Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Dealing with factual inaccuracies in a paragraph about hyphenation

This paragraph on the hyphens has several inaccuracies and is vague. So it needs to be fixed so that it is clear. I will take it sentence by sentence:

Shakespeare's surname was hyphenated as "Shake-speare" or "Shak-spear" on the title pages of 15 of the 48 individual quarto (or Q) editions of Shakespeare's plays (16 were published with the author unnamed), and in two of the five editions of poetry published before the First Folio.

It is not clear to me what this means. Is this just counting the Quartos published before the First Folio? What are counted as "Shakespeare's Plays"? Are "apocryphal" plays counted? And what counts as an edition?

Where does the number 48 come from? I am looking at the page in question on google books and it says 32 Quartos. What is the source for the 48 number? Here is a link it probably won't work for some people: https://books.google.com/books?id=gUPDAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA28&ots=yzYtunhtF8&dq=shakespeare%20plays%20hyphenated%20title%20pages&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q=shakespeare%20plays%20hyphenated%20title%20pages&f=false

What exactly are the five editions of poetry published before the first folio? There were at least two editions of Passionate Pilgrim, Venus and Adonis, Rape of Lucrece, Love's Martyr, and the Sonnets. So that is six. Calling Love's Martyr an "edition of poetry" seems confusing since Shakespeare only contributed one poem. There were many editions of Venus and Adonis and Rape of Lucrece as well.

Of those 15 title pages with Shakespeare's name hyphenated, 13 are on the title pages of just three plays, Richard II (Q2 1598, Q3 1598, Q4 1608, and Q5 1615), Richard III (Q2 1598, Q3 1602, Q4 1605, Q5 1612, and Q6 1622), and Henry IV, Part 1 (Q2 1599, Q3 1604, Q4 1608, and Q5 1613).[57]

This seems like an incredible amount of granular detail, but it leaves out the fact that King Lear and Q1 Hamlet had hyphens which is mentioned in the source and seems relevant.

The hyphen is also present in one cast list and in six literary allusions published between 1594 and 1623.

I don't know what is counted here. Does this include First Folio references? How many times is the First Folio counted? What is a literary allusion?

The point is, there is a lot of extremely granular detail but it's actually extremely imprecise and vague. It's inappropriate in an article like this to go into so much detail especially when the details are wrong and poorly sourced.

I suggest this revision:

• Before the publication of the First Folio,* Shakespeare's surname was hyphenated as "Shake-speare" or "Shak-spear" on the title pages of *five plays* 15 of the 48 individual quarto (or Q) editions of Shakespeare's plays (16 were published with the author unnamed), and *as well as in several* in two of the five editions of poetry. published before the First Folio. Of those 15 title pages with Shakespeare's name hyphenated, 13 are on the title pages of just three plays, Richard II (Q2 1598, Q3 1598, Q4 1608, and Q5 1615), Richard III (Q2 1598, Q3 1602, Q4 1605, Q5 1612, and Q6 1622), and Henry IV, Part 1 (Q2 1599, Q3 1604, Q4 1608, and Q5 1613). [57] The hyphen is also present in one cast list and in *fewer than a dozen* six literary allusions published between 1594 and 1623. This hyphen use is construed to indicate a pseudonym by most anti-Stratfordians,[58] who argue that fictional descriptive names (such as "Master Shoe-tie" and "Sir Luckless Woo-all") were often hyphenated in plays, and pseudonyms such as "Tom Tell-truth" were also sometimes hyphenated.[59]

This new version retains all of the main content of the original paragraph and stays within the sourcing (which is very light to begin with). It reads better and does not get into a lot of details that are dubious. I make the numbers more vague because the numbers there now are wrong but also it's completely unclear the method used for counting.Kfein (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The sentence means exactly what it says: "Shakespeare's surname was hyphenated as "Shake-speare" or "Shak-spear" on the title pages of 15 of the 48 individual quarto (or Q) editions of Shakespeare's plays (16 were published with the author unnamed)...." I don't understand what is confusing about that sentence. "Shakespeare's plays" is exact and clear, and an edition is a printing of a work. I find it hard to believe you are unfamiliar with the word. Same with literary allusion.

1. The number "48" as far as I can see is unsourced. The source cited has a different number. 2. It is a ridiculous level of detail, listing the years for each Quarto where it appears. Kfein (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Irv's book specifically deals with the quartos that were published before the FF. Anti-Strat arguments often try to limit the evidence to Shakespeare's lifetime or the date of the publication of the FF. We decided to include all of them up to 1642, since that is the usual cut-off date historians use when discussing EM theatre.

Is that sourced? Is that explained in the article? What exactly are you talking about?Kfein (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You're on firmer ground with the poetry query. I don't recall exactly how we arrived at 5 editions, but you're right, there are more than 5. Perhpas we should change that to "poetry collections".

You should be referring to your source for that answer. Kfein (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

As to your "too much detail" complaint, we decided early on to over source and include a lot of detail because when dealing with the anti-Stratfordians who edited this page they picked at and objected to every little tiny detail. But I see that Nishidani has taken care of the problem by putting the information in a note. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It is undersourced. Not oversourced. You are suggesting you did original research. That is the problem. The details are just confusing and not even accurate. If you include details you need to explain the details. That may have been your decision, but it is an incorrect one. If you want that type of detail you need to explain exactly what each letter means. Kfein (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think for people who are reading this and are not too experienced with Shakespeare's Quartos, they might be confused about just how difficult it is to "count" the Quartos. Please refer to this website: https://shakespearecensus.org/ So for instance, Troilus and Cressida was published in two version in 1609 with two different title pages, one with an epistle to the reader one without. But it was published by the same printer. Is that two editions or one? Hamlet Q2 actually has two versions with two different dates. Is that two versions or one?

The reason that Wikipedia does not allow original research is to avoid problems just like this. There is no way to create an "accurate" count for the number of Quartos. You have to specific EXACTLY your criteria and deal with each and every questionable case. So is London Prodigal included even though it is considered apocryphal? How are the Pavier Quartos dealt with? It is just way beyond the scope of this article to cover these things, and original research is inappropriate in any case. Presenting the same information in a simple, clean manner without making factual claims that aren't backed up by sources is a much better way to handle this paragraph.

The granular detail like this

Of those 15 title pages with Shakespeare's name hyphenated, 13 are on the title pages of just three plays, Richard II (Q2 1598, Q3 1598, Q4 1608, and Q5 1615), Richard III (Q2 1598, Q3 1602, Q4 1605, Q5 1612, and Q6 1622), and Henry IV, Part 1 (Q2 1599, Q3 1604, Q4 1608, and Q5 1613).

Is just completely unnecessary. It adds nothing to the article and just confuses the reader.Kfein (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The granular detail doesn't seem to be correct. Here is the Q3 1602 Richard III: https://www.bl.uk/treasures/SiqDiscovery/ui/PageMax.aspx?strResize=yes&strCopy=69&page=-2 http://deep.sas.upenn.edu/viewrecord.php?deep_id=227 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shakespeare_plays_in_quarto#Richard_III

This is why granular detail like this should NOT be included in this article. Maybe you all know something I don't about Q3 of Richard III, but as far as I can tell, there is no hyphen. But if readers want information on Quartos, they can go to the Wiki article about it. Whether Q3 Richard III has a hyphen or not is not relevant to the Shakespeare Authorship Question wiki article.Kfein (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Kfein, another Talkpage etiquette-thing: "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent." If necessary quote them in your new comment, or write something like "About X, ..." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok will do.Kfein (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I will look into this later today. However, the reason you gave for Wikipedia's WP:OR policy is your own fantasy. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for not knowing how to indent this properly. Tom Reedy writes: "The sentence means exactly what it says: "Shakespeare's surname was hyphenated as "Shake-speare" or "Shak-spear" on the title pages of 15 of the 48 individual quarto (or Q) editions of Shakespeare's plays (16 were published with the author unnamed)...."

I know this is getting into very specific issues with Shakespeare research, but I think I need to explain this very clearly so everyone can understand the issues involved here.

To come up with a number like "48" or "32" or whatever you have to specify: 1. Which plays count as "Shakespeare plays". So for instance, there is a play called London Prodigal that has William Shakespeare's name on it. The scholarly consensus is that it was not written by William Shakespeare. But his name is clearly printed on the title page. It was printed and published by people who printed and published other Shakespeare plays that are considered authentic. 2. What counts as a "quarto (or Q) editions". As I wrote above, Troilus and Cressida has two Quarto versions with different title pages and one has an epistle to the reader. Does this count as one edition or two? 3. The False Folio is another whole can of worms and it includes some hyphens. Apparently the OR that was done did not take this into account either.

So the wise move here is to simply remove these very specific counts. It's just outside the scope of this article to deal with this issue fully.

I am just scratching the surface here about the difficulties. The article should be absolutely unassailable in terms of clarity and accuracy. including a number like "32" or "48" guarantees that it will be neither, because such counts are so complicated, you'd need to write a short treatise explaining how they were derived. Kfein (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani has already taken care of it with the number in the source. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not necessary to include a number at all, especially since the number happens to be wrong. I understand sticking to the source even it's wrong, but it would seem to me, having an accurate article is preferable. Up to the Wikipedia community how they wish to handle this. We can convey the exact same information without including wrong information.Kfein (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"1. Which plays count as "Shakespeare plays". So for instance, there is a play called London Prodigal that has William Shakespeare's name on it. The scholarly consensus is that it was not written by William Shakespeare." You answered your question yourself.

"2. What counts as a "quarto (or Q) editions". As I wrote above, Troilus and Cressida has two Quarto versions with different title pages and one has an epistle to the reader. Does this count as one edition or two?" Look to the scholarly consensus. The editions are commonly cited as Qa and Qb, IOW, the same edition.

"3. The False Folio is another whole can of worms and it includes some hyphens." Again, look to the scholarly consensus. They a very much considered to be Shakespeare quartos.

"Apparently the OR that was done did not take this into account either." You seem to be assuming the close here. I mentioned earlier that I didn't think that anybody used NLP techniques anymore, but it appears that I'm wrong. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If the False Folio counts as quartos, why weren't those included in the count, since some of those are hyphenated? I don't understand. Please explain it to me.

The point is any count that a Wikipedia editor would do by themself would be inappropriate. The only way to do it would be to cite a source which has a count, and preferably, a source that is both *accurate* and goes into detail on how they determined the count. If you have a count with no sourcing, then the reader has no idea what that means, even if a random wikipedia editor determined that it was the "scholarly consensus". Kfein (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we still have serious problems here. Currently, there are facts in the article, as far as I know, that are inaccurate. To reiterate:

Q3 1602 Richard III does not appear to have a hyphen on the title page: https://www.bl.uk/treasures/SiqDiscovery/ui/PageMax.aspx?strResize=yes&strCopy=69&page=-2 http://deep.sas.upenn.edu/viewrecord.php?deep_id=227 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shakespeare_plays_in_quarto#Richard_III

Also, according to Tom Reedy, the False Folio is considered by the scholarly consensus to be Shakespeare quarto editions, but it does not appear to be included in the count. Q2 King Lear has a hyphen: https://www.bl.uk/treasures/SiqDiscovery/ui/record.aspx?Source=text&LHCopy=28&LHPage=-2&RHCopy=28&RHPage=-1

This number is also seems to me to be inaccurate: "two of the five editions of poetry published before the First Folio"

Venus and Adonis and Rape of Lucrece do not have hyphens as far as I know. Passionate Pilgrim has two editions at least. Love's Martyr sort of has one edition but it has a hyphen. Shakespeare's Sonnets has a hyphen. So that is at least six editions. I tried to fix this by adding Love's Martyr separately in the list, but my addition was deleted by Tom Reedy who said that Love's Martyr was included in the five. But if it is included in the five then the article is inaccurate.

Kfein (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Count again. What is inaccurate is Irv's count of the hyphenated R3's, not the total hyphens in the play books. I'll correct that graf later today or tomorrow. Another few days being off by one is not gonna put this article's FA status in jeopardy. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I suppose the "13" number is wrong it should be "12". Then the "15" number doesn't have to change because the False Folio quarto is added in. I haven't checked all of the quartos I don't know if the numbers overall are correct. But the R3 is definitely wrong. I don't know what the source is for the list of quartos first place, was it added by a wikipedia editor or is it in the original source?Kfein (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

OK I've been doing some research and I have no idea (yet) where the 48 number came from. There were actually 58 Qs published before the FF was published, and 73 Qs published before 1642, which is the traditional dating for the end of the first EM theatrical era. I'm still digging. BTW, WP has a good article on the Qs, List of Shakespeare plays in quarto. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion to replace external link

I Propose replacing this external link: https://web.archive.org/web/20180805093307/http://www.willyshakes.com/allshakes.htm

To this: https://www.coursera.org/learn/shakespeare

This course is by a PhD who has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals and is sponsored by the University of London. It seems like an important external resource. Kfein (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

If you can find a WP:RS for it, I have no objection to adding a sentence to the paragraph in the appropriate section. But the Matus material, which discusses--not teaches--the SAQ, stays. I dunno why you think Ros' course--which is a textbook case of special pleading and non-critical thinking--would be "an important external resource." This article reports, it does not advocate. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Why should the Matus material be in the wiki? Why does it "stay"? Who is Matus? It seems like the web page is not active any longer? Is there WP:RS for it? I'm confused. I'm new to this so I look forward to hearing exactly why it was added to the article, what the justification was for its inclusion, and what the justification is for its retention. Thanks! Kfein (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Irvin Leigh Matus Tom Reedy (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

So essentially a baseball researcher. Ros Barber is an English professor with many peer-reviewed articles. I will provide her extensive bibliography in a few days. It is absolutely unfathomable that a link to his archived, not updated, website is included but a link to a course by the University of London is removed. I do not understand how you can possibly justify this action. I am glad we have a permanent record of this.Kfein (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

At one time the site was down, and since the author had died, it appeared that it would not be up again, hence the archived link. The site is up again, so I replaced the link.

I'm sure in a few days after your wished-for discussion occurs you'll understand why Irv's site is much more respected than Ros'. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

That you confess to not knowing who Matus is doesn't bode well. Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am compiling her bibliography of peer-reviewed articles on Shakespeare. Fortunately, everything we post here in the Talk is permanent, and everyone in the Wikipedia community will be able to evaluate all of the evidence for themselves. I have a multi-year commitment to improving this article, and if it means posting messages in talk every single day, working on every single sentence, the source for every sentence, and the reliability of each source, I look forward to doing that. Wikipedia is an important resource and we each have a responsibility to make it as good as we can. This is an area where I think I can add the most value for Wikipedia, so I think it is best to devote my energies here. I look forward to working with you on this project going forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have not removed the other link I had just added the Coursera course. Kfein (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. The difference between that site and the others is that it teaches the SAQ. WP:NOTPLUG. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

You have removed a link to a course offered by the University of London taught by a professor that covers almost all of the issues discussed in the article. It is the highest quality possible source on this question. This article is about the SAQ if you weren't aware. I look forward to extensive discussions of this, and I will patiently wait for the rest of the Wikipedia community to chime in.Kfein (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Before we get started let me make one thing clear: This is a WP:FA. Everything in this article has been discussed and approved by a board of non-involved editors. It is not incumbent upon anyone here to justify to you why the material is in the article. It is incumbent upon you--and everyone else--to justify your proposed deletions and additions. As an admitted new editor, it would behoove you to peruse Wikipedia guidelines and policies before rewriting the encyclopedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Also please explain this comment of yours: "I have a multi-year commitment to improving this article" Tom Reedy (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I look forward to working with the Wikipedia community over the coming few years to improve this article and make it as good as it can be. Right now it is 6 years out of date. That is a problem right there. So I hope to make it up-to-date. Kfein (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't really address my question. Saying you have a "multi-year commitment" implies some type of agreement. Just FYI, read WP:COI. It's not verboten to edit Wikipedia for pay, but it is incumbent to disclose if that is the case. I'm not aware of anything that has happened in the past six years that has made this article out of date. It's not a bulletin board to report on the doings of the SAQ community or to report every variation on every theory. In fact I can't think of anything major that has been reported in the mainstream media that compares to the events of 2007-11. Perhaps a few more candidates have been nominated, but at the most they would get a sentence or two in the "Other candidates emerge" section, and finding WP:RS sources would be a problem. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I was not implying that there is "some type of agreement." There is no agreement, except my promise to you to work together with you over the next few years to improve this Wikipedia article. That was the point I was trying to make. That even if the road is rough ahead, even if it takes work every day for the next few years to come to consensus, I am committed to this project. Fortunately, I am a fast learner, so I will quickly be up-to-speed on the ins-and-outs of the niceties of editing such a high profile page. I'm really looking forward to this, thank you so much for all of the work you have put into this page up until now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein (talk • contribs) 05:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The diction you used does imply that, whether you meant it to or not. Whatever. Here's another page you probably need to read before you get too carried away: WP:CRUSH. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't imply that at all. I'm sorry you misunderstood. Kfein (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

lol. Stop ten random people on the street and read it to them and ask whether they think it does. Whatever I take you at your word.

I thought of a good (IMO) idea: if you want to improve the SAQ coverage on Wikipedia, you should warm up by taking the History of the Shakespeare authorship question page up to good article or featured article status. It's disorganized and ill-written, and could use some attention. It would be a good laboratory to learn how to Wikipedia without the hazards of running afoul of the discretionary sanctions that are applied to this page (technically all SAQ pages are sanctioned, but in practice enforcement on other pages are a lot looser than this one) or ruffling the feathers of long-time editors who have gone through this scenario with other "reformers" too many times to count. Because I'm serious about my post above: This page is a WP:FA. Everything in this article has been discussed and approved by a board of non-involved editors.

It would be a real service, IMO, to bring that article up to at least WP:GOOD, and getting that done would teach you the contextual framework for revising this page.

Most Wikipedia editors begin because they're interested in a certain topic. At some point they have to make the decision whether they're going to learn how to be a Wikipedian or whatever-topic-they-came-here-to-edit-ian. It was early on in editing this page that I switched from being a Shakespearean to a Wikipedian, at least when I'm on WP. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

To summarize the dispute, I agree to the consensus view of leaving this link http://www.willyshakes.com/allshakes.htm especially since you found that the site is still live and you do not need to link to an archived copy.

I think we should add an external link to this Coursera course: https://www.coursera.org/learn/shakespeare

The course is on the Coursera website, one of the leading providers of online courses. It is sponsored by the University of London. Ros Barber is an expert on this topic, and has published many peer-reviewed articles on Shakespeare Authorship:

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

As far as I can tell, it meets every one of these criteria: Wikipedia:External_links

The sponsorship by the University of London. Here is a link: https://london.ac.uk/courses/introduction-who-wrote-shakespeare

Tom Reedy suggests that "Reverted. The difference between that site and the others is that it teaches the SAQ. WP:NOTPLUG". I do not believe that if one looks at the links currently in the external links, this one is out of place. In fact, it would be one of the only ones produced by a professor expert in the subject and sponsored by a University.

Kfein (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, whether a site is archived or not has no bearing on its suitability as an external link or a source. As I stated earlier up the thread, if you can find a WP:RS for it, I have no objection to adding a sentence to the paragraph about the MOOC course in the appropriate section, but Wikipedia does not shill for any type of course. We don't link to free guitar courses on the guitar pages, we don't link to free Bible studies on the Bible pages, and we don't link to any site that requires registration in order to see the material, whether it's free or not. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Condensing repetitive sentences

The article currently reads:

"Much of the learning with which he has been credited, it has been suggested, might have been absorbed from conversation.[125] Even the omnivorous reading imputed to Shakespeare by critics in later years is exaggerated, and he may well have absorbed much learning from conversations.[126] "

It is worth noting first that Alexander Pope in 1725 wrote that "but 'tis plain he had much Reading at least,". So I am not sure what the "later years" in the quote references. http://jacklynch.net/Texts/pope-shakespeare.html

The two sentences above seem to say the same thing twice. So it might make sense to combine them into one sentence like this:

"Much of the learning and omnivorous reading imputed to Shakespeare by some critics might be exaggerated, and might have been absorbed from conversation.[125] [126] "

Kfein (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for scrapping those two sentences completely and starting over from square one, but we'll probably need to edit the ambient contextual matter also. "as been suggested, might have been, may well have" are all hedge, no substance. From what I gather the point of the sentence is that Shakespeare was an autodidact, even though the works exhibit no evidence that he was university-trained. Surely there's a better way to say that than what's there now, but your reading substitution is like chewing tinfoil with a mouth full of fillings. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The best argument I know against the idea that knowledge of law/knowledge of military jargon/knowledge of courtly life/knowledge of thieves' cant/knowledge of astronomy/knowledge of the classics/knowledge of agriculture/ means that Shakespeare must have had legal background/military experience/been a noble/lived a low life among pickpockets and shysters/had a scientific training/ been a horticulturalist is that, taken logically, all these respective inferences tend to cancel each other out. The point is made here Leslie O'Dell Shakespearean Scholarship: A Guide for Actors and Students, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002 ISBN 978-0-313-31146-8 p.228. Rewriting it around the idea of 'autodidact'/'quick study' (as was Dante probably and he knew everything that was known in his time). Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Whoing

A huge number of the alternative theory pushers do not have a public life or record that would allow much to be said of them, certainly no wiki bio. As to Catherine Ashmead Windle, what exiguous sources exist are contradictory. Some identify her as an American lady from San Francisco, native however to Philadelphia. Another calls her an English lady transplanted to the states. With regard to William Henry Smith, we know he was English, but have no textual grounds as far as I know for identifying him with the bookseller cum politician, William Henry Smith . If there is no connection then Smith remains, well, just one of an endless number of Smiths.

What is important here is what RS identify as key figures. Ashmead Windle was one, because her screed sparked off a hugh amount of cipher speculation, and that is why this anonymous lady's crap receives attention in secondary sources, as many sources note. Search around and you just get the same message, nothing re her, but repetitions of her influences.

Once proposed, however, the issue gained momentum among people whose conviction was the greater in proportion to their ignorance of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English literature, history, and society. Another American amateur, Catherine P. Ashmead Windle, made the next influential contribution to the cause when she published Report to the British Museum(1882), wherein she promised to open “the Cipher of Francis Bacon,” though what she mostly offers, in the words of S. Schoenbaum, is “demented allegorizing.” An entire new cottage industry grew from Windle’s suggestion that the texts contain hidden, cryptographically discoverable ciphers-“clues” to their authorship; and today there are not only books devoted to the putative ciphers, but also pamphlets, journals and newsletters.’ Peter Holland,(ed) Romeo and Juliet By William Shakespeare ISBN 978-0-698-41076-3 (2000) Penguin, 2016 p.xxii

{{who}} tags are in my experience usually employed to question the relevance of a source since the author has no significant profile. It's best not to use them on FA esp. since they smudgeon the text with unanswerable questions while suggesting to readers that the person in question is a non-entity. In this instance, they are: but they are nobodies who had a major discursive impact, like Donald Trump.Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

At one time William Henry Smith was wikilinked to William Henry Smith (1825–1891), but after much research I could find no evidence whatsoever the two were the same man and some good evidence they weren't, so I delinked it. Until then his notability was much trumpeted by anti-Strats. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The term I agreed on with an editor-colleague last year is actually "Joe Shmoing" (meaning adding descriptors or tags) ;-) I'm not sure I agree that {{who}} (and whatever) shouldn't be used because FA. FA:s can have flaws, sections and sometimes entire articles can "degrade" or become out of date. But of course the expectation was that they can be dealt with, somehow.

However, I'm not a deep scholar on this topic, and who are "nobodies" here are not something I know as editor or reader. My basic approach/wish is that when WP gives me a name in the text, I should in general get something more (that's not "codified" afaik but see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_199#People_we_quote_and_paraphrase). I found "American lady" but hoped for better, thus the tag. Here's a non-RS on Pott: [1]. Even as little as "archivist" (James Greenstreet) is an improvement IMO. Probably "American lady" too, it can be read as "that's what we got".

So, is there some way we can indicate to readers those we know nothing about? Could something like "a William Henry Smith/a Ashmead Windle" be an improvement? In general, putting someone's bare name in a WP-article looks like we do know something about them (which of course we do, they wrote SAQ-stuff), but couldn't be bothered to tell the reader what it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps 'a certain'? My problem is that 'American lady' etc. requires a source which I have, but which is contradicted by a source saying she was English..Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Not the worst idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Found 1 "who", T.W. White = Thomas William White, M.A. Is "M.A." worth including based on [2]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A good portion of this article is focused on absolute nobodies who are really not relevant in any way to anyone's actual current interest in Shakespeare Authorship Question. The main historical points are ignored, for instance a thorough discussion of Delia Bacon's book and her arguments is missing, but we get this which is really unimportant. How are these details relevant to anyone? There are so many ways to make this article useful and informative, but instead we have this gossipy narrative:

In 1853, with the help of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Delia Bacon travelled to England to search for evidence to support her theories.[158] Instead of performing archival research, she sought to unearth buried manuscripts, and unsuccessfully tried to persuade a caretaker to open Bacon's tomb.[159] She believed she had deciphered instructions in Bacon's letters to look beneath Shakespeare's Stratford gravestone for papers that would prove the works were Bacon's, but after spending several nights in the chancel trying to summon the requisite courage, she left without prising up the stone slab.[160]Kfein (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems ok for "History of the authorship question". According to Stephen Fry she also thought she was the holy ghost. Consider writing an article about The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare Unfolded, I wouldn't be surprised if it reaches WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

But perhaps some "nobodies" can be exiled to sub-articles? Can the small cluster at "This sparked a cipher craze, and probative cryptograms were identified in the works by Ignatius Donnelly,[236] Orville Ward Owen, Elizabeth Wells Gallup,[237] and Dr. Isaac Hull Platt." be weeded? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I doubt it. Two of them are mentioned in extenso earlier with details that serve to remind people of to what weird extremes this 'thinking' goes. The list simply illustrates the people Ashmead's stuff stuffed up. The Isaac Hull bit has a nice anecdote associated with it, and we need some colour here. Trying, as is now being suggested, to gut the article of a certain discursive flow for 'facts' would shear it of much of that incidental matter that keeps the curious reader attentive and well-humoured enough to read to the bottom.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, now that I have eaten, I'll eat a few of my words. Yes, that could be shortened a tad by writing Donnelly, Ward Owen,' at least, for they are mentioned earlier in the text. But people haven't got long attention spans, and often focus just on a section at a time. Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"The main historical points are ignored, for instance a thorough discussion of Delia Bacon's book and her arguments is missing, but we get this which is really unimportant."

This article covers the main points in reliable sources that cover the SAQ. Strangely enough, it achieved FA status after a long and contentious period. Again, I suggest you read the links about editing that were posted on your user page when you first began editing this page a month ago. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

There's no problem with that text, Kfein. You are not listening, but forooming. This is not about the 'current' state of SAQ, but an overview of its history and its gist over a century and a half+.

It is true that 'A good portion of this article is focused on absolute nobodies,' but the reason for that is that nincompoops, absolute nobodies, once-off crackpots, otherwise unknown obsessives constitute the majority of those who deny Shakespeare was who everybody in his day and age thought he was. And of several hundred, we cite the main movers.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Delia Bacon's actual arguments are a central part of the history, much more important than weird narratives about her not digging something up. But the actual arguments contained in her actual book are almost completely ignored. Kfein (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Everybody who has commented on her book has noted how extremely difficult it is to work out what on earth she is saying, other than general notions here and there. That can all be done on the relevant wiki pages. We don't do commentaries on waffle, we write the history of the waffle tradition and profile the wafflers, succinctly.Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The place to go into detail about her theory is on the Delia Bacon page. This page is an overview of the SAQ written for a general interest encyclopedia audience. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

So your argument is that it is appropriate to go into detail on her visit to Bacon's grave and not opening it, but it is not appropriate to discuss her actual theories? I cannot see how that makes sense in any way. Why would a general interest encyclopedia audience be interested in whether she travelled to England in the mid 19th century? How is that relevant to anyone or anything? Kfein (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You're not listening. We have her page and the Bacon page for details, as far as anyone can work them out. This is an overview. Travelling to England etc., shows what effort she made to validate her hallucinations empirically. No one with a rationally functional mind has ever taken her conjectures seriously.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have included all of that information in my suggested edit. I have just removed some of the extraneous detail for brevity and clarity.Kfein (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Co-authorship of Henry VI Part 1, Henry VI Part 2, and Henry VI Part 3

The article currently suggests that all three of the Henry VI plays were co-authored:

"with the exceptions of co-authored early plays such as the Henry VI series and Titus Andronicus."

It does not seem to me to be the scholarly consensus that all three Henry VI plays were co-authored. I suggested editing this to only reflect the specific plays that have such a scholarly consensus.

Judging just by the Wikipedia entries for each individual play, it is only Henry VI, Part 1 that has a scholarly consensus that it was co-authored, though the identity of the co-author does not seem to have a scholarly consensus.

The other option is to remove the controversial word "co-authored", since even if there is a scholarly consensus about Titus Andronicus and Henry VI, part 1, this is still an issue that is actively debated, and the details of the co-authorship are not settled (who the co-author was, exactly which parts were written by whom). Kfein (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If your data base for making arguments is other wiki pages, then you are leaping off the wrong foot, a dangerous step as we know from the legend of Protesilaus. Wikipedia is not a reliable source as a matter of principle. If you can adduce scholarship backing your contentions, I for one will be all bigears, and perhaps even bug-eyed.Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

IMO anybody who thinks 3H6 is all Shakespeare is nuts, but that's neither here nor there. To fix this latest rat turd we're pole-vaulting over, just change "the Henry VI series" to "Henry VI, Part 1", since the specific plays aren't really the point of the statement. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of the statement? Kfein (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it correct to say that Titus Andronicus and Henry VI, Part 1 demonstrate "ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin or of classical principles of drama"? Kfein (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you know what we're talking about when we refer to those characteristics? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand the question.Kfein (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you know what it means when we say "ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin"? Have you ever read the plays of Greene, Marlowe, Nash, Peele, etc., and do you know what we're talking about when we refer to their ostentatious displays of their mastery of Latin?

As to the classical principles of drama, AFAIC we can cut that, but I don't know the thinking of other editors on that. It's been a long time since that was written. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

'classical principles of drama' is probably an anachronism since, despite some precedents those ostensible classical principles were thought up rather late, out of a misreading of Aristotle, and became canonical after Shakespeare's time. It would be better to remove the phrase or replace it with standard/then current principles of dramatic composition, since S had is models in the work of contemporary older playwrights. However, we go strictly by sources, and if the sourcing has something like this, then we should be careful about rewriting the text.Nishidani (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Do Titus Andronicus and Henry VI, Part I show "ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin" that make it seem likely there was a co-author? That is the point I am trying to make. That is the implication of the article as currently written.Kfein (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Transcription error in title of King Lear Q1

This in the article:

This latter appeared on the title page of King Lear Q1 (1608) as "M. VVilliam Shake-speare, HIS True Chronicle History of the life and death of King Lear, and his three Daughters."[90]

As far as I can tell is in error. Please see: http://deep.sas.upenn.edu/viewrecord.php?deep_id=517 https://www.bl.uk/treasures/SiqDiscovery/ui/record.aspx?Source=text&LHCopy=25&LHPage=-2&RHCopy=25&RHPage=-1

The spelling of his name is incorrect. there is no "e" in "Shake" in the first Quarto. There is also a colon after the name, not a comma. The spelling is modernized here but often the spelling in the article is not modernized. I am not sure how editorially it is being decided whether to modernize or not modernize spelling or punctuation. But since the spelling of his hyphenated name is a topic within the article, it seems to me the spelling here should reflect the Quarto exactly.

The spelling on the stationers register entries nearby this do not appear to be modernized.

Kfein (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it was copied from the second edition. Fix it. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think all of the quote blocks should be removed and instead summarized. There also needs to be a clearer editorial policy on when original spelling is used and when modern spelling is used since it is inconsistent throughout the article.Kfein (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, and there's no need to hash out a unique policy for just this one article, and we've already got a policy on quotations. Sometimes a direct quotation is called for and it also acts as a visual element to break up the text. The quotations are few enough that we can decide how to do it on a case-by-case basis, and besides most that will ever be in the article are already there, so it's not like it's gonna save us any time or effort in the future. I corrected the title to conform with the 1st edition. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Also just FYI: if you see any non-controversial changes that need to be made such as this one, anyone can do it at any time. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no way for me to judge what is non-controversial. Many of the things in the article are not sourced and the sources used in this article are not reliable at all. I have also been accused of many things on this Talk page and Facebook, including vandalizing the page. So going forward all I can do is post suggestions on Talk and allow the Wikipedia community to do what it thinks is best.Kfein (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Note, when I say the sources are not "reliable" I mean in layman's terms they cannot be relied upon because they are filled with factual inaccuracies. Not that they do not meet the definition of "RS" in Wikipeda terminology.Kfein (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

the sources used in this article are not reliable at all.

This stands out for egregious obtusity. If you are not thinking of your own opinions as RS, then I guess it would be considerate to define what you believe to be a reliable source.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for shortening paragraph about Baconian research

This is very obscure and of interest to almost no one:

In the 1920s Walter Conrad Arensberg became convinced that Bacon had willed the key to his cipher to the Rosicrucians. He thought this society was still active, and that its members communicated with each under the aegis of the Church of England. On the basis of cryptograms he detected in the sixpenny tickets of admission to Holy Trinity Church in Stratford-upon-Avon, he deduced that both Bacon and his mother were secretly buried, together with the original manuscripts of Shakespeare's plays, in the Lichfield Chapter house in Staffordshire. He unsuccessfully petitioned the Dean of Lichfield to allow him both to photograph and excavate the obscure grave.[167][168] Maria Bauer was convinced that Bacon's manuscripts had been imported into Jamestown, Virginia, in 1653, and could be found in the Bruton Vault at Williamsburg. She gained permission in the late 1930s to excavate, but authorities quickly withdrew her permit.[169] In 1938 Roderick Eagle was allowed to open the tomb of Edmund Spenser to search for proof that Bacon was Shakespeare, but found only some old bones.[170]

I propose shortening it to:

In the 1920s Walter Conrad Arensberg became convinced that Bacon had willed the key to his cipher to the Rosicrucians. He thought this society was still active, and that its members communicated with each under the aegis of the Church of England. On the basis of cryptograms he detected in the sixpenny on tickets of admission to Holy Trinity Church in Stratford-upon-Avon, he deduced that both Bacon*,* and his mother*, and the original manuscripts of Shakespeare's plays* were secretly buried, together with the original manuscripts of Shakespeare's plays, were buried in the Lichfield Chapter house in Staffordshire. He *failed to inspect* unsuccessfully petitioned the Dean of Lichfield to allow him both to photograph and excavate the obscure grave.[167][168] Maria Bauer was convinced that Bacon's manuscripts had been imported into Jamestown, Virginia, in 1653, and could be found in the Bruton Vault at Williamsburg. She gained permission in the late 1930s to excavate, but authorities quickly withdrew her permit.[169] In 1938 Roderick Eagle was allowed to open the tomb of Edmund Spenser to search for proof that Bacon was Shakespeare, but found only some old bones.[170]

Kfein (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope, as per above.Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be edited from an objective viewpoint, reflecting the scholarly consensus. Kfein (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Articulate your reasoning for shortening this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The extraneous details are of no interest to the reader. There is a separate article devoted to the history of the Shakespeare Authorship Question. Such granular detail could be included there. I am fought tooth and nail to add any new material to the article which would be of interest to the reader and people want to retain content that is just neither here nor there. Whether someoneone "petitioned the Dean of Lichfield" or not is really not relevant to anyone. It is not a major event in the history of the Shakespeare authorship question. The focus here is entirely about random details instead of people's ideas and arguments. The history should be the history of the arguments with other details added. but I am not trying to effect such major change, I am just trying to edit down the article to it is more readable and more appropriate.

I think this paragraph should be shortened even more dramatically, but I am trying to offer a compromise edit that any reasonable person would see is an improvement considering the overall goals of the article. Shorter and clearer is almost always better. The sources are cited so anyone who is interested can do further research. This is an encylopedia.

Kfein (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that you are repeating yourself while dodging the gravamen of the points raised by those skeptical of your proposals. This is an encyclopedia dealing with a fringe obsession. The outline of the key ideas underlying that obsession are described extensively. The details are not random, but illustrative of the methods, bizarre as they may be, used to establish doubts. You are not providing RS for the ideas of Delia Bacon, which is what you are arguing we should expand on. No, you want to pare down what already exists, as though descriptive details of her procedures were in the way. So you are, methodologically, putting the shitcart before the horse. Ps. please don't repeat yourself if you deign to reply.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"The extraneous details are of no interest to the reader." There it is again. Upon what basis are you making these critical judgements? I personally have two degrees in English literature, taught college composition for a time, had a career in journalism and another in public relations, and I disagree with your assessment. IMO this article strikes just the right balance between mind-numbingly dry academic prose and the style of a good, fact-based popular article. So unless you can articulate and document your critical assessments and combine them with Wikipedia policies, this argument will get you nowhere. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a lot of detail about people who are not now notable, never were that notable, and actually had a very small impact on the Shakespeare Authorship Question. So it's just an accumulation of anecdotes that doesn't aid the reader at all in understanding the Shakespeare Authorship Question. Seems a mistaken strategy for an encyclopedia article for the general reader who presumably wants to learn about the Shakespeare Authorship Question.Kfein (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You're not reading what has been argued. There is not 'a lot of detail': there is a piece or two of illustrative matter about each of several figures, to show their respective modi operandi concretely and vividly. The people were notable at the time, per their wiki bios or their moony influence on the tidal swells of the Shakespeare doubt creeks and backwaters. Even today, the current doubters are not really notable in the sense you argue for. Their gyrating somersaults and splay-legged backflips leave no trace in the quiet waters of scholarship, though they leave a muddy ripple or splashlet or two in the ephemera of journalistic and tabloid chat, or on social networks.

Most people who have had an impact in the world are 'not now notable' (Mark Pattison may have inspired Eliot's Casaubon, but who remembers him outside the small world of classical scholarship). Who remembers Brendan Bracken, who had Winston Churchill's ear? or William James Craig who taught Natsume Sōseki? -most average Japanese readers of that magnificent novelist have to be reminded of him. Who among the general French readership will have the name Maurice Pujo ring a bell as the political thug behind the group that beat up Léon Blum to within an inch of his life, a name they just might recognize these days?Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The Shakespeare authorship people cited had very minor impact on the world, and their digging up graves, or lack of digging up graves, had zero impact. Asking to dig up a grave and being denied that has next-to-no impact on anything.Kfein (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for adding political views of candidates

I had proposed this change:

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

Tom Reedy undid it claiming no sourcing. I added a source and he undid it again. Here is another source:

Page 96-97 Contested Will US Edition

There could be no mistaking their radical political agenda: these men were committed republicans whose plays were vindications against tyranny by another name, works "produced for the ostensible purpose of illustrating and adorning the tyrannies which the men, under whose countenance and protection they are produced, were vainly attempting, or had vainly attempted to set bounds to or overthrow." The only only time that their work was actually put to the test was when the Earl of Essex's followers asked for their play Richard the Second to be performed on the eve of their revolt in 1601, but this uprising proved a failure. Had that revolutionary effort--inspired by this radical literary enterprise--succeeeded, imagine how profoundly the course of Anglo-American history would have been altered: the end of tyrannical monarchy in England would have precluded an English revolution in the 1640s and made that fracture of 1776 that sundered the American colonies from England unnecessary. They had come that close.

Delia bacon's claim that the plays were politically radical was a century and a half ahead of its time....Kfein (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

1. That applies to only one major candidate.

2. Shapiro is speaking in her voice; he is not stating a fact.

3. She is fantasizing their political stances.

4. She is fantasizing the political view of the canon.

You say including something as elementary as the number of quarto editions calls for a plethora of explanatory detail; how many reams of explanations would you need to include this one? AFAIK, only two candidates qualify for this edit: Bacon as per Bacon, and Neville as per Rubinstein. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You only have four major candidates on in the article. And it applies to her group theory, not just Bacon. And it is partly the genesis of the Shakespeare authorship question. And the same point is made elsewhere in the article. etc. etc.

You cannot count quartos because there is no way to count quartos. Saying that the political views of the candidate are part of the arguments made is undeniably true and is an important aspect of the Shakespeare authorship question.

The plays of Shakespeare are political so every authorship candidate is judged based on that and arguments are offered based on that. this is undeniably true to anyone who has even glanced a the shakespeare authorship literature. I just gave you a quote from the most-quoted source of the article.

Kfein (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Page 174 of Contested Will there is a long discussion of Looney's political views and how that is reflected in the plays and the Earl of Oxford. I propose we add this:

"similarities to the political views of their candidate"Kfein (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

5. Really it's just an expansion of "similarities between the characters and events portrayed in the works and the biography of their preferred candidate." What's next? "Similarities in the settings of the plays and the travels of their candidate?" Tom Reedy (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not that at all. "characters and events" has nothing to do with whether someone has certain political views. Including those few words increases the accuracy of the article. I don't see any argument whatsoever you have offered against it. Kfein (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"'characters and events' has nothing to do with whether someone has certain political views."

Srsly??? Point out in the plays where a character muses about his political views or someone imputes a certain political view to another character. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The plays themselves are about political figures and political events. That has nothing to do with the biography of the suggested candidates. It relates, possibly, to the political views of those candidates. Even if that is a mistaken idea, that is the theory propounded by Shakespeare authorship adherents, so it should be reflected in the article in this section.Kfein (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The plays themselves are about political figures and political events

Good luck with that weird generalization. What are the politics of Macbeth, King Lear, Hamlet, The Taming of the Shrew, Troilus and Cressida, etc.etc.? There are undoubtedly 'political' (contemporary political debates on gender identity) echoes throughout Tom Stoppard's The Invention of Love, but most people won't catch the historical background embedded there. They rightly look to the dramatic power deployed in evoking the trials, travails and triumphs of an historical individual, A. E. Housman. Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Macbeth, King Lear, and Hamlet are all about political succession. They all include geopolitical elements as well. Troilus and Cressida see Ulysses' speech in Act 1, Scene 3.Kfein (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You said 'the plays themselves are about', meaning all Shakespeare's plays are focused on politicians or political events. That is how grammar works, and you need to understand how it works if you are to parse accurately and write cogently.

You propose, in any case, isolating politics as a thematic element in the plays. If politics, why not everything else? love, parenthood, marriage alliances, murder, slavery, nationality, travel, ancient Greece and Rome, ethnicity, anti-Semitism, warfare, astronomical theory, metaphysics, everything including the kitchen sink? The plays aren't about political events. They deal with virtually aspect of the human condition as that was understood at the time. Since man is a social animal, any realistic narrative will have the 'political' dimension, but not in the modern sense. Historical aristocrats down to Elizabeth's time, in vying for position and power in a political structure, did not question the underlying principles of their world of power (as opposed to concepts of fealty to a religion or dynasty): they engaged in forging regional, and family alliances to wrest power, not politics in our modern sense of a clash of principles over the nature of what a state does. Most 'political' thinking is grounded in a worldview all contenders don't substantially question. The point of their politics is to be top dog, or a friend of the mastiff who gets there. A large number of contemporary non-Shakespearean plays deal among other things with political events: Webster's The Duchess of Malfi, Middleton's The Revenger's Tragedy, Marlowe's Tamburlaine, Fletcher et al., Rollo Duke of Normandy, Massinger's A New Way to Pay Old Debts, Dekker's The Shoemaker's Holiday. Politics in the sense you speak of are virtually in every known play of the period.

In tragedies, people die. They deal with leaders, hence on dying, succession arises. Hamlet's dad dies, Hamlet dies. Hamlet deals with mourning, metaphysics, oedipal desires, sexual neurosis, friendship and rivalry among generational peers, murder, an international spying intrigue, suicide, the pompousness of advice, the art and techniques of theatrical performance, the act of writing itself, swordsmanship, the nature of introspection, the emergence of the modern self, etc.etc.etc. There was only one political succession in Shakespeare's time, from Bess to James 1, aside from Essex's rebellion which in any case was about a preference for James. Nobles didn't have 'political' differences in the modern sense but policy differences. What you are suggesting is already in the text generically: anti-Stratfordians base their arguments also on analogies between contemporary events and personalities and the content of various plays, on the basis of the biographical fallacy. Ie. when the clown in Othello says 'thereby hangs a tail' on wind instruments it must be an allusion to de Vere's farting in court, as no doubt being 'hoist with his own petard' must allude to de Vere's blowing his own court career advancement and going into voluntary exile after he dropped that clanger in Elizabeth's presence. In sum, thereis nothing to be gained by adding 'political events', because it is obvious, and opens the door to listing every other common theme. Of course, this is pointless. Anti-Stratfordians do not listen, beginning with the plays. They eavesdrop for dark hints of a mystery, while passing over in silence everything in the conversation that doesn't lend itself to conspiracy. Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Once again, to summarize the dispute, the article currently reads:

Anti-Stratfordians rely on what has been called a "rhetoric of accumulation",[31] or what they designate as circumstantial evidence: similarities between the characters and events portrayed in the works and the biography of their preferred candidate; literary parallels with the known works of their candidate; and literary and hidden allusions and cryptographic codes in works by contemporaries and in Shakespeare's own works.[32]

I have suggested adding these words:

Anti-Stratfordians rely on what has been called a "rhetoric of accumulation",[31] or what they designate as circumstantial evidence: similarities between the characters and events portrayed in the works and the biography of their preferred candidate; *similarities to the political positions of their candidate;* literary parallels with the known works of their candidate; and literary and hidden allusions and cryptographic codes in works by contemporaries and in Shakespeare's own works.[32]

Kfein (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I re-read all the sources for the sentence including the ones you supplied for your proposed edit, and I see nothing in them that supports your addition. I urge the rest of the editors to repeat my experiment. The most you could say is that Looney saw similarities in the plays to his--not Oxford's--political views. (Schoenbaum 1991: 387, 389, 405, 411, 437; Love 2002: 203–7; Shapiro 2010: 96-7, 174.) Tom Reedy (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

When I have time I will prepare a list of sources and then we can submit this to a 3rd party for review. I see no other way to resolve this. Kfein (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I feel certain that the other editors will join me in anticipation of your posting something other than your personal opinion and ex cathedra pronouncements. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying the issue of "M." or "Mr." and modernizing spelling

I do not understand this:

Playwright John Webster, in his dedication to The White Devil (1612), wrote, "And lastly (without wrong last to be named), the right happy and copious industry of M. Shake-Speare, M. Decker, & M. Heywood, wishing what I write might be read in their light", here using the abbreviation "M." to denote "Master", a form of address properly used of William Shakespeare of Stratford, who was titled a gentleman.[109]

Is the implication that Dekker and Heywood also were gentlemen? And that is why the "M" was placed there? Were they?

I also think it's very confusing for the reader to have non-modernized spelling. Here is the wiki entry Thomas Dekker (writer). The two images on the page both have "Dekker". I just don't see how the

Also, the source cited doesn't have that text spelled like that and doesn't have the commentary about "Master" as far as I can see. I have no idea what is going on here. I recommend deleting "here using the abbreviation "M." to denote "Master", a form of address properly used of William Shakespeare of Stratford, who was titled a gentleman" since it makes no sense, and reverting to the quote in the actual Shapiro quote with modern spelling.Kfein (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall the thinking at the time of the original edit, but I suspect we used the original text from Webster because Shapiro expands the "M." to "Master" in his text, and we anticipated nit-picking criticism from anti-Stratfordians if we quoted his version. Webster's original spelling doesn't burden the modern reader, and I doubt any reader is confused about which Dekker (or Decker, or Deker, or Dikker; all those spellings were used) Webster is referring to.

We don't know why Dekker and Heywood were called masters; there were several conditions that permitted the term being used. One was being a government official (Shakespeare's father was entitled to use it before he acquired a coat of arms), another was being a scholar. Most likely Heywood qualified by being educated at Cambridge, but we don't know why Dekker did (and there's a possibility Webster considered that every playwright older than he was his master or that he was using the term as an equal), but the fact remains that he did, and Shakespeare was certainly entitled to the honorific by virtue of being an armigerous gentleman, so yes, it does make sense. But I'm not married to the edit, and I'll go along with whatever the editorial consensus turns out to be. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The general reader is going to be extremely confused by "Decker". Using the original spelling adds nothing and is just confusing. The article is filled with original spelling which is confusing and adds nothing. Modern spelling is appropriate except in unusual circumstances. Kfein (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"The general reader is going to be extremely confused by "Decker". Using the original spelling adds nothing and is just confusing. The article is filled with original spelling which is confusing and adds nothing. Modern spelling is appropriate except in unusual circumstances."

Please cite the Wikipedia policy and/or guideline that supports your pronouncements. It's strange that no "general reader" has ever complained of such confusion. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It is perfectly consistent with Wikipedia rules, which align here with standard scholarly practice, to keep archaic spelling intact within quotations. In fact, there is an explicit rule about original wording in the Manual of Style. As for the title "Master", it is as Tom Reedy says, and I think that any "general reader" who is somewhat familiar with the background of Shakespeare's life and times would understand that Shakespeare, and possibly the others in the quotation, were being referred to as "Master" because of their placement in the lower ranks of the gentry (certainly that was the case with respect to Shakespeare), and the title could also be one of respect for masters of a given profession. I wouldn't assume that the "general reader" wouldn't have at least some sense of this. What kind of "general reader" are you thinking of, Kfein? Someone who dropped out of school at age 16 and to whom Shakespeare is little more than the name of some guy who wrote plays a long time ago? Wikipedia is right, I think, to assume some basic level of education. We don't want to dumb it down.

As for "Decker" vs. "Dekker", that is, or was a valid point, Kfein, though not, in my opinion, such as to suggest modernizing the quoted material. I see that Nishidani has Wikilinked "Decker" to "Dekker". Perfect. Exactly what was needed. It is true that many somewhat familiar with Shakespeare might not have heard of Dekker, so wouldn't have known who was intended by "Decker". That change, as far as I am concerned, was just right. Now anyone who wants to learn more about "Decker"/Dekker can just click the link and read the Wikipedia article. That kind of thing is what Wikipedia is all about. Tom Reedy mentions "consensus" above, so I thought I might chime in with my thoughts on this dispute. As far as I am concerned, this passage is now fine as it is. --Alan W (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of the Wikipedia article to make stuff up about the intent of "Master". It is supposed to reflect the source, and this was added by someone for some unknown reason. It is simply incoherent.

There are many dozens of separate articles on Shakespeare on Wikipedia and very rarely is original spelling used. Unless there is an overriding need, modernized spelling should be used in all cases. This article is completely random in what is modernized and what is not. It is clearly a mess. Expecting the reader to interpret early modern spelling is unwise and unnecessary. Nothing is gained by seeing the name "Decker" spelled with a "c". If the Wikipedia community doesn't want to develop a clear policy for this article and instead wants to modernize some spellings and not others, completely at random, that is up to the Wikipedia Community. But if the source cited has a modernized spelling, and someone changes it to original spelling, the source for THAT should be cited clearly. Where did the original spelling come from? Which edition was consulted? Of course it's a type of original research taking place, but if original research is necessary to give people the original spelling, the ultimate source should be cited.Kfein (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to cite the Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines that support your contentions. I especially would like for you to expound on your reasons for declaring this FA article to be "clearly a mess." Also if you have questions about how this page came into being, I suggest you follow the suggestion on this page and search the archives for the relevant discussion. No one is going to do your research for you. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

People can simply look at the other Shakespeare-related pages to see that original spelling is not used; modernized spelling is almost always used. This article uses modernized spelling sometimes and original spelling other times. The source texts almost always have modernized spelling, so someone did original research, but has not cited their source. Establishing a clear editorial policy for the article on when to use modernized spelling and when to use original spelling would be helpful to decide in each case. How the decision was made to modernize or not is really irrelevant. For instance, using original spelling here is just confusing: Leonard Digges wrote the elegy "To the Memory of the Deceased Author Master W. Shakespeare" in the 1623 First Folio, referring to "thy Stratford Moniment".

You criticize me for calling it a "mess" but the truth is "To the Memory of the Deceased Author Master W. Shakespeare" is modernized and "thy Stratford Moniment" is not. It's just inconsistent. There's no rhyme or reason to it. Kfein (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

A few inconsistencies regarding archaic vs. modern spelling do not make the entire article "a mess", Kfein. That doesn't mean that I think the inconsistencies shouldn't be resolved. But given the Wikipedia rule about spelling within quotations, the weight should be on the side of preserving the original spelling in those quotations, not modernizing them. If the inconsistencies bother you, you can resolve them yourself. But it would have to be in accordance with Wikipedia rules. What you might find in other Wikipedia articles is not a good reason for conforming to the practice in those articles; they could be wrong. I just brought up on the Web a digital copy of the First Folio, so I'll change the title of the Digges poem myself. --Alan W (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Authorship in Mainstream Media and other updates

The section on Authorship in Mainstream Media seems to have stopped in 2013. Since it is 2019 and 2020 is fast upon us, it would make sense to add in recent events.

• The Atlantic Monthly Article about whether Shakespeare was a woman and the responses
• The flurry of articles around John Paul Stevens being anti-Stratfordian
• The articles about Mark Rylance writing the dedication to Barry Clarke's book

Seem like good additions.

The fact that Ros Barber has an online course on Coursera sponsored by the University of London about the Shakespeare Authorship Question seems like it should be added to the article as well. Anyone have any good ideas on where to add that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein (talk • contribs) 18:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

On the Ros Barber thing, per Coursera ("As of August 2019 the number of course offerings was 3,600") this seems unremarkable. Does it (her course) have a lot of independent WP:RS coverage? Also, if you have weblinks to some of the above, it would make it easier for interested editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Please explain to me why the number of coursera courses makes it unremarkable. How many books are published each year on the shakespeare authorship question vs. how many books are published total? 1/3,600 seems to me quite a high number actually. how have you determined that to be a low number, by what metrics or criteria? Kfein (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that any of them are particularly notable. The only one that even approaches notability--John Paul Stevens--is just another celebrity testimonial, and it's already been added to the article with a suitable amount of space commiserate to its importance. The other two got no coverage to speak of in reliable sources. WP:NOTNEWS applies here, I would think. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Please explain to me the reliable source that justifies this, I am confused about the standards you are adopting: Since then, Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells have written a short e-book, Shakespeare Bites Back (2011),[217] and edited a longer book of essays by prominent academic Shakespeareans, Shakespeare Beyond Doubt (2013), in which Edmondson says that they had "decided to lead the Shakespeare Authorship Campaign because we thought more questions would be asked by our visitors and students because of Anonymous".[218] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein (talk • contribs) 04:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Kfein (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

That Coursera has one course on this out of thousands does not seem interesting. I don't know why anything that organisation do should be interesting for this article, absent independent RS who noticed they are doing it.

Also, Kfein, the idea with indenting is to indent one more than the comment you are replying to. So if you reply to this comment you use 3 colons, if I reply to that I use 4 etc. If we reach high levels we can outdent as described in WP:INDENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand how one out of thousands does not seem interesting makes sense. This wikipedia is one out of millions. There is a Coursera course that directly relates to this Wikipedia article. How does ANYTHING on this Wikipedia article deserve to be in there based on that criteria? Everything is one out of thousands of something else

Ros Barber's Coursera is a collection of mostly undiluted SAQ nonsense featuring all the usual suspects, inexplicably adorned in the rosettes of London University. Barber is not a member of Goldsmiths' English Faculty. She teaches creative writing and people who do teach Shakespeare at Goldsmiths are not happy. She platforms nutcase theory, never mind fringe theory, refuses all correction and, in the teaching forums, allows notorious denialists to moderate (and even edit) posts intended to correct mistakes, while moderators fill topic pages with empty threads to push the serious criticism out of sight. Of scholarly arguments there is no trace. The content is exclusively made up of propositions, which, when they have surfaced in academic circles in the past, have been pounded to dust by real scholars, none of who were invited to contribute. Only confirmed denialists get course time. The MOOC's only possible contribution to knowledge would be as a case study in how irrational people think. It could be mentioned on that Wiki page.So appalled were we at Oxfraud with the partisan moderation and tutelage that we set up a whole site reflecting its structure. Counter-MOOC

And, for the record, the cyber-bullying accusations are nonsense. Here is the actual post which I still regard as accurate "While looking for a measure of the activity on the SAQ Wiki page, currently being vandalised by Nevilleans who believe they don't have sufficient prominence, ..." Sicinius (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Who are you? Are you accusing me of vandalizing this Wikipedia page? Kfein (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, Barber's page on the Goldsmiths website says she's in the "Dept of English and Comparative Literature", and lists "Shakespeare" among "Modules currently or previously taught, moderated or examined". William Avery (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Her own page also links to her somewhat preposterous attempt to prove that there is no Warwickshire dialect in the plays. Her method is to take each word or phrase claimed to be from Warwickshire and try and locate it it, in print, somewhere else in the country. Using this method, you might prove that Diderot didn't speak French. She is listed in the Faculty Directory, FWIW, as "Senior Lecturer In Creative Writing". A card carrying believer that Marlowe wrote the work, and therefore a conspiracy theorist. Her novel, written in blank verse, The Marlowe Papers, is wonderful. Her MOOC is atrocious.Sicinius (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Sicinius, that was an interesting page, and very likely independent of Barber/Coursera. From the WP-perspective (as in can I use this somewhere) though, it's SPS, correct? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope you found more than one page. This one is a good illustration of the technique of "wouldn't it be nice if..." The MonumentSicinius (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

BTW, is there a usable source somewhere that says she's a Marlovian? That was my own impression, but I haven't found a WP-good source for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Her PhD is a cushioned claim for Marlowe. She features regularly on the Oxfordian stage attempting to loosen the connections between Stratford and the canon. The Hall of Shame. Sicinius (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Her many peer-reviewed scholarly publications, her self-published book, and her Coursera course take a very objective, scholarly view of the subject. She does not push a personal agenda regarding Marlowe's authorship. She really is the leading academic now on the Shakespeare Authorship Question. Kfein (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Her work appears in SAQ magazines and papers or is self-published. She is a distinguished and popular performer on the SAQ stage. But her work on Marlowe and things which contradict her alternative candidate theories is not taken seriously by the faculty. She is a fully engaged conspiracy theorist who sells the concept of doubt to increase the latitude for Marlovian debate. Her coursera course is a thinly disguised litany of discredited authorship argument in which she tries to wear the mask of objectivity but fails completely.

She staffed her staff with denialists, moderated with prejudice and dealt with criticism in two ways .

1. "We are not as numerous and time-rich as the many member of this forum" and "I do not have time to spend in the forums". Fair to ask, I think what she was doing running a MOOC and not dealing with questions, queries and counter argument—a serious failure to understand the pedagogical purpose and methods of online learning. What she wanted was not a MOOC but a website pudding with an academic crust and a filling of anointed SAQ myths and untruths. Not a single Shakespearean authority appeared in any of the modules. Alexander Waugh, (who believes that Jonson designed the monument with acanthus capitals looking like monkeys as an insult to Shakespeare) featured prominently.

2. The many sound objections to her claims created interest from genuine experts instigating discussion which the moderators attempted to hide from the public view by creating hundreds of empty threads to demote genuine discussion, all of which highlighted the weakness of her premises.

Here is a quote from a teacher from Colorado, typical of the response from those enrolled on the first run of the course.

"I've decided to discontinue my participation in the course, "Introduction to Who Wrote Shakespeare" conducted by Ros Barber. My reasons are that the course is too sloppily prepared. The typographical errors within the transcripts is extraordinarily high indicating that no one with authoritative knowledge has even read them, let alone proofread them. Entire transcripts don't even match the video at all. Class discussions posts are deleted for the pettiest of reasons. Threads attempting to find answers to some of this errors are locked for no valid reason.

''In short this course is a massive disappointment for me. The quizzes are too cryptic for me and the admitted error combined with all the transcription errors is just too much as it's just too difficult to sort it all out.

I'm a graduate in Music History from the University of Colorado, have 60 college hours beyond that, and 34 years of teaching experience and can say with absolute certainty that the pedagogical methodology of this course is abysmally substandard.

To be blunt this course is so far from unacceptable to a university standard, it is absolutely shocking''.

Which of her essays on authorship do you think has been subjected to adequate peer review? Nothing on the leanpub site, certainly. Sicinius (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Found one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If we are updating this section, can we include a mention of Upstart Crow? [3][4][5]. Something like "Ben Elton's 2016 sitcom Upstart Crow has used SAQ as material."Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're serious. How would that addition tell us anything about the state of the SAQ (which hasn't changed)? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm serious. This is the pop-cult section, it's no stranger than mentioning Anonymous, though this comes from the other direction. The Times noticed it, we can too. It shows SAQ lives in entertainment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Upstart Crow is a sitcom take-off on Shakespeare. Anonymous was a motion picture specifically pushing Oxfordism that was eagerly awaited by SAQers who thought it would be the final straw to break the back of Stratfordism, and it generated a lot of heat on both sides, instigating a lot of academic angst and response. I'm puzzled as to how you would frame it in this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying it had a monumental effect or that it was expected too (that I know of, anyway). I'm saying it exists, has been noted to exist and fits reasonably well under "Authorship in the mainstream media". Though, I'll admit, not under "History of the authorship question", so I'll drop it. I could try to insert a "SAQ in fiction" section somewhere, but I wont. I can always start William Shakespeare in fiction someday. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I just now ordered the series from Amazon. I've seen a few episodes on Prime, but I'm getting so deaf I couldn't hear the dialog, especially accented as it is.

William Shakespeare in fiction would be a hella long article! Tom Reedy (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

611 screenwriting credits on imdb. Probably a winning total if you don't count individual episodes of things like Friends. Sicinius (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Still not joking: I think I could reach WP:GNG with Shakespeare in Star Trek. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to me. The truth is Wikipedia is supposed to be super current, even though it is not supposed to be "news".Kfein (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Please end your comments with four tildes to sign your user name so we can figure out who is commenting. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

OK I will try to remember to do that! the bot adds it in pretty often to it's easy to forget. Thanks for the pointer!Kfein (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Another update: The pattern on the sleeves in the left image here is obviously meant to be the same as the pattern on the sleeves in the image here. Do I get the large Hoffman prize? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for rewrite of paragraph about classical learning

This paragraph is ridiculous:

Ben Jonson and Francis Beaumont referenced Shakespeare's lack of classical learning, and no extant contemporary record suggests he was a learned writer or scholar.[120] This is consistent with classical blunders in Shakespeare, such as mistaking the scansion of many classical names, or the anachronistic citing of Plato and Aristotle in Troilus and Cressida.[121] Willinsky suggests that most of Shakespeare's classical allusions were drawn from Thomas Cooper's Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae (1565), since a number of errors in that work are replicated in several of Shakespeare's plays,[122] and a copy of this book had been bequeathed to Stratford Grammar School by John Bretchgirdle for "the common use of scholars".[123]

Shakespeare's works are not filled with classical blunders. Plays like Coriolanus are filled with correct classical references. There are *many* anachronisms in Shakespeare's plays. That is not evidence of anything at all. As far as the "scansion of classical names," he didn't expect the actors to pronounce them like Greek scholars, but in anglicized form.

Here is what Alexander Pope wrote in 1725:

http://jacklynch.net/Texts/pope-shakespeare.html Nothing is more evident than that he had a taste of natural Philosophy, Mechanicks, ancient and modern History, Poetical learning and Mythology: we find him very knowing in the customs, rites, and manners of Antiquity. In Coriolanus and Julius Caesar not only the Spirit but Manners of the Romans are exactly drawn; and still a nicer distinction is shown, between the manners of the Romans in the time of the former and of the latter. His reading in the ancient Historians is no less conspicuous in many references to particular passages; and the speeches copy'd from Plutarch in Coriolanus may, I think, as well be made an instance of his learning as those copy'd from Cicero in Catilene of Ben Jonson's.

The idea that a book bequeathed to Stratford Grammar School was used by William Shakespeare in 1609 to write Coriolanus, literally 30 years later, is completely ludicrous. That was a common book at the time. Including the reference to Stratford Grammar School is neither here nor there.

I recommend deleting the paragraph.

Kfein (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

While your minute control of the way the page is composed has turned up one or two minor incongruencies to be ironed out, 99% of it, like the above, appears to be a waste of your time. This happens because you have not the slightest grasp of Wikipedia writing protocols (as Tom keeps having to harp on: read the policy on guidelines), show no familiarity with the scholarship that anchors the drafting, and, more germane to objections, you repeatedly (a) cite passages well-grounded in the relevant scholarship (b) state you either dislike them or disagree with what scholarship says and (c) argue for excision, deletion or rewriting according to what your WP:OR amateurish opinionizing concludes to be the truth or the case. No one is going to listen to you if you persist in this attempt to overwrite the text according to the unique wisdom of your personal beliefs about Shakespeare's works. E.g.

The idea that a book bequeathed to Stratford Grammar School was used by William Shakespeare in 1609 to write Coriolanus, literally 30 years later, is completely ludicrous.

No. It is your assumption that is ludicrous in its ignorance of practices of reading down to the early modern period. Your inference is that Shakespeare 'consulted' in a visit to Stratford a book in the school library in writing Coriolanus three decades later, whereas our text simply states that errors in his classical allusions are replicated in a book which had been bequeathed to the school in Stratford. You are making an inference, reading an implication into a fact, which we do not hazard to make. This unmethodical hermeneutics of reading-between-the-lines suspicion is boringly typical of anti-Stratfordians, and indeed of the 'paranoid' style so memorably diagnosed by Richard Hofstadter in his The Paranoid Style in American Politics, glossed recently in the Times Literary Supplement where one reads:'the conspiracy theorist is nearly always a tiresome pedant, a producer of vast troves of paranoid literature. Theirs is a shadow scholarship characterized by an "almost touching concern for factuality", a fussiness about meaningless details carefully logged in endless notebooks and chalked onto giant blackboards and thumbtacked to wall-size corkboards, rubber bands stretched between each tack, each with another delusion'. (Jill Lepore,'Taking history personally', in TLS 9 August 2019 pp.3-4, p.4)

Chaucer, whose cross-disciplinary knowledge seems very extensive for his time, had less than 60 books in his skimpy library but 'Chaucer's personal library can be expanded almost ad infinitum by people who take every literary allusion in his works to imply knowledge of a 'book','. People read with a mnemonic intensity (Frances Yates's The Art of Memory 1966) we find hard to believe these days, since any book that came to hand was a precious rarity to be absorbed in the brief time one had access to it. The famous anecdote of Dante at the apothecary in Siena on the occasion of a very rowdy festival is illustrative of his 'exceptional aptitude for concentration' From midday to sunset, he pored over a book found there and assimilated its contents, this with such powers of avoiding distraction that afterwards, on asked about the festival, he couldn't recall the occasion, as he could however that book's contents. (William Anderson, Dante the Maker, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980 p.188) John Livingston Lowes in his seminal The Road to Xanadu (1927) outlined how such cormorant literacy worked in the mind of Coleridge, hunting out how multiple passages in books read years earlier were retained so faithfully that they blended into the fabric of The Rime of the Ancient Mariner much later.

There is therefore nothing intrinsically 'ridiculous'- to the contrary - in suggesting that Shakespeare may have as a youth read and retained much material from the copy of the Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae available at the Stratford school. Lastly, the several editors here have a variety of competences, among them English period literature, classical languages, and Elizabethan drama. They listen carefully to each other, and defer to each other, when the reasoning given is sound and sourced. This is what scholarship and collegial editing is about. You show no trace of either, and it is simply courtesy that has one treating splotches of citation and comment like the above seriously, by responding. Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no actual evidence William Shakespeare examined the book when he was 13, no less that he memorized its contents and then regurgitated them he was 43. This isn't even speculation. It's fabulism. An encyclopedia article should deal with hard well-sourced facts. Kfein (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

An encyclopedic article should be written by people who have either made themselves thoroughly familiar with or have been thoroughly trained, and formally versed in techniques for analysing and evaluating evidence, a methodology which you appear to have not even the flimsiest awareness of.

The text does not state that WS read that book. The text paraphrases scholarship that (a) notes a coincidence between errors of antiquarian learning in a text attributed to WS and the same errors recurring in a book deposited at the Stratford school at a time when WS lived there (b) the coincidence allows some scholars to advance the suggestion that WS may have imbibed those errors from a study of that copy.

I.e. in scholarship one notes facts (i)Cooper and WS make identical errors. (ii) that book was available at the Stratford Grammar school in Shakespeare's youth. (iv) One then correlates the two facts to (iii) advance a possible link between the two. Stage (iv) is speculative, and not exclusive of other inferences. But this is how all historians work, from the factual record to interpretation, which you gradgrindishly dismiss as speculation.

Had you a skerrick of learning, you would know that, on your principle, almost nothing could be written of the pre-modern past. Who was Socrates? The contradictions in the doxography between Xenophon, Aristophanes, and Plato's accounts are numerous, almost no 'fact' is secure. That doesn't mean everything is 'speculation'. It means one tries to thresh the existing documentary evidence to elicit the most likely explanations. This requires forensic mastery of the textual history, a broad knowledge of cultural context, and a capacity for imaginative reconstruction. I'm wasting my time. I'm sure there must be something more intellectually challenging, rather than challenged, in watching some Western filum (sic) on one of the channels that offer distraction on a rainy afternoon.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Very well put, Nishidani. Kfein, the vast preponderance of scholarship supports the soundness of the paragraph you deem "ridiculous." You cherry-pick quotations and ignore what you don't want to see, all to support your contentions. I allow that you may sincerely believe what you say, based on a strong gut feeling. But your dislike of a passage is no grounds for deleting it. So much of what you have been saying boils down to a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As stated there, if you are engaged in Wikipedia editing, you have a responsibility to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which clearly you have not. You have not even bothered to learn the rudiments of simple Wikipedia markup language. If you had, we would not be seeing markings like *bold* rather than true boldface. Maybe you think all that is beneath your dignity or not worth your while, but such attitudes don't fly around here. --Alan W (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

My 2p: Anybody who quotes Alexander Pope as support for a statement about Shakespeare isn't familiar enough with Shakespeare or Pope (probably both) to be editing this page. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

My 2p is that you should focus on fixing the glaring factual errors in the article instead of attacking me, the person who is doing a valuable service by pointing them out to the Wikipedia Community. Kfein (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Overview lacks NPOV and does not accurately summarize the content presented in the body of the article

I see a colleague writes "Tom Reedy is engaging in an undo edit war about the changes I suggested for this paragraph." I seem to find myself in a similar edit war. The body of the article explores at great lengths the scholarship surrounding alternative theories of scholarship. But the overview makes an unwarranted leap, relegating anything which contradicts the Orthodox view as fringe theories. I appreciate Mr Reedy's zeal in pursuing his view but the introduction to the article needs more balance.

This is the wording I suggest. It indicates a lack of evidence for alternative theories without disparaging such claims. "Although the idea has attracted much public interest, no alternative authorship theory is supported by credible evidence and the traditional view continues to be supported by most academics."

The length of this talk page (exceeding 30 pages) is prima facie evidence that this question is not settled. In 2011 only 2 members of the US Supreme Court were confident of the traditional view. https://slate.com/culture/2011/11/the-shakespeare-authorship-question-a-supreme-court-ruling.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unified field (talk • contribs) 01:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Unified field, I've moved this thread to the bottom of the page, which is where new discussions go. If you want to start new discussions on talkpages, the easy way is to click "New section" near the top of the page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Neither Tom Reedy nor anyone else here is engaged in edit-warring. The balance between an established view with nigh on universal consensus and a fringe theory is not one of parity. It is not important that an idea, lacking any credible evidence, ' has attracted much public interest' that is noteworthy. The idea that the world was created in six days attracts even far greater public interest (42%) but the idea is fringe, and we describe it thus. As to the US Supreme Court, the body itself has no competence, and it is only one of numerous national courts in the world, worthy of no attention when its members venture amateurishly into a terrain they are unfamiliar with.Nishidani (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, hopefully that body has some competence ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you italicized 'some'. It raises many eyebrows about competence when, in the Rucho v. Common Cause case, they effectively denied legal recourse to the endemic practice of gerrymandering which has consistently over three decades granted candidates with a minority of the vote to be elected to office, even, as with Trump, to the presidency.Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

OT but disheartening. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Evidence for shift from orthodox view of authorship

In response to a request from johnuniq

Growing list of doubter "signatories". 730 academics with reasonable doubt, growing every year https://doubtaboutwill.org/signatories/field

"As I thumb through the 25 charts [of characters' evolving degrees of belief], I see Shakespeare going down and down and Oxford going up and up," he said. https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/march/physicist-shakespeare-plays-031813.html

Publication by Gary Taylor, backed by linguistic analysis https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-radical-argument-of-the-new-oxford-shakespeare

Wikipedia should reflect the consensus still favors the Orthodox view but it must not doubt evidence to the contrary and denigrate those with reasonable opposing beliefs. Comparing such views to Flat Earthers or Creationists is patently unfair Nishidani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unified field (talk • contribs)

(1) The first tidbit is stale. Signatories mean nothing. Anyone can sign a round-robin screed. What counts is experts with specific competence in the topic.

(2)Peter Sturrock (2013) is an emeritus astrophysicist who at 88, six years ago, came out with a book on the pros and cons. He had no background in the area, and his work had no echo.

(3) Gary Taylor in 2017 broadened for inclusion the list of contemporary playwrights with whom Shakespeare might have collaborated. He nowhere doubts that Shakespeare was not the major author of the canon attributed to him. To the contrary, he argued that Shakespeare lies behind certain passages in plays like Sejanus written by Ben Jonson, whom we all know loved and admired the playwright Shakespeare. It is an 'orthodox' view that Shakespeare had collaborators.

In short, 'been there, read and discussed that'. There is nothing 'new' in the anti-Stratfordian fussery, and Taylor's thesis is not anti-Stratfordian.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The focus has to be on the factual inaccuracies in this article. The tone or stance of the article isn't really important. But bad facts, bad sources, bad original research needs to be fixed.Kfein (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Co-authored Early Plays

The article currently reads:

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

According to this, the four plays Henry VI, Part I, Henry VI, Part II, and Henry VI, Part III and Titus Andronicus were co-authored. In addition, they are exceptions to the other plays, because they include "ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin or of classical principles of drama"

I think we need other sources to confirm that it is the scholarly consensus that these plays were co-authored: Henry VI, Part I; Henry VI, Part II; Henry VI, Part III; and Titus Andronicus

We also need sources to confirm the scholarly consensus that each of these plays demonstrate a mastery of Latin and/or of classical principles of drama.

If such sources can't be found, this needs to be modified to reflect the scholarly consensus.

Kfein (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

English Drama 1586-1642: The Age of Shakespeare, George Kirkpatrick Hunter, pp. 74-5. When I get time next week I'll work up some refs. The academic consensus generally recognizes the H6s and Tit as co-authored, as I thought we demonstrated earlier. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The only plays that one could argue have a scholarly consensus about co-authorship are Titus Andronicus and Henry VI, Part I. There is not a scholarly consensus about co-authorship for Henry VI, Part 2 and Henry VI, Part 3. I have never seen a suggestion that any of the four plays demonstrate "ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin or of classical principles of drama".Kfein (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

lol. The three H6 plays have been thought to be collaborations since 1874. Even the best one, part 2, is only partially by Shakespeare, as anyone who can read past a sixth-grade level can tell. I suggest you read Ron Knowles introduction to the Arden edition of 2H6, which is 20 years old, ffs. Then you might want to glance at some of the newer attribution work, such as The New Oxford Shakespeare, which even comes with an appendix volume entitled Authorship Companion. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You should look at the extensive peer-reviewed scholarly criticism of The New Oxford Shakespeare. There is no scholarly consensus on these issues, even if you write "lol" and "ffs". Kfein (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I have. Here's some. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

That podcast does not provide useful information on this subject. Kfein (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It does tell you that the H6 plays have been generally thought to have been collaborations since the 19th century. I can't think off-hand of any modern scholars who believe any of them were all Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It's been debated, but of late the scholarly consensus has tilted more firmly on the side of collaboration for all three Henry VI plays. See this article. Marlowe is now being credited as Shakespeare's collaborator by the latest Oxford University Press Shakespeare. I assume this is the New Oxford Shakespeare Tom is referring to. This is consistent with the claim that these plays, unlike those written solely by Shakespeare, contain "ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin or of classical principles of drama". Marlowe had the university education that Shakespeare lacked. What "peer-reviewed scholarly criticism" of this collection are you referring to, Kfein? --Alan W (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion is the subject of fierce debate in peer-reviewed journals, as I referenced above. You can start here if you are interested: The interpretation of Zeta test results, Pervez Rizvi, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, Volume 34, Issue 2, June 2019, Pages 401–418, https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqy038. The debate has raging for months all over the place. The Marlowe attributions are likely complete and total nonsense based on a misunderstanding of how the math works in the methods they used. Kfein (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Again you are speaking in extremes, Kfein. Even if that Zeta method does have serious flaws (I personally don't know enough to judge that, especially since your link is only to an abstract; but for argument's sake, I'll grant that the method was flawed), the presence of flaws in one analytic method does not by itself demonstrate that the Henry VI plays were not collaborations. My impression is that others have considered them to be collaborations for other reasons. Tom Reedy has quicker access to Shakespeare scholarship than I have, so Tom, perhaps you can continue this discussion more ably than I can. --Alan W (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for Deletion of Sentence about Classical Learning

I propose deleting this sentence:

Willinsky suggests that most of Shakespeare's classical allusions were drawn from Thomas Cooper's Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae (1565), since a number of errors in that work are replicated in several of Shakespeare's plays,[122] and a copy of this book had been bequeathed to Stratford Grammar School by John Bretchgirdle for "the common use of scholars".[123]

Thomas Cooper's Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae was a common book at the time. William Shakespeare may indeed have consulted it when writing plays. But William Shakespeare wrote plays and poems starting around 1591, long after he left Stratford Grammar School. So if there are actually errors in the plays taken from that text, it would indicate his consulting it while writing the plays, not an error introduced from his grammar school days. The suggestion that he consulted that specific copy and that introduced errors into the plays is not plausible.

It is also possible that the errors in that work were commonly believed at the time to be facts, and that he learned those errors from another source. But since it was a common book, there is no reason to believe that it was from Stratford Grammar School that he got this information.

One can see how common the book was here, by how many editions it went through and how many extant copies there are for each edition. This is an extremely high number for books pre-1590: 1 2 3 4

It is not reasonable to include this sentence in the article. There is no evidence that William Shakespeare ever looked at that book while at Stratford Grammar School. The book was extremely common at the time.

Kfein (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

In addition, as far as I can tell, the book is over 1500 pages long. You can examine a facsimile of the 1584 edition here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Thesaurus_linguae_Romanae_et_Britannicae/0Sr8hQG3R54C?hl=en&gbpv=0&kptab=editions

So it is not plausible to suggest that any errors in a play are due to his having read the book while in grammar school. Even if the the errors were unique to the 1565 edition, it would not be plausible. If the errors are common to all editions, it becomes that much less plausible.

Kfein (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Every word in those sentences is a fact, they are in context, and they are reliably source. So no, we're not going to delete it based upon your OR. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not suggesting including my OR in the article. I am suggesting deleting something that makes no sense on its face, since this is an encyclopedia, and things in it are supposed to make sense.

All I can do is point out the problems with this article. The Wikipedia community will have to makes its own communal judgment on how to proceed.

Of course it is not a fact that Willinsky suggests what is written in the article. Willinksy says that DeWitt Starnes suggests something. So that is an obvious error in reporting of what is contained in the specific source. And absolutely none of them make this claim "most of Shakespeare's classical allusions were drawn from Thomas Cooper's Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae" A completely different claim is made, that the classical allusions came to him secondhand. Not that the majority came from that specific book. So, every which way this sentence is bad. It inaccurately reports on what the sources say, on who said what who claimed what and what they said. And it is ridiculous on its face.

Kfein (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It is also important to note that the entire sentence is OR. It has nothing to do with the Shakespeare Authorship Question. Kfein (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Onions doesn't even seem to think it's an error at all:

Hesperides: nymphs who were fabled to guard, with the aid of a dragon, the garden in which golden apples grew in the Islands of the Blest; used allusively and as sing. Per. I. i. 27 “this fair , With golden fruit, but dangerous to be touch'd” ; transf. applied to the garden LLL. IV. iii. 341 (ref. to the 11th Labour of Hercules). A Shakespeare Glossary. C. T. Onions. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1911. because you know it's just a silly rhyme: For valour, is not Love a Hercules,/ Still climbing trees in the Hesperides?

Kfein (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is a book from 1572 making a reference to "gardens hesperides". This was just a common thing at the time. Not an error and nothing unusual. Nothing special to Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae. The whole thing is complete nonsense.

here is to be seene a dragon, supportinge a tree laden with golden apples: the sleaynge of the terrible dragon, whiche continually watchinge, kepte the golden apples in the gardens hesperides, and taking them out therof, was the tweluth, and last labour that hercules perfourmed Kfein (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraph to reflect what is actually written in Willinsky. As far as I can tell, this is someone's OR on the Shakespeare Authorship Question. The Willinsky book has nothing to do with the Shakespeare authorship question and he is quoting a book that also is not about the Shakespeare Authorship Question. As far as I can tell, Shakespeare's Ovid: The Metamorphoses in the Plays and Poems also has nothing to do with the Shakespeare Authorship Question. So I think this is a clearcut case of OR. No inference is drawn from this original research in the article, which is good, but which also is why it doesn't really make any sense at all.

Kfein (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

My edit has been reverted to something that is not an accurate reflection of the source. The entire paragraph is ridiculous, based on OR, WP:SYNTH and just factually inaccurate.

However, all I tried to do was fix one part of it by accurately reflecting the source text. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this. All I can do is my best to improve this article by pointing out the problems and offering solutions. The Wikipedia community, and frankly posterity, can judge what is going on here. Kfein (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have edited it once again changing "most" to "some". The source does not say most are from that specific book. It suggests that most might be secondhand sources, including the book. The sources have nothing to do with the Shakespeare Authorship Question. This is absolutely OR. Kfein (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you're talking about this edit where you changed "most" to "some". An earlier version included a quote: "perhaps the majority of the classical allusions in Shakespeare's poems and plays came to him secondhand." with another comment tying that to Cooper. Doesn't "majority" mean "most"? Your comments should lay off all the claims about OR and other horrors—just stick to the facts. Most of your edit was reverted with a full edit summary—it would be better to engage with what was written. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The claim in the book is that the majority of the classical allusions came to him secondhand, not that the majority came to him from that specific book. The original source lists maybe seven examples. How many classical allusions are in the 36 plays and three books of poetry of Shakespeare? What percent are traced to that specific book? Kfein (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracism

Some recent exchanges reminded me that David Aaronovitch couched denial of Shakespeare's authorship within the wider context of conspiracism, quoting David Mamet:

• David Aaronovitch (25 January 2011). Voodoo Histories: How Conspiracy Theory Has Shaped Modern History. Random House. p. 218. ISBN 978-1-4464-2429-2.

Is this an aspect that's worth covering in this article? The Mamet quotation is interesting – did he coin the term "anti-Stratfordian"? Alexbrn (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Clear Violation of NPOV

This sentence states opinions as facts:

No such direct evidence exists for any other candidate,[15] and Shakespeare's authorship was not questioned during his lifetime or for centuries after his death.[16]

Is clearly in violation of Wikipedia's policy WP:YESPOV

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

WP:NPOV demands that the statements, which are points of contention, be attributed. Here is a suggested rewrite:

++Almost all scholars agree that++ no such direct evidence exists for any other candidate,[15] and ++they also hold that++ Shakespeare's authorship was not questioned during his lifetime or for centuries after his death.[16]

Even if this issue has been litigated in the past, it is still a clear violation of Wikipedia's current policies as stated above.

Kfein (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

What "direct evidence" exists that William Shaksper authored the works? If he was not considered the author during his lifetime, why would his authorship be questioned then?--Artaxerxes (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand NPOV. In Wikipedia terms, a fact is something that is not seriously contested and should be WP:ASSERTed as such. As WP:ASSERT makes clear, attributing these things can harmfully give the non-neutral impression that they are contested. There is no serious dispute that the Holocaust happened, that perpetual motion machines are impossible, and that Shakespeare's works were written by Shakespeare. So we must assert these things. All these fringe theories have some proponents, sometimes apparently quite respectable ones. That does not stop us asserting overwhelmingly accepted truths as fact. Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That works attributed to "Shakespeare" were written by someone given the name "Shakespeare" seems more of a tautology than a truth.Artaxerxes (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

(Yes what that means is that the authors of the stuff was the historical figure called "William Shakespeare" of Stratford-on-Avon, etc. etc. But people know what's meant I think!) Alexbrn (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The policy I quote above is very clear. The statements of contentious issues must be attributed, not be in Wikipedia's voice. Kfein (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The question of who wrote Shakespeare is not a contentious issue (except in the same sense that intelligent design is a contentious issue). The mainstream, scholarly consensus is that the works were written by William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon. The contention to this comes just from hobbyists and loons. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

So the edit I suggested above should make that point. It should not be stated in wikipedia's voice.Kfein (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This is especially contentious "Shakespeare's authorship was not questioned during his lifetime or for centuries after his death." There is no possible way stating this in Wikipedia voice is NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein (talk • contribs) 17:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

We simply WP:ASSERT what is not seriously disputed: Shakespeare was written by Will Shakespeare. That is neutral. You seem to be engaging in WP:PROFRINGE pov-pushing, which isn't going to work here. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I am quoting Wikipedia guidelines and explaining why the article does not currently follow those guidelines. I am not suggesting that the sentences be removed or even the content modified, only that Wikipedia voice is removed in accordance with the guidelines. Accusing me and impugning my motives is WP:HA. Kfein (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm getting tired of this endless bullshittery from a WP:SPA who appears to want the encyclopedia to reflect his fringe view of Shakespeare. If you think this is a violation of WP:POV, take it to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and cease this endless, continual blathering on the talkboards. If you change it, it will be reverted. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Please cease with the WP:HA. I will not be harassed and bullied into not doing my part to edit Wikipedia in accordance with its guidelines.Kfein (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Take it here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Pleaese use Talk appropriate to discuss specific issues relating to the editing of this article.Kfein (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

the convergence of documentary evidence used to support Shakespeare's authorship—title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records—is the same used for all other authorial attributions of his era.[14] No such direct evidence exists for any other candidate,[15] and Shakespeare's authorship was not questioned during his lifetime or for centuries after his death.[16]

So all you have to do to demonstrate that those are opinions, not facts is:
1. Show us a contemporary title page of a Shakespeare play or poem with Bacon, Oxford, or Neville's name on it.
2. Quote a contemporary saying that Bacon, Oxford, or Neville wrote the works of Shakespeare.
3. Produce an official record attributing a Shakespeare play or poem to Bacon, Oxford, or Neville.
4. Produce a publication or manuscript dated pre-1816 that questions the authorship of Shakespeare.
Should be simple. We'll wait. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

These are both contentious issues with people on both side of the debate. I am not going to do OR here and it is not relevant. To maintain NPOV these statements must be qualified like everything else in the lede, per Wikipedia guidelines. "most scholars agree" "almost all scholars agree" or whatever. This is an article about the Shakespeare authorship question so it must take extra care to NPOV for that topic. Stating these contentious issues in Wikipedia's voice clearly violates the guidelines by violating NPOV. There are plenty of editors on here. I have made my case as clearly as I can. The Wikipedia community can decide how to proceed. Kfein (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

No one is asking you to "do OR", the task is to find some reliable secondary source that claims that these exist, for surely they would produce the evidence. The statement as worded in the article is non-contentious fact: those are the basic criteria used to attribute literary works; no such evidence exists for any so-called candidates for Shakespeare's authorship; and no one questioned Shakespeare's authorship for more than two centuries after his death. Your trying to make it a POV violation is just another sealioning attempt to rewrite the page according to your arbitrary standards. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This RS shows the issue is contentious enough that it is needs to be qualified, it cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice as a bare fact, that "Shakespeare's authorship was not questioned during his lifetime or for centuries after his death." Shakespeare Authorship Doubt in 1593, ROSALIND BARBER, Critical Survey, Vol. 21, No. 2, Questioning Shakespeare (2009), pp. 83-110 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41556314. NPOV is such an essential point of Wikipedia that it must be adhered to strictly, especially when an article is specifically about that subject. Kfein (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This is so basic it seems a pity to have to clog up this Talk page explaining why. We assert what is not seriously disputed. So, in The Holocaust Wikipedia asserts some six million Jews were murdered, and Wikipedia says Neil Armstrong was the first person to step on the moon. Both of these things are "disputed" in exactly the same way Shakespeare authorship is disputed: by wrong-headed conspiracists in publications that the mainstream derides or ignores. I agree the POV-pushing in this matter is now reaching the point where it is disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

In fact, your accusation of POV-pushing is WP:HA and WP:HOUNDING. Despite your protestations, this article does NOT state as fact that Shakespeare-wrote-Shakespeare. Because it attempts to be WP:NPOV following Wikipedia guidelines. But this specific sentence needs to be modified to also be WP:NPOV, especially the second clause, but also the first. Kfein (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia assertion of Shakespeare's authorship is baked-in to our articles. We call Henry V (play) "a history play by William Shakespeare" and this isn't going to change on account of a WP:SPA's pushing of a WP:PROFRINGE agenda. Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully not for very long, anyway: [6]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Since we were not able to reach consensus, and this has devolved into personal attacks, I have opened a NPOV noticeboard issue on it: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Statements_of_Opinions_as_Facts_on_Shakespeare_Authorship_Question Alexbrn Tom Reedy Artaxerxes I hereby give you notice of this in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Kfein (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Good. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sentence derived from Status of Shakespeare Bacon and the Great Unknown

"This is consistent with classical blunders in Shakespeare, such as mistaking the scansion of many classical names, or the anachronistic citing of Plato and Aristotle in Troilus and Cressida.[121]"

Both of these claims are traced to this book from 1912:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Shakespeare_Bacon_and_the_Great_Unknown/c3QLAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=shakespeare%20bacon%20and%20the%20great%20unknown&pg=PA37&printsec=frontcover

This clearly does not meet the standards of Wikipedia for an RS, simply because it is so old. Wikipedia is intended to reflect the latest scholarship on issues. Any source over 100 years old is not going to reflect the latest scholarship on William Shakespeare. Please refer to WP:AGE MATTERS.

The article does not even reflect the source text. As far as I can tell it only reference the scansion of one classical name. It is on Page 44 of the 1912 edition.

The entire sentence should be deleted from the article unless actual RS can relate these two claims to the Shakespeare Authorship Question.

Kfein (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You have a minor point. One doesn't remove things here, one fixes them if shown to be flawed or misleading. Remove and you don't know what to improve. The primary objection that it is old ergo not usable is again proof of total unfamiliar with the modern secondary literature, which often confirms perceptions made over a century ago, as with:-

No one has undermined the generalization by Root, made more than a century ago, that Shakespeare's classical mythology derives primarily from Ovid and Virgil, (Ovid's influence being four times greater than Virgil's).' Charles Martindale, Shakespeare and Virgil, in Charles Martindale, A. B. Taylor (eds.), Shakespeare and the Classics Cambridge University Press, 2011 ISBN 978-1-139-45363-9 pp.89-107 p.89

Lang is used because he is intimately connected as a disputant in the SAQ history. As to Plato in Troilus and Cressida this is odd, since he's never mentioned there as far as I know. That should be fixed. The idea however that it is not a "fact" but a "claim" that Aristotle's presence in Troilus and Cressida is an anachronism is stupid. As to scansion, that is a more complex issue, and we do need a better source.Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Please do not use inflammatory language like "stupid". The Lang citations strangely referred to a 2008 edition, giving the impression it was recent scholarship. I have updated it to the original 1912 edition and attempted to fix the page references. The problem with using outdated sources is that in 1912 they did not have access to the latest scholarship on these issues. Please refer to WP:AGE MATTERS. Kfein (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The issue has been raised about anachronism in Troilus and Cressida. I would refer people to this source on how the entire play is doubly anachronistic: Adanur, E. D., (2017). The Uses of Anachronism in Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida, Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 16 (4), 1048-1056, DOI: Submission Date: 05-10-2017 Acceptance Date: 26-10-2017

This makes a similar argument: GRIFFIN, A. “The Banality of History in Troilus and Cressida”. Early Modern Literary Studies, [s. l.], n. 2, 2006. Disponível em: https://search-ebscohost-com.libproxy.berkeley.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsgcl.162104597&site=eds-live. Acesso em: 28 dez. 2019.

This is very interesting in it shows how Aristotle's ethics are referenced both in Taming of a Shrew and in many ways in Troilus and Cressida: Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" and Shakespeare's "Troilus and Cressida, W. R. Elton, Journal of the History of Ideas Vol. 58, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 331-337 (7 pages

This is particularly interesting because it talks about anachronism in the Greek tragedies themselves: Anachronism in Greek Tragedy, P. E. Easterling, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 105 (1985), pp. 1-10 (10 pages)

The point is anachronism does not actually suggest lack of learning by the author. It may simply be an example of artistic license. Shakespeare famously uses many anachronisms in his plays.

Kfein (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The latest scholarship on these issues says doubting Shakespeare's historic identity is folly. In this, despite the passage of centuries, it confirms what everybody knows since Elizabethan times.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Publishing bad, outdated scholarship on Wikipedia is inappropriate. That is why wikipedia has standards like WP:AGE MATTERS. As you pointed out, it doesn't even have the basic facts correct about Troilus and Cressida. Regardless, as I showed above, the latest scholarly work does not attribute the anachronism to a misunderstanding on Shakespeare's part. Kfein (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The evidence offered in the book for mistakes in the scansion of classical names is incredibly meager. How many do you count? two examples? three? Shakespeare wrote 37 plays and three books of poetry, almost all of which include classical names, many of them exclusively on classical contexts. Is there a recent scholarly literature on these scansion errors and how they indicate a lack of classical learning? Kfein (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

here is a source that directly contradicts that sentence: "[arguments that Shakespeare] makes a number of blunders about classical mythology..and that he is guilty of shocking anachronisms. None of these areguments has much substance" The Sources of Shakespeare's Plays (Paperback)by Kenneth Muir Page 2 Introduction. That is why we have WP:AGE MATTERS. So we do not include outdated scholarship. Kfein (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

here is page 5: "Shakespeare may have forgotten that Aristotle lived after the fall of Troy...most of the anachronisms, however, can be justified on dramatic grounds, as most critics now recognize" But I have already provided you many recent sources on anachronism. Kfein (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

So to summarize, the quote above is misleading because it includes Plato when Aristotle is the figure cited as the anachronism in the play. The source in question does not provide many examples of scansion errors, only two or three. So the claim is not supported in the source cited. And modern scholarship does not attribute the anachronisms in Shakespeare to a lack of classical learning anyway. On top of that, the source cited is way too old to be RS on these topics because WP:AGE MATTERS and there is much more recent scholarship on the issue. I have provided a recent book that disputes these specific claims. As I said, the sentence should simply be deleted. If we cannot come to consensus here, I think we should be seeking outside opinions to resolve this matter.Kfein (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

So the consensus is to delete this sentence for the above-stated reasons?Kfein (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the sentence, which reads "...the anachronistic citing of Plato and Aristotle ...." "citing" doesn't mean "quoting directly." The characters speak of Platonic ideas, see I.A. Richard's "Troilus and Cressida and Plato". And Aritotle is certainly mentioned at 2.2.16. So "the anachronistic citing of Plato and Aristotle" in the play is certainly a fact. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not the scholarly consensus that these are "blunders". The sentence suggests that the author of the works of Shakespeare had limited classical learning so made two types of errors. However, current scholarship supports neither point. That was indeed the view in the 19th century but I have shown above that it is not the current view. The issue of scansion isn't even supported in the cited text, the quote in the article now mischaracterizes the book, and it is not a currently held scholarly view. The book in question is not an WP:RS because of its age, this is an ever-changing field and anything over 100 years old cannot be relied upon to reflect the latest scholarship. Kfein (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Idea for new main page section

Kfein's insistance that verbal parallels are an important part of the Nevillian case has got me wondering if there should be a section in the main article for the common arguments fringe theorists use that pinpoint their guy as the True Author, since they all more or less use the same arguments for their man. All the proponents say their guy's life matches events in the plays; they all (save Derbyites) claim verbal parallels between the known writings of their guy and the works; they all say their travels match the settings of the plays; the aristocratic teams all say their guy's family is specially treated in the plays; most all of them have discovered ciphers, especially in the sonnet dedication or the monument inscription; they all bring up contacts with people affiliated with the theatre; and they all (necessarily) posit a conspiracy with Ben Jonson as the linchpin. Also they're all marked by the liberal use of confirmation bias and steer clear from confronting cognitive dissonance, but that would be a headache to write about at any depth, though it could be mentioned as part of the methodology they substitute for the historical method. What else? I'm sure there's more.

Anyway, the article probably needs a little shaking to sort out the encrusted errors that have built up over the past nine years since it went WP:FA, and adding a section for the common arguments seems to be something that would be appropriate to the topic. There's no dearth of good sources to use. Thoughts? Tom Reedy (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's an excellent suggestion, Tom, and thanks for your usual succinct summary of the nonsense proposition's various angles. We should definitely begin to sketch out such a section, and see if the version can be ushered if without overlaps with what we already have.

Just a few rapid notes. One could add to our text the following sources or write

1. The key tactic of all Anti-Stratfordians is to read the sonnets as coded autobiography. Jonathan Bate, The Genius of Shakespeare Pan Macmillan, (2008) 2013 ISBN 978-0-330-53834-3 p.103
2. Attribution of Shakespeare’s works either to the author, or an alternatiove candidate, have often relied on arguments drawing parallels between texts in the canon, and writings by other authors. Securing reliable inferences from this method is notoriously difficult. (John Erskine Hankins, Shakespeare's Derived Imagery, (1953) Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2016 ISBN 978-1-532-61655-6 ch 1 pp1ff, esp.pp.5ff.)

‘A convincing argument from parallel passages does not depend on the numerical totals involved, but on the accumulated evidence of highly individual usages in thought and words occurring too often for coincidence. Many scholars would agree with Lake that verbal parallels form contributory, rather than primary, evidence, and ‘should never be relied on to prove a case alone: but the lack of parallels is a suspicious circumstance in any authorship case, and therefore parallels should be cited as “defensive” evidence’, to be used in conjunction with ‘probative evidence’, such as the distinctive use of contractions and other linguistic habits’.’ Brian Vickers, Shakespeare, 'A Lover's Complaint', and John Davies of Hereford Cambridge University Press, 2007 ISBN 978-0-521-85912-7 p.205

two scholars in the 1930s, Muriel St Clare Byrne and Arthur Sampley, conclusively showed the dangers involved in citing verbal parallels as a proof of authorship. Careful attribution scholars since that time have carefully warned against the misuse of this method, and have applied it cautiously themselves, pointing out truly striking parallels, involving an idiosyncratic grammatical usage, rare vocabularly, or some ‘parallelism of thought combined with some verbal parallelism’.’ Brian Vickers, ’Counterfeiting' Shakespeare: Evidence, Authorship and John Ford's Funerall Elegye, Cambridge University Press, 2002 ISBN 978-1-139-43535-2 p.80.

1. Claims of alternative authorship frequently draw parallels between the author’s life and the lives of various alternative candidates. These apparent coincidences are then used to buttress an alternative authorship hypothesis. This method can generate numerous competing candidates. Thus skeptics of the traditional narrative find, for example, striking overlaps between Sir Henry Neville’s experiences and the plays, or extraordinary connections between the contents of many plays as the life of their putative authoress Aemilia Lanyer. The same holds for proponents contending the real authoress was Mary Herbert, Countess of Pembroke. (source Hugh Craig, ‘Authorship,’ in Arthur F. Kinney ‘Authorship’ (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare, Oxford University Press 2012 ISBN 978-0-199-56610-5 pp.15-30 p.17)
2. Verbal parallels between Shakespearean texts and authors are used to create a profile of erudition which the 'real' Shakespeare, it is asserted, must have had, namely a profound familiarity with classical learning which Shakespeare's Stratford education cannot account for. The problem is that inferences from the plays about Shakespeare's borrowings are notoriously hard to establish in many cases. For example, a parallel with Seneca can also be a parallel with Ovid whom Seneca used, and while Shakespeare certainly read Ovid, we can’t be absolutely sure he read Seneca, though the parallel might suggest the latter is his direct source for numerous passages.

Repeatedly scholars have sought out precise verbal parallels between Seneca and Shakespeare, and repeatedly other scholars have found these thin and unconvincing, Others have found deep and pervasive influences. Where does the truth lie?’ Colin Burrow, Shakespeare and Classical Antiquity, Oxford University Press 2013 ISBN 978-0-191-50768-7 pp.162ff.Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

How about using our old space at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2? I've cleared out the leftover clutter that didn't make it to the mainspace page. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Nevillean_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship#RFC:_Should_these_aspects_of_the_Henry_Neville_authorship_theory_be_included_in_the_article

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to Correct the Link to Sir John Davies

This paragraph:

In a letter addressed to John Davies, Bacon closes "so desireing you to bee good to concealed poets", which according to his supporters is self-referential.[230]

Links to the wrong John Davies. this is the correct John Davies: John_Davies_(poet) Kfein (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. Also the ref needs to be tightened. With Gibson it's just p. 57. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)