Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1

Shakespeare authorship question

Shakespeare authorship question (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1

Nominator(s): Tom Reedy (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) and Paul B (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Over the past 14 months this article has received an extensive makeover that at one time involved probably half of Wikipedia's administrators (not really, but it sure seemed that way sometimes). It is probably the most accurate and balanced short treatment of the topic that can be found on the Internet. POV issues were wrung out of the article (often painfully) during an intensive editing process by many excellent editors over the past few months. Once the scene of many POV battles, the article and talk page have achieved a high degree of stability over the past several months and has been edited with a high degree of collegiality. All references used in the article are from scholarly and reliable sources, an achievement in itself given the nature of the topic. Thanks to a lot of extremely talented editors, this article can serve as a model for other related Wikipedia articles. My hope is that this group of editors continues to work on those pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Tom has put in a tremendous amount of effort over the past year, and there has recently been a nice collaboration going with several editors involved in the preparations for FAC. I am happy to certify this nomination. --Xover (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This article does not meet the listed criteria. The prose is pedestrian. It is certainly not 'engaging, even brilliant'. The article is not 'comprehensive'. It neglects major facts concerning the reasons why certain individuals have been proposed as authorship candidates. It is not particularly well-researched, for the same reason that it is not comprehensive. It is decidedly not neutral, and if it is accepted for featured article status it will be a triumph for outright censorship on Wikipedia since all editors other than those supporting the orthodox view of the authorship controversy were either discouraged from contributing to the article or outright banned by Wikipedia. It has been the subject of ongoing edit wars for four years, and is only recently 'stable' because editors who did not support the orthodox view were banned from editing. It is an overly lengthy treatment of the topic with an abundance of unnecessary footnotes, and its structure is illogical, as the historical section is in the middle of the article.72.234.212.189 (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that this topic area has been the subject of a recent ArbCom case and that standard discretionary sanctions have been authorized. The IP-edit above amply illustrates why that was necessary, and I would urge everyone to not needlessly engage with the various drive-by commenters that have been an issue whenever this topic has been the subject of a community process in the past. --Xover (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, I wish to make clear right off the bat that FAC delegates will remove commentary by users or socks of users who were banned from this topic area. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'll say once more: Off-topic discussion, continuation of previous disputes, and discussion of editors will not be tolerated on this page. I've just moved volumes of nonsense to the talk page—if this can't kept to concise statements directly actionable to WP:WIAFA, I will consider administrative actions for disruption applied to involved individuals. This is not the place to carry on your disputes and grind axes. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Dab / EL check no disambiguation links and all external links (ELs) check out. There are six ELs which need access dates added, and the "Denying Shakespeare" article needs a "subscription required" tag. Note this is not a review of the sources themselves, just using the tools. Image review to follow, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Done, although manual checking of the references section found 13 URLs requiring accessdate, and when I checked those, 3 required subscription. All done. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Image Review I was asked to review the images in this article last month and did so here. I have just finished looking at all of the images again. While almost all of the images are clearly free (mostly as they are old enough to be out of copyright), many of them were originally lacking some of the required information as to sources, etc. that images should have. Almost all of my concerns with existing images have been addressed since that review, but I still have two concerns, one major for a new image, and one minor for an old image.
  • The major concern is with File:Shakespeare-1747-1656.jpg - this is a composite of two images. The black and white one on the left is clearly old enough to be free, but the color one on the right is taken from a file on the Slovenian Wikipedia. This in turn was taken from an English Wikipedia file File:Shakespeare effigy.jpg, but that image was deleted in 2006 as a copyvio. Fortunately there is a free version available (although all black and white) at File:Monument images 1656 1904.jpg.
    • Please note also that the source information for File:Shakespeare-1747-1656.jpg is pretty unclear. If a new color image is added to this file, then the source infromation will have to be cleaned up too. Note that File:Monument images 1656 1904.jpg does a nice job on sources, etc. (There are some decent color images on Flickr - I can ask if the photographer will change to a free license if you want). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Cipher wheel.jpg is taken from a book, but it would help to have more complete information about the book on the image page. My guess is that it is this book on Google books, so adding a link as well as publisher, location, page number, etc. would also help.Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I have corrected the cipher wheel source and the link. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Note that I've reverted the image to the old black and white one until the new one is either fixed or we find a new image with suitable license status to replace it with. --Xover (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
      • All image concerns resolved. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: In view of the number of cited sources, the sources review may take a while, but it is under way. Brianboulton (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

(Later): The sources in general look excellent. There are a few general issues arising:-

• Several sections have uncited material:-
  • "Case for Shakespeare's authorship", first paragraph
  • "Death of Shakespeare", final paragraph
    • I have sourced the above two. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford", first paragraph.
    • Per the note on my talkpage, if the uncited sentence summarises the material in the subsequent paragraph, it should be transferred to the beginning of that paragraph. Uncited paragraph endings will always provoke questions about citation. Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I have moved the sentence to the beginning of the 2nd graf. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby", second paragraph.
    • I see Paul has added the missing citations to this section. --Xover (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Citations
  • Shapiro page ranges: the significance of the parenthetical figures should be noted, e.g. (p. 317 (US p. 281) Maybe do this just for the first one?
  • Citation 170 "quoted in..." Is it not possible to cite the quoted article directly?
  • Citations 175 and 211 read simply "Ross". From the standpoint of the inexpert reader it would be helpful if the citation was a bit more specific, e.g. "Ross (Oxfordian Myths)"
    • Citation 170 is now Citation 172. The source, Shapiro, does not provide specific notes, as opposed to a generic bibliographical essay. The relevant thematic note (Brit. ed.p.346) appears to direct us to the non-RS Shakespeare Oxford Society Newsletter,, to two issues (15 May, 1966, and 15 Dec 1966), which cannot be quoted directly since we filter fringe sources through academic works on them. 'Quoted in' is specified here to clarify that the judgement is by Oxfordians themselves, not by academics hostile to them. Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Taking a cue from our two featured play articles (Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet) I've added an explanatory note to the beginning of the References section regarding the UK vs. US page numbers for Shapiro 2010. I've also tweaked the citations to Ross so that they appear as “Ross (Oxfordian Myths)”. I concur with Nishidani: the original article is in this context to be considered a primary source and must be filtered through a reliable secondary source (i.e. Shapiro 2010). --Xover (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
      • But is Ross, Oxfordian Myths a RS (refs now 177, 212)? It is just a web page, written by someone who has a non-academic university post. Also the links in the article, to the article he is criticising, do not work. Poujeaux (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes. If you've got a couple of spare hours and a strong will to live see WP:RS/N Archive 57 Shakespeare authorship question source. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• References: Citations apparently lacking for the following listed references:-
  • Alexandra Alter's Wall Street Journal article 9 April 2010
  • Bacon, Francis (2002). Vickers, Brian. ed. Francis Bacon: The Major Works Again, I can see no citations to this, either.
  • Hammond, Paul (2004)
  • Honigmann, E. A. J. (1998).
    • Removed. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I have restored the first two of these because they are used (search for "Alter 2010" and "Bacon 2002" to confirm). Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Citations
  • Shapiro page ranges: the significance of the parenthetical figures should be noted, e.g. (p. 317 (US p. 281) Maybe do this just for the first one?
  • Citation 170 "quoted in..." Is it not possible to cite the quoted article directly?
  • Citations 175 and 211 read simply "Ross". From the standpoint of the inexpert reader itt would be helpful if the citation was a bit more specific, e.g. "Ross (Oxfordian Myths)" (points listed twice)

I should be obliged if someone with the appropriate tool would do the copyvio checks. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

All sources/citation issues raised by me have been resolved satisfactorily. The query about the reliability of "Ross" is someone else's. Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• This seems to fail 1e (stability) right now. Perhaps this should be brought back to FAC in a month or two? Just my two cents. NW (Talk) 18:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process."

If you're referring to all the comments and complaints from authorship advocates that have been moved to the talk page, that will never cease, but as far as the page goes it's been stable for a while now, greatly facilitated by the a recent ArbCom case that put the entire topic (and this page in particular) under standard discretionary sanctions to enforce Wikipedia policy and halt POV edit warring. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I can understand the reaction, but let's stick to the actual wording of the criteria here. Wrad (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, one would hope that the ArbCom case helped. But I'm not entirely convinced of that—there was that edit war yesterday with BenJohnson, for example. NW (Talk) 19:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I see this as a partial WP:IAR case - if the article has to have absolutely no edit wars (and is not protected), then those who espouse the finge theories only have to edit war to keep this from ever being a FA. If one takes a historical perspective, this is stable. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a judgment call. Please don't take this as my brushing the issue aside, but perhaps we can leave this to the FA coordinators to decide and in the meantime focus on content? I think I speak for many of the nominators when I say that such a focus would be welcome. Wrad (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - with regard to Criterion 1a. This is an engaging and well-written (brilliantly in places) contribution. I have a few nit-picks, but these are for consideration only.

I didn't like "run-ins with the law". I think it spoiled the eloquence of the prose.

There is a possible fused participle here "leaving a signed will disposing of his large estate". I don't mind them if the meaning is clear, but others do.

Here, "The language of the will is mundane and unpoetic, and makes no mention of personal papers, books, poems, or the 18 plays that remained unpublished at the time of his death; it also omits shares...", the subject of the sentence is the language of the will, not the will. So what does "it" refer to? And how about "prosaic" instead of "unpoetic"?

Final nit-pick, how about "twelve" instead of "a dozen"?

Thank you for all the hard work on this article. Graham Colm (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Would "brushes with the law" be better? I don't like the cacophony of "altercations", but that's just a personal preference.

RE "unpoetic" vs "prosaic", I think the first points out the contrast between the language of the will and what anti-Stratfordians imply the language should be in the will of a poet; it's the expectation vs the reality that is seen as some kind of evidence. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• • I've adjusted 'run-ins' to 'brushes'.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments - I'm not going to support or oppose this article since I've done a bit of work on and related to it, but I have some comments/suggestions:

• "Recognition by other playwrights and writers" - I'm not sure "recognition" is the best word here. In general, the section headings could be less..."poetic" ;-). Also, try to avoid having subheadings duplicating their headings - for example, "Case for Shakespeare's authorship" and "Historical evidence for Shakespeare's authorship". In some cases it's unavoidable, but others could be amended

• Addressed, with the possible exception of the two "death" subheadings. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Could we move both of the images in "Evidence for Shakespeare's authorship" from his works up a paragraph or two?
  • I have moved the images up. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• When referring to nobles after first mention, be consistent in whether you refer to them by title or surname. For example, in Oxford's subsection you use "De Vere" in the first paragraph and "Oxford" in the next
• I appreciate the reasoning behind quotes-in-refs, but there's a few in the first 30 or so refs (first column on my screen) that are way too long, particularly 3 and 11

• Still a bit heavy in places, but much better, thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat surprised that no links to either this article or William Shakespeare appear in the SAQ navbox
  • The title is the link to this article, and it's not live except on other pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Categorization: do we really need that many "fringe/pseudo/conspiracy" categories? Might consider adding Category:Theories of history, but Category:Shakespearean authorship is a must. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I deleted the denialism category; I'll let someone else choose which other one to cut. This article is the main article for Category:Shakespearean authorship. A "theory of history" to me means something like Hegelianism. Although I see that the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship is listed on that category page (why no Baconian or Marlovian theories, I wonder? But I jest.), I don't think the SAQ qualifies as a theory of history in the sense in which it is commonly used. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • It can't qualify as a theory of history because it refers to what is ostensibly a 'unique' event (an undocumented cover-up). Theories by definition do not explain singularities (except in the restricted sense of that word in physics). Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I know it's the main article for that category - that's why I suggest adding the cat (using the format [[Category:Shakespearean authorship| ]]). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah! I misunderstood, as I am increasingly wont to do late at night. Done. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Issues mostly addressed to my satisfaction; good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Support I have read this carefully and read a few of the online refs to spot check that the article accurately reflected the sources. I feel this more than meets the FA criteria, and am glad to support. I have two suggestions to improve the article.

1. Since it is difficult to decipher Shakespeare's surviving signatures, perhaps an explanatory note could be added giving the spellings he used. This might follow the sentence In his surviving signatures William Shakespeare did not spell his name as it appears on most Shakespeare title pages. in the "Shakespeare's name as a pseudonym" section.
2. I am surprised that the "Alternative candidates" only discusses four of the "more than 70 authorship candidates [which] have been proposed". While I understand that the four main candidates are presented in the section, I wonder if an introductory paragraph (before the section on Bacon) might help. Looking at the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, I think I would mention the more well known of the candidates in a sentence (Richard Burbage, Sir Francis Drake, the Jesuits, Sir Thomas More, Sir Walter Raleigh, the Rosicrucians, Edmund Spenser, Sir Phillip Sydney, and Cardinal Thomas Wolsey. I would also mention the royal candidates: Elizabeth I, James I, Mary Queen of Scots, then say something like However the four major candidates are ... (list them).

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• I do agree that there could be some reference to other candidates, but it is difficult to know which are the "next in line", as it were. The top four clearly stand out from the crowd. The others generally have only one or two advocates. Sir Thomas More, for example, is well known in his own right, but his position as a SAQ candidate is at the margins of the margin. The problem with adding some names is that it becomes an invitation to editors to add more and more to the list, or complain that their pet candidate is being unfairly excluded. We have good RS authorities for the restricted choice of the Fantastic Four. Paul B (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that the article should at least explain why these four are discussed and no others, and the start of the Alternative candidates section seems the place to put it. If there is a direct quotation from a reliable source that mentions some of the other candidates, that might be a way to include some of them in the article. What about the other suggestion I made? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • As to the signatures, I can take care of that sometime later this week (I'm still reviewing sources for the wording about the congruency of the works to the known author). Paul is right that even though the other candidates are well-known historical figures, their candidacies are very much less well-known and they haven't attracted any cults like the four major ones have. Usually they cause a flurry of news stories when first announced and then die out, cf Henry Neville and Mary Sidney.
    • One problem with inserting information such as that in the article is that a lot of self-evident information is not explicitly stated in the literature. It may seem that we use a lot of sources, but they are relatively few compared to other aspects of Shakespeare studies (our statement in the lede that most scholars disregard the topic is not an exaggeration). For example, we had an introductory statement at the beginning of the candidates section saying that almost all of them used the same type of evidence, but it had to be cut because no source explicitly stated that. A statement explaining why only four candidates are covered may not be available, no matter how obvious it is. The article has to follow the material that is available; we can't write to suit us and then go chase sources to support (although we've caught ourselves doing so and have tried to root them out). Tom Reedy (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • The four represent candidates who have had, at various periods, high profile for some years in the relevant literature, as opposed to almost all of the rest which, as Tom and Paul wrote, consist mainly of blips, or people mentioned very early on in the piece as part of the group theory. I'll do the relevant article on Henry Neville's candidacy when I recover from the fatigue of all this, which however mainly consists of summing up the arguments in one recent book, whose thesis went nowhere. That could then be linked into the list. We were told at one early point that the article was close to the tolerable limit, and set about relentlessly cutting it back. Another candidate there would perhaps undo work done to keep this at readable length.Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I do not want to add a whole (sub)section on any other candidate. I just feel as if there should be some sort of brief explanatory text (even just a sentence) at the start of the section explaining that these four are the ones with the most attention. I would be OK if this did not have a ref, as I see it is a summary of the section, and more a statement of the choice the editors made in writing the section. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 0:428, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
          • There is a list of sorts in the SAQ template, though the choice of names there is determined solely by the fact there are articles on the people listed in which their candidacy is discussed. Paul B (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
            • How's that, R? (And can we begin making new sections for ease of editing, or is that allowed at FAC?) Tom Reedy (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
              • That seems fine to me thanks. New sections are usually discouraged in an FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. With respect to the discussion — some six foot above in this thread — of criterion 1 e, surely the stability criterion was never intended to give aid and comfort to the enemies of Wikipedia, such as the various anonymous cowards and obvious socks who can be seen advocating their fringe views on the talkpage. Their purpose is apparently to prevent this excellently written and comprehensive article from (ever) becoming a Featured Article, which they seem to feel would be a blow to their conspiracy theories. Another blow, that is, after the recent Arbitration case which was 100% supportive of the mainstream view of the purported "authorship question". As the Arbitration Committee provided the article with the protection of standard discretionary sanctions, [1] which have already turned out very helpful, [2] it hopefully won't be a problem to keep it stable ongoingly.

• Disclosure: I'll leave it to the delegates to decide whether it's appropriate for me to support. I have followed the development of the article since October 2010, but altered nothing beyond a very few copyedits and, once, protecting it for a week.[3] Bishonen | talk 01:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

Support. I've been following the progress of the article for many, many months and have been particularly impressed by the open-mindedness of the principal editors. Their ability to set out, using WP:RS, the positions of the proponents of the main authorship candidates from a WP:NPOV, and their openness to the many and varied suggestions for improvements to the article, despite a great deal of provocation from a number of quarters, and their attention to detail, has been exemplary. Minor disclosure: I've done a bit of copy-editing (some of which is still there!) on the article from time to time. --GuillaumeTell 00:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment, leaning Support: I only have one point to make, which is that I feel that the preamble to the "Case against Shakespeare's authorship" section is not written with the degree of non-partisanship required in a neutral encyclopedia article. There is an editorial voice present, which is effectively refuting the case while it is being presented. The "case against" should be summarised baldly, without comment; the refutation is part of the "case for". This is the only significant issue to which I think that further attention is required in what is in nearly all respects an excellent article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I don't see that issue. That paragraph is a simple listing of facts with about as little editorial voice as can be achieved. Is the reason it appears so to you perhaps that the facts it lists are so blatantly inconvenient to the theory? I know we've had to remove references to Authorship supporters seeking “truth” through spiritual mediums (the spirits confirmed their theories) because it exhibits just how ridiculous some of this stuff is (and merely pointing out that they did this leads to accusations of bias); whereas in any other historical article on the `pedia we would have relished the chance of including such an episode for the color and humor it provides in otherwise rather dry prose. Anyways, to at least attempt to address your concern (since I don't see the same issue you do, I am not sure how well I've succeeded) I've removed the most obviously inconvenient facts (that other contemporary playwrights have little personal data known, that interpreting this is unique to Shakespeare, and that this is the fallacy of argumentum ex silentio). Does that remove the appearance of an editorial voice for you? If so, could my speculation as to its cause above be correct? I don't mind losing the long (looong) list of names, but I think the rest of the removed stuff is relevant and important in that paragraph and it'd be a shame to lose it over a mere misunderstanding. --Xover (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I changed one word in that section - 'conspiracy' to the more neutral 'attempt'. Perhaps Brian could comment on whether he is now happy? I agree with Tom's statement at the top that POV issues have been discussed and sorted out, though it is possible that some remain that we have not spotted. For example it could be argued (and has been) that the case against should not be presented through Stratfordian authors (such as Matus in that section). Personally, I think this is not a problem as long as the wording is careful and fair. Poujeaux (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

    Of course you should point out the weaknesses and absurdities in the "case against" arguments. That is the stongest part of the case for. My point is related to where this exposure should be done. The section I am referring to is where you should be presenting the case against in as neutral a manner as possible. The removal of the word "conspiracy" is a useful step in that direction; if it were up to me I would probably neutralise the wording of the preamble a little more, to a couiple of simple sentences: "The nub of the case against Shakespeare's authorship is that he lacked the necessary background and education to be a credible author of the literary works that bear his name. It is contended by those who challenge his authorship that deliberate steps have been taken to conceal relevant facts about his background and schooling". That's all I'd say in the preamble. However, it's not a point I feel should be insisted on, and have adjusted my "leaning" accordingly.

Oppose: The article does not cover the subject of "The Shakespeare Authorship Question' but rather the subject of "The Stratfordian Responses to the Shakespeare Authorship Question." The article does a poor job of portraying its subject, covering only a biased subset of the basic reasons for which the authorship question exists. Furthermore, the reasons that are given are covered in a superficial and disparaging manner, whereas most of the lengthy and unwieldy article tries to argue that the authorship question is not valid. Why did none of Shakespeare's contemporaries record meeting the man who was the writer (before the publication of the First Folio)? Why did no patrons leave records of patronage? What became of all the manuscripts? It's almost as if the authors of the article are afraid to publicize the real reasons why notable men and women over the years have raised the authorship question. References that could provide some insight into the authorship question have also been removed under the pretext that such references are not RS. See the discussion at: Talk:List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates#Cite_RS. In short, this is far from being FAC material, IMHO. Jdkag (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So do you have any specific actionable objections? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

These "why" questions apply equally to most other writers of the time, whose lives are generally not well documented. Hardly any play manuscripts of the time survive. The point, as it happens, is made inthe article ("No letters or signed manuscripts written by Shakespeare survive."). Of course any references to meeting the writer Shakespeare would be and are interpreted by SAQ afficionados as part of the conspiracy or as the intentional use of the "real author"'s pen-name. It's an unfalsifiable system of argument. Our rules require that the balance of argument be given to the mainstream position, so Jdkag is asking that we suspend the rules in this case. Paul B (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The article does not cover the subject of "The Shakespeare Authorship Question' but rather the subject of "The Stratfordian Responses to the Shakespeare Authorship Question."

In layman's language, you are saying the article covers the SAQ theories in terms of what WP:RS say, and not in terms of what WP:Fringe books argue, and that what notable people like Charlie Chaplin or Mark Twain, or sundry lawyers and United States judges, have said should be given equal treatment with what Shakespearean scholars say on a question of Elizabethan history.Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actionable items:

• article's first line opens with a negative term (argument) instead of a neutral term (theory, belief, etc)
• ”Shakespeare’s authorship was first questioned in the middle of the 19th century” – according to whom? Other views? “Some scholars believe that…” would be more NPOV. (Also, the anomalous lack of records, which was noted by early biographers, is equally relevant to the subject.)
• no statement in lead as to why the four candidates are mentioned
• "Shakespeare’s authorship was not questioned during his lifetime" – Other views? How can this be a proven fact? Shouldn’t it be “As far as scholars have been able to determine… although authorship doubters believe…”
• lead ends with “They campaign for public acceptance of the authorship question as a legitimate field of academic inquiry and to promote one or another of the various authorship candidates”. This is an article about the theory. It’s not about the doubters themselves. This line does not belong in the lead.
• ”Anti-Stratfordians claim that this indicates a person very different from the author reflected in the works” – use of “claim” is not neutral. Suggest “believe” or “say”.
• Case Against Shakespeare section: There is an editorial voice present, which is effectively refuting the case while it is being presented. The "case against" should be summarised baldly, without comment; the refutation is part of the "case for".” I believe this especially applies to the first two sentences in the section, which serves as a set-up for the “case for”.
• History and particulars of the “group theory” are inadequate, both in the history section and the alternative candidates section. The various group theories have received much attention over the years. One would not know it from this article.
• Baconian and Oxfordian theory sections are too long and detailed. They are not summaries and do not even follow the basic technique of Wikipedia Summary Style. Why is the unpublished George Frisbee given so much weight, for example? Major arguments surrounding the candidacies are also missing, such as Oxford’s bible, Bacon’s Tempest connections, etc. In short, expert opinions on the minority viewpoint are not represented accurately, if at all.
• The article is quite long, especially the history section, which has its own article. Again, summary style is not being followed. The "case for" section is also incredibly long and throws the weight of the article out of balance. Perhaps the section needs its own article?
• Process: The preface to the list for featured article criteria, states that these criteria are: "in addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles." Good behavior/process (e.g., adherence to WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY) is a fundamental WIKI requirement for all articles, one that is not met by the SAQ page. Given the assumptions of the current editors regarding editors of differing viewpoints and regarding how those differing viewpoints should be treated, it is not likely that the SAQ page will meet fundamental WIKI requirements in the near future.Jdkag (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I find it problematic to accuse the editors of bad behavior worthy of denying FA status to the article when everyone involved was recently in an Arbcom case in which their edit histories were scoured, and the editors in question were not found guilty of any such conduct. Wrad (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I have responded to these points on the talk page. Some, I think, cannot be resolved because there cannot be a consensus within the writings of SAQ advocates about which specific arguments are accepted as "important" and which are less so. Needless to say supporters of one candidate will dismiss all the arguments for the others as clearly spurious. That's another reason why we should stick close to the RS. Paul B (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Many of these issues have been discussed previously on the talk page. A key problem is finding a reliable source - what would you suggest as a RS for the Oxfordian or Group theory? Poujeaux (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The issues not only have been discussed, they have been resolved, although not to the satisfaction of a few anti-Stratfordian editors, so these are just a continuation of previous disputes, as Andy Walsh noted earlier. The article reflects the academic consensus, which is what Wikipedia requires, and which is the main objection from those editors. By bringing up such objections it appears to me that this FAC process is being looked at as an extension of the SAQ talk page. What Ruhrfisch noted about edit warring also applies to bringing up previous disputes: those who espouse the fringe theories only have to continue to do so for it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy and keep this from ever being a FA.Tom Reedy (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Qualified editors, several with lifetimes of study of the Bard and the Shakespearean question have left off editing this page out of dismay at the unprofessional manners and lack of serious knowledge of the topic of editors Reedy, Nishidani, and Barlow. As has been pointed out, the article in its present state is primarily a thinly disguised attempt to shore up the orthodox POV on the subject, a topic appropriate to the page William Shakespeare but not this one. Loud use of weasel words, gratuitously ad hominem characterization of minority viewpoints, and refusal to engage even in the semblance of NPOV discussion, have characterized the history of the page. There is ample evidence for 16th century authorship, all carefully excised from this article under various bogus objections. If someone can show me where Wikipedia's mandate is to "enforce conformity of thought on controversial topics," I will change my vote. Otherwise, this article needs the serious involvement of some truly impartial administrators who are not afraid to sanction said editors for their past misbehavior and encourage and invite participation from more informed and less dogmatic editors qualified to correct the one-sided, anti-NPOV tone and content of the present version.--BenJonson (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to make your comments specific, and avoid personal criticism of editors. This has been explained to you before. Poujeaux (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see comments of Softlavender and Jdkag. I support their reasoning fully. I addition to the reasons cited regarding content -- lack of NPOV, failure to cite appropriate sources, sources cited that filter the claims of a particular position largely if not exclusively through the eyes of the contrary party, undocumented claims that amount to accusations since the POV of one side is characterized in a particular manner without allowing the well-known citations to the point at issue to be entered into record due to entirely bogus claims of the lack of RS, misuse of claims of "fringe," etc. -- there are the issues of process well described by Jdkag above: --68.55.45.214 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Commentary about editor behaviour moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Under "Historical Evidence": ".[68] In addition to the name appearing on the title pages of the poems and plays during his lifetime, " ... I believe this is a misleading statement. It sounds like his name appeared on the title page of ALL poems and plays. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Romeo_and_Juliet_Q2_Title_Page-2.jpg for one example. Knitwitted (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we know that it did not appear in early play publications, but increasingly did later. The phrase "the poems" means that it appeared on all the published poems (V&A; Lucrece; sonnets) "and plays" means it also appeared on plays. However, I've rephrased to remove any ambiguity. Paul B (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"In addition to the name appearing on the title pages of poems and plays..." still sounds the same to me. Maybe it should be "In addition to the name appearing on some of the title pages of poems and plays..." Knitwitted (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not the same because "the" was the only issue. And it does not appear on "some" of the title pages of Shakespeare poems. It appears on all of them. Paul B (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, a little more candor and specificity would help here. The name appears on NO title pages of plays until 1598. After that, it appears on MOST of them. Also, it appears on several plays that no one now thinks were written by "Shakespeare." The article should reflect these facts, and allow both theories an opportunity to explain them. It should also probably point out as well that 1598 is the year in which Francis Meres floats his *Comparative Discourse*. I wonder what your explanation for this might be. Moreover, there is a second interesting year that is obviously pivotal in the history of the publication of play quartos: 1604. In that year the publication of new quartos fell of dramatically. Something around 16 (depending on exactly what you count) were published during the 13 or so years before that. After that, until the 1623 folio, only four new plays where published, one of the quarto of Othello in 1622 (after which the licenser George Buc was removed from his office for "senility"). How do you or "Nishidani" or Tom explain this? And don't you think that it should be represented in the article? After all, you guys like to make a big deal out of the fact that Oxford died in 1604, why not also admit that some other interesting and possibly relevant things happened in 1604? Or is that a problem because you can't explain it any more than your academic colleagues can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenJonson (talk • contribs)

Your conspiracy theories are not taken seriously by scholars of the period, so there is nothing for me or Nishidani to explain. It's not up to us. It's up to the consensus of scholarship. Your "points" are not actionable. I am happy to respond in more detail on the talk page, but the essential point is that this story you are telling, in so far as it is intelligible, is not AFAIK addressed by reliable sources. As has been stated repeatedly, we try to follow what they say. Paul B (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As per Paul. You appear to ask us to evaluate your personal theories, as published here, for inclusion into this article. Our job, as I'm sure you must know by now, is to read reliable academic works and report faithfully their contents. While almost all those registering an oppose vote here subscribe to the Oxfordian theory, the article cannot be allowed to dwell exclusively on the speculations concerning the Earl of Oxford. Two relevant pages at least in wikipedia, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship and the Oxfordian Theory - Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays, by common agreement, require extensive revision for improvement to meet minimal levels of quality. Those who are disappointed with our method, which is that endorsed by the protocols governing FA artcles in wikipedia, and who believe strongly that these things can be done better, that WP:NPOV can be improved, have an ample, unconflicted opportunity there to show us how exactly these alternative proposals work out in concrete terms. Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. You've proven my point about Wikipedia's zealous quest to provide misleading information. Shakespeare's name may appear on all the title pages for poems but certainly NOT for all the plays. Knitwitted (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just what I said. Hence the wording. Your preferred wording, "some of the title pages of poems" is factually incorrect. You wouldn't want that would you? However, discussions of minutiae such as this should be undertaken on the talk page of the article. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Tom Reedy's assertion "Why don't you give the link to the 2003 article so people can read for themselves what was reported?" as proposed here was used to counter an argument. This implies that the journal Shakespeare Matters is a reliable source. Also, the Wikipedia article James Wilmot also cites Shakespeare Matters (footnote 6). The Wilmot article is part of Wikipedia's "Shakespeare authorship question" series. There are no cites in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question article to the journal Shakespeare Matters. Knitwitted (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• • The fact that poorer quality sources are used on other articles is a weird argument for criticising this one. We should not make this FAC because it has better sources than another article???? Paul B (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Your comment is judgmental. You should have correctly said: "The fact that poorer quality sources are used on other articles is a[n] weird argument for criticising this one. We should not make this FAC because it has better sources than another article????" Knitwitted (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
      • FAs are judged on WP:WIAFA and on the sources that they use, not what other articles like James Wilmot use (especially when the other article is not even a Good Article). Please comment on how this article follows WP:WIAFA and do not attck what others write here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Easily meets the criteria as a whole, though as with Catholic Church there are many who will never be satisfied. Opposers are mostly failing to produce convincing specific points, because the whole article is hopeless etc etc. Well it isn't. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm just going to telegraph my objections, because I see a lot of problems in the article. Mainly, that it's Non-Neutral and Non-Stable. I won't list all of what I see; to save space I'll just give a sample hit-list:

NON-NEUTRAL:

Reads as if the title of the article should be "The Case for the Stratfordian Authorship of the Shakespeare Oeuvre." The overwhelming amount of weight is given to Shakespeare. Numerous important omissions in the case against Shakespeare, not to mention of course abundant critical omissions in the case(s) for an alternative candidate.

Non-neutral wording: Anti-Strafordians are accused of citing "conspiracy" against the true author (this is hardly and rarely the case). Non-neutral and indeed patronizing characterizations of anti-Stratfordian positions: "the lack of documentary proof is a staple of anti-Strafordian arguments"; "construed"; "claiming to find"; "exposing the romantic view of Oxford as Shakespeare"; "the case of Oxford relies on ..."

Stratfordian sources are continuously used to typify anti-Stratfordian positions.

Section on "Lack of documentary evidence" is in particular missing some core anti-Stratfordian points.

Lack of important anti-Stratfordian interpretation of the cited "Swan of Avon" poem (Oxford had a home in Avon; etc.)

Sections on the alternative candidates extremely short and extremely biased. Absurd over-emphasis on ciphers in the Oxfordian section -- this has never been a lynchpin in the Oxfordian candidacy.

Per FA policies, opinions must be given weight according to their prominence. Since the Oxfordian candidacy is by far the most prominent alternative authorship these past 10 to 90 years, it should be given extensive weight in the article, rather than being be what to be appears to be a footnote, and a very misleading one at that.

Very partisan (and clever I might add) insertions of the conclusions of some 'turned Oxfordians', with no mention whatsoever of the thousands of 'turned Stratfordians'. Speaking of which, this includes the fact that the Supreme Court decision about Oxford was very notably overturned in 2009 [4]; this is glaringly omitted from the article, whilst the early now overrided ruling is given plenty of emphasis.

Mention of Wikipedia (twice) in the article. Can Wikipedia really be objective about itself? I think not; mention in the article of Wikipedia as a format for the authorship debate reads as objecting to mention that the debate exists; ergo, why does this article even exist?

• These mentions are cited to reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. You are free to check that they are cited fairly. No, Wikipedia can't be objective about itself, but then again, no one can really be objective about anything. This doesn't prevent us, however, from doing the best we can with what we have. Wrad (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

NON-STABLE:

My opinion is that the SAQ question is far too dynamic a subject for the article to become a set-in-stone Featured Article. It's one of the hottest topics in the humanities. There are well-researched new books or documentaries on the subject -- that is against the Stratfordian authorship -- coming out at least every year. This will only increase after the September 2011 Anonymous film starring Vanessa Redgrave and Rhys Ifans, and its companion documentary film. The SAQ is a discussion that will become more and more discussed by academics as the years go on. We've seen that happen exponentially even within the past 5 or 6 years.

One huge problem I foresee with the article is that after the Anonymous film -- and the concomitant documentary about Oxford which is now in production that is going to be released along with it -- is released in September 2011, there is going to be a lot more journalistic and academic discussion of not only Oxfordianism, but also the entire Shakespeare authorship question. This article certainly shouldn't be come a featured article until all that has occurred and cycled through and stabilized. In fact, I think the dynamic and continually debatable nature of the subject precludes an article of this sort from being a featured article, because it will continuously need to be updated, and there will always be debate about how to word the updates, and so forth. Softlavender (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding non-stable. If Barack Obama can be an FA, this can be an FA. If William Shakespeare can be an FA, this can be an FA. Things change, but that shouldn't cause us to fear that we won't be able to maintain quality in the future. Wrad (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose As it stands, the text appears to violate a number of wikipedia attributes: 1) it shows "ownership": where the text deals with anti-Stratfordian theories, the language and POV are those of Stratfordian scholars; efforts to make these points in language used by authorship scholars are invariably returned to the Stratfordian POV; to be fair, anti-Stratfordian points should be stated in the kind of language used by authorship scholars. 2) the page is far from "neutral": descriptions of anti-Stratfordian beliefs are stated in dismissive terms; 3) it is not "well-written": the text as it stands suffers from wordiness, redundancy and poor paragraphing. 5) the page is obviously far from "stable." 6) It is far too long: many of the points made here at such length should be left to the pages on the various candidates. Methinx (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Item 4 ("bullying") moved to talk, not FA criterion. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose (Disclaimer. I have added to the article talk page and possibly to the article.) Reason: Neutrality of the article. I believe that using the opinions of individual scholars as evidence that "almost all" scholars view the topic as a "fringe belief" is an improper use of the testimonies. If there were a poll of scholars or a survey of qualified papers that demonstrated the fringiness of the authorship idea, that would seem appropriate. I believe that the tone of the entire article depends from this initial misuse of reliable sources.Fotoguzzi (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • These aren't just the opinions of individual scholars, these are published, peer-reviewed observations of several scholars. "Peer-reviewed" means that the observations have been checked by several other prominent scholars in the field and cleared for publication. On many, many levels, a source with that kind of backing has far fewer weakness than a poll. Statistics are not a fail safe. Wrad (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I would add that the statement complies with WP:RS#Academic_consensus, which states that any "statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Tom Reedy (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    • (The eight sources for fringe are: Harper's Magazine (HM); a 1962 book re-issued in 2005 (B1); two articles in the Tennessee Law Review (TLR); an article in the Shakespeare Newsletter (SN); two recent books (B2 and B3); and what appears to be a chapter in an anthology (C). Are any of these anonymously peer reviewed? C may be, as Wells and Orlin may be serving as editors and not authors and Kathman's work may have previously appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. HM may be, but wouldn't it be merely edited and not peer-reviewed? The same for B1-3. TLR is edited by law students, the very riff-raff with whom I understand true Shakespearean scholars would not deign to associate. SN has the name newsletter in its title. It may be fully peer-reviewed, but perhaps it does not inspire the same confidence as would, say, Mathematische Zeitschrift.Fotoguzzi (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
      • The fact that some of the sources listed are not peer reviewed is surely irrelevant. They are just supplementing those that are. To say that C "may be" seems very odd to me. Stanley Wells is perhaps the foremost living Shakespeare expert and the book is published by Oxford University Press. All such books go through a referreeing process. One of the other sources is by Samuel Schoenbaum, again published by OUP. This is just about as authoritative as one can get. Here is the website for the Shakespeare Newsletter [5], which should give you some idea of its status. Paul B (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Leaning to Support. My only query would be the following: In the section on Oxford, it says that the case for him is based on: "... biographical correspondences found in the works, ...". Being aware that these correspondences are in many cases extremely tenuous or tortuous deductions, I'd wonder if it would be in keeping with NPOV to describe them as "alleged biographical correspondences found in the works" or similar. My point is that a reader unfamiliar with these theories would probably read much more into this than is warranted by the Oxfordian "evidence".

Generally, I am very happy to see this article still further improved, even in recent months. It's an impressive, interesting, and immensely useful overview. (My 20-odd edits to this article were all minor MOS things, starting about 2 years ago when reading it through out of curiosity; I've never had the artcle watchlisted, and was unaware of the extreme contentiousness of the SAQ until a few months ago). Buchraeumer (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point, and while examining this, 'biographical correspondences in the works' is not as exact as this standard would require. The meaning is of course:

alleged/putative correspondences with events in his life and plots in the plays'?

Suggestions all round on how we do this? Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "the belief that the plots and characters in the plays derive from incidents in his life". Paul B (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be ideal, IMO. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Better, yes. But the finicky dickhead inside me, anticipating in paranoid fashion, possible challenges, murmurs querulously: 'can 'characters' be said to 'derive from' incidents? Tom? You chew through this stuff everyday for breakfast, don't you? Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed it, but varied the phrasing. Alter at will, grammarian. Paul B (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Very nice, now. I do think the article's tone is neutral, and its organization is now excellent. Also very nicley illustrated. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This candidate for FA does not meet Wikipedia's standards for NPOV. For example, the first sentence uses a pejorative, loaded phrase describing SAQ as "fringe belief." (I think "belief" is a very recent change.) The Wikipedia guideline for Fringe Theories uses "theory" not "belief" and should be followed. Other phrasing in the article, some of it very recent, may seem to betray a bias and should be re-visited. The article also relies overwhelmingly on sources that are critical of SAQ. It's fine to cite them but the huge disproportion may lead readers to suspect a lack of Wikipedia neutrality, which is crucial in a controversial article like this one. SAQ is getting more and more public notice with Shapiro's book and the upcoming "Anonymous" movie. We should make this article as neutral and reliable as possible. With goodwill all around, I think that can be done. PametPuma (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This comment illustrates as well as any the Sisyphean task of trying to address the objections of anti-Stratfordian advocates. The term "belief" was changed from "theory" to address specific objections brought up by an earlier Oxfordian critic. These types of whip-saw conflicting interpretations are rife in the FAC comments from anti-Stratfordians, partly because of the dissension within their own ranks (more than 70 candidates have been put forth as the true author, all of whose advocates use the same arguments against Shakespeare's authorship), partly because they all consider the academic consensus to be a deliberate conspiracy against The Truth, and partly because they want to return to the days when the page was a promotional tool for Oxfordians, as almost every comment makes clear to outside observers. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion on this point moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. ... warshy^talk 02:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Rm to talkpage the rest of Warshy's post, which explicitly "leaves aside the specific merits or clear weaknesses.. of the proposed article" and instead presents an undiluted polemic. I have no idea what it was doing on this page, it's a ridiculous place for it. Also moving Paul B's response to Warshy. Bishonen | talk 15:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

Noting that Mr. Reedy is one of the most vocal and active partisans defending the orthodox viewpoint (a fact, not a criticism), the fact that he has maneuvered himself into a position as one of the principle editors of this ostensibly “neutral” article sets up an inherent violation of the expressed intent of Wikipedia policy for featured articles. This problem could only be overcome by a consensus among the opposing contributors that the article is, indeed, “neutral”. However, that will not be possible as the article now stands, nor is it, in the opinion of this contributor, an achievable goal. The article, at the moment, is biased, subtly and not so subtly, in favor of the orthodox viewpoint and cleverly attempts to discredit both the anti-Stratfordian viewpoint and those who hold it. The idea of “neutrality” is, in our opinion, a perfect fallacy. We suggest, as an alternative, that the article have two parts of equal length, each part presenting the opposing view, leaving each side to be as partisan as it desires to be. If the article is granted “featured” status in its current form it will be a clear victory for proponents of the orthodox viewpoint and will, ultimately, be an embarrassment to Wikipedia. --Ssteinburg (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note, this is the first and only comment this username has ever made. Wrad (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

CommentThis would be a clear violation of our NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Support. Note that I've been an occasional contributor to this page, especially in the last few months. I believe this article walks an incredibly fine line, giving solid coverage to the various subtheories without giving undue weight, reflecting scholarly consensus without being POV - I never really thought this article could get to this point, and I'm glad Wikipedia is proving me wrong. Kaiguy (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments Leaning support, but not quite there yet. Some concerns, some issues with writing and one sentence fragment (ouch!) keep me from being a support. Note that I was especially on the lookout for bias issues while keeping in mind this is or is close to a fringe theory.

• General:
  • I'm a bit concerned with the constant use of "anti-stratfordians". While some usage of it is perhaps unavoidable, it's constant repetition tends to give the article a feeling of "they dost protest too much". Surely there is some other ways to refer to them? Proponents, something?
    • It's their own term, not a derogatory one invented by opponents. I can't see this as a POV issue, though it may be a style problem. Paul B (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Both 'Anti-Stratfordians' and 'Stratfordians' are the preferred terms of proponents of the sceptical view. While scholars often express dislike of being called 'Stratfordians', the same cannot be said of their opponents. Indeed, we had to cater to two demands, that the fringe language be accepted into the text, and that scholarly reservations about being branded as 'Stratfordians' be respected. The imbalance is simply the result of the fact that, were we to write alternatively of 'Anti-Stratfordians' and 'Stratfordians', balancing the mentions of each term to balance their numbers, we would be tilting the article to the fringe POV. We have tried to use the terms each side favours for describing itself, and not its adversarial other, to maintain WP:NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In regards to that.. this becomes especially telling when you get to the "case for" section, where the proponents of Shakespeare's authorship are called "scholars" "academics" etc. While I'm not expecting that the anti-strats be called scholars, the fact that there is no variation in the name used for folks advocating other authors while those from the traditional view ARE given a number of different epithets is a subtle way that belittles the non-Billy folks.
    • The defence would be to say that the pro-Strat people quoted are indeed accredited scholars, but we certainly do not need to rub this in. Paul B (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Again, the problem lies in the history of the argument. Of the several thousand books, pamphlets, articles and treatises that have poured from minor presses over 160 years, almost none appear to be written by anyone with an appropriate academic background in the specific field of Elizabethan studies, or even history. It is an uncontested fact, underlined by several extensive quotes once in the footnotes, that the academic Shakespearean community judges this phenomenon as a vein of extra-mural speculation by amateurs, lawyers, judges, journalists etc., with no formal grasp of the basic rules of historical method and Elizabethan textual analysis. There are indeed a handful of scholars who subscribe to one of these theories, and one or two minor colleges that teach it, but it is a drop in the ocean. How one might tinker with the whole text to avoid even giving the true, but unfortunate impression, that scholars almost unanimously ignore or dismiss what passionate, but overwhelmingly amateur students of the subject persist in arguing, is something we've long mulled. There does not appear to be a solution. But of course if anyone out there can come up with suggestions we'd be more than delighted to look into them.Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Lead:
  • Really dislike the mix of this phrase: "...including Francis Bacon, the Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe, and the Earl of Oxford." WHICH Earl of Derby and Earl of Oxford? I shouldn't have to click through to figure that out.
    • Have specified the 6th Earl of Derby and the 17th Earl of Oxford.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Err... "scholastic"? Surely you're not referring to medieval scholasticism? I think you mean "scholary" or something else besides "scholastic".
    • Corrected, indeed it is in the source quote.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overview -
  • "The historical documentary remains of Shakespeare (excepting literary records and commentary) consist of mundane personal records—vital records of his baptism, marriage and death, tax records, lawsuits to recover debts, and real estate transactions—and lack any documentation of his education." This sentence bogged me down. Any way to break it apart some to make it easier to parse?
    • I've broken the sentence into two, and removed the parenthetic structure. ?Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Very next sentence "Anti-Stratfordians say that this indicates a person very different from the author reflected in the works." I think I get what you're saying here, but given how complex the previous sentence was, it might be best to make explicit what "this" is referring to, as there was quite a lot in the previous sentence that "this" could be meaning.
    • Replaced 'Anti-Stratfordians' with 'sceptics'. A year ago we agreed that some variation on the words for this position was required for stylistic reasons. This = scantiness of the evidence. ?Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Why link to "evidence"? Surely, this is understood by most folks?
    • Delinked. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Shakespeare's background:
  • "Shakespeare was born, raised, married, and buried in Stratford-upon-Avon, a market town about 100 miles (160 km) northwest of London. It had around 1,500 residents at the time of his birth. He kept a household there during his career in London." Choppy short sentences, can this be reworded to flow better?
    • Reworded by Nishidani to fix problem. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "The town was a centre for the slaughter, marketing, and distribution of sheep, tanned skins, and wool, and it produced an Archbishop of Canterbury and a Lord Mayor of London. Anti-Stratfordians often portray the town as a cultural backwater lacking the environment necessary to nurture a genius, and from the earliest days have depicted Shakespeare as greedy, stupid, and illiterate." I think this would flow better as "The town was a centre for the slaughter, marketing, and distribution of sheep, tanned skins, and wool. Anti-Stratfordians often portray the town as a cultural backwater lacking the environment necessary to nurture a genius, although it produced an Archbishop of Canterbury and a Lord Mayor of London. From the earliest days, proponents of other candidates have depicted Shakespeare as greedy, stupid, and illiterate." Also - "from earliest days" are these right days right after Shakespeare's death or from the earliest days of the various other-author theories? As written, it's unclear.
    • 'From the earliest days' = 'From the beginning'. Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I have simplified this and removed reference to the Archbishop and Lord Mayor—the reference is an excellent point, but too intrusive in the "case against" section; they also made the sentence too clumsy. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It might help to include here in the second paragraph general information on literacy rates for townsmen (outside of London) for the time period. My recollection is that women's literacy is on the order of 25% for the Civil War period and slightly better for men, so the fact that the women surrounding Shakespeare might be illiterate is needing some context. Also, was his WIFE literate? We mention daughters, but wife is left out.
    • Literacy is controversial, and would require a paragraph that might distract from the flow. An excellent source however is Heidi Brayman Hackel’s essay, 'The “Great Variety” of Readers and Early Modern Reading Practices,' in David Scott Kastan,(ed.) A companion to Shakespeare,Wiley-Blackwell, 1999 (ISBN = 9780631218784) chapter 9 pp.139-153, esp.141, which argues that signs and marks were not necesarily a sign of illiteracy, to the contrary. here
    • We don't know if Mary Arden, S's wife was literate. Honan (1999:14):'It is not unlikely she could read or write, and we have a sign of her hand.' But all affirmations pro or contra are conjectures. Perhaps we could just note she signed with a mark, though it has a distinctive italic style suggestive of literacy (as per Honan) Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • You mean Anne Hathaway. (I've been trained not to edit other user's remarks, or I would have changed it.) Tom Reedy (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Education:
  • "The lack of documentary proof for Shakespeare's education or literacy is a staple of anti-Stratfordian arguments." this just seems a bit POV to me, but I can't quite put my finger on why. It's probably the offhand "staple of anti-Stratfordian aruguments." Maybe "The lack of documentary proof for Shakespeare's education or literacy is often cited (or arugued) as being significant by propents of other authorship candidates."
    • Reworded by Paul B to fix problem (it is now "is often noted"). Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Name:
  • You give reasons for two commoners to have wanted to use a pseudonymn, but why not mention any other possible candidates that were commoners and possible reasons for them?
    • As far as I know, because nowhere in the several thousand pages of RS books and articles I am familiar with is this particular point developed. I've looked once more through the subsidiary List of Shakespeare authorship candidates for the commoners, and checked as many as I could against the indexes of the books I have, and can't find anything in them that would help here, perhaps because the overwhelming majority of people listed there appear only once or twice, in books ignored by the relevant scholarly literature, which focuses on the most frequently proposed candidates, noblemen and women.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Case for:
  • "Scholars consider this method of reasoning as arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which is a form of fallacious logic known as argumentum ex silentio, or argument from silence." I totally got lost in the first part of this sentence. I think I got the gist of it, but it could really use some reworking to make it more understandable.
    • Adjusted to 'Scholars consider this method of reasoning, arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, as a form of fallacious logic . . ' Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Historical evidence:
  • "...his name was given as that of a well-known writer at least 23 times." is that during his lifetime? Make it clear what time frame we're referring to here.
    • I see 'during his lifetime' has been added.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "... and explicit contemporary documentary evidence attests that the actor was the Stratford citizen." Did we typo "actor" for "author" here? Otherwise, I can't see what relevance that the fact that WS was a Stratford citizen has to the case for him being the author.
    • No. (a)The playwright is identified as the actor (note). (b) The actor is identified as the Stratford citizen (note). The syllogistic conclusion, (unvoiced) is that (c) the playwright is the Stratfordian citizen. I.e. scholars connect the dots to justify their defence of the traditional attribution. Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I believe the current wording is sufficient. It says that the playwright was the actor, and the actor was the Stratford citizen (which shows that the playwright was Shakespeare). Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Contemporary testimony:
  • "In a comment intended for posterity (Timber or Discoveries), he criticises Shakespeare's casual approach to playwriting, but praises Shakespeare as a person: "I loved the man, and do honour his memory (on this side Idolatry) as much as any. He was (indeed) honest, and of an open, and free nature; had an excellent fancy; brave notions, and gentle expressions ... he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised, than to be pardoned."" I'm confused why this long quote about Shakespeare's virtues is included rather than a more pertinent quote of Jonson's criticism of S's playwriting. I'm sure the quote would be wonderful IN the actual WS article, but here, it's just ... excess verbiage. At 9700+ words, reducing word count isn't something to be sneered at...you're supposed to be summarizing the case for WS's authorship, not writing about him in general.
    • Disagree slightly, though it is a good point, and have provisorily shortened. The section is about circumstantial evidence in contemporary writers concerning Shakespeare as both playwright and private person. This article is about those who question who he was, and Jonson provides evidence here of the playwright's character. Implicitly, that kind of description discounts the many female candidates, and quite a few male candidates whose notoriously bad tempers are well know. But that implication is between the lines. Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see the relevance of "Buc noted on the title page of George a Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield (1599), an anonymous play, that he had consulted Shakespeare on its authorship." to the case either. If it's just unrelated, then remove it.
    • Actually it's a key piece of evidence that Buc knew who Shakespeare the author really was, and since Buc superintended plays up for publication, and licensed one play, printed with S's name on it (Master in that title cannot refer to any nobleman). I think the following lines make this clear.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Recognition:
  • Again "In The First Part of the Return from Parnassus, two separate characters refer to Shakespeare as "Sweet Mr. Shakespeare", ..." again, not directly relevant ... better to cut it and/or move it to the Bardology article.
    • Perhaps as above, it is not sufficiently clear that 'Mr' in the highly status-conscious society of that time points away from nobles, and towards a commoner. That the remark comes from Cambridge scholars has point, because the sceptical literature expects Shakespeare to be someone with a university degree, and expectation contradicted by this evidence.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Playwright John Webster, in his dedication to White Divel (1612), wrote, "And lastly (without wrong last to be named), the right happy and copious industry of M. Shake-Speare, M. Decker, & M. Heywood, wishing what I write might be read in their light", here using the abbreviation "M." to denote the title "Master" that William Shakespeare of Stratford was entitled to use by virtue of being a titled gentleman." Again, this doesn't directly name WS as an author ("happy and copious industry" in the time frame just means "he worked hard"). Better to cut it.
    • The problem with the three cuts you suggest is that the RS scholarship specifically dealing with the sceptics' arguments cite these pieces of evidence, and were we to excise them we would not be fulfilling our remit to provide comprehensive coverage. The text here finally clarifies, further, that 'M.' 'Mr.' 'Master', apparently innocuous to modern readers, indicate someone who was a titled gentleman, not a nobleman, as so many of the candidates are.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Shakespeare's death - standard perspective:
  • No need to mention the background to the monument again - you've done so above.
    • Reworded by Paul B to remove duplication. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "The will of Shakespeare's fellow actor, Augustine Phillips, executed 5 May 1605 and proved 16 May 1605, bequeaths "to my fellow William Shakespeare a thirty shillings piece in gold, To my fellow Henry Condell one other thirty shilling piece in gold...". Two issues here - one, it's a fellow actor, so it not testifying to the authorship issue, and two - it'd fit better in the contemporary references section, as it predates WSs death.
    • Removed by Paul B as not required. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Again, the verses starting "sweet swan of Avon..." seem redundant here, as they don't explicitly mention authorship. It could be condensed to mention what it refers to .. perhaps "...in which he identifies Shakespeare as a playwright, a poet, and an actor. The verses also ties the author to to Stratford-upon-Avon and alludes to him appearing at the courts of Elizabeth I and James I."
    • A huge amount of the early literature worried over this 'Avon' reference since it clearly pointed to WS as a denizen born by the river Avon (Stratford). History is not the evidence we want, it is data for conclusions we draw. Jonson for all scholars here, in citing Avon, fixes the playwright, poet, actor and personal friend as someone from the Avon river area. The Earl of Oxford had an estate, Bilton, on the Avon, but decades earlier. Given the importance of Avon as a topological signpost in the identity arguments, the verses are, I think, not only justified, but essential.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • The poem is entitled "To the memory of my beloved, the Author Mr. William Shakespeare", as the previous sentence notes, so the Swan of Avon reference is indeed directly linked to authorship. It says the author was from somewhere on the river Avon. Paul B (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Digges was raised in a village on the outskirts of Stratford-upon-Avon in the 1590s by his stepfather, and Shakespeare's friend, Thomas Russell, who was appointed in Shakespeare's will as overseer to the executors." Can we condense this a bit? Perhaps "Digges was raised near S-u-A in the 1590s and was the stepson of Thomas Russell, Shakespeare's friend and overseer of executors of Shakespeare's estate."
    • ='Raised in a village on the outskirts of Stratford-upon-Avon in the 1590s, Digges was the stepson of Shakespeare's friend, Thomas Russell, whom Shakespeare's will designated as the overseer to the executors.' Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Reworded by Paul B to simplify. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm obviously missing something about the need to tie WS to Stratford, because I completely fail to see why "This poem circulated very widely in manuscript and survives today in more than two dozen contemporary copies; several of these have the full title "On Mr. William Shakespeare, he died in April 1616", unambiguously referring to Shakespeare of Stratford." is helping the case for WSs authorship. If there is such a need, it's been failed to be made in the case against section.
    • Have rewritten to clarify that the variant title adds information not available in Basse's folio poem, which gives Shakespeare's date of death, one that happens to coincide with the known date of WS of Stratford. = 'several of these have a fuller, variant title "On Mr. William Shakespeare, he died in April 1616", which unambiguously specifies that the reference is to Shakespeare of Stratford.' Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Evidence:
  • "....which provided Latin instruction for children aged 7 to 14." this is unneeded and if cut would allow the rest of the sentence and the following to be combined. "Instead, his classical allusions rely on the Elizabethan grammar school curriculum which began with William Lily's Latin grammar Rudimenta Grammatices and progressed to Caesar, Livy, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Plautus, Terence, and Seneca. All of these authors and works are quoted and echoed in the Shakespearean canon."
    • Cut and reworded by Paul B, as suggested. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Shakespeare's plays are full of phrases from grammar school texts and pedagogy, including caricatures of schoolmasters." "including" here implies that the second part is a subset of the first, but this isn't the case. Perhaps "Shakespeare's plays are full of phrases from grammar school texts and pedagogy alongside caricatures of schoolmasters."
    • Reworded by Paul B: "including" is now "together with". Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Lily's Grammar is referred to in the plays by characters such as Demetrius and Chiron in Titus Andronicus (4.10), Tranio in The Taming of the Shrew, the schoolmaster Holofernes of Love's Labour's Lost (5.1) in a parody of a grammar-school lesson, Sir Toby Belch in Twelfth Night, and Sir Hugh Evans, another schoolmaster who in Merry Wives of Windsor (4.1) parodies Lily." This could profitably be condensed to "Lily's Grammar is referred to in a number of plays, including Titus Andronicus (4.10), The Taming of the Shrew, Love's Labour's Lost (5.1), Twelfth Night, and Merry Wives of Windsor (4.1)." Also, need a cite for the Taming of the Shrew ref.
    • Has been condensed as suggested, and locations for Taming of the Shrew and Twelfth Night added. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Studies show that an artist's creativity is responsive to the milieu in which the artist works, and especially to prominent political events." is just filler and can go or needs some reason to tie it to the following sentences, which could stand on their own.
    • Cut by Paul B. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Is his name "Dean Keith Simonton"? or is are you giving him a title of "Dean"? If the first, why when all the other usage is just two names, instead of three? If the latter, you need to make this clearer, as "dean" could indeed mean a first name.
    • "Dean" is a name. He uses "Dean Keith Simonton" in his publications (examples) so it seemed desirable to use that approach in the article. Further thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "When lagged two years, the mainstream chronologies yielded substantially meaningful associations between thematic and political context..." what's lagged here mean? I 'think it means that when compared against events two years before the date of the work, but it's not going to be clear to a lot of folks, needs explanation.
    • Nishidani has improved wording using "backdated", and I have further simplified. Now reads "When backdated two years, the mainstream chronologies yield substantial correlations between the two, whereas the alternate chronologies proposed by Oxfordians display no relationship regardless of the time lag." Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Bardolatry:
  • REALLY dislike the easter egg link for 1660. There is no reason to link that way, and would be much better to use the actual "Restoration (England)" here. Suggest "... after the theatres reopened in the Restorataion Era after 1660,..."
    • Fixed as suggested by Tom Reedy. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Urf. "Although his views remained orthodox, ..." is very POV. Try "Although still convinced that Shakespeare was the author of the plays, ..." calling the view "orthodox" when there really isn't a religious angle here, is a bit over the line in an article ON the other theories.
    • Fixed as suggested by Paul B. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Open dissent:
  • "Shakespeare's authorship was first openly questioned in the pages of Joseph C. Hart's The Romance of Yachting (1848)." you say that but do not describe HOW Hart argued he wasn't or WHO Hart felt was the author. This is where people are going to want to know more, and where all that culling in the "case for" section will allow you to explicate a bit more on the actual subject of the article.
    • Paul B has added a brief outline regarding Hart; more information is in Hart's linked article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Same for Jameson .. you don't explicate here where it's relevant to the article subject.
    • Paul B has added a brief phrase regarding Jameson—should be sufficient, while adding more would distract from the presentation of the chronology. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You mention that Hawthorne helped Delia Bacon, but did he agree with her? How did he help - help write? Help publish?
    • Paul B has removed the mention of Hawthorne as extraneous. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Search for proof:
  • "Perhaps because of Bacon's legal background, the Shakespeare authorship question has often been tested by recourse to the framework of trial by jury in both mock and real trials." WAAYYY wordy and convoluted. Suggest "Perhaps because of Bacon's legal background, both mock and real jury trials figure in attempts to prove other authors."
    • Paul B has fixed wording as suggested. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "The first such litigation..." was this a real trial or a mock one?
    • Mock trial; Paul B has fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming that the Tuthill-judged case was a real trial? Where did this take place?
    • Yes, in Chicago; Paul B has fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is "financed by George Fabyan" important? He's not notable enough for his own article, so it seems superflous.
    • Paul B has added more to explain the significance of Fabyan in the preceding trial paragraph (which has a link to his article). Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • So Gallup traveled to England, but did she find anything? YOu leave us hanging...
    • Paul B has added that nothing was found. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Argh! It's not "...Dean of Lichfield. He's the dean of the Lichfield Cathedral chapter! So... Dean of Lichfield or Dean of Lichfield Cathedral. Linking to just plain Lichfield is erroneous in this context .. there is no such office as Dean of the town of Lichfield.
    • Paul B and Tom Reedy have fixed this as suggested. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Was Arensberg's campaign to photograph the grave sucessful? If so, did it uncover anything?
    • No, it wasn't. I have tweaked the text, to note his bid for permission was turned down, adding some details, and supplied an extra reference to Wadsworth's account, namely Schoenbaum.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Other candidates emerge:
  • What the heck does "Unaffiliated anti-Stratfordians also began to appear." mean? Unaffiliated with what???
    • Paul B has reworded to remove problem: "Anti-Stratfordians unaffiliated to any specific authorship candidate also began to appear." Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "... thereby sanctioning the search for candidates other than Bacon." Sanctioning? Seems a very odd word choice to me.
    • Paul B has changed "sanctioning" to "encouraging"; text is now "encouraging the search for candidates other than Bacon". Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "...an authority on French and English literature, renominated William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby..." since this is the first mention of any serious candidacy for Derby... renominated seems an odd word choice here.
    • Paul B has fixed this by changing "renominated William Stanley" to "argued the case for William Stanley". Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "To bridge this evidentiary gap, Oxfordians joined the Baconians in claiming to find hidden clues and allusions in the Shakespeare canon placed there by Oxford for the benefit of future researchers." The way this is worded it implies some sort of joint planned action or even a conspiracy. Perhaps "In attempts to bridge the evidentiary gap, both Oxfordians and Baconians began to argue that hidden clues and allusions in the Shakespeare canon had been placed there by Oxford for the benefit of future researchers." or something similar.
    • Has been reworded as suggested, but uses "placed there by their candidate" to cover both Oxfordians and Baconians. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming that Hoffman found no proof? Again, left the reader hanging about the outcome.
    • Paul B has added "Nothing was found". Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "American cryptologists William and Elizebeth Friedman won the Folger Shakespeare Library Literary Prize in 1955 for a definitive study considered to have disproven the claims that the works of Shakespeare contain hidden ciphers." wordy ... and a bit awkward, can this be reworded perhaps?
    • Has been reworded: "American cryptologists William and Elizebeth Friedman won the Folger Shakespeare Library Literary Prize in 1955 for a study of the arguments that the works of Shakespeare contain hidden ciphers. The study disproved all claims that the works contain ciphers, and was condensed and published as The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined (1957)." Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "...critical orthodox perspective..." suggest "critical perspective..." which avoids implying religious overtones. Scholarly might also be a substitute. Any time you start implying religious overtones in non-religious subjects, you're going to start shading into POV territory.
    • Paul B has changed to "...from a mainstream perspective...". Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Do any of these authors need to be stated? None is notable enough for their own article, and I don't believe they've been mentioned before. I think title and publication date would be fine here, no need to add more names to the name-stew that this article can be at times.
    • If a book is mentioned, wouldn't the author be required? While there is no article for these authors, they were part of the history. Further thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Shakespeare Cross-Examination - did it reach a conclusion for or against?

Did most of the letters skew one way?

• • • The volume merely reprints the articles, for and against, printed in backcopies of the Law Review, with an appendix of 9 pages consisting of letters to the editors in response to the earlier articles. No conclusion was made either way, readers were asked to draw their own conclusions. I think if I or anyone else were to analysis the letters on pp.116-125 there to see what way the letters skewed, and put this into the article, we would be hauled over the coals for an WP:OR violation. Unfortunbately Reliable Sources provide us no foothold for answering the question you raise.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
      • My opinion is that this is a factoid without connection then, the reader is given this information but it doesn't DO anything to enlighten things as far as arguments for/against/etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
        • It is there, as part of a list of books, to illustrate the fact that, in the period 1957-1962, a 'series of critical academic books and articles, however, held in check any appreciable growth of anti-Stratfordism'. One could, I suppose, remove every book named in the sequence as a mere factoid, but the result would be to eviscerate the point made, that finally scholarship arose to address arguments which had long been ignored.Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Authorship:
  • "..he used the media to circumnavigate the academy and appeal directly to the public..." the academy is unclear here... do you mean a specific academy? But the last society mentioned was the Shakespeare Oxford Society. Or is the "academic community" meant instead? (I'm pretty sure you don't mean Plato's Academy... at least!)
    • Tom Reedy has reworded with "academia". Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Ogburn secured Oxford as the most popular candidate, kick-starting the modern revival of the Oxfordian movement, based on seeking publicity through moot court trials, media debates, television, and later the Internet, including Wikipedia." Wordy and awkward. Perhaps "Ogburn's efforts secured Oxford the place as the most popular alternate candidate. He also kick-started the modern revival of the Oxfordian movement, based on seeking publicity through moot court trials, media debates, television, and later the Internet, including Wikipedia."
    • This suggestion has been implemented by Tom Reedy. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Bacon:
  • Haven't we already seen most of this: "William Henry Smith was the first to propose Bacon as the author in September 1856 in Was Lord Bacon the Author of Shakspeare's Plays? A Letter to Lord Ellesmere." so can some of it been condensed out?
    • Shortened to omit repetition by Paul B. Johnuniq (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "He compared passages such as Bacon's "Poetry is nothing else but feigned history" with Shakespeare's "The truest poetry is the most feigning" (As You Like It, 3.3.19–20), and Bacon's "He wished him not to shut the gate of your Majesty's mercy" with Shakespeare's "The gates of mercy shall be all shut up" (Henry V, 3.3.10).[190] Believing she had discovered hidden political meanings in the plays and parallels between those ideas and Bacon's known works, Delia Bacon proposed him as the leader of a group of disaffected philosopher-politicians who tried to promote republican ideas to counter the despotism of the Tudor-Stuart monarchies through the medium of the public stage." Total disjoint beteween these two sentences, needs something better to connect the ideas.
    • Reworded by Paul B. Second sentence now works with the first and reads "Shortly afterwards Delia Bacon argued that there were hidden political meanings in the plays and parallels between those ideas and Bacon's known works." Johnuniq (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Linkie "wastebook"?
    • Now reads (with link) "waste book" (by Paul B). Johnuniq (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you mean to have "Proponents of Bacon also argue that ..." before "His moral philosophy, including a revolutionary politico-philosophic system of government, was concealed in the Shakespeare plays because of its threat to the monarchy."?
    • The explanatory words "They say that" have been inserted by Paul B (in the article, it is clear that "They" means "Baconians"). Johnuniq (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "This sparked a cipher craze that produced probative cryptograms in the works found by Ignatius Donnelly." do you mean "This sparked a cipher craze that produced probative cryptograms in the works that were found by Ignatius Donnelly."? If so, it's a bit unclear at first reading.
    • Has been reworded for clarity and now reads "This sparked a cipher craze and probative cryptograms were identified in the works by Ignatius Donnelly, Orville Ward Owen, Elizabeth Wells Gallup, and Dr. Isaac Hull Platt." Johnuniq (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Orville Ward Owen (who believed that Francis Bacon was the secret son of Queen Elizabeth and Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester),[199] and Dr. Isaac Hull Platt." Incomplete sentence ... no verb for the subject Owen.
    • The original sentence was possibly correct although clumsy. It has been reworded by omitting the parenthetical clause (the omitted point appears earlier in the article). Johnuniq (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Edward de Vere:
  • Not a fan of the easter egg links of "grandfather" and "father" here. See WP:Easter egg for reasons to avoid linking in this manner which can surprise the reader as well as lead them to NOT link on the term linked, as they assume that actual words being piped are meant to be linked.
    • The links to de Vere's ancestors in "grandfather" and "father" have been omitted as unnecessary by Paul B. Johnuniq (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Although Oxford died in 1604, with, according to the most widely accepted chronology, ten plays yet to be written, Oxfordians date the plays earlier and say that unfinished works were revised by other playwrights and released after his death." awkward and wordy, might be best reworded.
    • Reworded by Paul B: "Oxford died in 1604, before ten of the plays were produced. Oxfordians either say that Oxford did not write at least some of these plays or they date them earlier, suggesting that unfinished works were completed by other playwrights and released after his death." Johnuniq (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry to take this off-track, but are there prominent Oxfordians who do not ascribe to (if that is the correct word) at least the two long poems, the Sonnets, the thirty-six plays of the First Folio, and the two other plays? Are there specific plays some Oxfordians have thrown out?Fotoguzzi (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "A device from Henry Peacham's Minerva Britanna (1612) depicting a hand behind a curtain that has written the Latin motto MENTE VIDEBOR ("By the mind I shall be seen") was first used to support Bacon's candidacy..." the "hand behind a curtain that has written" is confusing.. is the hand writing? Or is the motto on the curtain?
    • Reworded by Paul B: "depicting a hand appearing from behind a curtain and writing the Latin motto". Johnuniq (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In general, I don't find a great degree of egregious POV and problems with NPOV. I've pointed out spots where it jumped out at me, and I do think that culling back some of the non-necessary stuff in the Case for section would help with the feeling of too much extraneous stuff not related to the actual alternate theories. Finding a few other ways of wording "anti-stratfordians" would also help cut down on that slight feeling of pushing too hard against the other theories. It's certainly not badly skewed to my historian trained mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I just realized I have FAs to my credit that are shorter than this review, sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your review. I appreciate the disinterested perspective and am happy that you found no major POV issues. Some of your criticisms point out places where we knew what we wanted to say but didn't say it quite well enough for a naïve reader to grasp, and that is much appreciated. We'll go to work on those and the rest of the points directly. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In order to not make this page any longer, I have copied the above points and placed them on the article talk page so the editors can mark them off and discuss them. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

General comment about the progress on this FAC. Many of the Opposes entered are not actionable, although some actionable comments have not been addressed on this page. That some arguments have been visited and revisited in talk archives, or some comments have been reviewed on talk, doesn't resolve actionable concerns raised on this page. Because the FAC to this point includes mostly unactionable opposes, with some actionable commentary unresolved here (another reviewer expressed my concern that the lead is argumentative), it is likely that I will restart the FAC once Ealdgyth's comments are resolved to everyone's satisfaction, and authorize Nikkimaria to more aggressivly move unactionable opposes off the page, while asking nominators to address actionable issues here (not on article talk), if any remain. I am concerned that the Lead/Overview seem to be covering the same territory, and my one and only source check ("... a relatively small but highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters, including some prominent public figures,) didn't seem to support the text, although I could have missed it. Please ping me once Ealdgyth is satisfied, and we'll see where things stand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you could say why the source did not support the claim about a "relatively small but highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters, including some prominent public figures". The source lists various famous people who have shown interest in the idea, referring to them in the following words: "These are essentially celebrity endorsements: none of the above, with the possible exception of Freud, could be called a Shakespeare scholar." This seems to support the sentence which states that Shakespeare scholars have taken the "Stratfordian" view, but that opponents are "highly visible" "including some prominent public figures." The source does not explicitly say that their numbers are "relatively small", but that is, I think, implicit. If that phrase is the problem, it can be deleted. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that supports any of that wording ("relatively small", "highly visible" or "diverse")-- ya'll know better than I, but my concern is that the one and only source check I did left me confused. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the "relatively small"; though it's true I don't think we need to say it. I think "highly visible" is just another way of saying "celebrity", the word used in the source. "Diverse" simply refers to the fact that we have a jumble of names from a wide variety of professions. The opening sentence of the source is "What, aside from international fame, did Mark Twain, Helen Keller, Henry James, Sigmund Freud, Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles have in common?" I take this to be a rhetorical way of saying that they have very little in common - they are "diverse". Paul B (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

General response to SandyGeorgia's general comment: Sandy, your proposal has some practical advantages, but seen from the angle of the creators of the article, it amounts IMO to rewarding Randy in Boise for disruption, and asking an unreasonable amount of doubled work from Tom Reedy, Paul Barlow, Nishidani, Johnuniq, etc—in short, from the mainstream Shakespeare scholars that Wikipedia is fortunate to have. (No telling how many we'll have after this FAC.) I wouldn't be surprised if Tom is about ready to throw in the towel at the prospect of starting over, and at the failure of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question arb case and its discretionary sanctions to have the effect arbcom expected and desired. I'm far from sure that the FAC will actually "restart" even if it "is restarted": the nominators may withdraw it instead. The best specialists aren't necessarily the most patient ones. Bishonen | talk 04:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC).

I have to agree - there are 8 supports, one leaning support and Nikkimaria's comments were satisfactorily addressed. While there are also 8 opposes, all but one of them are either SPAs or self-identified proponents of the Anti-Stratfordian theories. The nominators have been good at responding to most actionable requests - could you identify the ones they have not yet responded to instead? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Allrighty then, instead I'll have to go back through the Opposes and pull out anything that looks reasonable (although it may not be), but hasn't been addressed. That might not be fair either, and it might save time if nominators will revisit some of the Opposes and respond to items here rather than on talk (even with links to talk sections so reviewers don't have to trudge through all of the article talk archives). There were some valid concerns raised in a few opposes that have gone unaddressed here. I agree we shouldn't reward Randy in Boise for disruption, but neither should we pass a FAC without scrutinizing the Opposes just because most of them are disruptive. I'm thinking of the Intelligent Design FACs and FARs, where the core contributors had become so defensive that good-faith editors couldn't even ask for consistent citation formatting without being dismissed or attacked as POV (BTDT) -- I don't want to see this article pass without real scrutiny, as that will allow Randy in Boise to continue making claims. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I am not trying to make extra work for you nor am I trying to tell you how to do your job, but I was agreeing with Bishonen as far as my understanding of what a restart means. It seems to me that there are three issues making things (even) more complicated here.

1. This FAC page was and now is currently semi-proctected so IP and new users cannot edit it. Laser brain blocked one new user early on for disruptive editing here. However, after two weeks, the page was unprotected for a few days, which led to several of the opposes from new (and apparently SPA) users. So how do comments from IP and new users count - should they be completely ignored (since they were made when the page was unprotected) or not? (My feeling has been that these comments can be ignored as they would not have been made had the semi-protection been up continually, but you seem to think otherwise??).
2. I think another part of the confusion stems from what exactly a restart entails. The term is not used anywhere in the FAC directions (that I can see) and so it is not clear to me (and I suspect others) what all is involved if an FAC is restarted. If you could briefly explain a restart and say what those who have already weighed in need to do if the FAC is restarted, that would help me a lot (also, what about those who do not weigh in again after a restart - what happens to their comments pro or con here)?
3. Finally, consensus seems to be to semi-protect this FAC page. If a restart happens, I assume it will also be semi-protected? What then happens to the comments of the IPs and new accounts that would not be able to weigh in on the restarted page?

Finally, I know FAC restarts happen every so often - is there some sort of explanatory page about them (and if not, should there be)? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)