Talk:Shakespeare's plays

Untitled

38 plays

you said that there are 37 plays so i counted and there are 38 please help

Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar is read worldwide by everyone, both young and old and is included in almost every English literature curriculum which is why it should be included among the plays listed in the intro. AmbExThErMaL 21:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. why not? AndyJones 22:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Seminal Productions of the Twentieth-Century

I agree with In Defense of the Artist. I think that these seminal productions have less to do with Shakespeare's reputation and more to do with the actual texts of the plays and how they are interpreted visually. I've got three more seminal productions to add.

HUH??????

What's with the Emperor Wang picture. GOD. I hate spammers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.47.166.42 (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

I think we should divide them up into Romances and Tragicomedies

Furthermore, the notes on this page were messed up, so I took the liberty to fix them and add a few more. Your reversion of my revision eliminated some notes that were already there. If we are going to state that some scholars view certain plays as Romances and Tragicomedies or "Problem Plays" then I think we should either do a revised list, like the one I put up, or keep two lists (the first folio and the one I put up). User: Ladb2000

I strongly oppose this suggestion. Just because "some scholars" refer to some plays in a certain way, is no reason to throw away 400 years of accepted catagories, as stipulated by the original publishers of the folio! By the way - theatres across the world typically stick with the comedy - tradgedy - history catagories. (and rarely even use the term "problem play" - because, I think, that theatre practitioners have no problems finding comedy in the comedies, for example.) Smatprt 01:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC) I would agree that the old-fashioned term "problem play" is not useful. It tends to raise more questions than it answers. Niceedgarst (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)niceedgarst

The generic designation "romances" has become fairly standard in recent years. Such well-regarded editions as Bevington and Riverside (among others) list the plays by these four genres: Histories, Comedies, Tragedies, Romances. Shakespeare courses at major universities use the term romance commonly. Niceedgarst (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)niceedgarst

Also you might look at the various wiki cites on article standards and the like. Lists are actively discouraged. I suppose this article must have one, but not two that are 95% duplication. Also - please check out the discussion going on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare, as we are addressing subjects such as these. Smatprt 01:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Where were most of his plays performed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.39.186.25 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 14 May 2007.

Problem Plays

The Problem plays wiki says that the term relates to the fact that these plays deal with a particular social problem by presenting a particular case, not that they are a problem to categorise. Can anyone clarify and make the two pages consistent? 194.74.200.66 12:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Soliloquies Section

Is this section needed? And if so, why the heavy bias with the article describing how monologues are overall not spoken by the character to the audience. I've performed several of these in front of an audience and they are always more "natural" when the audience is addressed. And the "asides" in Comedy of Errors are exactly that "asides to the audience" not muttered with the hope that no character will hear them. In fact the best way to get the audience to react to these asides is through direct address. This is based on performance experience not academic musings. My suggestion is removal of the article. Also in the soliloquies article it states: "A monologue is an extended, uninterrupted speech or poem by a single person. The person may be speaking his or her thoughts aloud or directly addressing other persons, e.g. an audience, a character, reader, or inanimate object." This is a much more inclusive and accurate description. Spinackle (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Plays of Doubtful Authorship

There is widespread scholarly agreement that Shakespeare did indeed write two scenes of Sir Thomas More. Niceedgarst (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)niceedgarst

Then such should be easy to cite. --Xover (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of WP:ONEWAY and why it disallows the insertion of the Shakespeare authorship question

From Wikipedia:Fringe theories:

Mention in other articles

Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.

No independent reliable sources connect Shakespeare's plays to the Shakespeare authorship question in any way except to declare that the idea is a fringe theory and virtually all academic scholars accept that William Shakespeare was the author of the canon.

It is obvious that WP:ONEWAY concerns content, so any argument that the insertion of the SAQ is a "content dispute" and not a WP:ONEWAY violation is fatuous. I hope that is clear enough. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added refs to mainstream scholars such as Bate, Schoenbaum, etc. who all discuss the authorship issue as it relates to the plays. To say that the issue has nothing to do with the plays is simply nonsense. The refs are all RS and mainstream. They connect the topic to the issue and are all independent sources. And yes, this is about content and any challenge should go to the content noticeboard. Smatprt (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been reverted several times on this, yet your persistence indicates that you either don't understand the policy against the addition of fringe material or you're trying to get around it. This is not a WP:RS issue, so the reliability of the refs is not the problem. In fact, the refs you supplied support the Wikipedia policies that prohibit the inclusion of the material. Please read WP:ONEWAY and WP:COATRACK. You cannot link main page material to extreme fringe material. If you revert back this is the next step. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Smat you used in your last edit refs to make a promotional blob for your fringe theory. It's discussed at SAQ, the appopriate place. There's no point in pasting this junk all over Shakespeare articles. It's a form of promotional spam, tout court. That is its function, since there's nothing there to interest readers of the plays.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Without stepping into the middle of your merry little exchange here, let me just note for the record that I concur with Tom on this: there's no good reason to discuss the Authorship in this article, and certainly not to have an entire section devoted to it. In terms of the cause of the difference of opinion, I would speculate that it seems appropriate to include it from the point of view of someone whose main focus is Authorship, but that for the rest of us it is obviously inappropriate. (Note, though, that this should not be construed as any kind of accusation of POV pushing; it's merely my very subjective speculation as to the underlying cause of the disagreement.) On the other hand it would be very good to have better coverage on the topic of authorship; the short summary section on collaborations is a bit weak in my opinion.
PS. In this context, Schoenbaum is the only one I would consider a reliable source. Bate, Love, and Matus' strengths lie more in interpretation of the plays—literary criticism—than literary history, biography, and small-a authorship. Anyway, it is, as Tom points out, a moot point in this case. --Xover (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Xover, are you seriously saying that the authorship issue has nothing to do with the plays??? If so, then WP:ONEWAY would apply. But the issue is indeed discussed prominently by independent reliable sources, so in terms of applying ONEWAY, I simply can't agree. In terms of it being its own seciton or not, I have no problem with wrapping the material into the section on authorship/collaboration. Is that a reasonable compromise? Smatprt (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, in a word: yes. The thing is that while the plays are obviously very relevant to the Authorship theory, the reverse is not the case; the subject of the article is Shakespeare's plays, which you can, and should, discuss at length entirely without coming anywhere near the topic of capital-a Authorship. To somewhat rehash my speculation about the cause of the disagreement above, the logic chain here means that once you accept as a premise that the Authorship theory is true, then the opposite relationship becomes relevant. This is where I suspect you're taking a wrong turn, logically speaking; since you, as far as I understand, believe the Authorship theory to be correct, your reasoning includes this as a premise. But once you turn it around and look at it from the other perspective, you realize that even the most ardent Authorship enthusiasts will admit (in fact, they often complain vocally about this fact) that the current state of mainstream scholarship is that the Authorship theory is false. Once you evaluate the merits of including the debated material in this article based on that premise, the conclusion I (and apparently Tom and Nishidani too) have reached becomes more apparent.
Take small-a authorship as an example: for a play where mainstream scholarship suggests possible collaboration with another playwright (1H6, say) the topic is very relevant to a treatment of that play and the plays in general, but for a play where mainstream scholarship does not generally consider it a collaboration (like The Tempest) the topic of authorship is not relevant and should be omitted from most treatments. This doesn't, of course, mean that one cannot discuss possible authorship issues regarding that play, but the place to do that would be in a venue for original research; and the discussion would be inappropriate for the relevant Wikipedia article until the general consensus of scholarship changes in its favor. In this specific case, since mainstream scholarship does not consider the capital-a Authorship of Shakespeare's plays to be in question, that theory's relevance to this article fails to obtain.
Anyways, I hope you'll forgive me if I've missed the mark on your reasoning (speculating as to another's chain of reasoning is always a risky proposition, I know); but I do sincerely believe you've taken a wrong step somewhere in there, and in this rather… heated… atmosphere it would be quite hard for anyone to take a step back and reconsider the issue. --Xover (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

According to wp:ONEWAY, "Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." Recent books on Shakespeare and the plays by Schoenbaum, Wells, etc - all have a chapter or section on the authorship question. They discuss it seriously (if only to dismiss it) and prominently (much more than a passing mention). More so with the New York Times and other major media. So if they mention it, why shouldn't we? Smatprt (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. This is why we should (and here I believe I'm in disagreement with Tom, at least to some degree) discuss it in the main William Shakespeare article: it is a “significant controversy” (as the FA criteria, as I recall, puts it). But the Authorship theory is primarily a question about the identity of William Shakespeare; even if, say, the Oxfordian theory was proven perfectly correct tomorrow, this article, and the various treatments of the plays, would not (necessarily) change much, if at all (should not if we've written it properly). Schoenbaum, for instance, is writing a biography of Shakespeare, and includes a discussion of Authorship for much the same reason we do it on the main William Shakespeare article: it's a significant controversy, he intends to dismiss its merits, and he ties it in with a general discussion of Bardolatry. In particular, to the degree he talks much about the plays qua plays at all, he doesn't discuss the Authorship issue in that context at all (neither, really, do the major Complete Works editions, for obvious reasons).
Also, please note that the standard referred in WP:FRINGE sets a minimum bar for inclusion, below which material should under no circumstances be allowed; but this is not the same as suggesting that a topic that can meet this minimum bar necessarily should be included. --Xover (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

While obviously authorship has something to do with the plays, the plays have nothing to do with authorship. No independent reliable sources connect the two topics in a serious or prominent way, contrary to your interpretation. The only reason they discuss it is to dismiss it, which is far from taking it seriously, and the works in which they do so are not works about the plays. I am preparing a requst for comment, which will not be 3O, since more than two editors are involved. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems on all Shakespearean pages is, what to include. The historical depth of criticism, the sheer volume of commentary within specialist circles, for all the works, and each play, means, for me, that one must focus sharply on relevance of incisive, and original contributions to the respective historical details, and interpretations. When I see variations on the same 'blob' of material thrown in here, there, and if unchecked, everywhere, I feel the point of the exercise is not to illuminate the reader about the subject 'Shakespeare's plays' or any one of them, but rather to draw the reader into examining what is a fringe theory. In other words, these blobs serve as redirects that draw one from the theme of any specific page, to the world of Oxfordian counter-factual hypotheses. If one compromises on this, one sets a precedent for turning all pages into battlegrounds where, almost exclusively, our Smatprt will try to negotiate the invariable mention of what remains an untestable hypothesis. It can't be tested because, as all agree, no 'smoking gun' document exists, despite 160 years of intensive searching, to give a minimal credibility to the 'thesis'. We are obliged to work, optimally, harvesting the best criticism from the most severely academic sources, which abound. Perhaps Smatprt's belief-system reflects a truth history has maliciously veiled or concealed, but there's no evidence for it, and to use wikipedia to publicize the 'movement', and possibily to recruit followers, is, I think, improper. The proper thing for him would be to provide a superlative examination, from his perspective, of the SAQ article, and offer it as a challenge to the page both Tom and I have worked on intensively for several months. So far, he hasn't undertaken to pull that 'Oxfordian' angle on the SAQ issue up to even minimally readable or acceptable wiki standards. The old article he was asked to rewrite languishes in total desuetude, orphaned. Surely that is where his talents should be devoted, rather than spreading himself thin, in dabbing and tweaking numerous articles, only to get us all dragged in to repetitive arguments. The additions here and elsewhere, more or less, playing off the same old template, do not illuminate anything.Nishidani (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Is a section about the Shakespeare authorship question appropriate for this article?

One editor, Smatprt, continues to reinsert fringe content discussing the Shakespeare authorship question into the article Shakespeare's plays, which I have reverted with the explanation that its inclusion is in violation of WP:ONEWAY, which states that “Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way” and “If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.”

He has been reverted by three editors, myself, Nishidani, and Verbal, and another editor, Xover, has weighed in against the inclusion of the material. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have withdrawn through exhaustion from the long-standing edit war of the rest of Wikipedia trying to contain Smatprt's solo campaign within reasonable compass but, as there seems to be something of a head-count going on here, please count mine. There are two articles discussing the topic and that's more than sufficient.

As Shapiro notes about these articles, it's persistence and manipulation that count here, not academic expertise. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

First, please note that when listing an RFC, the initial comment is supposed to be worded in a "neutral" way. Citing a supposed "violation" is hardly neutral. Also, when mentioning another editor by name, you are supposed to alert that editor by way of a posting on their talk page. Neither of these procedures were followed, tainting the process.

In response to the RFC, as stated above, it appears that Tom/Nishi/et al are seriously saying that the authorship issue has nothing to do with the plays themselves. If that were so, then WP:ONEWAY would apply. But the issue is indeed discussed prominently by independent reliable sources (provided in the deleted section) when discussing the plays, so in terms of applying ONEWAY, it simply does not apply. In terms of it being its own seciton or not, I have no problem with wrapping the material into the section on authorship/collaboration, if that is deemed a reasonable compromise.

In terms of Tom's comment about a "coatrack" - does anyone here seriously consider the brief mention to cause the article to be a "coatrack"? In other words, does anyone really believe that this article (with the section included) would only exist to draw attention to the authorship question? (A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject.) Or was that statement merely a red herring? Smatprt (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the comment to a NPOV, and in any case is as neutral as this, which I just now discovered. The "coatrack" argument is Wikipedia policy, not my invention. To your other objection that I did not notify you, I did not know that was SOP, and next time I will be more diligent, but I did mention that I was going to solicit outside opinions. As to the heart of the matter, we have all discussed it thoroughly enough so that we all know each others's views, so let's just sit back and wait for outside opinions from non-involved editors. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel compelled to make a comment here because there seems to be a serious failure of sense of proportion displayed in some of the remarks above. Let me make clear that I personally see no reason to doubt that Shakespeare's works are correctly attributed in the folios. At the same time I know that there have been repeated attempts over a long period to re-attribute them, so that the SAQ is clearly notable. Furthermore merely to raise the question is certainly legitimate and is harmless, or even beneficial in that considering it can be used to clarify the relationship between the works and Shakespeare the man. I have re-read WP:Coatrack; it has no relevance whatever to this issue. The proposed paragraph is well sourced and NPOV. The article is currently very deficient in sources. I think that those who wish to improve it would make better use of their time and expertise if they turned their attention to rectifying that situation. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me clear up what seems to be a misunderstanding: The applicable rationale given is WP:ONEWAY, not WP:COATRACK.

The section is not well-sourced. It is very easy to find reliable sources to say that anti-Stratfordians believe that someone else wrote Shakespeare's plays. However, this article is about Shakespeare's plays; to bring in authorship requires independent, reliable sources that discuss Shakespeare's plays and connects them with the Shakespeare authorship question in a serious and prominent way. The sources given are reliable for a discussion of authorship, and they are used as such in the appropriate article. You won't find any independent reliable sources that discuss Shakespeare's plays in the light of authorship; those that do aren't reliable and those that are reliable don't. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I really feel some of you may be putting on blinders here. The authorship question is about two things and they are always mentioned in tandem - Shakespeare, and the plays which are attributed to him. In terms of the authorship question, you can't discuss one without discussing the other - and every source that mentions one also mentions the other. Much has been made about my particular POV, but it seems to me that Tom/Nishi/OldMoon are making their arguments solely due to their own POV, so much so that they (or at least Tom) fail to recognize the points made my SamuelTheGhost above. It should be noted that Samuel is the only uninvolved editor who has weighed in on this question. Smatprt (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding WP:ONEWAY, it has already been explained why it does not apply. To repeat - the deleters are saying that the authorship issue has nothing to do with the plays themselves. If that were so, then WP:ONEWAY would apply. But that assertion simply does not hold water. The SAQ is indeed discussed prominently by independent reliable sources (provided in the deleted section) that discuss the plays, so in terms of trying to use the ONEWAY rule, it simply does not apply. Smatprt (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, while we're discussing this, could you perhaps avoid restoring the section under debate? Tom and Nishidani will just revert you, and then we'll have a revert-war rather than a reasoned (FSVO) discussion.
And in the interest of keeping the discussion reasoned, perhaps you could provide some specific examples of the sources that support your argument? For instance, of Schoenbaum's, I have both A Compact Documentary Life and Shakespeare's Lives sitting in my shelf where they can be easily consulted; and while I must admit it's been a while since I read them, I cannot recall that they discuss capital-a Authorship in relation to the plays. He does, of course, discuss the plays in connection with Authorship, but, as mentioned above, that's the opposite relationship to what would be relevant here.
Finally, is not the salient point of the Authorship theories as they relate to the plays qua plays, the small-a authorship and their dating? These are both issues that do belong in this article (in some manner), and where reliably sourced and notable issues that happen to be interesting to Authorship theorists as well as mainstream scholars would be appropriate to include. For instance, while I am not, personally, impressed with the scholarship exhibited in the recent Stritmatter–Kositsky paper on dating The Tempest, I have no particular complaint about including it in the general discussion on dating in that article; where it fits in nicely (some recently introduced weight and balance issues aside) in the range that starts with Malone and his contemporaries and, so far, ends with Vaughan's paper responding to Stritmatter-Kositsky. I would, however, object vehemently to an entire section on Authorship in that article—for reasons similar to this article—irrespective of how interesting The Tempest happens to be to the Authorship theories (as I understand it, an earlier dating of The Tempest is critical for, in particular, Oxfordians and Marlowians). It is the matter of weight again: from the perspective of an Authorship adherent, the related material is absolutely critical to include in nearly all Shakespeare articles; but for mainstream scholarship—which is what Wikipedia concerns itself with—the Authorship issues are mostly irrelevant (unless the blind hen happens to strike gold, as they say) and does not pertain much of anywhere except as regards the man (as the core tenet of Authorship is to question the identity of the man, and everything else follows from there).
As Samuel so rightly points out, expending this much energy on this topic when there is so much to be done to improve the article overall does leave somewhat of an unfortunate taste on the palate. --Xover (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

". . . expending this much energy on this topic when there is so much to be done to improve the article overall does leave somewhat of an unfortunate taste on the palate." This is true. Smatprt is serially going through each Shakespeare-related topic and instigating the exact same argument. He hasn't won a case yet, and policy is clear on this, but until some higher authority steps in and lays down the law, this is how we are forced to spend our time if we edit Shakespeare-related articles. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Serious authorship questions regarding Shakespeare's plays, as I think 99% of us know, concern the kinds of issues revived with vigour by Brian Vickers and MacDonald Jackson. Authorship studies do not question who Shakespeare is, since there is no evidence to work on. They question who Shakespeare worked with, and how. With several here, I would like to register my impatience with the way some of us are induced to reverting material that has no foothold in serious scholarship on Shakespeare and his plays. Since this is a repetitive form of behaviour, with a potential to extend over, and disrupt, several dozen wiki pages which still require serious revision according to mainstream sources, I would repeat my suggestion to Smatprt to give this hyperactivism a rest, work the two pages or three pages where the Oxfordian hypothesis is showcased. As they are, they run far beneath the basic requirements for quality on wikipedia, and no one conducts revert wars with him there, where he can exercise a total liberty to show us the depth, intelligence and incisiveness of the results of 'alternative scholarship'. Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this dispute through Tom Reedy's post at the Fringe theories noticeboard. I agree with Nishidani. Smartprt is simply spamming this article with a blob of fringe nonsense that doesn't belong here; his energy would be better spent improving the pages that deal specifically with the authorship "controversy". --Akhilleus (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom misrepresents the facts once again. If anyone is "serially" going through articles it is he. A dozen deletions over the last few months of long-standing material, often made without discussion and rarely any consensus (which he seems to think means vote counting among like minds.) Now he is wp:Forum shopping, not liking the comment he received from one uninvolved editor. After listing an rfc, he has now brought the issue to two more noticeboards - boards that are filled with like minds instead of the more neutral rfc approach. Smatprt (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So what? I posted it at the fringe theory noticeboard (the dispute is over the interpretation of WP:ONEWAY from WP:FRINGE, the Shakespeare project page, and the William Shakespeare talk page, all appropriate venues. The more attention the better. Let's press this thing to a final conclusion, all the way up to Jimmy Wales if necessary. I'm tired of wasting my time and energy on it, but I'm not going to retire and let you have your way in defiance of Wikipedia policies.

And I suggest you actually read WP:FORUMSHOP before slinging accusations. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid all I can see is an SPA working a promo campaign to get a fringe view visibility. The Tempest was noted, and there's been success there, in the sense that the dating section, which surveys views from Malone (1790s) to the present day has over a third of its space, which should incorporate judgements extending over 2 centuries, devoted to a few articles by Roger Stritmatter (an academic in a minor college) and Kositsky, a Canadian writer with no known background in Elizabethan scholarship (i.e., Recentism), appraised as 'devastating' by William Leahy who is introduced as editor of Critical Survey, when he happened to be simply a 'guest editor' for an issue, and, being of the Oxfordian persuasion, stacked it with Oxfordian arguments, which convince him, because he is already convinced, but no one outside the fringe fold in Shakespearean studies generally.

As Shapiro, the most recent historian of the movement says, they haven't really a leg to stand on, but they excel in self-promotion, and wikipedia has become one of their focal points for gaining exposure. I think it fair that Stritmatter's view be registered, but (and I've read them) a third of the article, and 'devastating' from a friend, presented as trhe regular editor of a journal he was only invited to edit as a guest to lend space to the fringe perspective, highlighted in this manner? The whole thing has been crafted as promo, and that Leahy quote is deceptive. Good work, This is an example, again, of a successful violation of WP:Undue.

As to the remarks above generally, add Stay on Topic and cruft are also appropriate. This publicitarian jig is getting editors off-topic, as they are drawn into a fringe topic that has very little to do with serious scholarship on Shakespeare.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As silly as I consider the authorship "debate", the paragraph in question appears to be cited to reliable sources, is way down at the bottom of the article, and even contains a sentence about its own dismissal. As an inclusionist, I support keeping it in, with a bit of reorganization. ("For over 150 years" is the same as "The public debate dates back to the mid-19th century", so the latter sentence is redundant and can be removed. I also think the paragraph should close with the sentence about how most scholars dismiss this theory.) Scartol • Tok 15:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)