Jump to content

User:Tom Reedy/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Tom Reedy

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tom Reedy (talk | contribs) at 12:11, 24 March 2011 (→SUPPORT (6)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shakespeare authorship question

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

Toolbox
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)

COMMENTS

  • 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)

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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

SUPPORT (7)

  • Support (1) - 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)
  • Support (2) 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 (3). 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 (4). 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 (5): 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.
  • Support (6) 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)
  • Leaning to Support (7). 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)

Support (7). 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)

OPPOSE (10, 7 of them SPAs)

  • (1) 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)
  • Oppose (2): 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. (3) 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)
  • Oppose. (4) 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)
  • Oppose (5). 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 (6) 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 (7) (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)
  • Oppose (8). 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. (9) ... warshytalk 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).
  • (10) 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tom_Reedy/Sandbox&oldid=420477402"