Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

Article on main page 23 April 2017

There is a notice in the header, but it is a bit hard to see, so those watching this page might like to know that the article will again feature on the main page. The old and new blurbs are:

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 23, 2011
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 23, 2017

It was six years ago, groan. Time flies! Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Really? I thought it was a ceaseless lackey to eternity. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Time's had, my lords, been walloped at his back,

Now you have salvaged charms from sure oblivion,

And thereby earned our lasting gratitude:

Those scraps we fought, all good deeds past, empowered

The article we have, forgotten is the loon

perseverance chased out, by your accord,

And wiki's honour's bright. To have done is to hang

About till fashion picks you up, and sends a mail

To reaffirm our rewrite of that crockery

was monumental.Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

However

The word "however" is used to emphasise that a contrast is intended. It should generally not be used in encyclopedic writing as WP:NPOV is better fulfilled if we just state the facts and let the reader decide that it's a contrast. WP:EDITORIAL discusses it and there is also a short essay here. --John (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I sympathize with the habit of searching for "however" in an article to see if it's necessary, but sometimes it really is the best way to convey the information. The four instances of it reinserted here all seem fine to me. None are editorializing; they simply make it clear to the reader that the point introduced is in contrast to the previous information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Does that imply that the reader is otherwise incapable of seeing that there is a contrast? No, I'm still standing by the deletions. It's a stylistic issue but quite an important one, especially with four here on a TFA. --John (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Are there cases where you think "however" is allowable, or do you feel that WP:EDITORIAL implies it should always be removed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Two of the removed instances (regarding the will and textual evidence) relate to evidence that the sources point out contradicts the anti-Stratfordian case. The implications are indeed supported by the sources, and a connection is made therein. They are therefore not doing any of the naughty things mentioned in WP:EDITORIAL, and seem unexceptionable to me. William Avery (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Arguments can be made for both sides but I think, given the history of the editing, where we were accused of subtly stacking the evidence against a fringe viewpoint, that John's call is correct. We should elide any phrasing that, 'however' innocently, might be read as nudging the reader towards a conclusion. Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

True. I felt the prose was now very dry, and was reminded of a phrase in The King's English about unconnected sentences as "those 'little hard round unconnected things'" ... "that 'seem to come upon one as shot would descend from a shot-making tower'". But going back to that text I find that it is a discussion placing great weight on "degrees of thought dependence", which is exactly what editors are seeking to avoid here. So, what we have is exceptionally dry prose, appropriate to an exceptionally problematic subject. William Avery (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That's just it, or part of the problem with deleting all the "howevers". The prose becomes too dry, hard to follow. I don't think it's an unfair "stacking the evidence" when we use modifying words to facilitate understanding of particular passages. Filling out a thought with emphasis in key places could work to stack evidence either way, if that were really what was being done. But we've already hashed out all the balance and fairness of emphasis, over many agonizing years, so I don't see any implicit bias in leaving in the "howevers". It's a matter of clarification, of holding the reader's attention, which is important, too. I like that about "shot descending from a tower" as a metaphor. But I don't think that even this controversial a topic requires prose so dense and monotonous as that would imply. We do not want to lose the reader. Wikipedia is, after all, not for experts in a narrow field (at least not only for them) but for everyone. The "howevers" worked just fine for several years. I am really not comfortable with deleting them en masse now. --Alan W (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to the party, but I just now read this discussion. Two of the "however" perform critical lexical functions IMO: the one relating to the will and the one relating to the possibility of posthumous collaboration. With the "however"s deleted, the sentences read almost as non sequiturs. I know the reader is not supposed to be led to any particular conclusion (though I think that can be argued given Wikipedia's policies on due weight and reliable sources), but nether should we just throw out a list of statements and expect every reader to be able to figure out the relationships. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I also refer to WP:FRINGE, which clearly states "Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear." The use of "however" in the two examples I gave performs that function. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that clinches it for me, tipping the balance in favour of what Tom and Alan argue. I would therefore modify my statement above in support of restoring the deleted 'however's. Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Credit also to Mike Christie, who was the first to support my restoration (later undone) of the "however"s. Now I see that Tom Reedy has once again restored them. Thank you, Tom. --Alan W (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Crollalanza

I have added a shorter version of the Crollalanza authorship theory. This is treated at more length on Wikipedia’s corresponding Italian-language Shakespearian Authorship site.

This story is as yet little covered in English and little known to English-speakers; but (for good or evil) it is likely to become better known once Alicia Maksimova’s 2016 documentary film “Was Shakespeare English?”, which promotes it, goes the rounds of English-speaking late-night television. This will lead people to seek reliable information on Crollalanza.

I have emphasized those elements of this story—certainly not its plausibility!—that make it of interest, and perhaps worth space in the select group of authorship theories that Wikipedia currently covers. If senior editors do not consider it worth space here, perhaps they could remove it to a separate Wikipedia page, as is already the case for John Florio’s and Emilia Lanier’s claims, among others.

Much additional material about the Crollalanza theory can be found in the Italian-language Wikipedia site on Shakespearian authorship, but the automatic translation of this into English is largely unintelligible. I have prepared a more idiomatic translation of the entire Italian-Wikipedia article on Crollalanza, and have placed it on the associated Discussione (Talk) page here. Marcasella (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to revert that work, but it looks like WP:RECENTISM and falls prey to suspicions of using Wikipedia to boost a fringe theory, apart from considerations of WP:Undue. Undue because many people who don't figure among the famous four have better coverage in secondary sources than (S)Crollalanza). I might also note that (a) appearing on the mystery mongering 'Voyager' programme on RAI2 run by Roberto Giacobbo is evidence enough it's fringe lunatic, for that's all that Giacobbo promotes. (b) Part of the alternative Shakespeare candidates were conjured up by voices putatively heard in séances, as the late lamented Paul Barlow here documented, and the Crollalanza theory has its origins in the paranormal, not in documentation as far as I can ascertain.

Still we do need a page perhaps on this, and I would advise you to retrieve your draft from the earlier page version, and simply create an appropriate wiki page and register the name at the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates page, with a link. Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nishidani. I do appreciate those arguments, and concede that the interest of the Crollalanza theory does not lie in its plausibility. In fact coverage on Wikipedia, by correcting one of its crucial claims, that Crollalanza in Italian means "shakes spear", may reduce its populist appeal.

I'm happy to move it to a separate page, but have no experience in setting up Wikipedia pages from scratch. Could I trouble you to provide me with a stub for such a page? Marcasella (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine. I'll fix that in a few hours time, once I've found a broom to sweep away the mass of cobwebs from my eyes, and fueled the cognitive battery with leachings from Liptons. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've set the page up for you at The Crollalanza Hypothesis of Shakespeare’s Identity. Be careful to reconstruct the idea's history, then the commentary on it, and finally its reception history. It overlaps obviously the Florio hypothesis. There is a lot of junk pseudo-scholarship on this, be careful to use only reliably published sources.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Nishidani. It will take me a day or two to work out how to do this. Marcasella (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Nowuz.All you need look at is the (sfn|last name|year| and, if available, page) format in the bibliography (2) format all citations for the bibliography according to the models there. If you have any problems just give me a tingle on the virtual blower, i.e., my page. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Syntax is: {{sfn|last name|year|p=123}}, for a single page, and {{sfn|last name|year|pp=123–456}}, for a range (p vs. pp; the software unfortunately can't figure out that distinction on its own), and the page parameter is optional if one is not needed for that particular cite (but do please try to include specific page numbers for ease of verifiability). And I will also be watching the page and can help out with any more or less technical issues (but probably won't be much help with content issues). --Xover (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Statistical analysis (stylometrics) rules out all proposed candidates.

Stylometics rules out all proposed alternative candidates. That means that either someone named William Shakespeare or some unknown person using the pseudonym William Shakespeare wrote his works. I would not be surprised if these people also rave about chemtrails, and shapeshifting lizardpeople. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.233.65 (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we fix that ugly cit needed?

Both explicit testimony by his contemporaries and strong circumstantial evidence of personal relationships with those who interacted with him as an actor and playwright support Shakespeare's authorship

Now I don't think the query is needed because this sums up the state of scholarship amply evidenced throughout the page. But perhaps some indications of a possible citation for it can be found in Gary Taylor and Rory Loughnane, 'The Canon and Chronology of Shakespeare’s works,' in Gary Taylor, Gabriel Egan (eds.) The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion, Oxford University Press, 2017 978-0-192-51760-9? Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, though that volume is not concerned with the type of authorship theories this page covers, pages 417-420 offers a good overall summation of those types of evidence. If you would care to do the honors? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, General Rockjaw! Reminded of whom, how's your off-the-cuff fringe theory developing about the genetic similarities between jaws of the Caesarean busts in the Vatican's corridor of Roman statuary and those of Arkansas going? I'm sure we could lobby the de Verean trust to get a paper on the hypothesis published in one of their mags, if we can work out a Shakespeare-as-medium-of-transmission angle! It might even be sucked up as evidence lacking for the Crollolanza theory. Cheers!Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well done. (Serious): I find it hard to pick up that volume without getting sucked into it for an hour or so, even though, as I wrote, it has nothing to do with our particular ghetto. As to the other, life has been doing its utmost to keep me distracted and my eye off the ball, and so far it's winning. Cheers and lurve to the missus! Tom Reedy (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The question is the argument

At this writing, the first sentence says

The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him.

No offense intended to whoever wrote that, but that sounds really bad. A question is not an argument; a question is a question. The question asks whether someone other than WS of SuA wrote the works.

I'm going to speculate that the intent here is that the only people who ask the question are the ones who make the argument that someone else wrote the works. That may be so; I don't know enough about the topic to say. But I'm afraid that doesn't save the sentence; it still looks really really bad.

Possible fixes include:

1. Change to The Shakespeare authorship question asks whether...
2. Move the article to some phrase that can be more cleanly repeated in the first sentence
3. Don't repeat the article title (at least, verbatim) in the first sentence at all

Option 3 is a little unusual but not unprecedented, especially for titles that are more descriptions of something than a standard name for that thing. Just off the top of my head, could be something like

A minority of scholars of the works attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon has proposed that someone else wrote the works attributed to him.

Not great, needs work, but I'm just trying to explain what I mean, not proposing actual text. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please search the archives; this question has been brought up more than once, and it is the main reason why the word "argument" is linked to an explanation. And WP style favors putting the title on the first sentence. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Very often in featured articles, questions have been hashed over many times, and I appreciate that. I'm coming to the article with new eyes, and letting you know that, to my eyes, it is still a problem. By the way, I don't see what you mean by "argument" being linked to an explanation, but in any case I'm sure you'll agree that links are not a substitute for clear writing.

As for the style, yes, in most cases, the title is repeated in the first sentence, but there are exceptions. WP:BEGIN says

However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text.

This case seems at least arguably an instance of "merely descriptive". --Trovatore (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw that the link was gone, and traced it back to an anonymous edit on 20 May 2014 and restored it. I don't agree that it "sounds really bad". It succinctly defines the term. And the term is not merely descriptive; other authorship terms exist that refer to attribution studies. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Does it define the term? It seems to me that the "authorship question", at least in principle, is about whether someone else wrote the works, not an argument that someone else did. (Or, perhaps, it's the question of who wrote the works, with WS of SuA being one possible answer.)

I don't actually see how the argument link helps; the first sentence of that article says that ... an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade .... But a question is not typically used to persuade; it is typically used to inquire. --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The term "Shakespeare authorship question" is not a question; it is a synecdoche for all the arguments against William Shakespeare being the author of the Shakespeare canon. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that's very clear to a naive reader. If this is the intent, then maybe it would be better to move the article to alternative Shakespeare authorship hypotheses or some such? --Trovatore (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I am going cycling now; I look forward to reading response(s) in a few hours. --Trovatore (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

As Tom says, we hashed this out after a long discussion several years ago. Yes, it helps, Trovatore, that you come to this with fresh eyes, and you are welcome to present your view from your own perspective. But—and you admit you "don't know enough about the topic"—what does not help is your charging in like gangbusters and changing the first sentence of a Featured Article while it is being so prominently displayed. We really need to wait for some responses to accumulate on the talk page. "It sounds really bad"? It sounds really bad to you. Maybe others will join in, agreeing with you, and adding their own reasons, and some change will be made that will, after all, be better. But this is too fast, much too fast, just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The link to argument to me does adequately account for this use of the term. Yes, it is a less than common use, which is why the link was there (as Tom says, someone removed it and no one restored it); but, as I recall, after I read all the, er, arguments, for and against, the first time around, I did come over to the point of view that this first sentence works, and it was better than any alternatives proposed. Agreed, you have the right to say your say and be heard. But, sheesh, a little patience, please? This is not a first stab at a new article that somebody just cobbled together yesterday. (I hope you enjoyed your ride.) --Alan W (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I thought my change was fairly mild — said basically the same thing, but in a way that made more sense according to usual English semantics — and I did invite a quick revert in the edit summary. So it doesn't seem to me like a radical over-bold edit.

As I explain elsewhere, my problem is not with "argument" in the sense of "thesis"; that's the way I read it anyway. It's the only available meaning. So the link really doesn't help at all (note that even if it did, it's bad practice to write text that is clear only if you follow the link, especially when the link is a common word that readers think they understand). --Trovatore (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Some reading for a rainy day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_17#Copyediting_the_lead_.28details.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_25#.22Question.22_and_.22argument.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_29#Unlinking_.22argument.22_in_the_introduction Tom Reedy (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions Trovatore but "is the argument that" is best. As explained above, SAQ is standard jargon so changing the title of the article is out of the question. Also, the reliable sources tell us that there is no question—that would be like portraying intelligent design as questioning evolution when in fact it is nonsense. Many people question whether the CIA blew up the twin towers (but there is no "question" according to RS), while those more interested in literature present arguments that Shakespeare did not do it. Note that "argument" does not mean flame war—that is why it is linked. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, well if it's genuinely a term of art, of course that's different. However it still gives the reader a problem, because ordinarily one is entitled to expect that something called a "question" is in fact a question, and while a question may be argumentative, it cannot ordinarily be an "argument" in and of itself.

(By the way, I always understood "argument" here as meaning "thesis with reasons"; that's the only available meaning, really, because of the way the sentence continues. But a question is not a thesis.)

So if this is indeed a standard term, then how about helping the intelligent and well-educated but naive reader out here? An explanatory footnote perhaps? Not for the "argument" part, but for the "question" part. --Trovatore (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 

Oh, and may I also ask, what is the specific objection to "asks whether"? It seems to fulfill all the functions of the existing text, without giving the reader the problem I alluded to. I don't see this proposed solution mentioned in the links --Trovatore (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work like that. Please present an argument for why the established text should be changed, and obtain consensus for your desired text. The current "is the argument" has been in the article for several years. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely; changes need to be justified. I think I have presented an argument, but let me recap:

• The current text gives the reader a problem, because a "question" is not ordinarily an "argument" (even in the sense of "thesis").
• Saying that the question "asks whether" rather than "is the argument that" removes that problem.

Now, ball's in your court. Do you disagree with either of those points? Which one, and why? Or do you agree with them, but think that the proposed text has some other problem that is just as bad or worse? --Trovatore (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I presented my arguments above at 00:23, 24 April 2017. Perfection would be great so readers who are unfamiliar with the encyclopedic meaning of "argument" would not suffer a problem. However, perfection ain't easy—it is always possible to niggle about wording. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, as I've explained more than once, the meaning of "argument" is not the issue. I was always assuming it was the meaning from the link. I think it's still problematic.

Can you say more specifically why you object to "asks whether"? I read your comments of 00:23 and I still don't see it. My best guess is that you think "asks whether" gives too much credence to the hypothesis, is that correct? But I don't see that. Even when the answer is completely known, it does not stop someone from asking the question.

To take an extreme example, let's examine "the question of the value of 2+2". For any common context, we all agree on the answer, but it does not make the "question" into an "argument". The parallel "argument" text would be something like "the question of the value of 2+2 is the argument that 2+2 is something other than 4". I think you can see that that is just very awkward English, and would be even if there were a notable group that asserted that 2+2 is something other than 4. --Trovatore (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It is commonly called the "Shakespeare Authorship Question", but it really is an argument, or a group of arguments. I see that more clearly now. For me, the Cambridge Dictionary defines both the relevant terms the way they are used here:

Question
question noun (PROBLEM)

a matter to be dealt with or discussed, or a problem to be solved:
[example] The question is, are they telling the truth?

You could substitute: "The question is, did the Earl of Oxford write the plays attributed to Shakespeare?"

Argument

argument noun (REASONS)

the reasons for your opinion about the truth of something or an explanation of why you believe something should be done:
[example] A good argument can be made for providing health insurance for all children.

You could substitute: "A good argument can be made that the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays."

As Tom puts it, "argument" here is a synecdoche for a collection of arguments, since this is not only about the Earl of Oxford's putative authorship.

After reading the present discussion, I can see better than ever that this "question" really is more an argument than a question. It doesn't question whether.... It presents an argument that so and so wrote the plays.

The more I think about it, the better what is written now works for me. --Alan W (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe you've thought about it too long, then :-). What about the person reading it for the first time? Anything that can be done to help that person out? That person may not be aware that "Shakespeare authorship question" is a term of art.

On another note, do the RSs really use "Shakespeare authorship question" in such a way that it (grammatically) refers to a thesis rather than a question? I defer to you on the weight of the RSs, as I am no expert and perhaps you are. But at least one RS that really does that would be nice. Example sentences that would demonstrate this:

Those who assert the Shakespeare authorship question claim....

The Shakespeare authorship question asserts that....

If you believe the Shakespeare authorship question, then you must also believe....

These are just examples; maybe there's some less awkward text that would be equally convincing. Can you find one? I'd really like to see even one. --Trovatore (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I leave that to others. I am not one of the experts in this area. About the person reading this for the first time, well, perhaps a footnote would help. I don't recall if that was discussed in the past, though of course it could be reconsidered. I certainly am always in favor of making things easier for the nonspecialist. As for thinking about it too long, well, though I'm no expert in most of the RSs (not those most germane to this discussion, anyway), I did reread the entire text of this article quite a few times over the years in the course of my editorial work here. I did not hesitate to make alterations to help the general reader. Others didn't always agree with me, but I tried; so it's not as if I would be content with leaving in overly technical or specialized language. On the other hand, I don't think we should dumb it down. After all that careful reading of the entire article, "question" and "argument", as used here, more than ever do seem right in their places, as I've said. Regarding those other nonspecialist readers ("other", because I certainly do not count myself among the real SAQ specialists), I am hoping that we get some of those to weigh in here. I see that 260 Wikipedians are "watching" this page. It would be nice to get some more input, given the interest in the topic. Whew, getting very late in this part of the world. Good night. --Alan W (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I don't want to dumb it down, not at all! I just want to write it so that it makes sense in (ordinary educated high-register formal) English, or failing that, at least explains why it doesn't. --Trovatore (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Shakespeare is now regarded as difficult to read because much of the language is 'outdated' and there is even a commissioned project, I think by Methuen, to have the works 'translated' /paraphrased into English younger generations can feel comfortable with. Well, by all means, let's dumb him down, and dumb down the secondary language as well, so that, when children read Shakespeare or come across the use of the word 'argument' they can understand everything instantly, even if this means they'll never understand Shakespeare, nor be enchanted by his strange, allusive style. That you had to stop in your reading, and look up 'argument' is one good reason for retaining it: the dumbing down of language means no one stops to mull over a word when doing so enriches one's mastery of the language, whereas altering it to a more familiar idiom only impoverishes the lexicon.Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, maybe you missed it. I don't know how many times I have to say this. I have no problem with "argument" in the sense of "thesis with reasons". That's what I was assuming was meant. --Trovatore (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your overture reads:'A question is not an argument; a question is a question.' (2) 'the meaning of "argument" is not the issue. I was always assuming it was the meaning from the link. I think it's still problematic.' I don't want to be hectoring, pal, and apologize if my remarks above appear so. The remarkable thing about this article is that it was driven to Fa by several editors who are hair-splitters to a man, and therefore the odds were that it would be bogged down. To the contrary, and somewhat miraculously, we always managed to iron out our differences. People who can comb through this with a fine eye for small issues are always welcome. Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a couple of degrees in English lit, even taught it as a TA at university and at college level for a time after graduation, and I have no problem reading, but apparently I am too thick to understand what the problem is. The term "Shakespeare Authorship Question" is a well-known phrase (hence the title of the article); the phrase gets 39,000 hits on Goggle; the definition is succinct and accurate; the page is FA status and has been FA of the day twice; and while I, like Nishidani, am always up for better and more accurate prose, I cannot see how these suggestions are an improvement. Given the number of readers this page reaches (600 hits a day average), it would be impossible to tweak the language to suit every theoretical naive first-time reader (if such a thing exists). Tom Reedy (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Back to the original assertion, that "A question is not an argument; a question is a question."

This is demonstrably not so, as anyone can learn by Googling such terms as "the race question", "the refugee question", "the Jewish question", etc.

Looking at the uses for the word "question", the definition for "research question" is helpful: "A research question is an interrogative statement that manifests the objective or line of scholarly or scientific inquiry designed to addresses a specific gap in knowledge. Research questions are expressed in a language that is appropriate for the academic community that has the greatest interest in answers that would address said gap. These interrogative statements serve as launching points for the academic pursuit of new knowledge by directing and delimiting an investigation of a topic, a set of studies, or an entire program of research." In this case, the so-called "gap" to be investigated, the Shakespeare authorship question, does not really exist in the eyes of professional Shakespeareans, except in the terms of attribution studies. So the idea that someone else wrote the works of Shakespeare while he acted as a front has to be made by argument. Those collective arguments make up what is commonly called the Shakespeare authorship question. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Responding to this: "On another note, do the RSs really use "Shakespeare authorship question" in such a way that it (grammatically) refers to a thesis rather than a question? I defer to you on the weight of the RSs, as I am no expert and perhaps you are. But at least one RS that really does that would be nice." https://books.google.com/books?id=W8KtHtT3jNYC&q=authorship+question#v=snippet&q=%22authorship%20question%22&f=false You can repeat that search with any of the sources used in this article. Helpful links to most of them are provided in the references section.

As far as I'm concerned, this topic has been exhausted. The article has had the same title since its inception 15 years ago. While we have seen several arguments about using the term "argument" in the lede, no one until now has found fault with the phrase "Shakespeare authorship question", and I feel confident that the issue can rest for another 15 years, by which time I'm sure I'll be beyond caring. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's focus on one bit from the above: "a research question is an interrogative statement". An argument (in the sense under discussion; that is, a set of statements intended to establish a thesis) is not an interrogative statement. It's in the indicative mood. A question does not assert anything; it asks.

Your examples don't really work. It makes no sense to say "the race question is an argument (attempt to establish a thesis)". You can say, if you like, that people who use the phrase "the race question" are making an argument (attempting to establish a thesis), but that is a different thing.

In any case, I will not insist much longer. I find it frustrating that I cannot get my point, which I feel I have expressed clearly and convincingly, across, and that people still seem able to read what I have written and think the issue is how I'm interpreting "argument". I am a mathematician; the meaning of "argument" under discussion is very natural to me, and I never even considered that it could mean "debate" here.

So you don't have to listen to me much longer, but the problem is still going to be there unless it is addressed. It is really there and will not go away. Let me take one more shot at restating it:

The "Shakespeare authorship question", in its natural reading, is the question of who wrote Shakespeare's works, or perhaps whether Shakespeare wrote them. It is not an assertion that Shakespeare did not write them. It may be that everyone who asks the question is in fact arguing that Shakespeare did not write them, but that is a different thing. --Trovatore (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is "politicworm.com" denied a place here in the "External Links" list?

Why is "politicworm.com" denied a place here in the "External Links" list?

"PoliticWorm.com" is a Shakespeare Authorship Question site-- no different from any of the various others already in the list. I added it. It has been removed without comment. Why? Proximity1 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)proximity1

The external link added was:

• Politicworm — A dedicated Authorship Question site edited by the researcher Stephanie Hopkins Hughes; she favors the Oxfordian view. "Essays on the Authorship Question, the history of the London commercial Stage, and plays by Shakespeare and other writers" and much more

There are a couple of issues. First, the text is far too promotional. Second, there are lots of websites commenting on the SAQ and in accordance with the external link guidelines, it is necessary to select a small number which have particular information that is useful yet which would be too detailed to be included in an article at Wikipedia. Is there a reason, based on the guidelines, that the proposed website should be added while not listing all the other such websites? Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

See No. 2 and No. 11. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I would be ashamed to offer such flimsy excuses (Try : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dog_ate_my_homework)  for what appears to be so blatant an example of a double-standard.  

 This: ..."Shakespeare's biography, particularly his humble origins and obscure life, seemed incompatible with his poetic eminence and his reputation for genius,"... 

appears to be a recent revision and it reeks of the insecurity which rightly attaches to this matter of Shakspere's education.

The excuses offered are "all over the map." E.g.

"First, the text is far too promotional." What, precisely, was "far too promotional" about the entry? You didn't bother to support that assertion by citing what you meant.

"Second, there are lots of websites"..."it is necessary to select a small number which have particular information that is useful yet which would be"... The passive-voice to the rescue-- "mistakes were made," "it was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it," etc.

As for "See No. 2 and No. 11. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)"

 No. 2 reads : "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting."

 As you well know, in fact, there is absolutely nothing in contemporary documented evidence to support today's Stratfordian scholars' echo-chamber of assertions that Shakspere "probably", "seems to have," "in all likelihood," attended the Stratford primary school of his day.  There is zero evidence in the historical record for this suggestion--always couched in carefully-crafted speculative terms. See, passim, T.W. Baldwin, (1944, University of Illinois).  Thus, all such sites fall afoul of this rule's prohibition, for they all peddle "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" about Shakspere's supposed education,  Yet they're allowed.

Proximity1 (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC) proximity1

Please see WP:TP for how-to information about formatting replies and WP:CIVIL for hints on what content in a comment might elicit a helpful response. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

'Stephanie Hopkins Hughes, is an artist, writer and editor (who lives in Nyack, New York),' like a million other people. To fish out of the vast ocean of conspiracy theories just her, or any other speculative blogger, for special mention can have no other end than promotional, which is disallowed. This article is compiled from sources mostly written by people with doctorates in the topic, or experienced writers who sum up that research. To get a doctorate you are grilled by a panel, often with scholars adopting an adversarial role, to test your mastery of language, scholarship, historical and textual methodologies. It is noticeable that the number of pumpkin heads pressing this tired, utterly exhausted nonsense have almost never endured and come through this cautionary process. But, they read enough to get the interrogatory method, which they apply to standard scholarship (which already uses it inframurally), but never to their own thought processes. Their own work is basically a plagiarizing titivation of things said and repeated for a century, a spin nmachine of washed-out opinions. Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh God. Another one.

Here's something else for you to read. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

These pseudo-polite, pseudo-replies ignore the salient point raised:

 there is _zero_ documentary evidence from contemporary sources which supports the hypothesis that Wm. Shakspere attended school--at all, anywhere, at any time. Yet sites which claim this are accepted for External Links.  Editors here are blatantly enforcing a double-standard. When challenged, they throw up smoke-screen pseudo-arguments devoid of merit.  This, by the way, is exemplary of the methodology of the professoriate

of Stratfordian proponents. A doctorate degree is not and has not been a signal feature of the people behind sites listed as External Links nor does it necessarily bear on the merits of reasoning in this particular matter. It appears that people here are actually afraid of the cogency of the material at the site, Politicworm. Since you've deigned to impute my motives, I'll express my candid thoughts on yours.

Proximity1 (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC) proximity1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shakespeare authorship question. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101002115317/http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/webster.htm to http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/webster.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)