Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

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 [1], 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 [2] 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 [3] and [4]. 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. And what "tags?? 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. btw - iirc, the pbs ref used to be formatted better - but you deleted it. Once again, I ask that you keep track of your numerous deletions, and fix your own mistakes if they bother you that much. Smatprt (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

group theory

proposed section:

In the 1960s, the most popular general theory was that Shakespeare's plays and poems were the work of a group rather than one individual. A group consisting of Bacon, William Stanley, Oxford, Mary Sidney, and others, has been put forward, for example. In 2010, the group theory was advocated by renowned actor Derek Jacobi, who told the British press, "I subscribe to the group theory. I don't think anybody could do it on their own. I think the leading light was probably de Vere, as I agree that an author writes about his own experiences, his own life and personalities."

I have started a placeholder section on the group theory. Of course, feel free to rewrite the whole section, but the group theory is practically absent from this article, which is surprising, given the amount of play its received over the years. Another big hole that needs attention. Anyone? Paul?Smatprt (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And again you come in and make a flurry of substantial edits to a featured article without talk-page consensus, which is the very definition of disruptive editing.. You've done this several times in the past with the same result each time, so I have no idea why you insist on using the same strategy. Please list and discuss the changes you wish to make before making such changes, as per the editorial process for building consensus. Just in the past few days I see that you've hit six out of 14.

And please learn how to format your refs according to featured article requirements. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added Smatprt's proposed "placeholder" section at the beginning of this section. I think the problem with the group theory is that it is not really a single theory. Baconians (most notably Delia herself) have been groupists, or semi-groupists, and so have Oxfordians (Percy Allen came to believe that Oxford worked with others). Of course there are variations and disputes even within the single-author versions, but at least those can usually be described. The group theory is so diverse I'm not sure that's possible. At least I don't think there is much point in a separate section. As for the claim that the theory was most popular in the 1960s - is there any evidence for that? The claim appears to be cited to McMichael and Glenn's book, which was published in 1962, before most of the 1960s had occurred. The rest of the section suffers from the problem that it does not provide information, but rather advocacy. We have the statement that it was "the most popular general theory". Well, no, most popular "alternative" theory, perhaps. The rest is just about the fact that "renowned actor" Derek Jacobi gives his support to it. But renowned actor Derek Jacobi is not any kind of expert, and in any case we learn nothing about the history of or arguments for this theory. It just about getting celebrity endorsement - mainly for De Vere in a section that's not even supposed to be about him. There is already reference to group models in the Bacon and Marlowe sections. We could add a sentence to the Oxford section too. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I saw, also: mainly a celebrity endorsement with no real information. I've read several differing statements that some kind of the group theory was the most popular in the 1890s, the 1920s, the 1930s, and the 1960s, but none in a reliable source that I can recall. In any case, a featured article is not a sandbox in which to store "placeholder" sections. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course Derby was a groupie too, at least according to A. J. Evans in Shakespeare's Magic Circle (1956), and that was before groupies were most popular in the swinging 60s. So they've all been groupies at one time. Maybe we could have a sentence or two added to the opening passage that introduces the famous four, noting that they have all been propsed as leaders of or participants in group activities of various kinds. Paul B (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a historical fact that Orazio Cogno was part of oxford's group. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Group mark II

Collaboration in playwriting was common during the Elizabethan era, with writers such as Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, and William Shakespeare appearing as co-authors of plays. Recent scholarship has indicated that many collaborations went unrecorded, including a number of Shakespearean works. As early as the mid-1800's, authorship researchers have theorized that a group of writers was responsible for the Shakespearean canon. Edward de Vere (Oxford), Francis Bacon, Roger Manners, William Herbert and Mary Sidney Herbert have all been suggested as members of such a group, referred to in the 1960's as "The Oxford Syndicate".[196] In addition, playwrights such as Christopher Marlowe, Robert Greene and Thomas Nashe have been proposed as participants. Some variants of the group theory also include William Shakespeare of Stratford as the group's manager, broker and front man.[197]

Smatprt's new "group theory" is yet another example of blatant Oxfordian promotionalism, which segues from mainstream models of collaboration to a wholly fringe theory of group authorship in order to make the latter seems reasonable, and indeed consistent with "recent scholarship". It also once more seeks to put the supposed "Oxford Syndicate" at the centre in defiance of all the long history of group authorship models. If there were a proper group authorship section it would clearly distinguish between normal authorship collaborations, re-writes etc - a phenomenon still very common today - and the fringe theory that a cabal somehow got together to produce a canon of work under the name "William Shakespeare". In the latter case we would have to look at all the relevant models in order - D. Bacons' model; later Baconian cabal models; the various group theories of the 1900s; Allen's model; Evans' model; and also the "Oxford Syndicate" model, Sidney model etc. As I said before, I don't think there is much point to this, as there is no real group model as such, with its own specific arguments and counter-arguments. There is just the notion that various authors got together. Sometimes Oxford, Derby or someone else is the leader of the group; sometimes there is no leader. BTW, shocking as it may seem, some versions of the group theory actually include William Shakespeare as a writer! Paul B (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that a sentence or two be added to the intro section before the four main candidates, stating that all the candidates have been at various times supposed to have been parts of groups, sometimes as the "leader" of a group, sometimes as a mere member. Paul B (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you're thinking of something along the lines of "The controversy has since spawned a vast body of literature,[7] and more than 70 authorship candidates have been proposed,[8] including Francis Bacon, the 6th Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe, and the 17th Earl of Oxford, most of whom have also been proposed as members of a group that collectively wrote the works", or even another sentence tacked on to that paragraph.

I dunno. The group theory is mentioned three times in the article already, beginning with Delia Bacon's theory, which is usually thought of as the Baconian theory. I'm really and truly unaware of any groups theories that attracted very many believers. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how many believers there have been. At least with Oxford or Bacon you can say "X was a believer in this candidate", because "this candidate" is the same person, so you have a following as it were. With groups, each group is different. So each believer is not part of a "faction" supporting the same essential idea. Yes, the group theory is mentioned three times, but it's rather arbitrary that it's mentioned in connection with Bacon and Marlowe, but not Derby and Oxford. I also think a sentence should be added stating that some supporters of each one of the main candidates have attributed works published under the names of other writers to their hero. The tendency to add to the canon of the "real" Shakespeare is common to all the SAQ models. Paul B (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's the trouble with all the authorship theories; in addition to each group being different, and each candidate argument being slightly different, you can almost say that each individual believer subscribes to a slightly different theory: some Oxfordians hate the PT theory; some love it; some accept part of it and reject other parts, and so on ad infinitum. Since it's all fantasy anyway, each believer is free to incorporate his or her individual variation that they say "opens up" the works for them so they can personalise their appreciation of the canon, since their basic understanding of art is as a form of personal expression. This makes writing an article that meets the approval of anti-Stratfordians an impossibility.

I would have no problem with a few paragraphs about group theories if it met the criteria of a featured article and went through the collaborative editing procedure for this article as per the arb sanctions (i.e. 1. talkpage, 2. talkpage, 3. talkpage), but I see no reason to include a vague paragraph that doesn't add anything beyond establishing that such theories exist; we already have that. I would think it would begin with Delia Bacon's group and selectively bring it up to date, using reliable sources, but I don't really want to take the time to research and write it. Apparently no one else does, either. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The above conversation lacks one thing - any policy based reason to exclude the section, other than that neither of you either knows how or cares to work on a group theory section. Is that what you are saying? aAlso, is there anything in the recent section that is untrue or not referenced? Smatprt (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant policies are general ones - concerning content, readability, relevance and length (WP:LIMIT; WP:SS). We are not apparatchiks dependent on Party Doctrine for our every move. It is normal to make editorial decisions about content based on general discussion and consensus. Equally, there is no "policy based reason" why we should have such a special separate section. The topic is already discussed in the article. Paul B (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither of us have mentioned excluding a section about groupists; our objection is that what has been offered adds nothing at all beyond a celebrity endorsement, and we have questioned whether "various 'group' theories have also achieved a notable level of interest", as you put in the lede. And no matter what you think of Paul's or my editing ability, there's no call for your snide comment.

While we're discussing it, you might want to give us a policy-based reason for why you want to exclude the details of the movie that have been mentioned in every review that I've read. It's not a "plot twist"—as you put it—for which we want to insert a spoiler. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The details you refer to, which you earlier called a "major premise" are only revealed in the last 5 minutes of the movie, and are intentionally left ambiguous. They are, indeed, a plot twist. Have you even seen the movie?. In any case, adding a plot twist/plot spolier, and characterizing them as a legitimate plot summary, or as an accurate description of the major premise is simply inaccurate. And reviews are opinion pieces, not the best sources for simple plot summaries. If you want an accurate plot summary, go to the studio, thw writer, the director, or the various movie databases. Smatprt (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is supposed to provide relevant information. The fact that the movie is based on PTII is relevant to this article. These facts are also mentioned in the Prince Tudor theory article. Yes, we know you want to minimise all mention of PT because you don't like it, but it's a major feature of modern versions of Oxfordism. Paul B (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)