiring whether "Shakespeare was not infected with the atheism, which... was rampant in the more cultured society of the Elizabethan age."[150]" The ref is to a Catholic encyclopedia. It has already been pointed out as a problematic sentence and source, and I agree. It just doesn't fit with the other scholarly sources we have, and may give too much credence to a not so accepted point of view. I'm going to cut it and adjust religion section a bit. Wrad 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

On changing this, I noticed this sentence: "Other scholars agree with the suggestion that Shakespeare was Catholic; but this is by no means universally accepted." It has been without a reference for a while. Wrad 23:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I added an Oxford Bio ref to it. This article covers scholarly opinion on his Catholicism pretty thoroughly, and makes it clear that the assumptions are not widely accepted. It's a good article. Wrad 23:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

London and theatrical career

Can we add another sentence to London and theatrical career - perhaps one about the publisher apologising for Greene's attack on Shakespeare? RedRabbit1983 04:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Are we happy with the intro? RedRabbit1983 04:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Progress

How do things stand with this article? How far are we from making this featured? RedRabbit1983 07:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's becoming more attainable all the time. qp10qp 08:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Titus and Timon

I found some mistakes and issues around the Roman notes to these plays (see my edit summaries). I have patched things up with the best references I can find for the moment; but it needs someone with access to the latest state of play on the attribution/collaboration status of these plays to make a definitive edit. The article said unequivocally that Thomas Middleton collaborated with Shakespeare on Titus Andronicus; but I knew from studying The Changeling for 'A' Level that Middleton is more of a Jacobean playwright. Vickers (not Boyd, as the ref said) favours Peele as a collaborator on Titus, and so I have added a note to indicate that; it seems, though, that that attribution is far from universally accepted: it's not accepted by Jonathan Bate, a serious Shakespeare scholar, for example. In my heart of hearts, I'd favour our attributing this play purely to Shakespeare: that would be a conservative decision unlikely to bother many people, whereas the other way round, as it stands at present with the little sword sign, it feels slightly edgy (I've seen Titus, and though it's a terrible play, it felt unified; there weren't any of the blatant style jumps I noticed when watching Two Noble Kinsmen, or even the Hecate stuff in Macbeth).

The article note stated that George Peele had collaborated with Shakespeare on Timon of Athens; but, checking several sources, it seems that Middleton is the favourite candidate; there is far more strength, though once again dissenting scholarly voices exist, behind Timon being a collaboration than behind Titus, and so I think the article's present stance (I've stuffed three refs in and added a slight doubt to the note) is sustainable and unlikely to be much challenged.qp10qp 08:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Further reading

I've removed the following list from the article for the time being. Hopefully my reasons for doing so can be discussed here before a final decision is made about it.

"Further reading" sections, which aren't by any means an essential part of a Wikipedia article, are supposed to contain only books which weren't directly referenced in the article; but this list contains a mixture of books whose details already appear in full in the references in addition to books which aren't referenced in the article. My view is that, given the mother-and-father of a references section we have, there is no great benefit or logic in handing the reader a few more books to read. So I think the article is better without such a list; more than enough further reading is already provided in the references.

If editors feel they do require this list in some form, I'd suggest that, for consistency, we either remove from it the books that are already fully referenced, or we remove the books that aren't referenced and call the section a "Select biography". In the latter case, we'd have to think carefully about which books of the many in the references section are core books on Shakespeare (Schoenbaum, etc.? I'm no judge). Meanwhile, it might be a good idea to create a Shakespeare bibliography page (or better still, a Shakespeare scholarly bibliography page—to discourage cruft), to house a full alphabetical list of the books referenced on this and other Shakespeare pages, plus other worthy books. It might be helpful to annotate and categorise the list somewhat, using scholarly references, so making it a useful page for people who may not know where to start in reading books on Shakespeare. Any comments? qp10qp 00:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Burgess, Anthony (1970). Shakespeare. London: Cape. ISBN 0-7867-0972-3. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Biography
• Greenblatt, Stephen (2004). Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. New York: Norton. ISBN 0-224-06276-X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Biography
• Fields, Bertram (2006). Players: The Mysterious Identity of William Shakespeare. New York: Regan Books. ISBN 0-060-83417-X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Bloom, Harold (1999). Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Riverhead Books. ISBN 1-573-22751-X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Literary Criticism
• Wood, Michael (2003). In Search of Shakespeare. BBC Books. ISBN 0-563-53477-X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Companion to the television series of the same title.
• Ackroyd, Peter (2005). Shakespeare: The Biography. London: Chatto and Windus. ISBN 1-856-19726-3. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Biography.
• Rowse, A. L. (1988). Shakespeare the Man. New York: St. Martin’s Press. ISBN 0-312-03425-3. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Biography.
• Schoenbaum, Samuel (1977). William Shakespeare, A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford U. Press. ISBN 0-195-02433-8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Biography
• Cruttwell, Patrick (1954). The Shakespearean Moment and Its Place in the Poetry of the 17th century. London: Chatto and Windus. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Not promoted

In case anyone (other than me) has trouble trying to find the, uh, rather sudden result of the FA Candidacy, it's at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare/archive2. --GuillaumeTell 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the correct decision as the article stands, in my opinion, though ten days seems a rather short time at FAC. The candidacy lacked a sufficient number of reviewers to form a representative critique. I hope it makes no difference to the editors' determination to get this to FA, which appears to have waned in the last few days (I wonder if that was a factor in the closure). As I've said before, this article is going to make it; it's just a matter of when. I'm prepared to stay with the article and see this through.qp10qp 00:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally haven't been editing because you don't seem to need much help. I don't see what there is I can do, honestly. I believe it was closed at the proposal of the last reviewer, who said it should be renominated in order to make the assessment for Raul easier. Nothing more or less than that. Wrad 00:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it may well have been closed at the suggestion of the last reviewer, but for our benefit, not Raul's, so that we can prepare the article for a new attempt. Raul has seen much longer and more complicated FACs and he knows how to judge them: basically, so long as there are unmet objections, he is unlikely to pass an FAC. I believe that was the case this time.

As for not knowing what else there is to do, a look at the objections will show that there is plenty more. For example, there is much dog work left on my to do list concerning reference formatting. We can't have a situation where some references have ISBNs and some don't; and since it would be invidious to remove ISBNS, which are a useful item of information (I search for books with them; it's quicker and gives you the precise edition), we need to add ISBNs to the books that lack them. This is tedious work which I intend to do myself anyway, but it would be easier to get done as a team.

For the longer term, I would like to make a proposal, which I would be prepared to do the dog work for myself, that we lose the citation templates in the references. The reason is that they weren't designed for "Notes and references" sections of the sort we've got (cite.php) but for alphabetical book lists, bibliographies and references sections. The result is that we are using the alphabetical last-name, first-name system where we don't have to (and erroneously, too, because only the first listed among editors and co-authors need ever be reversed); and because the citation templates are rigid, it is difficult to make all the references follow the same format, which they should do, and yet retain the necessary flexibility. Style guides differ on the order of book details, but in one respect they are similar: the recommended formatting of notes/references is always different than that for alphabetical bibliographies/references. It would give the lower part of the article a more professional look if we could introduce the distinction, in my opinion. Any comments? qp10qp 01:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I just don't want to waste my time making edits and having them changed eventually anyway. Whatever we do, we need to all be agreed on it and do it right the first time. Wrad 01:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to editing the text, we can never be sure of getting it right; and future editors will no doubt come along and rewrite things. But when it comes to the the referencing, I think there are ways we can avoid getting it wrong. First we need to agree on an approach to referencing, in my opinion. Here are some proposals for discussion: