Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

Article review

Thank you, Smatprt, for focusing on this. (Seeing your list of revisions on the history page for the article, I assume by reviewing the article itself I'm reviewing your 'initial attempt'.):

1. I wonder how 'and Shakespeare's authorship was not questioned during his lifetime or for centuries after his death' in the intro might be presented to make room for those who made seemingly veiled and revealing comments during and around the time of the writing of these works--and early notable questions raised (like Adams and Jefferson reportedly visiting Stratford-Upon-Avon and wondering at the lack of any substantial indication of legacy). Just inserting a word such as 'publicly' or 'officially' or 'formally'--or even 'unrecognized'--before 'questioned' might help.
2. I see no mention of 'group theory' of authorship--a growing view, even among Stratfordians(?)--or how it might address/answer concerns regarding individual candidates.
3. With his death came a will which mentioned no literary works; this might be briefly mentioned (it tends to be used more often than the monumental sack of grain to depreciate the Stratford argument).
4. When introducing Looney, it might briefly be explained why he was uncomfortable with the official story--as an English teacher teaching these works, finding it hard to square with official biography--and describe the technique he used to identify an alternative candidate (his major and minor criteria for authorship derived from the works).
5. Can it really be said, with support, that the Ogburns wrote their book 'To try to revive flagging interest in Oxford'? Maybe they wrote it simply to advance the argument without regard to then-current interest levels. If we don't actually know their motives, or can't support any such knowledge, is suggestion of motive best left out?
6. So many of the references are to Shapiro, a recognized supporter of the Stratford story. Maybe this has all been thrashed out sufficiently--in terms of quality of sources, etc.--and maybe he's the best there is on supporting key points, but someone so identified with one side of the argument might be heard from less in an article that needs to be so sensitive to POV issues. Artaxerxes (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The seemingly veiled comments exist entirely in the mind of authorship theorists. If there was some evidence that Adams and Jefferson had authorship doubts then they might be included. I expect there isn't or we would have heard about it. Expecting to find Shakespeare magically visible in Stratford is like looking through Canterbury shoeshops in search of Marlowe. Your points about Looney are valid, but they are already discussed in the Oxford page. A sentence might be added here. Shapiro is a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. I think it was he who made the flagging interest statement, but can't recall his exact terminology. Paul B (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

'After the war, Adams was appointed the first US minister to England. In the spring of 1786, he and Thomas Jefferson took a six-day tour of the English countryside that included a disappointing stop at Shakespeare’s birthplace at Stratford-upon-Avon. The house was “as small and mean as you can conceive,” wrote Adams in his diary. “There is nothing preserved of this great genius... which might inform us what education, what company, what accident turned his mind to letters and drama.”' fromShakespeare in American Life: John Adams. 'Our presidents have always loved Shakespeare. In April 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson visited Shakespeare's birthplace at Stratford-upon-Avon. "They shew us an old Wooden Chair in the Chimney corner, where He sat," Adams wrote in his diary. "We cutt off a Chip according to Custom." Adams lamented that "[t]here is nothing preserved this great Genius," with no apparent recognition that more might have been preserved if tourists had not taken away chips of the fixtures.' from "Slate". 'In April 1786, two American diplomats by the names of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson stopped for a night in Stratford-on-Avon; two tourists visiting the small town that was becoming famous as the birthplace of the Bard of Avon. David Garrick's Shakespeare Jubilee Celebration had been staged there seventeen years earlier. John Adams made the following entry in his diary: "There is nothing preserved of this great genius which is worth knowing -nothing which might inform us what education, what company, what accident turned his mind to letters and drama. His name is not even on his gravestone. An ill-sculptured head is set up by his wife by the side of his grave in the church."' from an (I just discovered) blocked site--but which seems to have the more complete quote.Artaxerxes (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I thought, there is no doubt, just disappointment that nothing has been preserved and that his house is, apparently, small (!). As I said, it's about as meaningful as expecting to find evidence of to "inform" you of genius by visiting Marlowe's father's shoeshop, or Jonson's family's bricklaying business. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A few responses to Artaxerxes:

1. I agree. The line in the lead should agree with the longer history article, which states correctly that doubters believe certain literary allusions as far back as the 1590s refer to such doubts.

   Note: I've made an addition of one line to explain the earlier doubts, citing to mainstream scholars. Let me know what you think.

   • While many authorship skeptics believe that allusions to a hidden author were made as early as the 1590's,[4] according to orthodox scholars George McMichael and Edward Glenn, the first direct doubts about Shakespearean authorship arose in the 18th century, in various satirical and allegorical works. [5] Smatprt (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

2. I've made this same comment before, which has never been answered. I suggest you write a brief section on the 'group theory' and its variants. The article is woefully inadequate without it.
3. this information is in this section of the article already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Shakespeare.27s_death. If you have a suggestion for a wording change, by all means, speak up (or just make an edit).
4. Looney already has the largest single paragraph. Any more would throw the weight off even more. I think further detail belongs in the main Oxfordian article, not here. But again, if you would like to change the wording, feel free.
5. Whoever wrote it (the flagging part), its clearly an opinion being stated as fact. I agree we shouldn't look into a crystal ball to determine the 'motive' of a particular source. I would support removing that bit.
6. Agree that the article relies on one source (Shapiro) for too much. Anderson and Ogburn should be sources, but have been removed, which is odd since Wikipedia rules allow for proponents of a theory to be quoted as far as what they believe, and given their works were published by mainstream publishers and reviewed by all the major news outlets.Smatprt (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Marking the advent of the authorship question/controversy matters on the public/not private level: who can really say what questioning went on privately, noted in correspondence or diaries, shared between people at home or at the tavern (exchanges we might become aware of somehow in future). What's needed here is a date, or rough time period, when the public were given (verifiably-) published works that made them aware of the issue/question with (hopefully) material that might fuel their own curiosity or investigation. Artaxerxes (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We try to stick with verifiable, historical facts, as represented in reliable sources, not as interpreted by fringe promotional sources. See WP:PARITY, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:SPS. In an article such as this, about a fringe theory that has been judged to meet the criteria to be a featured article, (well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (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), and which also happens to be under ArbCom sanctions, it is not acceptable to merely announce an intention to make a substantive change in the article, whether in the lede or some other section, and then make the edit. Consensus must be gained on the talk page before doing so.

As the policy of requiring edits be brought first to the discussion page for general agreement seems to apply differently to different editors (or types of edits), perhaps it would be helpful to those who want to contribute to this page to know to whom (or when/how) this policy strictly applies. Artaxerxes (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Any substantive or controversial change to a WP:Featured article, especially one under WP:Sanctions, should be brought to the talk page before being introduced to the article, regardless of who the editor is. "General agreement" is not enough to incorporate the edit; it must also meet the standards of sourcing, weight, POV, etc. Of course, the practicality is that no edit that did not meet the relevant criteria would garner general agreement on an article so closely watched by editors and admins as this one. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as bringing the SAQ article in conformity with the history page, if anything the influence should be in the opposite direction. This is an FA article; the history page is not even rated as a good article. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

In the face of endless complaints that the Oxfordian view is misrepresented, Tom proposed a 'period of grace', intimating that all editors responsible for the FA article hold off to allow the Oxfordian section ('an actual fair and neutral summary of the Oxfordan case') to be reviewed minutely by yourself and, I assume, others who share your views, and reedited comprehensively to the point where you would all be satisfied.

To judge by the quiet that ensued, tacitly all editors took note, and accepted this as a reasonable way to avoid edit-warring, and to resolve once and for all any chronic disagreements on the way the de Veran material has been presented. I for one was not happy with Tom's idea, but didn't object.

That was Dec 4. It is now Dec 18. Two weeks of absolute freedom to recast the Oxford section, without disturbance, interference or 'harassment'. What is the result?

(a)Minute tweaks to the Oxford section, that suggest you have no intent of substantively challenging the neutrality or comprehensiveness of the FA-approved section, as asked to do.

(b)A major Oxfordian alteration to the lead, Oxfordian because the point is Oxfordian not, for example, characteristic of Marlovian or Derbyite theory, from an RS that lags some 60 years behind contemporary scholarship. You have over the years consistently confused the Oxfordian case with the far more complex sceptic tradition.

(c)A long talk note after you were twice reverted for (b)

(d)A challenge to one of the basic RS, representing the cutting edge of modern scholarship, with the suggestion poor, non-scholarly sources, decidedly amateurish compilations by Oxfordian paladins resturn to the article, on the grounds that here the principle that we restrict sourcing to works thought significant by experts working in a peer-review academic milieu should be cancelled, in favour of any fringe source that is noticed in newspapers. Do or allow that, and the whole FA quality of the article will collapse, as WP:Fringe books and pamphlets flood back in to create the havoc of the earlier article.

In short, you ignored the generous remit Tom offered, twiddled a bit, and then started to edit the whole article, challenging the austere principles which got it past FA status. The effect was an edit-war, which hasn't happened here for a year, coinciding by the way with your suspension.

In my view, you've had double the offered time, done nothing requested, and simply returned to a generic challenge of the whole FA process and principles by a provocative destabilization of the article itself. You had your chance to fix the section Oxfordians complained about, and chose to ignore it, in favour of a rewrite of the whole article.Nishidani (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

While I share your dismay with the disappointing results of the Oxfordian makeover (which deleted any mention of the Prince Tudor theory, about which an entire Hollywood movie was made), neither Smatprt nor any other editor is restricted to editing a certain section of the article, but he is obliged to follow the procedures for FA articles and the arbitration sanctions, just like every other editor. As far as I know, those requirements will never expire. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. He can edit wherever. I thought the idea was for him to rewrite that section with a free hand, and no challenge for a week or two, and implicit in that was that if he opted for this, the condition of exceptional liberty to write unchallenged there would not carry over for edits he might in the meantime do to other sections of the page. He more or less inverted the premise, and went elsewhere instead of thoroughly overhauling an area where everyone tacitly promised to stay away from, something that is never allowed to any editor to my recall. It's a rerun of the SAQ split. He created a copy to rewrite for himself, and one for other editors, and then didn't do any work on his own page, but waited till others had thoroughly overhauled their copy, and then tried to block it. That suggests to me that he is more comfortably with conflictual editing, than writing to a page according to his own lights, on his own. I may be wrong, of course.Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I opened discussion to the broader page based upon my initial read of the offer to step back for a while. I now see, upon more careful reading, the offer was more focused. To offer an editor such an opportunity, then criticize his effort, might end up looking like a trap in future cases where such an offer might be extended. Artaxerxes (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No editor is offered a freehand without prospect of future criticism. To offer a temporary freehand and then to comment and criticise is not to create a trap. Of course if an editor demands that their hand remain the only one free, then they create their own trap. Paul B (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow - what a series of out and out fabrications. To respond for the record:

• Tom Reedy states "the Oxfordian makeover (which deleted any mention of the Prince Tudor theory, about which an entire Hollywood movie was made)" - I'm sorry, but I have to be blunt here: this is an outright lie misrepresentation. The current Paragraph 5 states "Another motivation given is the politically explosive "Prince Tudor theory" that the youthful Oxford was Queen Elizabeth's lover; according to this theory, Oxford dedicated Venus and Adonis, The Rape of Lucrece, and the Sonnets to their son, England's rightful Tudor Prince Henry Wriothesley, who was raised as the 3rd Earl of Southampton".
• Nishidani states "In short, you ignored the generous remit Tom offered, twiddled a bit, and then started to edit the whole article". Again, utter nonsense. Nishidani repeatedly accuses me of editing the "whole article" when in actuality I made one edit to the rest of the article. ONE. ONE. The whole article???? I made 25 edits to the Oxford section, and ONE edit to the rest of the article. Yet Nishidani characterizes this work as "You had your chance to fix the section Oxfordians complained about, and chose to ignore it, in favour of a rewrite of the whole article." Complete rewrite of the whole article? One edit??? Do you just make this stuff up???
• Nishidani (again) misrepresents my work on this article ("and then didn't do any work on his own page"), and, as usual, makes a series of unproven accusations about my motivation and abilities. So what did I add to the Oxfordian section? His connection to the Blackfriars Theatre, his work as a producer of court entertainments, his relationships with the patrons of the First Folio, Southampton, and the contemporary playwrights of Shakespeare's day. All these details were missing. Also missing was any mention of the discovery of his Bible and the scholarly work around it. These obvious omissions resulted in a shoddy and incomplete section. Did I throw it all out and start over? Of course not. I merely filled in the (many) blanks, keeping much of your earlier work.
• Nishidani states I left "A long talk note after you were twice reverted" - Another lie misrepresentation. I left my (short) talk note regarding the edit in question at 6:30pm.[1] The reversions came AFTER I left my talk page comments. First revert was at 6:34pm and the second at 8:38pm. This kind of obfuscation is typical of Nishidani's attack mode style.

I would request that both Tom and Nishidani retract their statements and refrain from misrepresenting other editors in the future.Smatprt (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(b)Editors and admins alike can suffer from imprecise recall, or misconstrue. To interpret such events as 'lying', when many other explanations are feasible, is to violate WP:AGF, so it is pointless to dignify this with a serious response, since, being in your view, a liar any answer I might make will only illustrate some penchant for tendentious mendacity. Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is a clever way to avoid answering. I have withdrawn the use of "lie". So now feel free to explain these misrepresentations. Smatprt (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(c)You were given total liberty to write the page on SAQ as you saw it, without hindrance. You made, from memory (fallible) 122 edits, mostly minor, negligible tweaks - only some 60 odd counted as significant, if minor textual adjustments. I think the version Tom, I and then Paul worked on required 1400 individual edits over 5 months. 62 edits versus 1400 is to me an index of our respective commitments to wikipedia. It was a thorough quality RS based overhaul of the whole argument's history, required extensive reading and close verbal control of the text's fidelity to unimpeachable sources. Put it this way, you had a nice summer. Tom and I missed a lot of sunlight and leisure from April to October to get a job done. With a little help from friends it was designated an FA article. You spent far more energy challenging our work, than in doing your own, which was designed to compete with it. 'didn't do any work on his page' refers to your SAQ draft, which never really got off from being a copy-and-paste version of the collective mess we had when the split was made in April 2010.Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(d)Is all of this concentration on I said this, he said that, in the past productive of page improvement? We can niggle off the edges of the sun, sparrowfashion, to kingdom come. But rather than interact, we should be reading books, finding material appropriate to articles and editing it in, with such regard for quality, that temptations we all have to fill these talk pages with endless quillets of protest never get past go. Try editing to the quality an FA article demands. If it passes muster, it will find everyone's approval. It's nigh New Year's Eve, and as good a time as any, apart from auguries to all for a productive one, to make some serious resolutions, and stick by them.Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recollection is again quite faulty. You are making up numbers and mis-categorising my edits, as usual. If anyone want to compare and see the ACTUAL impact of my edits, here is diff between the old version and my "negligible" version:Old Version at 150,000 bytes vs my "barely tweaked" version which reduced the article to 82K!!!. To continue to charaterize the cutting of the article by half, and the hundreds if not thousands of changes therein, is simply further evidence of the tactics being used here.Smatprt (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as you keep writing comments that discuss the editor and not the edit, I feel obliged to respond. Once you stop attacking me, then I can stop defending myself.Smatprt (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So I take it, in spite of being shown your errors and the results of your faulty memory, you refuse to withdraw your misrepresentations and mistaken comments? Smatprt (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You created a separate page for us and worked on your own the sandbox article (Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/sandbox_draft1) from 15:06, 26 April 2010. The history of that page, generously read shows not 120 (my memory refers to an earlier version when both I and Tom made a few edits) but even fewer. Let's give you an extra month. As Tom and I did our 1400 edits, the page history shows that from 26 April to 2 November, there were 101 edits, several by other users, on your sandbox page, mostly fiddley tweaks to the old page which had been produced collectively. That is what I was referring to.‎ You really should try to have a happier New Year.Nishidani (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said in a similar context, and it will be a NYResolution. No engagements with the diva-dame!, even where a seductive overture is made! Besides, watching the gore on Centurion, playing on a boobtube nearby, is more entertaining.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Two things:

1. I see now why I missed the Prince Tudor reference: it's tucked away as a possible explanation of Oxford's use of a pseudonym and them immediately followed by other material concerning Oxford's death. Before 2 Dec, when you rolled out 15 or so edits in one fell swoop, the Oxford section contained a sentence explaining Prince Tudor II that appeared at the end of the section (Jr.?), which you cut with the edit summary of "removing PT2 wp:weight, which belong in OT and PT articles. Too much detail for this wp:summary." After you were reverted, you again cut the material, this time with the summary of "cutting weight of PT by half. again - extended detail needs to go into main article, not here." You then capped the section by moving material to the end, which is why I didn't catch it with my cursory glance. Since my comment specified the theory that the movie was based on, my observation stands. Although I did miss the remnant of the theory still in the section, what is left is the "mainstream" Oxfordian version of the PT theory, not the version covered in the movie, which is now arguably the more well-known. I am of the opinion that it should be added back, since it has been met with a warm reception amongst Oxfordians, enough so that even those opposed to it vociferously applauded the movie when it was released.
2. Why in the hell is anybody still arguing about the separate competing versions of the article from more than a year ago? Have we not moved on? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sir Thomas More fragment

The Oxford University Press has added the play Sir Tomas More to its works of Shakespeare, based on three pages of manuscript that are said to be in Shakespeare's handwriting. It seems that if Shakespeare actually wrote those pages, then a huge hole would be made in the argument of the anti-Stratfordians. It seems am omission to me that the manuscript is not mentioned in this article. The article about the play does mention the possible connection to Shakespeare, but the only specifics provided concern stylistic similarities with other plays attributed to Shakespeare. I don't have the expertise to do so, but I think it would be useful if someone addressed the Sir Thomas More manuscript in this article. - Arnold Rothstein1920 —Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC).

You're right that it's a significant argument, but the details are very complex, and would be difficult to discuss properly here. There is currently an attempt to improve coverage on this issue on the page about the play and the page about Shakespeare's handwriting. The evidence is based on literary and writing style. The former is not conclusive for the SAQ debate, since the pages could have been written by the 'true' author. Of course, if proven to be Shakespeare on these grounds, it might then exclude candidates such as Bacon and Oxford whose handwriting is known. The 'professional' context (revision and collaboration) is also alien to most SAQ theories, which envisage a lone genius perfecting his work then passing it down to mere lackeys. But not all the theories are like that. There was an attempt to use the pages as part of the case for Derby. Arthur Walsh Titherley tried to prove that the handwriting was his, but it's not generally an important issue in SAQ literature or in rebuttals. Paul B (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Poet-Ape

A recent edit replaced File:Poet-ape1616.JPG with a box showing a modern version of the text. Is that an improvement? It might be my lack of imagination, but the more legible text does not seem persuasive to me, and the box is yucky looking compared with the original. I think the main reason for the image is to help produce an attractive page with points of interest, and while it is vaguely interesting to be able to more easily read the poem, viewing and reading the original is far more attractive and interesting to me. If there is a message in the text so it needs to be presented more legibly, that can be done on another article devoted to presenting the case—however, there would need to be a reliable secondary source making the connection (it's WP:SYNTH to insert a poem in the expectation that a reader would make some inference). Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you saying that making something more legible is not an improvement? This issue was raised during the building of the main William Shakespeare article, where it was decided that quotes and the like should be legible and in a standard blue box. If I recall correctly, I believe someone said words to the effect that this isn't an article about period printing examples, or elizabethan spelling, and that we expect readers to be able to actually read the poems or play quotes that we include. I would support the change for all such quotes. As to yucky looking, it's funny - I find the overuse of graphics like the original kind of yucky. But that is just personal preference. For me, the importance here is legibility.Smatprt (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq's point—-which I agree with—-is that the cutline explains the reason the poem is included in the article; reproducing the image of the original text acts as art for an article that mainly concerns interpretations of literature and that sorely needs some interesting illustrations; text boxes are ugly; and (this he left out) it is very simple to click on the image and read the text. OTOH, the poem is referred to in the article itself, so I'm not married to keeping the image. I do like it better than a text box, though. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if I think the text in the box is an improvement over the image. But, if we're keeping the modernized text and the text box, we have to be consistent (the title has the hyphen); we have to note that the text is being modernized; and we cannot rebreak the lines, which is tantamount to rewriting Jonson's poem. --Alan W (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to make it a bit less of an eyesore by changing the size. I think it is out of place in an article such as this. All the other art has an antique look about it. The text box at William Shakespeare is much less obtrusive and contains just a short quotation. This is like parking a trailer house in Silk Stocking District. Tom Reedy (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Just on a pedantic point. The Elizabethan text has, at the end, a ? Thisd interrogation mark was often repeated in successive old editions (William Gifford (ed.) Ben Jonson:The Works, 1816 9 vols. Vol.8, p.182, for example.) Modern editions, I do not know why, in modernizing and citing this poem, print an exclamation mark

• (a)Ian Donaldson, (ed.) Ben Jonson: Poems, OUP 1975 p.31
• (b)Richard Dutton (ed.) Epigrams ; and, The forest, Routledge, 2003 p.46
• (c)Richard D. Brown, The new poet: novelty and tradition in Spenser's Complaints, Liverpool University Press, 1999 p.199

The new image modernizes, but retains the interrogation mark, creating a slight dyscrasia with the general trend of modernized versions of this text.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What we now call question marks were used as both question marks and exclamation points up until the late 17th century. From the First Folio Hamlet: What a piece of worke is a man! How Noble in Reason? How infinite in faculty? in forme and mouing how expresse and admirable? in Action, how like an Angell?" Here's another example: " How weary, stale, flat, and vnprofitable | Seemes to me all the vses of this world? | Fie on't?"

So yes, if it's gonna be modernised, it should be modernised in conformity to modern editing principles. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I fort so, guv. Ain't much uva pic but, so modemized or not, I fink we'd better pri'ify t'other, wiff its antique, um, aromah, and just make it reedyable. Woddya wreckun?Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This is all good stuff (and thanks Nishidani for another new word—dyscrasia bad mixture), but what about the fact that the text box is ugly, and no one has provided a reason for why the text needs to be easily legible, and the original image is more attractive and interesting. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think most readers can grasp the essence of the poem from the image we had here. To satisfy those who feel that a modernization is desirable, however, we could compromise and place the modernized text in a footnote. Just a thought. --Alan W (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

How about a clickable image with the modern text appearing when hovering over the image? Similar to the lede image, except the entire picture show the text. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... A very interesting idea. There might be some technical difficulties, but it's worth thinking about. (Can't believe I'm still up over here, but, hey, it's still a holiday, and Happy New Year, Tom and everybody!) --Alan W (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

After the various fixes that everyone has contributed, I actually think the blockquote looks very nice. It is certainly more appealing than the signature box, for example, which is actually larger and a bit of a mishmash. (On that one I'm wondering if the explanations might look better if they all justify right). But as to the Poet Ape - I guess the key thing here is my view on legibility, as its the poem itself being offered as material for the Case Against section for the article (I know, having been the editor who added it several years ago). Given the 13 lines (2 block quotes) here [2], and an additional block quote of 4 lines in the next section (both in the Case For section), I think these 13 lines being quoted in the Case Against section adds some balance as well. I do agree that the original version was not as appealing and am happy to see the format changes, which are all within the guidelines of the MOS when it comes to quoting poetry, lyrics, etc. Smatprt (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Image Review

I am actually glad to see the attention given to the Poet-Ape image as I hve long thought that the images through-out need to be reviewed. As graphics and image editing have always been one of my contributions, and as I have real world experience, I am happy to participate in those particular activities. As I recall, during the FA process, not much attention was given to the finer details of image placement, format and the like. For example, we have one section [3] that is crammed with three images, with text sandwiched in between. All three images make the same point, so I imagine there are weight issues as well, but from my standpoint it just looks pretty awful. Any thought on this?Smatprt (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The size of the computer monitor and what browser is being used determines whether the page looks crammed or not. While on a 15" screen it looks claustrophobic, on a 23" screen the article looks positively bare. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we need Lucrece. The Coat of Arms and the Lear page are both illustrating the same general point, but significantly different aspects of it. The Lear page also has a hyphenated version of the name, which visually supports other aspects of the article content. Paul B (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's fine with me to take it out. I found the image and inserted it as yet another example of a contemporary example of attribution to Shakespeare of Stratford. I tend to pound these types of things into ground, since anti-Strats claim evidence such as this doesn't exist. Another reason is that the article is deficient on interesting images. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW I would also like to add that I see nothing wrong with rotating images periodically in order to keep the look of the page fresh. We all come upon interesting images every once in a while, and if an editor wants to replace an image with another one all that is necessary IMO is to post the image or a link on the talk page and get consensus. The next time I visit the UK and Stratford I plan to take lots of photographs for the purpose of using them on Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

' the article is deficient on interesting images.'

Well, what about uploading a mugshot of yourself, preferably standing against the Alamo?Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom, I can't say I agree with you about "rotating images". We need a bit more stability than that. This is an encyclopedia article, not a slide show! --Alan W (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's an encyclopedia, but much different than those of the past. Just thinking out loud here—maybe we could have a short feature section that changes every 3-6 months or so about the points that people bring up that don't really rate a permanent place in the article, such as the Hand D suggestion of a few weeks ago. It could be a short summary with a graf telling how it's related to authorship and link to the main article. Wikipedia is going to change, and that might be one that would improve the encyclopedia yet give it some immediacy. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That is worth trying. I understood your "rotating images" to suggest that there is no need to agonize over some of the images (should it be X or should it be Y?). Instead (assuming both are helpful), have X for a few months, then try Y. Again, that sounds worth trying, and I imagine you are not suggesting that more than a couple of images should be changed every few months. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Right; I'm not suggesting we re-write the article, just introduce a little variety (by editor consensus, of course) of some limited-time material. And instead of loading up the page with every image we can find, rotate them from an editor-approved stock. What's the sense of trying to make the new media static like the old media? Maybe we could even embed some YouTube videos such as this one with Stanley Wells discussing authorship or even one dramatizing the "anti" argument in the "arguments against" section. Of course, all the POV and weight issues would have to be hashed out, but I don't see why it couldn't be done. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oxford and Blackfriars

I have added a reliable source for the information about Oxford and his sublease of the Blackfriars. Smith uses Wallace sparingly as a source, and not at all on the topic of Oxford and Lyly, because Wallace is prone to romanticizing and what I call "doubtlessing". Wallace even has the location of the theatre incorrect, placing it on the ground floor. Smith is considered to be the best source for the history of the Blackfriars, and Wikipedia sourcing should avoid out-of-date sources and "cite present scholarly consensus when available." Wallace is 100 years old and is not a "standard academic text".

And no, I don't agree that a television show full of inaccuracies is an acceptable reference. WP:RS says that "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources", but this particular production is full of opinion as fact and has been strongly criticized for its inaccuracies. See [4] and [5]. In point of fact, WP:NEWSORG, which you give as justification, states that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The show you want to use as a ref is not fact.

Speaking of sourcing, I would appreciate if you, Smatprt, would actually read the sources and accurately cite them instead of pulling page numbers out of the air or not giving them at all. The Bethell cites are a good example of the latter, but citing works you have not read has been a continuing problem on this and the Oxford page. I don't have as much free time nowadays to go right behind you, and often several days or weeks pass before I can check your citations. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the additional source for Blackfriars, and suggest we keep both sources until this dispute is resolved. As there is no "romanticizing" in the information being quoted, I don't see how your most recent complaint about Wallace has any merit. These are undisputed facts and hardly controversial, but since the editors here seem to want a reference for even uncontroversial items, so be it.

You are incorrect as to PBS - the thought that any news outlet that receives criticism is no longer RS is just not policy. Think of the ramifications if your assertion were correct. But thank you for the policy quote - again, it bolsters my position, as the item being sourced is the opinion of Oxfordians ("Oxfordians believe...", not a controversial statements of fact. Or are you saying that Oxfordians don't believe that Oxford was anonymously or under a pseudonym?

As to your last little attack, please stop with the accusations. The Bethell article is linked to a two page web article (the preferred medium here on Wikipedia), that comes up as one page if you wish. Just follow the trail. As to your other accusations, I can only request that you be specific or it just appears like the common whining of the old days.

I would also ask that you refrain from simply deleting existing material you suddenly question the RS for. The first step is to place a fact tag on the material or start a discussion. Too often you use the RS argument (or you attempt to redefine RS) in order to delete material, even when you know full well that the source is accurate. Isn't this game playing becoming tiresome? In any case, simply fact tag the item or the RS in question and we can look at each item in as much depth as you wish. If we can't resolve it, then we are bound by ArbCom to go to dispute resolution. Simply deleting material or deciding on your own (based on your own opinion) that something isn't RS, and avoiding the dispute resolution process entirely, is not what ArbCom recommended we do. Smatprt (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

More interesting than the question of why Tom wants to delete the source, is why you want to keep it. It adds nothing to the article. There are sometimes legitimate reasons for using old sources, but when there is a great deal of scholarship on a topic, there is simply no need to do so. We should prefer up-to-date sources when they are to be found. As for PBS, yes, again mainstream news channels are generally "reliable" in a broad sense but they should not be used for topics where scholarship exists. Reliability is a continuum, not an absolute. Yes, you are right that the statement in itself is not controversial, but I would much prefer a better source. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Smatprt, you might as well open up some type of dispute resolution, because your insistence on using out-of-date refs and citing refs that don't support the statement grows wearisome and is time-consuming.

Earlier this month I made some edits on the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page, which you promptly reverted with the statement that you were "restoring as per BRD (Bold-Revert-Discuss)." You then added an outdated ref from 1854, and added Bevington as another ref for Ward's speculation that Oxford produced court entertainments. You added Manzer as further support for Ward's speculation. I reverted, posted to the talk page, and you finally responded after reverting. However, neither of the new refs you added supported the statement, and obviously you didn't understand that Ward is speculating, because you continued to re-add him and the outdated source as refs and you also cut material you didn't like.

Now on this page I removed your citation of Menzer, p. 89, that you used to support "He subleased the Blackfriars Theatre in the mid-1580s." It was explained to you on the Oxford page that Menzer did not support the statement. In fact, there is nothing about the Blackfriars on that page, and the article is entitled "Professional Players in Stratford on Avon, 1587-1602." And now you want to add another outdated ref from 1912 with the justification "to verify/support any missing details from other references". Sorry, but we don't use catch-all references "just in case" something stated isn't supported by other refs. And in this case I think the time element is important; the way it is written readers would think that Oxford was the owner of the Blackfriars during its entire existence.

As to the Bethell and PBS refs, I'm OK with your explanation for the first; as for the second, I'm sure TV shows are good enough refs for the material, but if you want to use it, I ask that you format the second in an acceptable form for this page.

Regarding your last paragraph, I suggest you read WP:BURDEN, which is policy. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The 1854 reference wasn't even as recent as that. It was a reprint of Johnson's Lives of the Poets (with Hazlitt's later additions on later poets). Johnson published it in 1781. Paul B (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Either way, that and the Wallace source are not preferred refs in a featured article. If this ends up going to dispute resolution it's OK with me, but I think it's a frivolous action given that policy is explicit on this: "However, some scholarly material may be outdated . . . . Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available." Tom Reedy (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom: Re the Bethell article, now that you are citing pages in the printed Atlantic Monthly, I see an inconsistency. The item in the References gives the page range for the article as "45–61". Yet specific citations are to page numbers as low as 36 and as high as 78. Some reconciliation needs to be done, and I do not have easy access to the right library, nor the time right now to do this myself. --Alan W (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Bethell also has a 3-page "Reply" to Matus in which the statements appears that support "his family connections including the patrons of Shakespeare's First Folio", which isn't part of the web version. I'll just add those page numbers to the ref. Contrary to Smatprt's idea that web sources are the "preferred medium here on Wikipedia" (I'm sure they are for Oxfordian, anti-Strat, and other Google scholars), when a printed source is cited the page numbers should be part of the cite.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Reedy (talk • contribs) 04:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There is still a reference to "p. 36" (in what is currently footnote 24) and, since you seem to be trying to attach pages in the printed version to all Bethell citations, one without a page or pages in what is now footnote 189. --Alan W (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

OK I fixed the first one. The second one is just a reference to the article and doesn't need page numbers. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the sources chosen, the context here is Oxfords notable patronage, not detailing the lease. I have adjusted accordingly. Regarding your long rant, Tom, I believe the Menzer issue is one of a case of different editions, but of course you just assume the worst, and start flinging mud. As to formatting refs the way you want them, feel free, but don't assign me duties. I have enough on my plate, thanks. Smatprt (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah - correction - Tom, you are so busy deleting statements and references that you lost track of your own work. The Menzer quote from page 89 concerned Oxford's players appearing at court and had nothing to do with Blackfriars. Next time you come out swinging, please check your own work. And also withdraw that particular part of your long statement above. Smatprt (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to check the edit history; you're the one who lost track because you don't pay that much attention to begin with. Here's the sentence the Menzer cite supposedly supported: "He held the lease of the first Blackfriars Theatre in the mid-1580s, and produced entertainments at Court." The problem is that the source doesn't say anything at all about Oxford producing entertainments at court or anywhere else; it's merely more Oxfordian scholarship, which is another way of saying it's not true. I gave you a list above with other examples of this kind of bullshit editing, so no withdrawal of my accurate statements will be forthcoming.

I also replaced your vague "mid-1580s"s with an accurate date. If you change it back please give us an explanation of why you prefer impreciseness to accuracy. And nobody's giving you assignments; a tag is for anybody who wants to furnish the information. If you don't want to do quality editing, the next time you add inaccurate information or citations I'll just delete it instead of tagging so you won't feel like you're being given assignments. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

More personal attacks. What a surprise. You said " I ask that you format the second in an acceptable form for this page" - acceptable to you?? Format any refs yourself - I'll supply them however I choose.Smatprt (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)