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)