This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 |
At this writing, the first sentence says
No offense intended to whoever wrote that, but that sounds really bad. A question is not an argument; a question is a question. The question asks whether someone other than WS of SuA wrote the works.
I'm going to speculate that the intent here is that the only people who ask the question are the ones who make the argument that someone else wrote the works. That may be so; I don't know enough about the topic to say. But I'm afraid that doesn't save the sentence; it still looks really really bad.
Possible fixes include:
Option 3 is a little unusual but not unprecedented, especially for titles that are more descriptions of something than a standard name for that thing. Just off the top of my head, could be something like
Not great, needs work, but I'm just trying to explain what I mean, not proposing actual text. -- Trovatore ( talk) 21:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Some reading for a rainy day. /info/en/?search=Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_17#Copyediting_the_lead_.28details.29 /info/en/?search=Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_25#.22Question.22_and_.22argument.22 /info/en/?search=Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_29#Unlinking_.22argument.22_in_the_introduction Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
It is commonly called the "Shakespeare Authorship Question", but it really is an argument, or a group of arguments. I see that more clearly now. For me, the Cambridge Dictionary defines both the relevant terms the way they are used here:
Question
question noun (PROBLEM)
a matter to be dealt with or discussed, or a problem to be solved:
[example] The question is, are they telling the truth?
You could substitute: "The question is, did the Earl of Oxford write the plays attributed to Shakespeare?"
argument noun (REASONS)
the reasons for your opinion about the truth of something or an explanation of why you believe something should be done:
[example] A good argument can be made for providing health insurance for all children.
You could substitute: "A good argument can be made that the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays."
As Tom puts it, "argument" here is a synecdoche for a collection of arguments, since this is not only about the Earl of Oxford's putative authorship.
After reading the present discussion, I can see better than ever that this "question" really is more an argument than a question. It doesn't question whether.... It presents an argument that so and so wrote the plays.
The more I think about it, the better what is written now works for me. -- Alan W ( talk) 05:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I have a couple of degrees in English lit, even taught it as a TA at university and at college level for a time after graduation, and I have no problem reading, but apparently I am too thick to understand what the problem is. The term "Shakespeare Authorship Question" is a well-known phrase (hence the title of the article); the phrase gets 39,000 hits on Goggle; the definition is succinct and accurate; the page is FA status and has been FA of the day twice; and while I, like Nishidani, am always up for better and more accurate prose, I cannot see how these suggestions are an improvement. Given the number of readers this page reaches (600 hits a day average), it would be impossible to tweak the language to suit every theoretical naive first-time reader (if such a thing exists). Tom Reedy ( talk) 14:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Responding to this: "On another note, do the RSs really use "Shakespeare authorship question" in such a way that it (grammatically) refers to a thesis rather than a question? I defer to you on the weight of the RSs, as I am no expert and perhaps you are. But at least one RS that really does that would be nice." https://books.google.com/books?id=W8KtHtT3jNYC&q=authorship+question#v=snippet&q=%22authorship%20question%22&f=false You can repeat that search with any of the sources used in this article. Helpful links to most of them are provided in the references section.
As far as I'm concerned, this topic has been exhausted. The article has had the same title since its inception 15 years ago. While we have seen several arguments about using the term "argument" in the lede, no one until now has found fault with the phrase "Shakespeare authorship question", and I feel confident that the issue can rest for another 15 years, by which time I'm sure I'll be beyond caring. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been watching this discussion, and my feeling is that "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that..." is correct usage. I don't really like to simplify sentence structure and vocabulary too far, because it's hard to know when to stop, but I suppose it's possible that this is a usage that many readers will find hard to parse, from lack of familiarity. If we were to agree that that's the case (and I'm not yet convinced) I think the easiest way around it would be to change the first sentence so it no longer includes the phrase "Shakespeare authorship question". Per WP:BEGIN, that's acceptable in certain cases. I don't think this is one of them, but I think that's the argument that would have to be made. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I wonder, would it help at all to think about "Shakespeare Authorship Question" as a proper noun? -- Xover ( talk) 06:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Why is "politicworm.com" denied a place here in the "External Links" list?
"PoliticWorm.com" is a Shakespeare Authorship Question site-- no different from any of the various others already in the list. I added it. It has been removed without comment. Why? Proximity1 ( talk) 08:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)proximity1
I would be ashamed to offer such flimsy excuses (Try : /info/en/?search=The_dog_ate_my_homework) for what appears to be so blatant an example of a double-standard.
This: ..."Shakespeare's biography, particularly his humble origins and obscure life, seemed incompatible with his poetic eminence and his reputation for genius,"...
appears to be a recent revision and it reeks of the insecurity which rightly attaches to this matter of Shakspere's education.
The excuses offered are "all over the map." E.g.
"First, the text is far too promotional." What, precisely, was "far too promotional" about the entry? You didn't bother to support that assertion by citing what you meant.
"Second, there are lots of websites"..."it is necessary to select a small number which have particular information that is useful yet which would be"... The passive-voice to the rescue-- "mistakes were made," "it was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it," etc.
As for "See No. 2 and No. 11. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)"
No. 2 reads : "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting."
As you well know, in fact, there is absolutely nothing in contemporary documented evidence to support today's Stratfordian scholars' echo-chamber of assertions that Shakspere "probably", "seems to have," "in all likelihood," attended the Stratford primary school of his day. There is zero evidence in the historical record for this suggestion--always couched in carefully-crafted speculative terms. See, passim, T.W. Baldwin, (1944, University of Illinois). Thus, all such sites fall afoul of this rule's prohibition, for they all peddle "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" about Shakspere's supposed education, Yet they're allowed.
Proximity1 ( talk) 08:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC) proximity1
Oh God. Another one.
Here's something else for you to read. Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
These pseudo-polite, pseudo-replies ignore the salient point raised:
there is _zero_ documentary evidence from contemporary sources which supports the hypothesis that Wm. Shakspere attended school--at all, anywhere, at any time. Yet sites which claim this are accepted for External Links. Editors here are blatantly enforcing a double-standard. When challenged, they throw up smoke-screen pseudo-arguments devoid of merit. This, by the way, is exemplary of the methodology of the professoriate
of Stratfordian proponents. A doctorate degree is not and has not been a signal feature of the people behind sites listed as External Links nor does it necessarily bear on the merits of reasoning in this particular matter. Since you've presumed to impute my motives, erroneously denouncing them as crassly commercial or "promotional"--as though your adherents aren't promoting just as well their views at External Links-- I'll express my candid thoughts on yours. It appears that people here are actually afraid of the cogency of the material at the site, Politicworm.
Proximity1 ( talk) 15:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC) proximity1
And you've ignored it and failed to offer any respectable reasoning. End of argument? Only because your view's dominance means you needn't listen and respond adequately. That's going to change eventually. Then I'll have said what I came to say.
Proximity1 —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
RE : the Read WP:NOTFORUM.
Please note the following users' notes from Wikipedia's guides:
"If you have a question, concern or comment related to improving a Wikipedia article, you can put a note on that article's talk page."
Other help and discussion locations
I want... Where to go
...help using Wikipedia Help desk ...to find my way around Wikipedia Department directory ...specific facts (e.g. Who was the first pope?) Reference desk ...constructive criticism from others for a specific article Peer review ...help resolving a specific article edit dispute or making a user conduct dispute complaint Requests for comment ...to comment on a specific article ----> Article's talk page
Proximity1 ( talk) 13:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Unified field, and the anonymous editor who added material: This is going to have to be reverted. This is a Featured Article, and everything in it was added after much debate and careful consideration over many years. This new material is inserted without integration into the rest of the article, using sources that are debatable, and has other issues. Please bring up these changes on the Talk Page first before adding anything. One example: I see a personal blog as one of the sources (maybe more, but I haven't checked all): not acceptable as a reliable source. -- Alan W ( talk) 14:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
This article has generated controversy for years. It is wrong for one editor to stifle dissent. The article does present some alternative views but then summarily dismisses them without adequate consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.126.58 ( talk) 20:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
(Note: from the "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard": ..."you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proximity1 ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Specifically, as examples of undue bias, I cite the following (lettered, A, B, etc.)
(A) Paragraph #1
In the very first paragraph of the present article about "The Shakespeare Authorship Question, this page disparages the "question" itself, describing the entirety of alternatives to William Shakespeare as author as being, in the opinions of
"all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians," "a fringe belief."
As an invitation to a novice reader to simply dismiss the topic right then and there, I could not imagine a more clearly non-neutral view. Why would someone be moved to continue reading after such an opening paragraph?
(B) In the page's "External Links," eight links are presented. Each and every one of them is by, from, for and about the Stratfordian view of the Authorship Question. A recent addition of a link to a site presenting one of the alternative views here was promptly deleted.
How is this page doing on the "Neutrality" score-board?
Proximity1 ( talk) 12:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Ian, "Fringe position" circumstances apply, per the cited page, in an article about a mainstream" idea. That is not the case here. See below. Your edits are hostile and unsupported by Wikipedia policy. Proximity1 ( talk) 13:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
"To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream" idea. The "Shakespeare Authorship Question," by its very character, cannot be about "a mainstream idea-- yet. Proximity1 ( talk) 13:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm disputing the the neutrality of the present article as it shows, in my opinion, clear and undue bias favoring a partisan view by using terms ("Fringe ideas") which seem to have for their intent to pre-emptorily dismiss the entire premise of the page itself as unworthy of serious consideration at all, and, as supposed support for that opinion, that the majority view means that a minority's opinion is ipso facto not deserving of presentation on fair and equal terms--even where the page topic itself is devoted to describing the majority/minority difference of opinion. Proximity1 ( talk) 14:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
"There are significant problems with this article, but the editors who hold a biased and unfavorable view of the subject have managed to have their position prevail. These editors have misconstrued what a fringe belief is in this area. They have mischaracterized the debate. Just because they have gotten away with it for so long is no reason it should continue."
I agree with that. "Just because they have gotten away with it for so long is no reason it should continue." Proximity1 ( talk) 18:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
(cited) The foregoing has not been respected here. Proximity1 ( talk) 18:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
That was quick. And bizarre. Tom Reedy ( talk) 05:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 74.75.126.58 ( talk) 23:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC) There is a raging debate about authorship. Wikipedia is badly out of step with current scholarship. Trying to stamp out dissenting views is never the answer -Waldron Bates
I am surprised that there is no mention of the John Florio Shakespeare authorship theory in this article. The article seems incomplete without it. Peaceray ( talk) 22:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help)Note: much of the Florio speculation overlaps with material already at Crollalanza theory of Shakespeare authorship.-- Mervyn ( talk) 09:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Scholarship has moved significantly over the past 20 years and that the view presented on wikipedia does not reflect the mainstream. alot of space is devoted to he devere and bacon authorship theories in particular are on the decline while scholarly and linguistic theories connecting marlowe are on the ascent. I footnote some 2017 studies. I would say the article is particularly biased in implying that computer linguistic studies reinforce the hypothesis that shakespeare wrote everything himself. I believe they suggest the opposite.
3) everything I wrote is meticulously footnoted and documented and presented in a fair and neutral manner.
4) if you delete my post in its entirety, you deny the wikipedia community an important resource, namely a summation of all Shakespeare works in chronological order and present the arguments relevant to each text. the chronological pattern is very important, because it highlights the earliest works are thought to be collaborations with Kyd, the next several tragedies are strongly attributed to Marlowe, then Shakespeare starts writing more on his own, and then as his business matures he delegates more to Middleton and Fletcher.
≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈
2a) some other aspects of the existing article which troubles me: it is written as if people are binary. pro-stratfordian or anti-stratfordian. that mindset made sense 20 years ago, but many scholars today are assuming multiple hands worked on each play, trying to parse out which phrases were edited by which co-author.
another thing which troubles me; the article seems more interested in advocacy than unencumbered analysis. so, for example, the article takes the standard argument that shakespeare lacked the education or background to write these works and attempts to turn it on its head, maintaining his fallability shows he was a likely candidate. i dont buy this argument for a minute, because the author of these plays had a level of erudition far from what could be obtained with a grammar school education. but mostly the article is written in a style of someone trying to defend a view at all costs rather than in a manner which suggests intellectual honesty.
I am sympathetic because it sounds like wikipedia is getting barraged with edits which overwhelm the editors. but may I humbly suggest you are getting so many edits because the article as written does not adequately cover the material, does not reflect recent scholarship, and is not open enough to divergent viewpoints.
also, I was not attempting to espouse anything new and radical. merely to summarize what I believe be to the scholarly consensus in a concise chronological chart format which does not presently exist. perhaps you wish to have separate columns presenting arguments for and against shakesperian authorship of each play. other readers are free to annotate this chart if I missed relevant arguments.
but simply deleting the chart (and other edits) cannot be the right answer
I take your point that Shakespeare Authorship is technically different than collaboration. However, the contention is Shakespeare was largely an actor and businessman whose collaborative efforts were relatively minor in many plays. After the initial feedback from AW, I worked hard to integrate the article with meticulous documentation. These range from scholarly papers and published books to highly respected newspapers and periodicals. The current article has clear biases as noted above. My chart was merely a summation of current consensus and arguments. Surely a useful tool, not available elsewhere to my knowledge. if the chart is misplaced in SAQ, I am happy to relocate it or have you do so. If other Wikipedia readers disagree, they should be free to annotate as I previously suggested.
Tom, thanks for your response. Collaboration is a misnomer. If recent scholarship is correct, Shakespeare may have written very litle of the canon, borrowing, stealing, or subcontracting liberally from the likes of Marlowe, Kyd, and Middleton. I dont think that view is yet the majority, but Wikipedia errs in characterizing it as a fringe viewpoint. I lean to that view because of the linguistic, thematic, and cultural similarities between Shakespeare's plays and sonnets to the known works and life events of the other authors. Also, as best I can tell Shakespeare lacked the education, erudition, and time to write all which has been attributed to him. My fear is that in many cases he simply redacted and added the comic relief.
The standard of whether a source is reliable ought be more objective than whether you agree with it.
Query: For those of us approaching the topic with an open mind and intellectual honesty, what publication best makes the case that Shakespeare wrote the bulk of his plays and poetry substantially by himself? Unified field ( talk) 00:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
This template has a group of people labeled "sceptics". If the SAQ is "the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him", wouldn´t something like "advocates" or "proponents" be better? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Is mentioned in this article and the template, but the gist of the Is Shakespeare Dead? article seems to be that he wasn´t very serious. Should we remove him, or expand this article with that possibility? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I don´t think this is anything that can be used as a source, but it was interesting, nonetheless.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The Friedman couple's work, William & Elizabeth, to the effect that no cyphers are present in the Shake-Spearean corpus is false, & should be removed from the article, as it is easy to disprove based on the Sonnets (where we find the correct hyphenated spelling of the Bard's name), as follows. Here below is the 9x16 grille from the 144 letters in the Sonnets Dedication as published by Thorpe. Jonathan Bond in his book proves that the Dedication was written by the Bard himself, but he did not include the 9x16 grille. I myself managed easily to find cyphers in the Grille as follows:
T–O–T–H–E–O–N–L–I E–B–E–G–E–T–T–E–R O–F–T–H–E–S–E–I–N S–U–I–N–G–S–O–N–N E–T–S–M–R–W–H–A–L L–H–A–P–P–I–N–E–S S–E–A–N–D–T–H–A–T E–T–E–R–N–I–T–I–E P–R–O–M–I–S–E–D–B Y–O–U–R–E–V–E–R–L I–V–I–N–G–P–O–E–T W–I–S–H–E–T–H–T–H E–W–E–L–L–W–I–S–H I–N–G–A–D–V–E–N–T U–R–E–R–I–N–S–E–T T–I–N–G–F–O–R–T–H
The word "RUNE" meaning "secret message" begins in row 9, columm 2, reading on the diagonal slanting to lower right. The words "ELSE WE" are in col. 1, beginning rows 5 and 12. Moving up and down the columns, we can read an entire admonition not to reveal secrets, presumably those detailed in the Sonnets themselves. The full message then reads as follows:
RUNE ELSE WE SIT LEG IN IR[O]N A NO WIT BET
I.e, given the political circumstances of Elizabethan England, revealing secrets might result in Tower confinement, and usually did. The word "IR[O]N" always has the letter "O" missing, occurring eight times, up, down, diagonal and angular.
Furthermore, I found the name of the Earl of Southampton double-spaced in three parts "[WR][IOTH][ESLEY]" in col.s 1 & 2.hgwb 03:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I hope the Wikipedia editors will recognize a basic fault in the Friedman's conclusions and omit the reference. hgwb 10:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC) hgwb 03:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
This thread appears to no longer be regarding any proposed improvements to the article, and consequently no longer serves any valid purpose. I therefore encourage everyone to refrain from further participation in this thread. -- Xover ( talk) 10:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Could you add an explanation after "glover" in section 2.1 ("Shakespeare's father, John Shakespeare, was a glover (maker of gloves) and town official"), or otherwise explain what it is? In section 5.4 there's an explanation ("The poet and dramatist Christopher Marlowe was born into the same social class as Shakespeare—his father was a cobbler, Shakespeare's a glove-maker") that could be switched with this one if you'd like. 208.95.51.38 ( talk) 14:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Much more work is needed here, but I've got off to a good start. --Susan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susandevere ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
People keep trashing my changes, but they make the article much stronger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susandevere ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I read in a Reader's Digest a long time ago that an early collection of Shakespeare's plays contained the note “To the only begetter of these plays, Mister W.H.” There has been speculation on who Mr W.H. was - if any one knows anything of this, it could be added to the article. Vorbee ( talk) 17:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Tom, about your last edit, removing that "typo". That was no typo. It just looked bad as it was presented by the template. That keyword in the template provides for the name of a series, and "Doing..." is the series. I know, it was confusing as it was presented. What if it is restored so it looks like: '"Doing..." series', with the word "series" to make it clear? Do you, or anyone, have any objection if I restore it that way? -- Alan W ( talk) 03:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The article does not currently express the (uncontroversial) fact that the basis of the doubt regarding attribution, originally, arose from the lack of any written primary source text by the author. The so-called foul papers which are frequently referred to, i.e. the author's manuscripts, have not survived for any of the 36 plays: there is no case in which the source text is other than a printed quarto or folio.
The actual signature of the author (the only confirmed extant specimen of his handwriting) has the appearance, visually, of being the handwriting of a person who has actual difficulty in forming the letters in his own name, leading some critics in the intervening centuries to question whether he could in fact even read and write properly.
Given that public education was non-existant prior to the 19th Century, some acknowledgement ought to be made in the article that, in the 16th Century, any type of education was restricted to the aristocracy, and to the sons of Gentlemen, and to the clergy. The notion that a tradesman's son (he was the son of a glover, i.e. a craftsman) would have received sufficient education is remarkably unlikely. However, his theatre company might well have employed a secretary (typically this would have been a clerk with a religious background), to maintain its written archives - including writing down its plays - and perhaps to function as prompter.
Surely the article ought to at least mention Shakespeare's likely educational background in connection with the absence of any handwritten manuscripts (accurately summed-up as 'foul papers' if his handwriting is evidenced exclusively by his signature), since it is the lack of any surviving manuscript which gave rise to the original doubts regarding his authorship.
The fact that the company used a clerk or secretary to record his dialogue makes sense of the lack of surviving examples of his handwriting, and of the poor caligraphy evidenced by his signature; while (potentially) a multitude of differing handwriting of various clerks over the years also makes sense of the term 'foul papers', and of the difficulty of setting them in print (to judge from the extensive printing errors in the quartos and folios).
The fact that it is unlikely that he could have written down the plays himself, but merely dictated them to a secretary, provides a reasonable explanation for the doubts which later were expressed, based on there being no playscripts with the folio. But one may examine the article, as it presently stands, without obtaining any understanding from it that a reasonable explanation might exist for the doubts about authorship which the article expresses.
Stephen Poppitt 15:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
This paragraph is overly detailed for an entry of this sort, it is inconsistent, it is speculative, and it is not backed by citations.
Shakespeare co-authored half of his last 10 plays, collaborating closely with other playwrights. Oxfordians claim that those plays were finished by others after the death of Oxford. However, textual evidence from the late plays indicates that Shakespeare's collaborators were not always aware of what Shakespeare had done in a previous scene, and that they were following a rough outline rather than working from an unfinished script left by a long-dead playwright. For example, in The Two Noble Kinsmen (1612–1613), written with John Fletcher, Shakespeare has two characters meet and leaves them on stage at the end of one scene, yet Fletcher has them act as if they were meeting for the first time in the following scene.[134]
1. The claim that Shakespeare co-authored half of his last 10 plays is not the scholarly consensus. 2. The paragraph suggests that he "collaborated closely' and then suggests that Fletcher didn't even know what Shakespeare had written. 3. This paragraph is only relevant to the Oxfordian theory of authorship; it isn't appropriate to be included in a general entry such as this that deals in general with the Shakespeare authorship question 4. It speculates that "they were following a rough outline rather than working from an unfinished script" even though there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the process on how The Two Noble Kinsmen was written.
Overall, this entry should be providing a general overview of arguments for the Shakespeare Authorship Question, proposed candidates, and then scholarly responses to this in general. It shouldn't be engaged in speculative arguments about obscure topics like the composition of a single play like Two Noble Kinsmen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Kfein ( talk) 05:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and edited this paragraph for brevity and clarity. Kfein ( talk) 14:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
This paragraph makes many dubious factual claims that are not sourced. I do not see how this is appropriate unless each suggested fact can be backed up by an independent reliable source. This appears to be original research? Or the wholesale lifting of a paragraph from a single source?
Shakespeare's plays differ from those of the University Wits in that they avoid ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin or of classical principles of drama, with the exceptions of co-authored plays such as the Henry VI series and Titus Andronicus. Instead, his classical allusions rely on the Elizabethan grammar school curriculum. The curriculum began with William Lily's Latin grammar Rudimenta Grammatices and progressed to Caesar, Livy, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Plautus, Terence, and Seneca, all of whom are quoted and echoed in the Shakespearean canon. Almost uniquely among his peers, Shakespeare's plays are full of phrases from grammar school texts and pedagogy, together with caricatures of schoolmasters. Lily's Grammar is referred to in a number of plays, including Titus Andronicus (4.10), The Taming of the Shrew (1.1), Love's Labour's Lost (5.1), Twelfth Night (2.3), and The Merry Wives of Windsor (4.1). Shakespeare alluded not only to grammar school but also to the petty school that children attended at age 5 to 7 to learn to read, a prerequisite for grammar school.[126]
1. "Shakespeare's plays differ from those of the University Wits in that they avoid ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin or of classical principles of drama" This needs to be independently sourced and verified that the works of Shakespeare have less Latin than plays by university-educated authors of the period. 2. "with the exceptions of co-authored plays such as the Henry VI series and Titus Andronicus" The co-authorship of these plays is a contentious issue in Shakespeare studies. It is not a settled question by any means. For instance, in his edition of Titus Andronicus, Jonathan Bate writes: "I believe that the play was wholly by Shakespeare and furthermore that it was not based on the chapbook; rather, it was one of the dramatist's most inventive plays, a complex and self-conscious improvisation upon classical sources" (page 3, Arden Series Three) 3. "his classical allusions rely on the Elizabethan grammar school curriculum." If this incredible claim is going to be included in the entry, it would need to be exhaustively sourced. For instance, the sources for Rape of Lucrece would need to be examined and aligned with the curriculum in the Stratford grammar school. 4. "Almost uniquely among his peers, Shakespeare's plays are full of phrases from grammar school texts and pedagogy, together with caricatures of schoolmasters." This needs to be independently sourced with evidence that this is a "unique" feature of Shakespeare. Kfein ( talk) 03:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and edited this paragraph for brevity and clarity.
Kfein ( talk) 14:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems excessive to devote an entire paragraph to the mention of two books and very long quote:
Since then, Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells have written a short e-book, Shakespeare Bites Back (2011),[215] and edited a longer book of essays by prominent academic Shakespeareans, Shakespeare Beyond Doubt (2013), in which Edmondson says that they had "decided to lead the Shakespeare Authorship Campaign because we thought more questions would be asked by our visitors and students because of Anonymous, because we saw, and continue to see, something very wrong with the way doubts about Shakespeare's authorship are being given academic credibility by the Universities of Concordia and Brunel, and because we felt that merely ignoring the anti-Shakespearians was inappropriate at a time when their popular voice was likely to be gaining more ground".[216]
The publication of these books seem like very minor events in the history of the Shakespeare Authorship Question. I propose removing the quote and instead summarizing it in a short sentence. Kfein ( talk) 03:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I shortened it and put it together with content in the previous paragraph. Reads much better now.
Kfein ( talk) 15:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I propose deleting this sentence:
Even the omnivorous reading imputed to Shakespeare by critics in later years is exaggerated, and he may well have absorbed much learning from conversations. Love 2002, p. 81 :"As has often been pointed out, if Shakespeare had read all the books claimed to have influenced him, he would never have had time to write a word of his own. He probably picked up many of his ideas from conversation. If he needed legal knowledge it was easier to extract this from Inns-of-Court drinkers in the Devil Tavern than to search volumes of precedents."
This is a very complicated issue. For each of Shakespeare's plays, specific source texts have been identified which Shakespeare must have read, and others source texts which he might have read. To treat this correctly would require a full paragraph of detailed, sourced exposition. The source cited here is just speculating about conversations Shakespeare might have had with "Inns-of-Court drinkers"; there is no documentary evidence whatsoever of such interactions. The assertion in the cited source that "if Shakespeare had read all the books claimed to have influenced him, he would never have had time to write a word of his own" is also speculative and would need to be independently sourced. It is also ridiculous on its face; if he had time to chat in taverns he could have used that time to read books.
I suggest deleting this sentence, and if someone can produce a paragraph of independently sourced information about Shakespeare's conversations and how they likely influenced his writing -- and his lack of time to read -- it should be added back to the article.
Kfein ( talk) 16:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence. If people think this is a defensible and necessary aspect of the article, it needs to be sourced and explained more carefully. Kfein ( talk) 13:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
This sentence is odd:
He refers to Shakespeare's "sug[a]red Sonnets among his private friends" 11 years before the publication of the Sonnets.[86]
Two of Shakespeare's sonnets were published in 1599 in The Passionate Pilgrim.
So I suggest changing this sentence to:
He refers to Shakespeare's "sug[a]red Sonnets among his private friends" **one year before the publication of two sonnets in The Passionate Pilgrim and** 11 years before the publication of the *Quarto Shake-speares Sonnets.*[86] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
We can't leave out the fact that they were published the next year, otherwise it creates a false impression. I'm happy with whatever wording people want to use, but this sentence creates the impression that Meres had special information about something when a year later Shakespeares Sonnets were published in a book with his name on it.
Kfein ( talk) 19:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The point is that in 1599 two of Shakespeare's Sonnets were published with his name on them. So it was publicly known that he wrote Sonnets a year after Meres' book. Someone reading this entry would think that it was only 11 years later that the public would have known about Shakespeare's sonnet writing. So it is misleading to the reader. We must strive for accuracy, clarity, and precision in an article as important as this.
Kfein ( talk) 17:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
A lot of the changes being made by Kfein ( talk) seem to be motivated by the incorrect perception that this is a generalized Shakespeare page and that all the information about Shakespeare should be exhaustive and inclusive of all known and inferred detail. While I applaud some of the changes, especially of organization and style, a good deal of it is just bloat, a lot of the sources are not of the quality needed for a featured article, and the formatting does not conform to the standards of an FA page. I'll be going through the individual edits in the coming weeks. It's probably time for a good rewrite anyway, though I don't know if I've got the energy for a long-drawn-out episode. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
It is also important to note that all of my major changes were first proposed and explained in the Talk page so that the reasoning behind them was clear and others could provide their own ideas and feedback. Only after waiting for responses did I go ahead and make the more substantial changes. My edits have improved both the style and content and accuracy of the article substantially. Kfein ( talk) 01:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Tom Reedy is engaging in an undo edit war about the changes I suggested for this paragraph:
Here is the version I posted:
the original has "literary". I added "linguistic" because it clarifies the meaning. A "literary" parallel might be a common character, metaphor, or scene. A "linguistic" parallel might be a common word or phrase. By saying "literary or linguistic" it clarifies what we are talking about.
I added "similarities to the political and/or religious positions of their candidate". One of the originators of the Shakespeare Authorship Question was Delia Bacon whose main argument relates to political position of the plays, as is discussed in depth in the article. So leaving this out makes the list very incomplete.
I added "literary allusions in works by comtemporaries" since that is something highlighted in the rest of the article and is a key argument made by anti-Stratfordians.
I changed "and hidden allusions and cryptographic codes in Shakespeare's own works" for clarity.
If Tom Reedy or anyone else thinks that additional sources are required for these edits, I encourage them to add them. But if there is going to be a list like this, it must be complete and accurate, hitting the main arguments made by adherents of alternative authorship theories. Kfein ( talk) 18:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I restored my edits of the section for clarity only, not adding any unsourced information:
Kfein ( talk) 19:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The proper way to have handled it would have been to added a "citation needed" flag to my edit, instead of simply undoing the entire contribution. In any case, I will find the appropriate page references in already cited books and add it in later. Kfein ( talk) 19:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Shakespeare authorship question. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Fortunately, my edits have been exemplary, and what you have posted:
Thank you for your continued support. I look forward to working with the Wikipedia community to bring this article up to the highest standards. Kfein ( talk) 02:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Kfein: Thanks for your edits but please be aware that this topic has been the subject of major disputes that were only resolved with an Arbitration Committee case, see WP:ARBPIA. The situation now is that edit summaries exhorting others to not engage in an undo war won't achieve anything you might want. Similarly, describing your edits as exemplary is not enough. I suspect that you have not had much feedback on your edits so far because, not counting the editors who were banned at WP:ARBPIA, everyone is rather tired of rehashing the subject and we were hoping that someone else would take the time to examine the changes in detail. I will look at the issues little later but wanted to let you know that it is necessary for everyone to engage with what others say. That must happen here, not in edit summaries. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
So this book is written by someone with a PhD in English who studies the Shakespeare authorship question and teaches it in a Coursera course for the University of London: https://leanpub.com/shakespeare
Is this a Reliable Source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Also is this a reliable source? It is published by a major academic publisher and the author has a PhD: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780429028540
Kfein ( talk) 04:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
How does this meet the definition of a Reliable Source: https://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html Kfein ( talk) 04:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
This doesn't seem like a reliable source to me: https://www.amazon.com/Was-Shakespeare-Lawyer-Reviews-Evidence/dp/B0006BMVXW Kfein ( talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
This is from 2009: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123998633934729551
So is this: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/justice_stevens_a_shakespeare_buff_says_real_author_was_nobleman
This article is from 2010: https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/justice-john-paul-stevenss-most-controversial-position/22472
These more recent:
WSJ, ABA Journal, Chronicle of Higher Education, New Yorker... those seem like big names in media to me. Maybe it deserves more than just a name on the list. I don't know what your criteria are for this. Please inform me. Kfein ( talk) 04:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Since there are so many topics not yet covered in this article, and this entire quote is only supported by a circular non-independent RS, I suggest this be shortened:
in which Edmondson says that they had "decided to lead the Shakespeare Authorship Campaign because we thought more questions would be asked by our visitors and students because of Anonymous, because we saw, and continue to see, something very wrong with the way doubts about Shakespeare's authorship are being given academic credibility by the Universities of Concordia and Brunel, and because we felt that merely ignoring the anti-Shakespearians was inappropriate at a time when their popular voice was likely to be gaining more ground".[219]
To this:
in which Edmondson says that they had "decided to lead the Shakespeare Authorship Campaign because we thought more questions would be asked by our visitors and students because of Anonymous, because we saw, and continue to see, something very wrong with the way doubts about Shakespeare's authorship are being given academic credibility by the Universities of Concordia and Brunel, and because we felt that merely ignoring the anti-Shakespearians was inappropriate at a time when their popular voice was likely to be gaining more ground".[219]
Kfein ( talk) 06:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the article currently does not even mention the hypothesis that Shakespeare was written by a woman. This article received a lot of media attention:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/who-is-shakespeare-emilia-bassano/588076/
it is an RS and was carefully fact-checked.
The Atlantic published many essays from well-known academics and Mark Rylance in response to this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/06/was-shakespeare-woman-responses/590851/
I think this all should be discussed in the section on mainstream media. Or it could be added as an external link. I added it as an external link but it was deleted, even though it is a RS with valuable content, fact-checked, and is well-written. Kfein ( talk) 06:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Here are mainstream media articles written in response to Elizabeth Winkler's original article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/06/was-shakespeare-woman-responses/590851/
OK I'm a bit confused. All of my responses above are to your insistence on including an external link to the article as per your title. Are you arguing for the link to be added or just a mention in the body of the article? Cos I can see adding a sentence containing a summary of the piece and a summary of the responses since it does qualify under the subhead. Tom Reedy ( talk) 18:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Kfein ( talk) 03:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
It is truly amazing to me how much time and energy I am wasting responding to attacks, responding to suggestions I stop working on this article and work on another one, responding to accusations that I am a vandal or representative of "anti-Stratfordian thinking", etc etc.
Paul Cantor spends a good deal of time in this video that came out today talking about the Atlantic Article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMM_Un6W_mQ
So now we have another top Shakespeare scholar responding to it. Kfein ( talk) 17:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
" lack of mss and letters was not factor in the rise of the SAQ in the 19th C. In fact it was a relatively late argument."
This comment was made in an edit instead of in Talk. It would seem to me such a major factual claim would need to be discussed in detail. But I guess that is not how things are handled on this Wikipedia article?
This is obviously false. I sourced my edit and dozens more examples can be provided. I am not prepared to fight against a biased editor with a strong agenda, and as I said I cannot handle the personal attacks on me.
There is a VAST literature on Shakespeare authorship from the 19th century. They are easily accessible to anyone. All of them talk about the lack of manuscripts and letters. This is obviously the genesis of the Shakespeare Authorship Question. If there were extant letters and manuscripts that matched Shakespeare's signature, no one would have doubted his authorship. If he had a vast extant correspondence, as people like John Donne did, that showed his excellent writing style, no one would have doubted his authorship. To suggest that the lack of letters and manuscripts was "not a factor in the rise of the SAQ" is completely unreasonable.
I can't engage in an undo war. So I hope other editors will deal with this issue. This article should be objective and unbiased. The issue of Shakespeare's signatures and the lack of manuscripts was studied in great and excruciating detail in the 19th century.
The Shakespeare Authorship Question may be a "Fringe Theory" but there are still historical facts about it that should be reflected accurately. That is the job of Wikipedia, to reflect historical facts accurately and also to reflect the scholarly consensus on issues accurately.
I wish everyone well. Kfein ( talk) 17:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
There is an implicit bias in the article that people may not realize because the article is almost entirely sourced from three or four polemic books which distort the history of the Shakespeare Authorship Question and also because it is obsessively focused on Oxfordian arguments.
some of the "pro-Shakespeare" stuff is original research or non-mainstream research. "one guy wrote something" is not a scholarly consensus
This paragraph seems very lightly sourced, there are over a dozen extremely dramatic factual claims, and it is all sourced to one chapter in one book. It also does not reflect the scholarly consensus:
I propose the deletion or modification of this sentence:
There is not a scholarly consensus that the Henry VI series and Titus Andronicus were co-authored. This is a very contentious question, and really shouldn't stated as fact in this general article. For instance, Jonathan Bate writes in The Arden Shakespeare, Third Edition, page 83: "Computer analysis of these suggests what literary judgement confirms: that the whole of Titus is by a single hand and that at this level its linguistics habits are very different from Peele's" (citing Metz, G. Harold. 1985. "Disputed Shakespearean Texts and Stylometric Analysis.")
The claim about University Wits only really applies to Shakespeare's earliest plays and would need a great deal of exposition to make into a logical or meaningful point. Many university-educated playwrights of the time did not engage in "ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin". I think a lot more detail, and other references, would need to be added to make that a coherent and useful part of this article.
I therefore propose the shortening of this paragraph to:
I believe the above rewrite is much easier to read, much more clear, removes questionable arguments, and is more brief. Kfein ( talk) 19:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Kfein ( talk) 05:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The article began with this sentence:
It is sufficient to say that "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory." There is no essential or substantial information added by "and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims." Even if there were substantial information added by that clause, it should be carefully sourced in the body of the article, not thrown into the first paragraph.
"and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims." should be deleted. If that is an important point, it can be worked into the article later. The first paragraph reads much better without that extra clause. The extra clause is actually quite confusing and it's not clear precisely what it means without further exposition.
Wikipedia entries should provide the essential information first. Adding extraneous verbiage to the beginning of an article makes it less useful to people who are using it as a quick reference. Those who need more detailed information can read further into the article.
This is just a basic principle of information design and organization. This article should be edited at a professional level with professional standards of clarity, precision, and organization. Removing "and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims" clearly improves the article as a whole. Kfein ( talk) 05:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no essential or substantial information added by "and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims."
Rather than trying to make Wikipedia conform to your subjective standards, I suggest you read out the links that were provided to you on your talk page when you first edited, especially WP:5P and the editing pages. Also in talkpage discussions, please conform to WP:INDENT, as you have been asked to do.
As to your objection to this particular edit, your idea that Wikipedia should read as smoothly as ad copy and that people can just look things up if they need more information is diametrically opposed to what an encyclopedia is about (See what I did there? I could have just written "opposed" and that would have been enough by your opinion, but it would not have had quite the same effect, would it?). The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is not aesthetic. While we don't talk down to readers, we give them enough information so that they don't need to have another reference work handy in order to fully understand the article they're reading. I agree that slick is good, except when it comes at the expense of necessary detail. That's why we often explain things parenthetically in reference articles. Don't get me wrong; I'm not claiming that this article is perfect as is and couldn't stand some improvement. While reading through your edit I caught some things that could stand some rewriting myself, but philosophically I'm in the "more information is better" camp, and I think most people who edit this page are also. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
If you call it a "fringe theory" that is enough. You do not need to go into an explanation of what a "fringe theory" is; even if you did, the clause doesn't really help explain it.
all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory, and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims
Kfein is referring to a remark made by Mike Leadbetter in his Facebook group Oxfraud, of which I am a member. I have never mentioned this little brouhaha there, so it's irrelevant to what's going on here. At one time Kfein was a member, but was kicked out for reasons that are also irrelevant to this discussion. I seriously doubt that Mike's parenthetical remark was intended as a "warning" (of what, I wonder?). Of course Kfein is free to take any action he wants, but I can say that I have been involved in SAQ matters for more than two decades now, and never has any Oxfordian or Baconian shown up at my door threatening my family or myself, nor have I ever heard of such or even thought about it happening, but then I'm not prone to conspiratorial thinking. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I tried to post a reply to this but it didn't take apparently. The point is that I have been harassed by members of that group on Twitter, including someone starting to post about my livelihood. An accusation of vandalism is extremely serious. The fact that no response was made to that accusation, explaining that in fact, I was not vandalizing the Wikipedia page, was a real shock to me. I also think that the way my edits have been portrayed in Talk messages have created an impression that I wasn't doing edits in good faith. I'm not interested in detailing everything, people an go back and read for themselves. Kfein ( talk) 18:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Dr. Ros Barber is a leading academic involved in Shakespeare authorship research. She is currently Senior Lecturer Goldsmiths, University of London, Dept of English & Comparative Literature.
She has a Coursera course sponsored by the University of London: https://www.coursera.org/learn/shakespeare
She has published many peer-reviewed articles on the subject of Shakespeare and Shakespeare authorship. Here is a selection:
Just as David Kathman's self-published, not peer-reviewed website is judged a RS: https://shakespeareauthorship.com/
I believe that Ros Barber's self-published book should be judged a RS: https://leanpub.com/shakespeare
Kfein ( talk) 04:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
On this website: https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/shakespedia/william-shakespeare/shakespeare-coat-arms/
It says:
This seems to imply that it wasn't until his father died that Shakespeare could call himself a gentleman.
In the article it says:
This book also seems to make a similar point, I don't know if it is an RS:
So it seems to be that some people are saying it wasn't until his father's death -- and he acquired the coat of arms through inheritance -- that he could call himself a gentleman.
I am sorry if this topic has been discussed in the past.
Kfein ( talk) 02:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I do not understand how this much detail is appropriate for an article of this type:
In 1853, with the help of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Delia Bacon travelled to England to search for evidence to support her theories.[158] Instead of performing archival research, she sought to unearth buried manuscripts, and unsuccessfully tried to persuade a caretaker to open Bacon's tomb.[159] She believed she had deciphered instructions in Bacon's letters to look beneath Shakespeare's Stratford gravestone for papers that would prove the works were Bacon's, but after spending several nights in the chancel trying to summon the requisite courage, she left without prising up the stone slab.[160]
I recommend shortening it to:
In 1853, with the help of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Delia Bacon travelled to England to unearth buried manuscripts she expected to find in Bacon's tomb and under Shakespeare's gravestone. She failed to inspect either location and found no manuscripts.
Anything more than that isn't of any interest to anyone. If you want a longer version:
In 1853, with the help of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Delia Bacon travelled to England to search for evidence to support her theories.[158] Instead of performing archival research, she sought to unearth buried manuscripts, and unsuccessfully tried to persuade a caretaker *failed* to open Bacon's tomb.[159] She believed she had deciphered instructions in Bacon's letters to look beneath Shakespeare's Stratford gravestone for papers that would prove the works were Bacon's, but after spending several nights in the chancel trying to summon the requisite courage, she left without prising up the stone slab.[160]
Kfein ( talk) 08:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 |
At this writing, the first sentence says
No offense intended to whoever wrote that, but that sounds really bad. A question is not an argument; a question is a question. The question asks whether someone other than WS of SuA wrote the works.
I'm going to speculate that the intent here is that the only people who ask the question are the ones who make the argument that someone else wrote the works. That may be so; I don't know enough about the topic to say. But I'm afraid that doesn't save the sentence; it still looks really really bad.
Possible fixes include:
Option 3 is a little unusual but not unprecedented, especially for titles that are more descriptions of something than a standard name for that thing. Just off the top of my head, could be something like
Not great, needs work, but I'm just trying to explain what I mean, not proposing actual text. -- Trovatore ( talk) 21:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Some reading for a rainy day. /info/en/?search=Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_17#Copyediting_the_lead_.28details.29 /info/en/?search=Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_25#.22Question.22_and_.22argument.22 /info/en/?search=Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_29#Unlinking_.22argument.22_in_the_introduction Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
It is commonly called the "Shakespeare Authorship Question", but it really is an argument, or a group of arguments. I see that more clearly now. For me, the Cambridge Dictionary defines both the relevant terms the way they are used here:
Question
question noun (PROBLEM)
a matter to be dealt with or discussed, or a problem to be solved:
[example] The question is, are they telling the truth?
You could substitute: "The question is, did the Earl of Oxford write the plays attributed to Shakespeare?"
argument noun (REASONS)
the reasons for your opinion about the truth of something or an explanation of why you believe something should be done:
[example] A good argument can be made for providing health insurance for all children.
You could substitute: "A good argument can be made that the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays."
As Tom puts it, "argument" here is a synecdoche for a collection of arguments, since this is not only about the Earl of Oxford's putative authorship.
After reading the present discussion, I can see better than ever that this "question" really is more an argument than a question. It doesn't question whether.... It presents an argument that so and so wrote the plays.
The more I think about it, the better what is written now works for me. -- Alan W ( talk) 05:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I have a couple of degrees in English lit, even taught it as a TA at university and at college level for a time after graduation, and I have no problem reading, but apparently I am too thick to understand what the problem is. The term "Shakespeare Authorship Question" is a well-known phrase (hence the title of the article); the phrase gets 39,000 hits on Goggle; the definition is succinct and accurate; the page is FA status and has been FA of the day twice; and while I, like Nishidani, am always up for better and more accurate prose, I cannot see how these suggestions are an improvement. Given the number of readers this page reaches (600 hits a day average), it would be impossible to tweak the language to suit every theoretical naive first-time reader (if such a thing exists). Tom Reedy ( talk) 14:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Responding to this: "On another note, do the RSs really use "Shakespeare authorship question" in such a way that it (grammatically) refers to a thesis rather than a question? I defer to you on the weight of the RSs, as I am no expert and perhaps you are. But at least one RS that really does that would be nice." https://books.google.com/books?id=W8KtHtT3jNYC&q=authorship+question#v=snippet&q=%22authorship%20question%22&f=false You can repeat that search with any of the sources used in this article. Helpful links to most of them are provided in the references section.
As far as I'm concerned, this topic has been exhausted. The article has had the same title since its inception 15 years ago. While we have seen several arguments about using the term "argument" in the lede, no one until now has found fault with the phrase "Shakespeare authorship question", and I feel confident that the issue can rest for another 15 years, by which time I'm sure I'll be beyond caring. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been watching this discussion, and my feeling is that "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that..." is correct usage. I don't really like to simplify sentence structure and vocabulary too far, because it's hard to know when to stop, but I suppose it's possible that this is a usage that many readers will find hard to parse, from lack of familiarity. If we were to agree that that's the case (and I'm not yet convinced) I think the easiest way around it would be to change the first sentence so it no longer includes the phrase "Shakespeare authorship question". Per WP:BEGIN, that's acceptable in certain cases. I don't think this is one of them, but I think that's the argument that would have to be made. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I wonder, would it help at all to think about "Shakespeare Authorship Question" as a proper noun? -- Xover ( talk) 06:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Why is "politicworm.com" denied a place here in the "External Links" list?
"PoliticWorm.com" is a Shakespeare Authorship Question site-- no different from any of the various others already in the list. I added it. It has been removed without comment. Why? Proximity1 ( talk) 08:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)proximity1
I would be ashamed to offer such flimsy excuses (Try : /info/en/?search=The_dog_ate_my_homework) for what appears to be so blatant an example of a double-standard.
This: ..."Shakespeare's biography, particularly his humble origins and obscure life, seemed incompatible with his poetic eminence and his reputation for genius,"...
appears to be a recent revision and it reeks of the insecurity which rightly attaches to this matter of Shakspere's education.
The excuses offered are "all over the map." E.g.
"First, the text is far too promotional." What, precisely, was "far too promotional" about the entry? You didn't bother to support that assertion by citing what you meant.
"Second, there are lots of websites"..."it is necessary to select a small number which have particular information that is useful yet which would be"... The passive-voice to the rescue-- "mistakes were made," "it was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it," etc.
As for "See No. 2 and No. 11. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)"
No. 2 reads : "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting."
As you well know, in fact, there is absolutely nothing in contemporary documented evidence to support today's Stratfordian scholars' echo-chamber of assertions that Shakspere "probably", "seems to have," "in all likelihood," attended the Stratford primary school of his day. There is zero evidence in the historical record for this suggestion--always couched in carefully-crafted speculative terms. See, passim, T.W. Baldwin, (1944, University of Illinois). Thus, all such sites fall afoul of this rule's prohibition, for they all peddle "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" about Shakspere's supposed education, Yet they're allowed.
Proximity1 ( talk) 08:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC) proximity1
Oh God. Another one.
Here's something else for you to read. Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
These pseudo-polite, pseudo-replies ignore the salient point raised:
there is _zero_ documentary evidence from contemporary sources which supports the hypothesis that Wm. Shakspere attended school--at all, anywhere, at any time. Yet sites which claim this are accepted for External Links. Editors here are blatantly enforcing a double-standard. When challenged, they throw up smoke-screen pseudo-arguments devoid of merit. This, by the way, is exemplary of the methodology of the professoriate
of Stratfordian proponents. A doctorate degree is not and has not been a signal feature of the people behind sites listed as External Links nor does it necessarily bear on the merits of reasoning in this particular matter. Since you've presumed to impute my motives, erroneously denouncing them as crassly commercial or "promotional"--as though your adherents aren't promoting just as well their views at External Links-- I'll express my candid thoughts on yours. It appears that people here are actually afraid of the cogency of the material at the site, Politicworm.
Proximity1 ( talk) 15:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC) proximity1
And you've ignored it and failed to offer any respectable reasoning. End of argument? Only because your view's dominance means you needn't listen and respond adequately. That's going to change eventually. Then I'll have said what I came to say.
Proximity1 —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
RE : the Read WP:NOTFORUM.
Please note the following users' notes from Wikipedia's guides:
"If you have a question, concern or comment related to improving a Wikipedia article, you can put a note on that article's talk page."
Other help and discussion locations
I want... Where to go
...help using Wikipedia Help desk ...to find my way around Wikipedia Department directory ...specific facts (e.g. Who was the first pope?) Reference desk ...constructive criticism from others for a specific article Peer review ...help resolving a specific article edit dispute or making a user conduct dispute complaint Requests for comment ...to comment on a specific article ----> Article's talk page
Proximity1 ( talk) 13:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Unified field, and the anonymous editor who added material: This is going to have to be reverted. This is a Featured Article, and everything in it was added after much debate and careful consideration over many years. This new material is inserted without integration into the rest of the article, using sources that are debatable, and has other issues. Please bring up these changes on the Talk Page first before adding anything. One example: I see a personal blog as one of the sources (maybe more, but I haven't checked all): not acceptable as a reliable source. -- Alan W ( talk) 14:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
This article has generated controversy for years. It is wrong for one editor to stifle dissent. The article does present some alternative views but then summarily dismisses them without adequate consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.126.58 ( talk) 20:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
(Note: from the "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard": ..."you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proximity1 ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Specifically, as examples of undue bias, I cite the following (lettered, A, B, etc.)
(A) Paragraph #1
In the very first paragraph of the present article about "The Shakespeare Authorship Question, this page disparages the "question" itself, describing the entirety of alternatives to William Shakespeare as author as being, in the opinions of
"all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians," "a fringe belief."
As an invitation to a novice reader to simply dismiss the topic right then and there, I could not imagine a more clearly non-neutral view. Why would someone be moved to continue reading after such an opening paragraph?
(B) In the page's "External Links," eight links are presented. Each and every one of them is by, from, for and about the Stratfordian view of the Authorship Question. A recent addition of a link to a site presenting one of the alternative views here was promptly deleted.
How is this page doing on the "Neutrality" score-board?
Proximity1 ( talk) 12:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Ian, "Fringe position" circumstances apply, per the cited page, in an article about a mainstream" idea. That is not the case here. See below. Your edits are hostile and unsupported by Wikipedia policy. Proximity1 ( talk) 13:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
"To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream" idea. The "Shakespeare Authorship Question," by its very character, cannot be about "a mainstream idea-- yet. Proximity1 ( talk) 13:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm disputing the the neutrality of the present article as it shows, in my opinion, clear and undue bias favoring a partisan view by using terms ("Fringe ideas") which seem to have for their intent to pre-emptorily dismiss the entire premise of the page itself as unworthy of serious consideration at all, and, as supposed support for that opinion, that the majority view means that a minority's opinion is ipso facto not deserving of presentation on fair and equal terms--even where the page topic itself is devoted to describing the majority/minority difference of opinion. Proximity1 ( talk) 14:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
"There are significant problems with this article, but the editors who hold a biased and unfavorable view of the subject have managed to have their position prevail. These editors have misconstrued what a fringe belief is in this area. They have mischaracterized the debate. Just because they have gotten away with it for so long is no reason it should continue."
I agree with that. "Just because they have gotten away with it for so long is no reason it should continue." Proximity1 ( talk) 18:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
(cited) The foregoing has not been respected here. Proximity1 ( talk) 18:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
That was quick. And bizarre. Tom Reedy ( talk) 05:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 74.75.126.58 ( talk) 23:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC) There is a raging debate about authorship. Wikipedia is badly out of step with current scholarship. Trying to stamp out dissenting views is never the answer -Waldron Bates
I am surprised that there is no mention of the John Florio Shakespeare authorship theory in this article. The article seems incomplete without it. Peaceray ( talk) 22:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help)Note: much of the Florio speculation overlaps with material already at Crollalanza theory of Shakespeare authorship.-- Mervyn ( talk) 09:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Scholarship has moved significantly over the past 20 years and that the view presented on wikipedia does not reflect the mainstream. alot of space is devoted to he devere and bacon authorship theories in particular are on the decline while scholarly and linguistic theories connecting marlowe are on the ascent. I footnote some 2017 studies. I would say the article is particularly biased in implying that computer linguistic studies reinforce the hypothesis that shakespeare wrote everything himself. I believe they suggest the opposite.
3) everything I wrote is meticulously footnoted and documented and presented in a fair and neutral manner.
4) if you delete my post in its entirety, you deny the wikipedia community an important resource, namely a summation of all Shakespeare works in chronological order and present the arguments relevant to each text. the chronological pattern is very important, because it highlights the earliest works are thought to be collaborations with Kyd, the next several tragedies are strongly attributed to Marlowe, then Shakespeare starts writing more on his own, and then as his business matures he delegates more to Middleton and Fletcher.
≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈
2a) some other aspects of the existing article which troubles me: it is written as if people are binary. pro-stratfordian or anti-stratfordian. that mindset made sense 20 years ago, but many scholars today are assuming multiple hands worked on each play, trying to parse out which phrases were edited by which co-author.
another thing which troubles me; the article seems more interested in advocacy than unencumbered analysis. so, for example, the article takes the standard argument that shakespeare lacked the education or background to write these works and attempts to turn it on its head, maintaining his fallability shows he was a likely candidate. i dont buy this argument for a minute, because the author of these plays had a level of erudition far from what could be obtained with a grammar school education. but mostly the article is written in a style of someone trying to defend a view at all costs rather than in a manner which suggests intellectual honesty.
I am sympathetic because it sounds like wikipedia is getting barraged with edits which overwhelm the editors. but may I humbly suggest you are getting so many edits because the article as written does not adequately cover the material, does not reflect recent scholarship, and is not open enough to divergent viewpoints.
also, I was not attempting to espouse anything new and radical. merely to summarize what I believe be to the scholarly consensus in a concise chronological chart format which does not presently exist. perhaps you wish to have separate columns presenting arguments for and against shakesperian authorship of each play. other readers are free to annotate this chart if I missed relevant arguments.
but simply deleting the chart (and other edits) cannot be the right answer
I take your point that Shakespeare Authorship is technically different than collaboration. However, the contention is Shakespeare was largely an actor and businessman whose collaborative efforts were relatively minor in many plays. After the initial feedback from AW, I worked hard to integrate the article with meticulous documentation. These range from scholarly papers and published books to highly respected newspapers and periodicals. The current article has clear biases as noted above. My chart was merely a summation of current consensus and arguments. Surely a useful tool, not available elsewhere to my knowledge. if the chart is misplaced in SAQ, I am happy to relocate it or have you do so. If other Wikipedia readers disagree, they should be free to annotate as I previously suggested.
Tom, thanks for your response. Collaboration is a misnomer. If recent scholarship is correct, Shakespeare may have written very litle of the canon, borrowing, stealing, or subcontracting liberally from the likes of Marlowe, Kyd, and Middleton. I dont think that view is yet the majority, but Wikipedia errs in characterizing it as a fringe viewpoint. I lean to that view because of the linguistic, thematic, and cultural similarities between Shakespeare's plays and sonnets to the known works and life events of the other authors. Also, as best I can tell Shakespeare lacked the education, erudition, and time to write all which has been attributed to him. My fear is that in many cases he simply redacted and added the comic relief.
The standard of whether a source is reliable ought be more objective than whether you agree with it.
Query: For those of us approaching the topic with an open mind and intellectual honesty, what publication best makes the case that Shakespeare wrote the bulk of his plays and poetry substantially by himself? Unified field ( talk) 00:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
This template has a group of people labeled "sceptics". If the SAQ is "the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him", wouldn´t something like "advocates" or "proponents" be better? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Is mentioned in this article and the template, but the gist of the Is Shakespeare Dead? article seems to be that he wasn´t very serious. Should we remove him, or expand this article with that possibility? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I don´t think this is anything that can be used as a source, but it was interesting, nonetheless.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The Friedman couple's work, William & Elizabeth, to the effect that no cyphers are present in the Shake-Spearean corpus is false, & should be removed from the article, as it is easy to disprove based on the Sonnets (where we find the correct hyphenated spelling of the Bard's name), as follows. Here below is the 9x16 grille from the 144 letters in the Sonnets Dedication as published by Thorpe. Jonathan Bond in his book proves that the Dedication was written by the Bard himself, but he did not include the 9x16 grille. I myself managed easily to find cyphers in the Grille as follows:
T–O–T–H–E–O–N–L–I E–B–E–G–E–T–T–E–R O–F–T–H–E–S–E–I–N S–U–I–N–G–S–O–N–N E–T–S–M–R–W–H–A–L L–H–A–P–P–I–N–E–S S–E–A–N–D–T–H–A–T E–T–E–R–N–I–T–I–E P–R–O–M–I–S–E–D–B Y–O–U–R–E–V–E–R–L I–V–I–N–G–P–O–E–T W–I–S–H–E–T–H–T–H E–W–E–L–L–W–I–S–H I–N–G–A–D–V–E–N–T U–R–E–R–I–N–S–E–T T–I–N–G–F–O–R–T–H
The word "RUNE" meaning "secret message" begins in row 9, columm 2, reading on the diagonal slanting to lower right. The words "ELSE WE" are in col. 1, beginning rows 5 and 12. Moving up and down the columns, we can read an entire admonition not to reveal secrets, presumably those detailed in the Sonnets themselves. The full message then reads as follows:
RUNE ELSE WE SIT LEG IN IR[O]N A NO WIT BET
I.e, given the political circumstances of Elizabethan England, revealing secrets might result in Tower confinement, and usually did. The word "IR[O]N" always has the letter "O" missing, occurring eight times, up, down, diagonal and angular.
Furthermore, I found the name of the Earl of Southampton double-spaced in three parts "[WR][IOTH][ESLEY]" in col.s 1 & 2.hgwb 03:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I hope the Wikipedia editors will recognize a basic fault in the Friedman's conclusions and omit the reference. hgwb 10:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC) hgwb 03:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
This thread appears to no longer be regarding any proposed improvements to the article, and consequently no longer serves any valid purpose. I therefore encourage everyone to refrain from further participation in this thread. -- Xover ( talk) 10:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Could you add an explanation after "glover" in section 2.1 ("Shakespeare's father, John Shakespeare, was a glover (maker of gloves) and town official"), or otherwise explain what it is? In section 5.4 there's an explanation ("The poet and dramatist Christopher Marlowe was born into the same social class as Shakespeare—his father was a cobbler, Shakespeare's a glove-maker") that could be switched with this one if you'd like. 208.95.51.38 ( talk) 14:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Much more work is needed here, but I've got off to a good start. --Susan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susandevere ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
People keep trashing my changes, but they make the article much stronger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susandevere ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I read in a Reader's Digest a long time ago that an early collection of Shakespeare's plays contained the note “To the only begetter of these plays, Mister W.H.” There has been speculation on who Mr W.H. was - if any one knows anything of this, it could be added to the article. Vorbee ( talk) 17:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Tom, about your last edit, removing that "typo". That was no typo. It just looked bad as it was presented by the template. That keyword in the template provides for the name of a series, and "Doing..." is the series. I know, it was confusing as it was presented. What if it is restored so it looks like: '"Doing..." series', with the word "series" to make it clear? Do you, or anyone, have any objection if I restore it that way? -- Alan W ( talk) 03:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The article does not currently express the (uncontroversial) fact that the basis of the doubt regarding attribution, originally, arose from the lack of any written primary source text by the author. The so-called foul papers which are frequently referred to, i.e. the author's manuscripts, have not survived for any of the 36 plays: there is no case in which the source text is other than a printed quarto or folio.
The actual signature of the author (the only confirmed extant specimen of his handwriting) has the appearance, visually, of being the handwriting of a person who has actual difficulty in forming the letters in his own name, leading some critics in the intervening centuries to question whether he could in fact even read and write properly.
Given that public education was non-existant prior to the 19th Century, some acknowledgement ought to be made in the article that, in the 16th Century, any type of education was restricted to the aristocracy, and to the sons of Gentlemen, and to the clergy. The notion that a tradesman's son (he was the son of a glover, i.e. a craftsman) would have received sufficient education is remarkably unlikely. However, his theatre company might well have employed a secretary (typically this would have been a clerk with a religious background), to maintain its written archives - including writing down its plays - and perhaps to function as prompter.
Surely the article ought to at least mention Shakespeare's likely educational background in connection with the absence of any handwritten manuscripts (accurately summed-up as 'foul papers' if his handwriting is evidenced exclusively by his signature), since it is the lack of any surviving manuscript which gave rise to the original doubts regarding his authorship.
The fact that the company used a clerk or secretary to record his dialogue makes sense of the lack of surviving examples of his handwriting, and of the poor caligraphy evidenced by his signature; while (potentially) a multitude of differing handwriting of various clerks over the years also makes sense of the term 'foul papers', and of the difficulty of setting them in print (to judge from the extensive printing errors in the quartos and folios).
The fact that it is unlikely that he could have written down the plays himself, but merely dictated them to a secretary, provides a reasonable explanation for the doubts which later were expressed, based on there being no playscripts with the folio. But one may examine the article, as it presently stands, without obtaining any understanding from it that a reasonable explanation might exist for the doubts about authorship which the article expresses.
Stephen Poppitt 15:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
This paragraph is overly detailed for an entry of this sort, it is inconsistent, it is speculative, and it is not backed by citations.
Shakespeare co-authored half of his last 10 plays, collaborating closely with other playwrights. Oxfordians claim that those plays were finished by others after the death of Oxford. However, textual evidence from the late plays indicates that Shakespeare's collaborators were not always aware of what Shakespeare had done in a previous scene, and that they were following a rough outline rather than working from an unfinished script left by a long-dead playwright. For example, in The Two Noble Kinsmen (1612–1613), written with John Fletcher, Shakespeare has two characters meet and leaves them on stage at the end of one scene, yet Fletcher has them act as if they were meeting for the first time in the following scene.[134]
1. The claim that Shakespeare co-authored half of his last 10 plays is not the scholarly consensus. 2. The paragraph suggests that he "collaborated closely' and then suggests that Fletcher didn't even know what Shakespeare had written. 3. This paragraph is only relevant to the Oxfordian theory of authorship; it isn't appropriate to be included in a general entry such as this that deals in general with the Shakespeare authorship question 4. It speculates that "they were following a rough outline rather than working from an unfinished script" even though there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the process on how The Two Noble Kinsmen was written.
Overall, this entry should be providing a general overview of arguments for the Shakespeare Authorship Question, proposed candidates, and then scholarly responses to this in general. It shouldn't be engaged in speculative arguments about obscure topics like the composition of a single play like Two Noble Kinsmen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Kfein ( talk) 05:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and edited this paragraph for brevity and clarity. Kfein ( talk) 14:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
This paragraph makes many dubious factual claims that are not sourced. I do not see how this is appropriate unless each suggested fact can be backed up by an independent reliable source. This appears to be original research? Or the wholesale lifting of a paragraph from a single source?
Shakespeare's plays differ from those of the University Wits in that they avoid ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin or of classical principles of drama, with the exceptions of co-authored plays such as the Henry VI series and Titus Andronicus. Instead, his classical allusions rely on the Elizabethan grammar school curriculum. The curriculum began with William Lily's Latin grammar Rudimenta Grammatices and progressed to Caesar, Livy, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Plautus, Terence, and Seneca, all of whom are quoted and echoed in the Shakespearean canon. Almost uniquely among his peers, Shakespeare's plays are full of phrases from grammar school texts and pedagogy, together with caricatures of schoolmasters. Lily's Grammar is referred to in a number of plays, including Titus Andronicus (4.10), The Taming of the Shrew (1.1), Love's Labour's Lost (5.1), Twelfth Night (2.3), and The Merry Wives of Windsor (4.1). Shakespeare alluded not only to grammar school but also to the petty school that children attended at age 5 to 7 to learn to read, a prerequisite for grammar school.[126]
1. "Shakespeare's plays differ from those of the University Wits in that they avoid ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin or of classical principles of drama" This needs to be independently sourced and verified that the works of Shakespeare have less Latin than plays by university-educated authors of the period. 2. "with the exceptions of co-authored plays such as the Henry VI series and Titus Andronicus" The co-authorship of these plays is a contentious issue in Shakespeare studies. It is not a settled question by any means. For instance, in his edition of Titus Andronicus, Jonathan Bate writes: "I believe that the play was wholly by Shakespeare and furthermore that it was not based on the chapbook; rather, it was one of the dramatist's most inventive plays, a complex and self-conscious improvisation upon classical sources" (page 3, Arden Series Three) 3. "his classical allusions rely on the Elizabethan grammar school curriculum." If this incredible claim is going to be included in the entry, it would need to be exhaustively sourced. For instance, the sources for Rape of Lucrece would need to be examined and aligned with the curriculum in the Stratford grammar school. 4. "Almost uniquely among his peers, Shakespeare's plays are full of phrases from grammar school texts and pedagogy, together with caricatures of schoolmasters." This needs to be independently sourced with evidence that this is a "unique" feature of Shakespeare. Kfein ( talk) 03:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and edited this paragraph for brevity and clarity.
Kfein ( talk) 14:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems excessive to devote an entire paragraph to the mention of two books and very long quote:
Since then, Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells have written a short e-book, Shakespeare Bites Back (2011),[215] and edited a longer book of essays by prominent academic Shakespeareans, Shakespeare Beyond Doubt (2013), in which Edmondson says that they had "decided to lead the Shakespeare Authorship Campaign because we thought more questions would be asked by our visitors and students because of Anonymous, because we saw, and continue to see, something very wrong with the way doubts about Shakespeare's authorship are being given academic credibility by the Universities of Concordia and Brunel, and because we felt that merely ignoring the anti-Shakespearians was inappropriate at a time when their popular voice was likely to be gaining more ground".[216]
The publication of these books seem like very minor events in the history of the Shakespeare Authorship Question. I propose removing the quote and instead summarizing it in a short sentence. Kfein ( talk) 03:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I shortened it and put it together with content in the previous paragraph. Reads much better now.
Kfein ( talk) 15:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I propose deleting this sentence:
Even the omnivorous reading imputed to Shakespeare by critics in later years is exaggerated, and he may well have absorbed much learning from conversations. Love 2002, p. 81 :"As has often been pointed out, if Shakespeare had read all the books claimed to have influenced him, he would never have had time to write a word of his own. He probably picked up many of his ideas from conversation. If he needed legal knowledge it was easier to extract this from Inns-of-Court drinkers in the Devil Tavern than to search volumes of precedents."
This is a very complicated issue. For each of Shakespeare's plays, specific source texts have been identified which Shakespeare must have read, and others source texts which he might have read. To treat this correctly would require a full paragraph of detailed, sourced exposition. The source cited here is just speculating about conversations Shakespeare might have had with "Inns-of-Court drinkers"; there is no documentary evidence whatsoever of such interactions. The assertion in the cited source that "if Shakespeare had read all the books claimed to have influenced him, he would never have had time to write a word of his own" is also speculative and would need to be independently sourced. It is also ridiculous on its face; if he had time to chat in taverns he could have used that time to read books.
I suggest deleting this sentence, and if someone can produce a paragraph of independently sourced information about Shakespeare's conversations and how they likely influenced his writing -- and his lack of time to read -- it should be added back to the article.
Kfein ( talk) 16:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence. If people think this is a defensible and necessary aspect of the article, it needs to be sourced and explained more carefully. Kfein ( talk) 13:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
This sentence is odd:
He refers to Shakespeare's "sug[a]red Sonnets among his private friends" 11 years before the publication of the Sonnets.[86]
Two of Shakespeare's sonnets were published in 1599 in The Passionate Pilgrim.
So I suggest changing this sentence to:
He refers to Shakespeare's "sug[a]red Sonnets among his private friends" **one year before the publication of two sonnets in The Passionate Pilgrim and** 11 years before the publication of the *Quarto Shake-speares Sonnets.*[86] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
We can't leave out the fact that they were published the next year, otherwise it creates a false impression. I'm happy with whatever wording people want to use, but this sentence creates the impression that Meres had special information about something when a year later Shakespeares Sonnets were published in a book with his name on it.
Kfein ( talk) 19:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The point is that in 1599 two of Shakespeare's Sonnets were published with his name on them. So it was publicly known that he wrote Sonnets a year after Meres' book. Someone reading this entry would think that it was only 11 years later that the public would have known about Shakespeare's sonnet writing. So it is misleading to the reader. We must strive for accuracy, clarity, and precision in an article as important as this.
Kfein ( talk) 17:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
A lot of the changes being made by Kfein ( talk) seem to be motivated by the incorrect perception that this is a generalized Shakespeare page and that all the information about Shakespeare should be exhaustive and inclusive of all known and inferred detail. While I applaud some of the changes, especially of organization and style, a good deal of it is just bloat, a lot of the sources are not of the quality needed for a featured article, and the formatting does not conform to the standards of an FA page. I'll be going through the individual edits in the coming weeks. It's probably time for a good rewrite anyway, though I don't know if I've got the energy for a long-drawn-out episode. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
It is also important to note that all of my major changes were first proposed and explained in the Talk page so that the reasoning behind them was clear and others could provide their own ideas and feedback. Only after waiting for responses did I go ahead and make the more substantial changes. My edits have improved both the style and content and accuracy of the article substantially. Kfein ( talk) 01:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Tom Reedy is engaging in an undo edit war about the changes I suggested for this paragraph:
Here is the version I posted:
the original has "literary". I added "linguistic" because it clarifies the meaning. A "literary" parallel might be a common character, metaphor, or scene. A "linguistic" parallel might be a common word or phrase. By saying "literary or linguistic" it clarifies what we are talking about.
I added "similarities to the political and/or religious positions of their candidate". One of the originators of the Shakespeare Authorship Question was Delia Bacon whose main argument relates to political position of the plays, as is discussed in depth in the article. So leaving this out makes the list very incomplete.
I added "literary allusions in works by comtemporaries" since that is something highlighted in the rest of the article and is a key argument made by anti-Stratfordians.
I changed "and hidden allusions and cryptographic codes in Shakespeare's own works" for clarity.
If Tom Reedy or anyone else thinks that additional sources are required for these edits, I encourage them to add them. But if there is going to be a list like this, it must be complete and accurate, hitting the main arguments made by adherents of alternative authorship theories. Kfein ( talk) 18:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I restored my edits of the section for clarity only, not adding any unsourced information:
Kfein ( talk) 19:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The proper way to have handled it would have been to added a "citation needed" flag to my edit, instead of simply undoing the entire contribution. In any case, I will find the appropriate page references in already cited books and add it in later. Kfein ( talk) 19:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Shakespeare authorship question. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Fortunately, my edits have been exemplary, and what you have posted:
Thank you for your continued support. I look forward to working with the Wikipedia community to bring this article up to the highest standards. Kfein ( talk) 02:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Kfein: Thanks for your edits but please be aware that this topic has been the subject of major disputes that were only resolved with an Arbitration Committee case, see WP:ARBPIA. The situation now is that edit summaries exhorting others to not engage in an undo war won't achieve anything you might want. Similarly, describing your edits as exemplary is not enough. I suspect that you have not had much feedback on your edits so far because, not counting the editors who were banned at WP:ARBPIA, everyone is rather tired of rehashing the subject and we were hoping that someone else would take the time to examine the changes in detail. I will look at the issues little later but wanted to let you know that it is necessary for everyone to engage with what others say. That must happen here, not in edit summaries. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
So this book is written by someone with a PhD in English who studies the Shakespeare authorship question and teaches it in a Coursera course for the University of London: https://leanpub.com/shakespeare
Is this a Reliable Source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfein ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Also is this a reliable source? It is published by a major academic publisher and the author has a PhD: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780429028540
Kfein ( talk) 04:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
How does this meet the definition of a Reliable Source: https://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html Kfein ( talk) 04:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
This doesn't seem like a reliable source to me: https://www.amazon.com/Was-Shakespeare-Lawyer-Reviews-Evidence/dp/B0006BMVXW Kfein ( talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
This is from 2009: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123998633934729551
So is this: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/justice_stevens_a_shakespeare_buff_says_real_author_was_nobleman
This article is from 2010: https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/justice-john-paul-stevenss-most-controversial-position/22472
These more recent:
WSJ, ABA Journal, Chronicle of Higher Education, New Yorker... those seem like big names in media to me. Maybe it deserves more than just a name on the list. I don't know what your criteria are for this. Please inform me. Kfein ( talk) 04:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Since there are so many topics not yet covered in this article, and this entire quote is only supported by a circular non-independent RS, I suggest this be shortened:
in which Edmondson says that they had "decided to lead the Shakespeare Authorship Campaign because we thought more questions would be asked by our visitors and students because of Anonymous, because we saw, and continue to see, something very wrong with the way doubts about Shakespeare's authorship are being given academic credibility by the Universities of Concordia and Brunel, and because we felt that merely ignoring the anti-Shakespearians was inappropriate at a time when their popular voice was likely to be gaining more ground".[219]
To this:
in which Edmondson says that they had "decided to lead the Shakespeare Authorship Campaign because we thought more questions would be asked by our visitors and students because of Anonymous, because we saw, and continue to see, something very wrong with the way doubts about Shakespeare's authorship are being given academic credibility by the Universities of Concordia and Brunel, and because we felt that merely ignoring the anti-Shakespearians was inappropriate at a time when their popular voice was likely to be gaining more ground".[219]
Kfein ( talk) 06:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the article currently does not even mention the hypothesis that Shakespeare was written by a woman. This article received a lot of media attention:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/who-is-shakespeare-emilia-bassano/588076/
it is an RS and was carefully fact-checked.
The Atlantic published many essays from well-known academics and Mark Rylance in response to this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/06/was-shakespeare-woman-responses/590851/
I think this all should be discussed in the section on mainstream media. Or it could be added as an external link. I added it as an external link but it was deleted, even though it is a RS with valuable content, fact-checked, and is well-written. Kfein ( talk) 06:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Here are mainstream media articles written in response to Elizabeth Winkler's original article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/06/was-shakespeare-woman-responses/590851/
OK I'm a bit confused. All of my responses above are to your insistence on including an external link to the article as per your title. Are you arguing for the link to be added or just a mention in the body of the article? Cos I can see adding a sentence containing a summary of the piece and a summary of the responses since it does qualify under the subhead. Tom Reedy ( talk) 18:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Kfein ( talk) 03:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
It is truly amazing to me how much time and energy I am wasting responding to attacks, responding to suggestions I stop working on this article and work on another one, responding to accusations that I am a vandal or representative of "anti-Stratfordian thinking", etc etc.
Paul Cantor spends a good deal of time in this video that came out today talking about the Atlantic Article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMM_Un6W_mQ
So now we have another top Shakespeare scholar responding to it. Kfein ( talk) 17:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
" lack of mss and letters was not factor in the rise of the SAQ in the 19th C. In fact it was a relatively late argument."
This comment was made in an edit instead of in Talk. It would seem to me such a major factual claim would need to be discussed in detail. But I guess that is not how things are handled on this Wikipedia article?
This is obviously false. I sourced my edit and dozens more examples can be provided. I am not prepared to fight against a biased editor with a strong agenda, and as I said I cannot handle the personal attacks on me.
There is a VAST literature on Shakespeare authorship from the 19th century. They are easily accessible to anyone. All of them talk about the lack of manuscripts and letters. This is obviously the genesis of the Shakespeare Authorship Question. If there were extant letters and manuscripts that matched Shakespeare's signature, no one would have doubted his authorship. If he had a vast extant correspondence, as people like John Donne did, that showed his excellent writing style, no one would have doubted his authorship. To suggest that the lack of letters and manuscripts was "not a factor in the rise of the SAQ" is completely unreasonable.
I can't engage in an undo war. So I hope other editors will deal with this issue. This article should be objective and unbiased. The issue of Shakespeare's signatures and the lack of manuscripts was studied in great and excruciating detail in the 19th century.
The Shakespeare Authorship Question may be a "Fringe Theory" but there are still historical facts about it that should be reflected accurately. That is the job of Wikipedia, to reflect historical facts accurately and also to reflect the scholarly consensus on issues accurately.
I wish everyone well. Kfein ( talk) 17:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
There is an implicit bias in the article that people may not realize because the article is almost entirely sourced from three or four polemic books which distort the history of the Shakespeare Authorship Question and also because it is obsessively focused on Oxfordian arguments.
some of the "pro-Shakespeare" stuff is original research or non-mainstream research. "one guy wrote something" is not a scholarly consensus
This paragraph seems very lightly sourced, there are over a dozen extremely dramatic factual claims, and it is all sourced to one chapter in one book. It also does not reflect the scholarly consensus:
I propose the deletion or modification of this sentence:
There is not a scholarly consensus that the Henry VI series and Titus Andronicus were co-authored. This is a very contentious question, and really shouldn't stated as fact in this general article. For instance, Jonathan Bate writes in The Arden Shakespeare, Third Edition, page 83: "Computer analysis of these suggests what literary judgement confirms: that the whole of Titus is by a single hand and that at this level its linguistics habits are very different from Peele's" (citing Metz, G. Harold. 1985. "Disputed Shakespearean Texts and Stylometric Analysis.")
The claim about University Wits only really applies to Shakespeare's earliest plays and would need a great deal of exposition to make into a logical or meaningful point. Many university-educated playwrights of the time did not engage in "ostentatious displays of the writer's mastery of Latin". I think a lot more detail, and other references, would need to be added to make that a coherent and useful part of this article.
I therefore propose the shortening of this paragraph to:
I believe the above rewrite is much easier to read, much more clear, removes questionable arguments, and is more brief. Kfein ( talk) 19:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Kfein ( talk) 05:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The article began with this sentence:
It is sufficient to say that "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory." There is no essential or substantial information added by "and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims." Even if there were substantial information added by that clause, it should be carefully sourced in the body of the article, not thrown into the first paragraph.
"and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims." should be deleted. If that is an important point, it can be worked into the article later. The first paragraph reads much better without that extra clause. The extra clause is actually quite confusing and it's not clear precisely what it means without further exposition.
Wikipedia entries should provide the essential information first. Adding extraneous verbiage to the beginning of an article makes it less useful to people who are using it as a quick reference. Those who need more detailed information can read further into the article.
This is just a basic principle of information design and organization. This article should be edited at a professional level with professional standards of clarity, precision, and organization. Removing "and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims" clearly improves the article as a whole. Kfein ( talk) 05:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no essential or substantial information added by "and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims."
Rather than trying to make Wikipedia conform to your subjective standards, I suggest you read out the links that were provided to you on your talk page when you first edited, especially WP:5P and the editing pages. Also in talkpage discussions, please conform to WP:INDENT, as you have been asked to do.
As to your objection to this particular edit, your idea that Wikipedia should read as smoothly as ad copy and that people can just look things up if they need more information is diametrically opposed to what an encyclopedia is about (See what I did there? I could have just written "opposed" and that would have been enough by your opinion, but it would not have had quite the same effect, would it?). The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is not aesthetic. While we don't talk down to readers, we give them enough information so that they don't need to have another reference work handy in order to fully understand the article they're reading. I agree that slick is good, except when it comes at the expense of necessary detail. That's why we often explain things parenthetically in reference articles. Don't get me wrong; I'm not claiming that this article is perfect as is and couldn't stand some improvement. While reading through your edit I caught some things that could stand some rewriting myself, but philosophically I'm in the "more information is better" camp, and I think most people who edit this page are also. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
If you call it a "fringe theory" that is enough. You do not need to go into an explanation of what a "fringe theory" is; even if you did, the clause doesn't really help explain it.
all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory, and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims
Kfein is referring to a remark made by Mike Leadbetter in his Facebook group Oxfraud, of which I am a member. I have never mentioned this little brouhaha there, so it's irrelevant to what's going on here. At one time Kfein was a member, but was kicked out for reasons that are also irrelevant to this discussion. I seriously doubt that Mike's parenthetical remark was intended as a "warning" (of what, I wonder?). Of course Kfein is free to take any action he wants, but I can say that I have been involved in SAQ matters for more than two decades now, and never has any Oxfordian or Baconian shown up at my door threatening my family or myself, nor have I ever heard of such or even thought about it happening, but then I'm not prone to conspiratorial thinking. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I tried to post a reply to this but it didn't take apparently. The point is that I have been harassed by members of that group on Twitter, including someone starting to post about my livelihood. An accusation of vandalism is extremely serious. The fact that no response was made to that accusation, explaining that in fact, I was not vandalizing the Wikipedia page, was a real shock to me. I also think that the way my edits have been portrayed in Talk messages have created an impression that I wasn't doing edits in good faith. I'm not interested in detailing everything, people an go back and read for themselves. Kfein ( talk) 18:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Dr. Ros Barber is a leading academic involved in Shakespeare authorship research. She is currently Senior Lecturer Goldsmiths, University of London, Dept of English & Comparative Literature.
She has a Coursera course sponsored by the University of London: https://www.coursera.org/learn/shakespeare
She has published many peer-reviewed articles on the subject of Shakespeare and Shakespeare authorship. Here is a selection:
Just as David Kathman's self-published, not peer-reviewed website is judged a RS: https://shakespeareauthorship.com/
I believe that Ros Barber's self-published book should be judged a RS: https://leanpub.com/shakespeare
Kfein ( talk) 04:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
On this website: https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/shakespedia/william-shakespeare/shakespeare-coat-arms/
It says:
This seems to imply that it wasn't until his father died that Shakespeare could call himself a gentleman.
In the article it says:
This book also seems to make a similar point, I don't know if it is an RS:
So it seems to be that some people are saying it wasn't until his father's death -- and he acquired the coat of arms through inheritance -- that he could call himself a gentleman.
I am sorry if this topic has been discussed in the past.
Kfein ( talk) 02:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I do not understand how this much detail is appropriate for an article of this type:
In 1853, with the help of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Delia Bacon travelled to England to search for evidence to support her theories.[158] Instead of performing archival research, she sought to unearth buried manuscripts, and unsuccessfully tried to persuade a caretaker to open Bacon's tomb.[159] She believed she had deciphered instructions in Bacon's letters to look beneath Shakespeare's Stratford gravestone for papers that would prove the works were Bacon's, but after spending several nights in the chancel trying to summon the requisite courage, she left without prising up the stone slab.[160]
I recommend shortening it to:
In 1853, with the help of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Delia Bacon travelled to England to unearth buried manuscripts she expected to find in Bacon's tomb and under Shakespeare's gravestone. She failed to inspect either location and found no manuscripts.
Anything more than that isn't of any interest to anyone. If you want a longer version:
In 1853, with the help of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Delia Bacon travelled to England to search for evidence to support her theories.[158] Instead of performing archival research, she sought to unearth buried manuscripts, and unsuccessfully tried to persuade a caretaker *failed* to open Bacon's tomb.[159] She believed she had deciphered instructions in Bacon's letters to look beneath Shakespeare's Stratford gravestone for papers that would prove the works were Bacon's, but after spending several nights in the chancel trying to summon the requisite courage, she left without prising up the stone slab.[160]
Kfein ( talk) 08:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)