Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

Did not want?

John Broughton. Welcome, and thanks for your edits. Just one point.

For 'gender could not safely take public credit' to 'did not want public credit'.

I haven't the McMichael&Glenn source at my elbow to check this against the original, but from a lot of reading around one of the historic reasons for explaining the non-recognition of the 'real Shakespeare' was that in Elizabethan times, according to the speculators, the kind of republican political heterodoxy the plays were believed to espouse, from Delia Bacon's time onwards, was life-threatening. Fear of incurring the wrath of the authorities for the subversive content of the subtexts, made anonymity a necessity. It was therefore not a matter of not wanting to take credit. Rather, the just-so story has it, the true author(s) would have put his life at risk had he, in pursuit of public plaudits, signed his name to the works, thus allowing enemies in the court to nail him. That 'not safely take credit' reflects this point, often articulated in the literature.Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought about the same thing and started a section about it and then thought better and cancelled it. I'm thinking that the "could not safely" is implied in "a front to shield the identity" and the reasons given, i.e. "social rank, state security, or gender", and that the "did not want" also goes beyond the issue of safety (Elizabeth's reason would have been gender and the "stigma of print", but surely no other authority would have threatened her about it). Tom Reedy (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Condense Duplicate Citations?

I was just looking through the "cleanup" by Δ and Tom's subsequent reversion. No doubt Δ meant to help, but as some of us have noticed, whatever Δ did also introduced some unwanted changes, particularly the addition of the entirely useless baggage of 5K of unneeded markup text. There is one useful thing that was done in the process, however, but is now reverted: the condensation of duplicate citations into notes with the same footnote number but "a, b, c", etc., added. This kind of condensation is often deemed highly desirable, and many articles do this, including Featured Articles. If there is agreement about the desirability of this change, I will be happy to make it myself, and entirely without any of the other, more questionable alterations. I will wait for responses, however. Other contributors, particularly Xover and Johnuniq, are very knowledgeable about such things, and they may have other ideas. --Alan W (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just worked out exactly which of Delta's changes would be wanted, and I have the wikitext saved as a local file. I believe my saved wikitext would render exactly as the current article (e.g. same "." after each footnote) except that the footnotes which are exact duplicates wold be condensed to a single footnote, and there would be ^a and ^b links to each location where the footnote is used. For an example of a duplicated footnote, search for "Shapiro 2010, p. 215 (190)." in the article (occurs at footnotes 233 and 234, which does look a bit silly). If this is wanted, I would replace each "autogenerated" label with something based on the author/year. I did this exercise simply to determine exactly what occurred, and I see that these are the only changes that we would be likely to want. As to whether we should make the change, I think it is probably an improvement, but I am also sympathetic to the view that there is no need to make the change (I'm sure it's not an FAC requirement, and no one there has asked for it), and a major structural edit may not be desirable at this stage. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's an improvement I'm for it. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Merging duplicate refs is a good thing and should be done. I looked for these while going through the refs earlier, but apparently didn't look closely enough. Your Shapiro example isn't particularly apt as not only can two immediately following refs be collapsed into just the later ref, but a ref at the end of the para can be used to support the whole para. I've nuked the first of those two, and if there are more duplicates such as this they can be handled the same way. However there are several duplicates that aren't adjacent and which should be replaced with named references. Normally I'd suggest using {{sfn}} for this, as it combines duplicate refs automatically, but, sadly, it can't be made to produce the kind of refs we need for this article (no sensible way to include quotes, for one thing, and harder to deal with the edge case of a work with no publication year available). If nobody else wants to have at it I can try to get it done this weekend. There's no particular rush. --Xover (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have implemented Δ's merging of duplicate footnotes. On reflection I saw that the label has to be "author123" where 123 = page number because the footnote refers to a particular page of a book (and using the year did not always give a unique label). More elaborate schemes like "author-year-page" don't seem worthwhile. There is one case (search for "wadsworth57" in the wikitext) where there are actually three works in the footnote (so using just one author's name is not quite right, but it seemed adequate). I decided to use quotes (ref name="wadsworth57") because some software parses the wikitext as if it were XML, and the quotes are desirable for that (and the quotes are essential if certain non alphanumeric characters are used). Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Xover and Johnuniq, I kinda suspected that you two would be on top of this. :-) Good work! At first I was going to question the real need for those quotes, Johnuniq, since we are not using other than basic alphanumeric characters in those ref names. But I see that the quotes have added only 34 bytes to the length of the article, a trivial number, so no harm. Sure beats adding 5 kilobytes! --Alan W (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Autodidacticism

Alan W and I have reverted an anon IP's unsourced additions to the article, but I do feel that the article might mention somewhere that autodidacts are a not unknown phenomenon and that even people like non-grammar-school-attending boys from Hicksville, Warwickshire might be capable of hauling themselves up by their bootlaces and composing great works of art. --GuillaumeTell 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

All I see is a big, unnecessary can of worms and a new galactic battle about the different theories of genius and why they do or do not apply to the Shakespeare-is-the-greatest-genius-who-ever-lived-in-the-entire-universe singularity. Quite frankly, I'm weary of this subject. Right now we've got one of the best-sourced and best-written fringe theory articles on Wikipedia that easily surpasses the FA criteria, and I'm not up to another year of battle. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Tom's assessment about the can of worms is right. The IP was making a good point: if you take a zillion people over a few hundred years, there will be a few outliers who achieve things that defy reason, so occasionally someone will come along like Shakespeare (or Mozart et al). However, even if that point were made by a suitable source, it would still be speculation, even if it were speculation by an expert. Therefore, I don't think the point is suitable for the article. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ealdgyth's FAC review

I have pasted in Ealdgyth's review below so we can discuss them and mark them off as we dispose of them. It might be helpful to break out the more complicated ones into their own sections.

• General:
  • I'm a bit concerned with the constant use of "anti-stratfordians". While some usage of it is perhaps unavoidable, it's constant repetition tends to give the article a feeling of "they dost protest too much". Surely there is some other ways to refer to them? Proponents, something?
    • It's their own term, not a derogatory one invented by opponents. I can't see this as a POV issue, though it may be a style problem. Paul B (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In regards to that.. this becomes especially telling when you get to the "case for" section, where the proponents of Shakespeare's authorship are called "scholars" "academics" etc. While I'm not expecting that the anti-strats be called scholars, the fact that there is no variation in the name used for folks advocating other authors while those from the traditional view ARE given a number of different epitets is a subtle way that belittles the non-Billy folks.
    • The defence would be to say that the pro-Strat people quoted are indeed accredited scholars, but we certainly do not need to rub this in. Paul B (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Lead:
  • Really dislike the mix of this phrase: "...including Francis Bacon, the Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe, and the Earl of Oxford." WHICH Earl of Derby and Earl of Oxford? I shouldn't have to click through to figure that out.
    • Have specified the 6th Earl of Derby and the 17th Earl of Oxford.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Err... "scholastic"? Surely you're not referring to medieval scholasticism? I think you mean "scholary" or something else besides "scholastic".
    • Corrected, indeed it is in the source quote.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overview -
  • "The historical documentary remains of Shakespeare (excepting literary records and commentary) consist of mundane personal records—vital records of his baptism, marriage and death, tax records, lawsuits to recover debts, and real estate transactions—and lack any documentation of his education." This sentence bogged me down. Any way to break it apart some to make it easier to parse?
    • I've broken the sentence into two, and removed the parenthetic structure. ?Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Very next sentence "Anti-Stratfordians say that this indicates a person very different from the author reflected in the works." I think I get what you're saying here, but given how complex the previous sentence was, it might be best to make explicit what "this" is referring to, as there was quite a lot in the previous sentence that "this" could be meaning.
    • Replaced 'Anti-Stratfordians' with 'sceptics'. A year ago we agreed that some variation on the words for this position was required for stylistic reasons. This = 'scantiness of the evidence.' ?Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I still count two dozen uses. Is that too many? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Why link to "evidence"? Surely, this is understood by most folks?
    • Delinked. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Shakespeare's background:
  • "Shakespeare was born, raised, married, and buried in Stratford-upon-Avon, a market town about 100 miles (160 km) northwest of London. It had around 1,500 residents at the time of his birth. He kept a household there during his career in London." Choppy short sentences, can this be reworded to flow better?
    • I honestly can't see the problem here. The first sentence is not short. Paul B (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I reworked it into your changes. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "The town was a centre for the slaughter, marketing, and distribution of sheep, tanned skins, and wool, and it produced an Archbishop of Canterbury and a Lord Mayor of London. Anti-Stratfordians often portray the town as a cultural backwater lacking the environment necessary to nurture a genius, and from the earliest days have depicted Shakespeare as greedy, stupid, and illiterate." I think this would flow better as "The town was a centre for the slaughter, marketing, and distribution of sheep, tanned skins, and wool. Anti-Stratfordians often portray the town as a cultural backwater lacking the environment necessary to nurture a genius, although it produced an Archbishop of Canterbury and a Lord Mayor of London. From the earliest days, proponents of other candidates have depicted Shakespeare as greedy, stupid, and illiterate." Also - "from earliest days" are these right days right after Shakespeare's death or from the earliest days of the various other-author theories? As written, it's unclear. reworked per suggestion. Paul B (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Had to keep "anti-Stratfordian" in the sentence because it isn't just those proposing other candidates; it's also generic anti-Strats. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I have simplified this and removed reference to the Archbishop and Lord Mayor—the reference is an excellent point, but too intrusive in the "case against" section; they also made the sentence too clumsy. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It might help to include here in the second paragraph general information on literacy rates for townsmen (outside of London) for the time period. My recollection is that women's literacy is on the order of 25% for the Civil War period and slightly better for men, so the fact that the women surrounding Shakespeare might be illiterate is needing some context. Also, was his WIFE literate? We mention daughters, but wife is left out.
    • Discussed on FAC page. Paul B (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • We know nothing of Anne Hathaway's literacy.
    • Literacy is controversial, there are major variations between counties, and would require a paragraph that might distract from the flow. An excellent source however is Heidi Brayman Hackel’s essay, 'The “Great Variety” of Readers and Early Modern Reading Practices,' in David Scott Kastan,(ed.) A companion to Shakespeare,Wiley-Blackwell, 1999 (ISBN = 9780631218784) chapter 9 pp.139-153, esp.141, which argues that signs and marks were not necesarily a sign of illiteracy, to the contrary. hereNishidani (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Education:
  • "The lack of documentary proof for Shakespeare's education or literacy is a staple of anti-Stratfordian arguments." this just seems a bit POV to me, but I can't quite put my finger on why. It's probably the offhand "staple of anti-Stratfordian aruguments." Maybe "The lack of documentary proof for Shakespeare's education or literacy is often cited (or argued) as being significant by proponents of other authorship candidates." reworked. Paul B (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Reworded by Paul B to fix problem (it is now "is often noted"). Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Name:
  • You give reasons for two commoners to have wanted to use a pseudonymn, but why not mention any other possible candidates that were commoners and possible reasons for them?
    • Because it would be in danger getting too long. Paul B (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Case for:
  • "Scholars consider this method of reasoning as arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which is a form of fallacious logic known as argumentum ex silentio, or argument from silence." I totally got lost in the first part of this sentence. I think I got the gist of it, but it could really use some reworking to make it more understandable.
    • Reworked (Adjusted to 'Scholars consider this method of reasoning, arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, as a form of fallacious logic . . '. )Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Historical evidence:
  • "...his name was given as that of a well-known writer at least 23 times." is that during his lifetime? Make it clear what time frame we're referring to here.
  • "... and explicit contemporary documentary evidence attests that the actor was the Stratford citizen." Did we typo "actor" for "author" here? Otherwise, I can't see what relevance that the fact that WS was a Stratford citizen has to the case for him being the author.
    • No typo involved. (a)The playwright is identified as the actor (note). (b) The actor is identified as the Stratford citizen (note). The syllogistic conclusion, (unvoiced) is that (c) the playwright is the Stratfordian citizen. I.e. scholars connect the dots to justify their defence of the traditional attribution. Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Contemporary testimony:
  • "In a comment intended for posterity (Timber or Discoveries), he criticises Shakespeare's casual approach to playwriting, but praises Shakespeare as a person: "I loved the man, and do honour his memory (on this side Idolatry) as much as any. He was (indeed) honest, and of an open, and free nature; had an excellent fancy; brave notions, and gentle expressions ... he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised, than to be pardoned."" I'm confused why this long quote about Shakespeare's virtues is included rather than a more pertinent quote of Jonson's criticism of S's playwriting. I'm sure the quote would be wonderful IN the actual WS article, but here, it's just ... excess verbiage. At 9700+ words, reducing word count isn't something to be sneered at...you're supposed to be summarizing the case for WS's authorship, not writing about him in general.
    • Disagree slightly, though it is a good point, and have provisorily shortened. The section is about circumstantial evidence in contemporary writers concerning Shakespeare as both playwright and private person. This article is about those who question who he was, and Jonson provides evidence here of the playwright's character. Implicitly, that kind of description discounts the many female candidates, and quite a few male candidates whose notoriously bad tempers are well know. But that implication is between the lines. Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see the relevance of "Buc noted on the title page of George a Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield (1599), an anonymous play, that he had consulted Shakespeare on its authorship." to the case either. If it's just unrelated, then remove it.
    • Actually it's a key piece of evidence that Buc knew who Shakespeare the author really was, and since Buc superintended plays up for publication, and licensed one play, printed with S's name on it (Master in that title cannot refer to any nobleman). I think the following lines make this clear. Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Recognition:
  • Again "In The First Part of the Return from Parnassus, two separate characters refer to Shakespeare as "Sweet Mr. Shakespeare", ..." again, not directly relevant ... better to cut it and/or move it to the Bardology article.
    • Perhaps as above, it is not sufficiently clear that 'Mr' in the highly status-conscious society of that time points away from nobles, and towards a commoner. That the remark comes from Cambridge scholars has point, because the sceptical literature expects Shakespeare to be someone with a university degree, and expectation contradicted by this evidence.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Playwright John Webster, in his dedication to White Divel (1612), wrote, "And lastly (without wrong last to be named), the right happy and copious industry of M. Shake-Speare, M. Decker, & M. Heywood, wishing what I write might be read in their light", here using the abbreviation "M." to denote the title "Master" that William Shakespeare of Stratford was entitled to use by virtue of being a titled gentleman." Again, this doesn't directly name WS as an author ("happy and copious industry" in the time frame just means "he worked hard"). Better to cut it.
    • The problem with the three cuts you suggest is that the RS scholarship specifically dealing with the sceptics' arguments cite these pieces of evidence, and were we to excise them we would not be fulfilling our remit to provide comprehensive coverage. The text here finally clarifies, further, that 'M.' 'Mr.' 'Master', apparently innocuous to modern readers, indicate someone who was a titled gentleman, not a nobleman, as so many of the candidates are.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Shakespeare's death - standard perspective:
  • No need to mention the background to the monument again - you've done so above.
    • I've cut this. Paul B (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "The will of Shakespeare's fellow actor, Augustine Phillips, executed 5 May 1605 and proved 16 May 1605, bequeaths "to my fellow William Shakespeare a thirty shillings piece in gold, To my fellow Henry Condell one other thirty shilling piece in gold...". Two issues here - one, it's a fellow actor, so it not testifying to the authorship issue, and two - it'd fit better in the contemporary references section, as it predates WSs death.
    • I've cut this. Paul B (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Again, the verses starting "sweet swan of Avon..." seem redundant here, as they don't explicitly mention authorship. It could be condensed to mention what it referrs to .. perhaps "...in which he identifies Shakespeare as a playwright, a poet, and an actor. The verses also ties the author to to Stratford-upon-Avon and alludes to him appearing at the courts of Elizabeth I and James I."
    • responded to on FA page. Paul B (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • A huge amount of the early literature worried over this 'Avon' reference since it clearly pointed to WS as a denizen born by the river Avon (Stratford). History is not the evidence we want, it is data for conclusions we draw. Jonson for all scholars here, in citing Avon, fixes the playwright, poet, actor and personal friend as someone from the Avon river area. The Earl of Oxford had an estate, Bilton, on the Avon, but decades earlier. Given the importance of Avon as a topological signpost in the identity arguments, the verses are, I think, not only justified, but essential.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Digges was raised in a village on the outskirts of Stratford-upon-Avon in the 1590s by his stepfather, and Shakespeare's friend, Thomas Russell, who was appointed in Shakespeare's will as overseer to the executors." Can we condense this a bit? Perhaps "Digges was raised near S-u-A in the 1590s and was the stepson of Thomas Russell, Shakespeare's friend and overseer of executors of Shakespeare's estate." rephrased. Paul B (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm obviously missing something about the need to tie WS to Stratford, because I completely fail to see why "This poem circulated very widely in manuscript and survives today in more than two dozen contemporary copies; several of these have the full title "On Mr. William Shakespeare, he died in April 1616", unambiguously referring to Shakespeare of Stratford." is helping the case for WSs authorship. If there is such a need, it's been failed to be made in the case against section.
    • It's a response to the A-S claim that there were no references to his death in 1616. The point is that A-S writers tend argue that poems praising "Shakespeare" are praising the "true author" under his pseudonym. The references to Stratford and 1616 show that they are referring to Will of Stratford (1564-1616) not to another person under a pseudonym. Because of the stucture of the article it is difficult to change this passage, since to do so would introoduce and anti-Strat argument into the pro-Strat section. Instead I've added a sentence to the anti-Strat section explaining that references to "Shakespeare" as a writer are taken to be to the true author's pseudonym Paul B (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Have rewritten to clarify that the variant title adds information not available in Basse's folio poem, which gives Shakespeare's date of death, one that happens to coincide with the known date of WS of Stratford. = 'several of these have a fuller, variant title "On Mr. William Shakespeare, he died in April 1616", which unambiguously specifies that the reference is to Shakespeare of Stratford. Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Evidence:
  • "....which provided Latin instruction for children aged 7 to 14." this is unneeded and if cut would allow the rest of the sentence and the following to be combined. "Instead, his classical allusions rely on the Elizabethan grammar school curriculum which began with William Lily's Latin grammar Rudimenta Grammatices and progressed to Caesar, Livy, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Plautus, Terence, and Seneca. All of these authors and works are quoted and echoed in the Shakespearean canon." cut as suggested. Paul B (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Shakespeare's plays are full of phrases from grammar school texts and pedagogy, including caricatures of schoolmasters." "including" here implies that the second part is a subset of the first, but this isn't the case. Perhaps "Shakespeare's plays are full of phrases from grammar school texts and pedagogy alongside caricatures of schoolmasters." = together with Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Lily's Grammar is referred to in the plays by characters such as Demetrius and Chiron in Titus Andronicus (4.10), Tranio in The Taming of the Shrew, the schoolmaster Holofernes of Love's Labour's Lost (5.1) in a parody of a grammar-school lesson, Sir Toby Belch in Twelfth Night, and Sir Hugh Evans, another schoolmaster who in Merry Wives of Windsor (4.1) parodies Lily." This could profitably be condensed to "Lily's Grammar is referred to in a number of plays, including Titus Andronicus (4.10), The Taming of the Shrew, Love's Labour's Lost (5.1), Twelfth Night, and Merry Wives of Windsor (4.1)." Also, need a cite for the Taming of the Shrew ref. Done. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Studies show that an artist's creativity is responsive to the milieu in which the artist works, and especially to prominent political events." is just filler and can go or needs some reason to tie it to the following sentences, which could stand on their own.
    • Agreed. It's cut. It's too much of a generalisation anyway (all artists? Do Raphael's Madonnas mutate in form in response to political events? Do love lyrics?). Paul B (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Is his name "Dean Keith Simonton"? or is are you giving him a title of "Dean"? If the first, why when all the other usage is just two names, instead of three? If the latter, you need to make this clearer, as "dean" could indeed mean a first name.
    • That's his name. He uses that version of the name in his publications [1], so I think we should stick with his preferred authorial name. Paul B (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "When lagged two years, the mainstream chronologies yielded substantially meaningful associations between thematic and political context..." what's lagged here mean? I 'think it means that when compared against events two years before the date of the work, but it's not going to be clear to a lot of folks, needs explanation.
    • It's virtually Simonton verbatim. By 'lag' he meant 'backdated'. Perhaps something like, 'when backdated two years, the mainstream chronologies yield substantial correlations between the thematics of the plays and external events which took place round the approximate dates of their composition'.
    • Simonton's point was that the other main contender, de Vere, is made to compose the plays by dates notably earlier than those used for Shakespeare, with a time lag often over a decade. But this alternative chronology fails to yield significant correlations betwen the thematics and political events of the day, if the compositions are 'lagged'/backdated 10 years earlier than those of the mainstream chronology. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Have readjusted the language to clarify, as requested. Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Bardolatry:
  • REALLY dislike the easter egg link for 1660. There is no reason to link that way, and would be much better to use the actual "Restoration (England)" here. Suggest "... after the theatres reopened in the Restorataion Era after 1660,..." Done. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Urf. "Although his views remained orthodox, ..." is very POV. Try "Although still convinced that Shakespeare was the author of the plays, ..." calling the view "orthodox" when there really isn't a religious angle here, is a bit over the line in an article ON the other theories.
    • I've changed it. 'Orthodox' is not a specifically religious term, but the phrasing is inapposite. Paul B (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Open dissent:
  • "Shakespeare's authorship was first openly questioned in the pages of Joseph C. Hart's The Romance of Yachting (1848)." you say that but do not describe HOW Hart argued he wasn't or WHO Hart felt was the author. This is where people are going to want to know more, and where all that culling in the "case for" section will allow you to explicate a bit more on the actual subject of the article.
    • This is covered in detail in the Hart article. His views can't easily be summed up. He believed that Shakespeare edited for performance plays written by many other writers, but that WS did write "Merry Wives". I've added a single short sentence. Paul B (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Same for Jameson .. you don't explicate here where it's relevant to the article subject.
    • The article argues that an unknown poet or poets was/were employed. I don't think we should go into too much detail about these, otherwise we will be rambling off on tangents. I've added a short phrase. It's just there to be comprehensive. It could go altogether, but then the sequence of events would be incomplete. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You mention that Hawthorne helped Delia Bacon, but did he agree with her? How did he help - help write? Help publish?
    • He helped her to publish and gave her access to literati in England. Maybe he doesn't need to be mentioned. I've cut him. Paul B (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Search for proof:
  • "Perhaps because of Bacon's legal background, the Shakespeare authorship question has often been tested by recourse to the framework of trial by jury in both mock and real trials." WAAYYY wordy and convoluted. Suggest "Perhaps because of Bacon's legal background, both mock and real jury trials figure in attempts to prove other authors."
    • I've changed this, with a variation of your suggestion. Paul B (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "The first such litigation..." was this a real trial or a mock one?
    • mock. added. Paul B (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming that the Tuthill-judged case was a real trial? Where did this take place?
    • Chicago. added. Paul B (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is "financed by George Fabyan" important? He's not notable enough for his own article, so it seems superflous.
    • I have explained his importance. His article is linked. Paul B (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • So Gallup traveled to England, but did she find anything? YOu leave us hanging...
    • No she didn't. Paul B (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Argh! It's not "...Dean of Lichfield. He's the dean of the Lichfield Cathedral chapter! So... Dean of Lichfield or Dean of Lichfield Cathedral. Linking to just plain Lichfield is erroneous in this context .. there is no such office as Dean of the town of Lichfield.
    • done. Paul B (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Done. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Was Arensberg's campaign to photograph the grave sucessful? If so, did it uncover anything?
• Other candidates emerge:
  • What the heck does "Unaffiliated anti-Stratfordians also began to appear." mean? Unaffiliated with what???
    • I've read this over in context and it seems clear to me. I can't think of a better concise phrasing. It means people who asserted that Shakespeare could not be the author, but who did not believe the actual author had been definitively identified. Paul B (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • How about Anti-Stratfordians unaffiliated to any specific authorship candidate also began to appear. Not so concise, but perhaps more clear to those not in the know? --GuillaumeTell 16:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I've adopted your proposal. Paul B (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "... thereby sanctioning the search for candidates other than Bacon." Sanctioning? Seems a very odd word choice to me.
    • I changed it to "encouraging" Paul B (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "...an authority on French and English literature, renominated William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby..." since this is the first mention of any serious candidacy for Derby... renominated seems an odd word choice here.
    • Yes, that's always sounded odd to me. There had in fact been two previous authors who promoted Derby. Changed to "argued the case". Paul B (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "To bridge this evidentiary gap, Oxfordians joined the Baconians in claiming to find hidden clues and allusions in the Shakespeare canon placed there by Oxford for the benefit of future researchers." The way this is worded it implies some sort of joint planned action or even a conspiracy. Perhaps "In attempts to bridge the evidentiary gap, both Oxfordians and Baconians began to argue that hidden clues and allusions in the Shakespeare canon had been placed there by Oxford for the benefit of future researchers." or something similar.
    • rephrased, though I omitted "attempts". Paul B (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming that Hoffman found no proof? Again, left the reader hanging about the outcome.
    • No he did not, of course. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "American cryptologists William and Elizebeth Friedman won the Folger Shakespeare Library Literary Prize in 1955 for a definitive study considered to have disproven the claims that the works of Shakespeare contain hidden ciphers." wordy ... and a bit awkward, can this be reworded perhaps?
    • rephrased. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "...critical orthodox perspective..." suggest "critical perspective..." which avoids implying religious overtones. Scholarly might also be a substitute. Any time you start implying religious overtones in non-religious subjects, you're going to start shading into POV territory.
  • Do any of these authors need to be stated? None is notable enough for their own article, and I don't believe they've been mentioned before. I think title and publication date would be fine here, no need to add more names to the name-stew that this article can be at times.
    • I've changed it to 'mainstream', but left the author's names. It seems odd to list books without givuing authors. I don't think whether or not they have articles should be a deciding factor. They are relevant to this article. Paul B (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Shakespeare Cross-Examination - did it reach a conclusion for or against? Did most of the letters skew one way?
• Authorship:
  • "..he used the media to circumnavigate the academy and appeal directly to the public..." the academy is unclear here... do you mean a specific academy? But the last society mentioned was the Shakespeare Oxford Society. Or is the "academic community" meant instead? (I'm pretty sure you don't mean Plato's Academy... at least!)
    • Replaced with Academia. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Ogburn secured Oxford as the most popular candidate, kick-starting the modern revival of the Oxfordian movement, based on seeking publicity through moot court trials, media debates, television, and later the Internet, including Wikipedia." Wordy and awkward. Perhaps "Ogburn's efforts secured Oxford the place as the most popular alternate candidate. He also kick-started the modern revival of the Oxfordian movement, based on seeking publicity through moot court trials, media debates, television, and later the Internet, including Wikipedia."
    • Done. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Bacon:
  • Haven't we already seen most of this: "William Henry Smith was the first to propose Bacon as the author in September 1856 in Was Lord Bacon the Author of Shakspeare's Plays? A Letter to Lord Ellesmere." so can some of it been condensed out?
    • Shortened. Paul B (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "He compared passages such as Bacon's "Poetry is nothing else but feigned history" with Shakespeare's "The truest poetry is the most feigning" (As You Like It, 3.3.19–20), and Bacon's "He wished him not to shut the gate of your Majesty's mercy" with Shakespeare's "The gates of mercy shall be all shut up" (Henry V, 3.3.10).[190] Believing she had discovered hidden political meanings in the plays and parallels between those ideas and Bacon's known works, Delia Bacon proposed him as the leader of a group of disaffected philosopher-politicians who tried to promote republican ideas to counter the despotism of the Tudor-Stuart monarchies through the medium of the public stage." Total disjoint beteween these two sentences, needs something better to connect the ideas.
    • I've rewritten and attempted to emphasise the connection. Paul B (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Linkie "wastebook"?
    • linkie?? I've linked to waste book. Paul B (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you mean to have "Proponents of Bacon also argue that ..." before "His moral philosophy, including a revolutionary politico-philosophic system of government, was concealed in the Shakespeare plays because of its threat to the monarchy."?
    • Added "they say that...". Paul B (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "This sparked a cipher craze that produced probative cryptograms in the works found by Ignatius Donnelly." do you mean "This sparked a cipher craze that produced probative cryptograms in the works that were found by Ignatius Donnelly."? If so, it's a bit unclear at first reading.
    • I've rewritten. Paul B (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Orville Ward Owen (who believed that Francis Bacon was the secret son of Queen Elizabeth and Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester),[199] and Dr. Isaac Hull Platt." Incomplete sentence ... no verb for the subject Owen.
    • The full sentence is grammatical: "This sparked a cipher craze that produced probative cryptograms in the works found by Ignatius Donnelly, Orville Ward Owen (who believed that Francis Bacon was the secret son of Queen Elizabeth and Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester), and Dr. Isaac Hull Platt." However, the secret son bit is already discussed earlier, so I've deleted it. Paul B (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Edward de Vere:
  • Not a fan of the easter egg links of "grandfather" and "father" here. See WP:Easter egg for reasons to avoid linking in this manner which can surprise the reader as well as lead them to NOT link on the term linked, as they assume that actual words being piped are meant to be linked.
    • I've delinked. There's no real need for the links. Paul B (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Although Oxford died in 1604, with, according to the most widely accepted chronology, ten plays yet to be written, Oxfordians date the plays earlier and say that unfinished works were revised by other playwrights and released after his death." awkward and wordy, might be best reworded.
    • I have reworded. Paul B (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "A device from Henry Peacham's Minerva Britanna (1612) depicting a hand behind a curtain that has written the Latin motto MENTE VIDEBOR ("By the mind I shall be seen") was first used to support Bacon's candidacy..." the "hand behind a curtain that has written" is confusing.. is the hand writing? Or is the motto on the curtain?
    • I have rephrased this. Paul B (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I'll be scarce until Sunday, but I'll try to keep up with the discussion and maybe even make a few edits as I get time during the day. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to know how to respond to these points. There are so many. Many are entirely valid. Some I don't quite follow. Others I think could be discussed futher. I honestly do not understand why the term "anti-stratfordians" is derogatory or problematic. It's the term they use themselves. I just don't get why using it is POV. I find the objection to the word "orthodox" odd. It is not a "religious term". It is a term that is used in many contexts, including religion. Definition: "of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc." I'll just pick out a few comments about Bacon that I can respond diredctly to:

** "The first such litigation..." was this a real trial or a mock one? Yes, it was real. I think this is clear in the article.

• • I'm assuming that the Tuthill-judged case was a real trial? Where did this take place? In Chicago. Do we really need to know this?
  • Why is "financed by George Fabyan" important? He's not notable enough for his own article, so it seems superflous. He does have his own article: George Fabyan. His importance is that he was the plaintiff in the case.. Paul B (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded this section - which was rather unclear. My own replies above are inaccurate in a number of respects. The 1916 trial was real, not the earlier one. Paul B (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Points for discussion

I am breaking these out for discussion because these are critical issues but obviously we've presented them wrong if a trained historian cannot discern their purpose. Comments interspersed in bold.

• • "... and explicit contemporary documentary evidence attests that the actor was the Stratford citizen." Did we typo "actor" for "author" here? Otherwise, I can't see what relevance that the fact that WS was a Stratford citizen has to the case for him being the author.

Of course this relates to the anti-Stratfordian argument that the author's name was a pseudonym and did not refer to Shakespeare of Stratford. We probably need to make this clearer in the Name as a pseudonym section and then refer back to that.

• Contemporary testimony:
  • "In a comment intended for posterity (Timber or Discoveries), he criticises Shakespeare's casual approach to playwriting, but praises Shakespeare as a person: "I loved the man, and do honour his memory (on this side Idolatry) as much as any. He was (indeed) honest, and of an open, and free nature; had an excellent fancy; brave notions, and gentle expressions ... he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised, than to be pardoned."" I'm confused why this long quote about Shakespeare's virtues is included rather than a more pertinent quote of Jonson's criticism of S's playwriting. I'm sure the quote would be wonderful IN the actual WS article, but here, it's just ... excess verbiage. At 9700+ words, reducing word count isn't something to be sneered at...you're supposed to be summarizing the case for WS's authorship, not writing about him in general.
  • I don't see the relevance of "Buc noted on the title page of George a Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield (1599), an anonymous play, that he had consulted Shakespeare on its authorship." to the case either. If it's just unrelated, then remove it.

Both of these are intended to show that Shakespeare was a real person who was known personally by his contemporaries in the business.

Point from Eald - however, I didn't get the impression reading the "Case against" section that many "anti's" thought that WS didn't exist at all... if there are antis that do, that needs to be made explicit. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Recognition:
  • Again "In The First Part of the Return from Parnassus, two separate characters refer to Shakespeare as "Sweet Mr. Shakespeare", ..." again, not directly relevant ... better to cut it and/or move it to the Bardology article.
  • "Playwright John Webster, in his dedication to White Divel (1612), wrote, "And lastly (without wrong last to be named), the right happy and copious industry of M. Shake-Speare, M. Decker, & M. Heywood, wishing what I write might be read in their light", here using the abbreviation "M." to denote the title "Master" that William Shakespeare of Stratford was entitled to use by virtue of being a titled gentleman." Again, this doesn't directly name WS as an author ("happy and copious industry" in the time frame just means "he worked hard"). Better to cut it.

Their use of the abbreviated honorific "Mr." and "M." for "Master" are supposed to indicate that they refer specifically to William Shakespeare of Stratford, gentleman.

Point from Eald - but these points aren't being brought out, nor is the point that there may be other shakespeares in the London theatre world in the "Case against". Ealdgyth - Talk 12:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Shakespeare's death - standard perspective:
  • No need to mention the background to the monument again - you've done so above.
  • "The will of Shakespeare's fellow actor, Augustine Phillips, executed 5 May 1605 and proved 16 May 1605, bequeaths "to my fellow William Shakespeare a thirty shillings piece in gold, To my fellow Henry Condell one other thirty shilling piece in gold...". Two issues here - one, it's a fellow actor, so it not testifying to the authorship issue, and two - it'd fit better in the contemporary references section, as it predates WSs death.
  • Again, the verses starting "sweet swan of Avon..." seem redundant here, as they don't explicitly mention authorship. It could be condensed to mention what it refers to .. perhaps "...in which he identifies Shakespeare as a playwright, a poet, and an actor. The verses also ties the author to to Stratford-upon-Avon and alludes to him appearing at the courts of Elizabeth I and James I."
  • "Digges was raised in a village on the outskirts of Stratford-upon-Avon in the 1590s by his stepfather, and Shakespeare's friend, Thomas Russell, who was appointed in Shakespeare's will as overseer to the executors." Can we condense this a bit? Perhaps "Digges was raised near S-u-A in the 1590s and was the stepson of Thomas Russell, Shakespeare's friend and overseer of executors of Shakespeare's estate."
  • I'm obviously missing something about the need to tie WS to Stratford, because I completely fail to see why "This poem circulated very widely in manuscript and survives today in more than two dozen contemporary copies; several of these have the full title "On Mr. William Shakespeare, he died in April 1616", unambiguously referring to Shakespeare of Stratford." is helping the case for WSs authorship. If there is such a need, it's been failed to be made in the case against section.

All good points. We need to make the need clear in that section. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Points ..

One thing I'm trying to point out in my review is that this is a monster of an article. It should be focused on information directly relevant to the subject, and one problem I had with keeping track of what was going on was the huge number of names involved. So many names are mentioned that it is difficult to keep track of the "actors". If the information doesn't have a direct bearing on things, it's better to cut out extraneous detail. Also, just because you (group you) the authors of this think things are clear, doesn't mean that they are clear to the average reader. One of the best things about FAC is getting reviewers outside the subject area - (i.e. me) and when we say something is unclear... it's probably best to conclude it's unclear, no matter how clear it might be to you. I hit this issue with my own FACs (I've had 35 of them...) and it is indeed hard to take feedback that your writing has been less than clear. My findings have been that generally though, if one person points it out, it probably needs clarifying.

Another small point - this is an article that should at least pay lip service to the idea that the people putting forth the alternate theories aren't loonies. Trust me, after reading the article, their own actions speak louder than anything that they are a bit ... off... on how historical subjects are researched. One way to avoid the constant "biased" complaints is to bend over backwards to appear even handed in your approaches. Constantly using one phrase for the "anti" camp when you use varying terms for the people in the "pro" camp is going to strike readers as a POV. And using religious terminology will also imply a slightly non-rational approach to the subject. "skeptics" is a good word to use for the antis - it implies rationality and thus helps counter insinuations of bias.

On a personal note, before I read this, having only read a few headlines about possible doubt about Shakespeare's authorship (I actually am in that minority of English speakers who don't like Shakespeare much, so I avoid the subject pretty heavy - don't feel bad, I dislike Chaucer and Beowulf almost as much, and was forced to deal with them a LOT more in my studies) I came away more convinced that Shakespeare was the author than I was before. Changing some phrasing to make it clear that you're treating both sides even-handedly will not reduce the power of the case for WS's authorship presented here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And on a practical note - Im unwatchlisting this (I have 1500+ medieval articles I keep an eye on) so if someone could drop me a note on my talk page when everyone feels that my concerns/etc have been adressed, that'd be great. I will revisit then. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

OK you've still got one chance to redeem yourself: How do you feel about Edmund Spenser?

Seriously, though, thanks very much for your review. If we haven't made our points clear enough for a trained historian to grasp, we've obviously got some problems. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the points were made, just some information wasn't clear (and Spenser?? Giovanni Boccaccio or William Blake, thanks!). If most of the article hadn't been clear, I'd have opposed. Instead, I lean towards support, which in an article this size, is a good thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've answered all the queries that I can. I've struck through those which have, I think resolved your problems. I've left others that are still a matter of debate unstruck through, but have replied to the points. Those that I can't answer, I have left for others. You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. Paul B (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am otherwise engaged until tomorrow, when I will return to do some more rewriting. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Page rating?

Who added this hidden cat? See the category page "Article Feedback Pilot" and here. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It was added by User:CountryBot, and I've reverted it, as have a few others for much the same reasons - see User talk:CountryBot. --GuillaumeTell 21:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well its page said it was specifically for pages that anticipated a lot of edits in the next two or three months or articles that were far from completion, so I don't understand why it was put on this page. I have no objection to it if it leads to a better encyclopedia, but this is custom-made for POV pushers to create "evidence" of bias. For this article it would be about as accurate as Amazon.com ratings in determining the reality of the matter. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the removal of Category:Article Feedback Pilot from this article (btw, the wikitext for that link is [[:Category:Article Feedback Pilot]] with a colon before "Category"). It does nothing to benefit this article and should be at Shakespeare in the Simpsons. To see the effect of the category, use a browser with JavaScript enabled and where you are not logged on to Wikipedia. Then visit an article in the category, for example Abortion or Evolution of the eye. At the bottom of the page you will see a butt-ugly "Rate this page" using the obligatory 1–5 stars for each of Trustworthy, Objective, Complete, and Well-written. You can also click "I am highly knowledgeable about this topic" to add an assurance that your rating has authority. I don't see a place to add an animated avatar, but no doubt that will be coming soon. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Natural vs intellectual

Paul, I see you changed 'natural genius' to 'intellectual genius' here. I think the epiphet 'natural' refers to the traditions that hailed Shakespeare's 'untutored' genius, going back to Shakespeare's time and taking wing particularly in the early 19th century. 'Intellectual' as a substitute strikes me as rendering the phrase a touch pleonastic.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course they do indeed refer to "the traditions that hailed Shakespeare's 'untutored' genius, going back to Shakespeare's time". That's exactly why I think it is the wrong term. The idea that Shakespeare is fancy's child, warbling his native woodnotes wild, is completely consistent with the view that he is a country-boy! It's the idea that he is an intellectual that fuels Anti-Stratfordianism. His plays are full of scholarship, wisdom, profound philosophy etc. That's a view that emerges in the Romantic/Victorian era. BTW, I checked the pages from the Shapiro before making the change. It seemed an odd choice of page. I think the drift of Shapiro's argument supports my change. Paul B (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the word 'reputation' (in the period 48-56) which makes the change problematical. The context runs:

seemed incompatible with his poetic eminence and reputation as an intellectual genius

and refers to the period of the origins of the ebate in the mid-19th century. While at that time Shakespeare's 'poetic eminence' was universally acclaimed, his reputation as an 'intellectual' genius, which I take to mean a cerebral, analytic thinker of genius, was surely the consequence of what Bacon asserted, which then took wing as an innovation, rather than a reputation for enjoyed before that time. The sentence as it now stands is suggestive to me of an anachronism, attributing to Shakespeare a reputation as an erudite thinker before 1848-1856 which he only acquired, among the sceptics, after that date. Surely his reputation until that period was predominantly that of the 'natural genius', a theory Bacon challenged? Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Writing on Shakespeare in that period increasingly emphasises both intellectual and moral complexity (Carlyle: "Shakspeare is the chief of all Poets hitherto; the greatest intellect who, in our recorded world, has left record of himself.") Indeed the footnoted pages in Shapiro refer to Schmucker's attacks on Strauss, in which Schmucker says nothing about Shakespeare's "natural" genius. Instead he says "Is it not strange that one individual, so ill prepared by previous education, and other indespensible requisites [should be the author]"." The argument is that The Stratford Man is not intellectual enough. The same point is made by McCrea in The Case for Shakespeare (p.13) in which he talks about the transition from the "untutored" Shakespeare of 17th century critics, to the "scholarly" Shakespeare identified by later writers. "if Shakespeare was unlearned, but the man who wrote the plays had learning, ergo, Shakespeare was not the man who wrote the plays". It's the disjunction between the "two Shakespeares" that creates the perceived problem. I just wish McCrea had not called this the "zeitgeist of its time" (!) Paul B (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to his admirers in the 17th and 18th centuries, Shakespeare was a "child of nature". (Though by the time of Dr. Johnson, this could not be asserted without considerable qualification.) Yet in the early 19th century (not midcentury) we have Coleridge lecturing on Shakespeare's "philosophical mind" and insistent that his "judgement was equal to his genius", and Hazlitt also writing that Shakespeare was a "philosophical" poet.

Nevertheless, though I agree with your historical account, Paul, the phrase "intellectual genius" bothers me. As Nishidani says, it suggests a "cerebral, analytic thinker", one even excessively so. I doubt that any of the early 19th-century critics saw Shakespeare as overly cerebral, just that the power of his imagination was balanced by first-rate reasoning abilities. "Intellectual genius" seems to me almost a self-contradiction. By that I mean that we don't think of intellectuals as true geniuses except in rare cases, and in those cases we tend to call them simply geniuses. (I guess I agree that "intellectual genius" is "pleonastic"; "genius" seems to imply "intellect", though probably more so in our age than when the word was closer to its origin as "spirit".) Would anyone refer to even Kant as an intellectual genius, though in a sense he was? Although critics in the early 19th century had increasingly often noted the "intellectual" component of Shakespeare's genius, nevertheless I don't think it is the case that Shakepeare's reputation was specifically that of an "intellectual" genius.

Why don't we just say "poetic eminence and reputation as a supreme genius"? If we want to risk making this pasage longer, maybe "poetic eminence and reputation as a supreme genius whose power of imagination was fully balanced by his massive intellect", or something like that? --Alan W (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

After mulling this over for some time, I've taken a crack at revising the sentence. It can always be tweaked further or reverted altogether if it's felt that I've thrown something off balance. --Alan W (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Alan, I've done some mulling and considerable reading myself, and see more sharply Paul's point, though I admit I still like 'natural genius'. Natural genius does not occlude high intellectual (abstract) abilities. One thinks of Srinivasa Ramanujan, so poignantly described in G. H. Hardy's memoir, A Mathematician's Apology, for instance. To specify that his genius is 'intellectual' is to disqualify other congruent attributes of praeternatural powers, empathy, sympathetic projection, a pitch-perfect ear for the tonalities of words and the shades of aambiguity resonant within each of them. I was, above all, thinking of the longue durée of his reputation from Jonson's time down to Delia Bacon's day.

Paul has a good point though. The sentence describes the atmospheric prelude immediately prior to (1840s) the bruiting abroad of suspicions, and this, for Paul, means that we must recognize that a divide breaks out in the language used to seize on Shakespeare's peculiar gift. With Coleridge, Hazlitt, Lamb, and later Carlyle, Emerson and Leigh Hunt, his intellect as a controlling feature of the way he writes comes to the fore in criticism. In the immediate circumstances therefore, it was this repute, acquired under Romantic critics, for intellectual acumen that prompted Delia Bacon et. al to feel that something was ajar here. Clodhoppers and yokels have no means of rising to such heights of interrogative self-awareness, such as the philosophical caste of critics for three decades had attributed to him, ran the prejudice of the day.

‘After Coleridge had analysed the profound intellectual constituents of Shakespeare’s art, the older notion of Shakespeare’s untutored ‘natural genius’ no longer seemed tenable.' See Frederick Burwick, ‘Shakespeare and the Romantics’ in Duncan Wu (ed.) A companion to Romanticism, Wiley-Blackwell, 1999 pp.512ff.p.516

My disagreement remains, however. 'Intellectual' is too restrictive, and in rereading the relevant criticism from Dryden to Hunt I feel that it risks suggesting the cerebral at the expense of other high powers which most of those critics find commingled in Shakespeare's thought. Paul quotes Carlyle, but in Carlyle's essay, Shakespeare could have been a philosopher, statesman, anything: his gift was developed for 'musical Thought' ('On Heroes and Hero-Worship, Cassell & Co. 1902 p.71). That evidently alludes to the passage in Coleridge (Biographia Literaria J. M.Dent 1965 ch.XV) on a musical ear as fundamental for such art, and Coleridge's point about Shakespeare's 'philosophical' nature must be read against the wider epithet he introduces, Shakespeare as 'myriad-minded' (not just 'intellectual',) and against the fact that he defines the poet as someone who 'brings the whole soul of man into actvity, with the subordination of its facultes to each other, according to ther relative worth and dignity' (p.174)

His genius in many of these texts is not singularly 'intellectual' but lies in the way all the faculties that feed and constitute intellect and sensibility appear to cohere seamlessly in that writer's work.

I've changed 'inspiration' to 'imagination', in any case. I think 'imagination' was implicitly erased by the otherwise historically justified 'intellectual' Paul prefers. Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not simplify the text by just saying "genius", which would give:

Shakespeare's biography, particularly his humble origins and obscure life, seemed incompatible with his poetic eminence and his reputation for genius, arousing suspicion that Shakespeare might not have written the works attributed to him.

That deletes the "that was as much intellectual as imaginative" qualification which does not seem particularly helpful in the lead as it distracts from the point being made. Johnuniq (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That's more or less what I think is best now, given that the various qualifying adjectives please no one. It has the elegance of simplicity, and shortens the lead even more. I did think 'praeternatural' (out of the ordinary course of nature) might cut the Gordian knot, but it may look like a a fudge.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That is such a good summary of the Romantic characterization of Shakespeare's genius, Nish, that I am disappointed that you abandoned your position at the end. But it is true that we don't want to overburden the lead with qualifications, and to that extent I agree with Johnuniq. Though nobody can please everybody, I did the best I could, and have attempted to effect a compromise by moving those qualifications down into the section "Bardolatry and early doubt". --Alan W (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Points outstanding from Ealdgyth's review

I have updated the FAC with information gleaned from this talk page and from inspecting changes to the article (while I have tried to attribute who-did-what, for brevity I have sometimes avoided that, and I have already been informed of one mistake—sorry). An enormous amount of work has been done—excellent.

I am recording here the points that are outstanding and which should be addressed ASAP at the FAC:

• General: Good points, but awkward to address.
• Name: Hard to know when to stop adding information.
• Search for proof: The "Arensberg's campaign to photograph the grave" issue needs attention.
• Other candidates emerge: The "Shakespeare Cross-Examination" issue needs attention.

I'm hoping someone can address the last two points fairly soon. The first two will need more thought. Finishing this response is our most urgent need. Would someone also please read the responses in the FAC and see if anything further is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

John I've been extremely busy the past few days but I hope to be able to do a comprehensive review of the proposed changes sometime tomorrow. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

---

• Search for proof: The "Arensberg's campaign to photograph the grave" issue needs attention.

Sorry. I thought it was just an expression of curiosity. The answer is, no. Arenberg was refused permission to photograph the site. He wrote an entire pamphlet on the episode. (Wadsworth 1959:83). Do we have to go into this?Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Please put some brief text in the article (for example, Paul B recently added "Nothing was found." for a similar issue), and then note what has been done on the FAC page. The FAC reviewers do not care what we do on this talk page; they want to see results on the FAC page to show that their concerns have been addressed (or at least considered). Johnuniq (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have urgent business to attend to, will do later. In the meantime I have added a comment to your fourth point below. I think it wise to pitch in here before making a statement on the otherpage, so others can review adjust, or correct me if I err.Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

When you get a chance, please do what you can without waiting for the others. We need to respond to nearly all the points in the review very soon. I'm sure some of my responses have been suboptimal, but any problems can be rectified later. What is important is to make a reasonable attempt and have the reviewers able to tick off their concerns. Johnuniq (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

---

• Other candidates emerge: The "Shakespeare Cross-Examination" issue needs attention.

The problem is, E is asking questions not covered in the academic RS, or any source. I do know personally that the volume is a reprint of the various articles in that Law Review, for and against, with 9 pages of letters to the editors appended. But the issue was intended to leave the reader of the journal, and the volume, make up their own minds. There is simply no way of satisfying the request without engaging in a WP:RS violation (counting the letters on pp.116-125, and deducing which way the public represented there skewed'). Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but we need to respond at the FAC page, even if only to explain why we are unable to satisfy the request. Perhaps you could state the situation as you have outlined here, and say that you don't see how that could be used in the article, and ask for advice. Johnuniq (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put in my tuppence worth on all four points. The Arensberg point was worth revisiting, and I hope my adjustment is satisfactory. Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Edward de Vere

I added to the Ealdgyth portion of the FAC page before I saw the note that it was to be carried over on the article discussion page. I could erase my comment and add a note, or...?? Anyway, "Oxfordians either say that Oxford did not write at least some of these plays..." Are there prominent Oxfordians who do not ascribe to (if that is the correct word) at least the two long poems, the Sonnets, the thirty-six plays of the First Folio, and the two other plays? Are there specific plays that some Oxfordians have thrown out?Fotoguzzi (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oxfordianism is a complex movement, with active disputes over numerous positions between its major theorists. There is also the historical variations in emphasis, and theses, to take into account. Looney's dismissal of the late play The Tempest as not by de Vere's hand, for example, is no longer accepted. Many now simply argue that the late dating is wrong. Your general query would take us outside of what the RS quoted for the statement say, and therefore I have re-examined the sources used, and drawn the text much closer to what botyh Schoenbaum and Shapiro state. Naturally, the refinements of position you express interest in are best handled on the sister page dealing specifically with The Oxfordian theory.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I recently read the works of early Oxfordian Percy Allen, a close ally of Looney initially, who later invented the Prince Tudor theory. His beliefs changed all the time. He believed that Oxford wrote a kind of ur-Venus and Adonis which was later altered and expanded by Bacon and Chapman, who were responsible for publishing it. But Oxford did not write Lucrece. He later developed a version of the Group theory. Oxfordians Ward and Looney believed that Oxford collaborated with Derby on some works. Ward accepted Lefranc's arguments that Derby wrote Love's Labour's Lost. That's just the first generation of Oxfordian writers! Paul B (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had forgotten about Looney's Appendix I. Sorry for the distraction.Fotoguzzi (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No distraction. Checking things like that always helps one tighten the text's fidelity to its sources. I have several sources that could have been added to justify the earlier wording, but thought it best just to keep things pared down. Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note As best I can tell we've addressed every point from Ealdgyth's review, and so I've gone ahead and posted a note to that effect on her talk page, and asked that she take a look over to strike what's done and, if possible, provide guidance on anything that is still not satisfactory. If there are still points that she finds insufficient it would probably be prudent to address those as quickly as possible. --Xover (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit proposal

I propose we add this to the end of the second paragraph of the Overview, reffed to Nicholl:

Some prominent public figures, including Mark Twain, Helen Keller, Henry James, Sigmund Freud, and several Supreme Court justices, have found the arguments against Shakespeare’s authorship persuasive, and their endorsements are an important factor in many anti-Stratfordian arguments.

As to the deletion of "small" from the lede, that can be referenced from any number of RS sources, and I'll furnish one today. The size of the anti-Stratfordian group is an important bit of information (all the anti-Stratfordians in the world wouldn't fill up one side of the smallest pro football stadium), and leaving it out gives an inaccurate portrait by implication.

I just now got back and haven't had time to look over all the edits, which hopefully I will be able to do sometime today. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the number is important. Some fringe theories are believed by millions of people. Even leaving aside religion-based beliefs, there are large numbers of people who believe in alien visitations and many other such ideas. In any case, how can we know how many there are? I met a guy in a pub once who started to explain to me, unprompted, that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare. He was an artist. They Are Among Us. Paul B (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I live in a country where referendums are almost a monthly occurrence, and usually gather a minimum of a half a million signers in a a very brief arc of time. The passage we are dealing with refers to supporters who are activists, writing, lobbying and setting up internet pages in favour of these ideas. The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt is almost at the end of its 4th year of soliciting signatures, and to date has gathered a mere 1,900. This is why 'small' was there. No doubt, there's a wider constituency of people who might argue the point, like your artist, or the chap who got Tom interested in the subject by shirtfronting him with the great mystery in that London art gallery, back in the early 90s. Unfortunately for me, that's never happened. For a year, when asked what I'm doing, to avoid saying what I mostly do, which is intensely boring to most people, I've mentioned this subject on planes, trains, in markets, and in bars all over the place, while travelling. No one seems to know much, if anything about it. Anecdotal, but I very much liked the original line, which popped up after endless haggling and seemed to satisfy everyone for several months. Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the number of activists is very small. My main point was that the fringiness of an idea, from an academic POV, is unrelated to the number of believers. Creationism is fringe within the academy, though it has many millions of adherents. I don't think it really matters whether there are few or many advocates of the anti-Strat position. Of course I only removed the statement because SandyGeorgia had queried it, but I still don't think it's important. I spoke to the Renaissance scholar Ellen Spolsky recently. She told me that he had been told with great certainty by a Russian manicurist that Shakespeare was not the author. She decided not to contradict her, since she had a file under her fingernails at the time. Paul B (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is from Diana Price's 2005 article in Skeptic: "One would think that after all this time, the controversy would be resolved, but the debate continues. And it continues for the most part, not on college campuses or in scholarly journals, but within a relatively small anti-Stratfordian community, with occasional forays into mainstream media or forums." I'll check her and McCrea's books to see if they use that language. It might be productive to check earlier versions of the page, because we've deleted a lot of quotes and sources because of previous reviewers' comments, but I can assure you that every word in the lede has been sourced to a reliable reference at some point. (And Nishidani: it was in September 1980 at the Tate.) Tom Reedy (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the wording with a cited quotation, even though other reviewers have complained about the number and length of such references. At one time we talked about (or maybe it was just me) creating an SAQ FAQ page containing all the quotations. That might be a good idea in the future to relieve this page of some of the load.

Does anyone have an opinion on my original proposal to add a sentence to the overview section? I know several anti-Strat reviewers have brought up that we've left out this type of "evidence". Tom Reedy (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The number of refs were originally meant, other than anchoring the writing of the text, to assist those unfamiliar with the subject to see actually what many sources said. Of course, these can be trimmed in the future, but while under review by external eyes, they retain a certain importance.

You're probably right about adding a piece as proposed since almost half of the argument that the doubts be taken seriously seem to rest on a recitative of the number of famous people outside of scholarship who have taken seriously or embraced the alternative candidates. It's fine by me.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, add it. Paul B (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed New Version of Oxford Subsection that Meets NPOV requirements

Moved from FAC, where it was a bit of a fish out of water; I hope you don't mind, BJ. Please see the comments on FAC. I have moved the whole of BJ's text, header, introduction and all; Nishidani Paul, your move of only his proposed new text was frankly a little confusing, sorry. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

Colleagues, the following is proposed new wording for the subsection of Oxford. Unlike the present wording, version fairly and objectively reflects the substance of the case for Oxford's authorship as made in a range of books and articles that constitute a generally agreed upon set of circumstances and facts known to Oxfordians and intellectual historians more generally.

Adoption of this version, or one very like it, would go a long way towards achieving the desired consensus (in this one area at least)as well as improving the clarity and accuracy of the article as a whole:

The leading present-day candidate is Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, an Elizabethancourtier-poet, noted for his literary and theatrical patronage. Between 1564 and 1599 some 28 books were dedicated to him, including works by Arthur Golding, and playwrights Lyly,Greene and Munday.Oxford held the lease on the first Blackfriars Theatre, produced entertainments at Court, and sponsored companies of players and musicians. After being proposed in the 1920's, Oxford rapidly overtook Bacon to become the most popular alternative candidate.

Oxfordians point to the acclaim by Oxford's contemporaries regarding his talent as a poet and a playwright, his reputation as a hidden poet,and his personal connections to London theatre and the contemporary playwrights of Shakespeare's day. They also note his relationships withQueen Elizabeth I and the Earl of Southampton, his knowledge of Court life, his documented education, his cultural achievements, and his wide-ranging travels through France and Italy to what would later become the locations of many of Shakespeare's plays.

The case for Oxford's authorship is also based on perceived similarities between Oxford's biography and events in Shakespeare's plays, sonnets and longer poems; parallels of language, idiomand thought between Oxford's, personal letters and the Shakespearean canon; and underlined passages in Oxford's personal bible, which correspond to quotations in Shakespeare's plays. Confronting the issue of Oxford's death in 1604, Oxfordian researchers say there is no definite proof that any of the plays or poems were written past 1604, and point to 1604 as the year regular publication of "new" or "augmented" Shakespeare plays stopped. They also cite examples they say imply the writer known as "Shakespeare" or "Shake-speare" died before 1609, when Shake-Speares Sonnets appeared with "our ever-living poet" on its title page, words often used to eulogize someone who has died, yet has become immortal.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BenJonson (talk • contribs)

here, I had an edit-conflict in posting the remarks below, and in the meantime noticed Bishonen has suggested relocating it here. To avoid complications therefore I will respond here.

Actions re BenJonson proposal

The leading present-day candidate is Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, an Elizabethancourtier-poet, noted for his literary and theatrical patronage. Between 1564 and 1599 some 28 books were dedicated to him, including works by Arthur Golding, and playwrights Lyly,Greene and Munday.Oxford held the lease on the first Blackfriars Theatre, produced entertainments at Court, and sponsored companies of players and musicians. After being proposed in the 1920's, Oxford rapidly overtook Bacon to become the most popular alternative candidate.

Oxfordians point to the acclaim by Oxford's contemporaries regarding his talent as a poet and a playwright, his reputation as a hidden poet,and his personal connections to London theatre and the contemporary playwrights of Shakespeare's day. They also note his relationships withQueen Elizabeth I and the Earl of Southampton, his knowledge of Court life, his documented education, his cultural achievements, and his wide-ranging travels through France and Italy to what would later become the locations of many of Shakespeare's plays.

The case for Oxford's authorship is also based on perceived similarities between Oxford's biography and events in Shakespeare's plays, sonnets and longer poems; parallels of language, idiomand thought between Oxford's, personal letters and the Shakespearean canon; and underlined passages in Oxford's personal bible, which correspond to quotations in Shakespeare's plays. Confronting the issue of Oxford's death in 1604, Oxfordian researchers say there is no definite proof that any of the plays or poems were written past 1604, and point to 1604 as the year regular publication of "new" or "augmented" Shakespeare plays stopped. They also cite examples they say imply the writer known as "Shakespeare" or "Shake-speare" died before 1609, when Shake-Speares Sonnets appeared with "our ever-living poet" on its title page, words often used to eulogize someone who has died, yet has become immortal.

• I.e., you propose shifting most of the lead from the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship to the relevant section here. There are notable problems with that.
• Firstly, it would be necessary to supply the sourcing links here. The page has been written according to a very precise reading of the protocols set out in WP:RS and WP:Fringe, unlike the Oxfordian theory page, which largely cites fringe sources.
• At a glance, many points not specifically in the deVere section are in the body of the text, and it might be problematical to repeat them (Shake-speare, 'ever-living poet' etc). I see three things you essentially challenge.
• (a)The omission of reference to your own research on Shakespeare and the Geneva Bible.

There's a slight WP:COI here, but it might well be considered.

• (b)References here to ciphers in the Oxfordian literature, which are given some weight in our text as it stands. Your version elides this information.

The SAQ page is historical. Ciphers did play a significant part in that history, and are duly mentioned. As I noted to Softlavender, above, a simple google search will supply ample evidence that many Oxfordians, perhaps not directly affiliated with the main groups, still press the cipher argument.

• (c) The reference to the Prince Tudor theories, which are also covered here. Again you have chosen to discount this.

The Prince Tudor theories on the other hand are very, very contemporary, and should be given coverage, if only because the film Anonymous, on which so many hopes are pinned for getting the Oxfordian message across to the global public, are anchored firmly in the these theories, that a master-key to explain the mystery of why the 'real' author, de Vere, is never mentioned as such (a variation on the 'stigma' (of print) theme) is that a fundamental taboo, incest, had been repeatedly broken by de Vere. It would look very peculiar indeed to readers checking wiki in September, were they to find that nothing of the sort is deemed important by Oxfordians, esp. since many, Nina Green and Softlavender, among them, have repeatedly cited on the talk pages over the past, that this film, and the Prince Tudor theories on which it is apparently based, will prove to be of seminal importance for the Oxfordian case.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(Ignoring Nishidani's points as my points mostly do not overlap his:) 1. The 1604 publication demarcation could be the hardest to support. What are sources 14 and 15? 2. Were there more allusions to de Vere and stick- or spear- shaking than the Gabriel Harvey reference? 3. Would it be fair to further stress that Oxfordians perhaps uniquely view the Sonnets as autobiographical and conforming to their candidate (old and lame and ruined)? This connection seems central to Oxfordianism but not as much for the other major candidates.Fotoguzzi (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is undisputed that there is a trailing off of Shakespeare playbooks around 1600, but Oxfordians are I think the only people who signal 1604 (for obvious reasons) as the significant date. In the words of Lucas Erne, "only five plays were published from 1601 to 1616, as opposed to thirteen plays between 1594 and 1600." (Shakespeare Quarterly, 2002) This fact certainly was a feature of Oxfordism from its beginnings. Looney's book devotes quite a bit of space to this publication history and ties it in to Oxford's death. Of course, we can't "synthesise" the RS with the Oxfordian fringe publications without a source that links the two. I think you are right that the emphasis on the sonnets is more important to Oxfordism than other anti-Strat theories, but again, we'd need a source to say that. It's not unique, however. Alfred Dodd's version of Baconism laid great emphasis on the sonnets. Gabriel Harvey's "Vultus Tela Vibrat" is, as far as I know, the only source for the "shakes spears" claim. Paul B (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Almost everything in the proposed edit is already in the present article, as you can see by a side-by-side comparison, and in some cases the present version gives more specific coverage, such as Oxford's reputation.

The Italy connection to the plays is a simple fix as long as we can find a cite; just tack it on to the sentence that now states he travelled to Italy.

The sentence "The case for Oxford's authorship is also based on parallels between Oxford's biography and events in Shakespeare's plays, sonnets and longer poems; similarities of language, idiom, diction, and thought between Oxford's personal letters and various elements of the Shakespearean canon" cannot be included as edited; those are all perceived parallels and similarities and not accepted by any academic critic who has investigated them, so it has to be stated as a matter of opinion, which the present section now does: "The case for Oxford relies on historical inferences, literary parallels, and the belief that the plots and characters portrayed in the plays reflect his personal experiences."

"underlined passages in Oxford's personal bible, which correspond in many cases to Biblical allusions in Shakespeare's plays" is too vague to be useful. Shapiro discusses this, IIRC, but I don't remember what he said exactly, so we can include that. (I seem to remember that I brought that up with Nina and she dismissed it as unimportant.) Tom Reedy (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nina proclaimed that she has no truck with Roger's claims about "Oxford's Bible". Shapiro discusses it on pp.244-5 (UK ed), essentially summarising the arguments of Kathmann/Ross. Then he mentions that Oxfordian judge J.P. Stevens, in search of confirmation that a Biblical bed-trick was the source for Oxford/Shakespeare, consulted the Oxford Bible to find that the passage was not marked at all. Paul B (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Stevens' Oxfordian adventure is a non sequitur: all it shows is that Stevens' methodology is typical anti-Strat: think of a conclusion and then go look for supporting evidence instead of looking at the evidence and then drawing conclusions. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to convince me, but you know the man is an EXPERT on circumstantial evidence. Paul B (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it goes without saying that Constitutional law = circumstantial evidence. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the dedication to the sonnets and the argument about the tail off of publications. McCrea discusses these, albeit briefly. The sources suggested by Ben [now added at the FAC page] are either fringe or appear to be synthesising an argument from uncontested facts. Paul B (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think two of us at least have agreed that an edit noting Ben's research, via Shapiro's book which mentions it, may be appropriate. I think we had that in earlier drafts until we were told to prune heavily. I know some Oxfordians disagree about it, but Shapiro thought it worth mentioning. Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've struck out the points that are already in the present lede. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

One could strike out 'his reputation as a hidden poet' sourced to the Primary Document, Puttenham, which says no such thing, and thus the point, unless sourced otherwise, is a WP:OR infraction. As such it fails all criteria for inclusion.Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, so I will tack it to the end: "Oxford died in 1604, before ten of the plays were produced." I imagine that there is fourteen months of history / baggage over this usage, but what does "were produced" mean? I almost think "appeared" would be vague enough to imply: written, poached, published, registered, performed, revised. Fotoguzzi (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually that was a very recent change made by me. The word "produced" was intended to cover publication and performance. I've no problem with "appeared". I thought "produced" was a term more sympathetic to the Oxfordian POV, because it does not imply that they did not exist before, but rather that they were brought out, as it were. The word "appeared" more strongly suggests that they came into being at that point. Paul B (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

When I think of produced, I think of a play performance. When I think of appeared, I think, what do they mean by appeared? Both are not really clear to me. I'm not really sure where the number 10 comes from. I presume that by 1604 there were around 23 plays that had never been published. Presumably the sentence means that someone paying attention in 1604 would have known of around 12 plays that had been performed or placed in the Stationers' Register (or perhaps abandoned as not ready for performance) that would appear in print in the future. I guess my confusion is that by 1604, someone merely collecting quartos would be around 23 plays short of the total 38; someone attending performances would be a different number short of the 38; and someone bird-dogging the Stationers' Registry office would be yet a different number short of the 38. Presumably the smallest of these three figures is 10? Uggh. Fotoguzzi (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've changed to "appeared". It means before there is any record of their existence whether of performance, publication, mention in someone's diary - anything. Paul B (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say "were written, according to the most generally-accepted chronology." Tom Reedy (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Strike-out of other editors' text

Tom, it's hardly proper for you to strike out the points in BJ's proposed text that are already (in your opinion) in the present lede. Bluntly, please don't mess with other editors' text on talkpages. The strikeouts leave BJ's paragraphs legible, but hardly readable. Please try to make your point in a different way. (Suggestion: BJ's text isn't very long, so you might re-post a "clean", original copy of it, followed by your struck-out copy.) Bishonen | talk 14:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC).

I think it was done in the belief that that's the proper procedure. We've been doing it with Ealdgyth's text for over a week with no complaints. I don't remember who started doing it, but I've been striking out points that have been dealt with because I was under the impression that that's what we are supposed to do. Paul B (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the original text above the struck out version. Bluntly, if this was not proper procedure, it could have been pointed out long ago. Paul B (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was forbidden on the FAC page, not the talk page, since we've been doing it since the early RfCs. Apologies. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb is “Thou shalt not mess with another user's comments”, which includes in particular striking their points but even extends to interspersing comments and responses in between their points. There's some leeway for refactoring other users' comments when they're malformed, but then by changing it as little as possible. That's not to say everything such is a big deal, and there's no particular bright line for stuff like interspersing comments, but as a general guiding rule it's best to treat comments as monolithic blocks that are not modified in any way. --Xover (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Adherence to that would certainly increase the comprehensibility of the page. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Interspesing usually makes a page more difficult to read because the sequence of events in a discussion becomes confused. In this case, though, I think it was necessary with Ealdgyth's text, because it was a section-by-section set of queries and requests, which had to be responded to per-point. If we had added discussions at the end of the whole thing then it would truly have been unreadable. Paul B (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. And as mentioned there's no bright line rule on this, it's a general guideline to weigh up against other concerns (but what Bish notes above should probably be heeded). But keep in mind that legibility of point vs. response is just one aspect of clarity. Sandy, just as an example, would probably be more interested in seeing which block of text was written by whom, and interspersing the comments makes that a whole lot harder. For a FAC Delegate the interesting aspect is whether the reviewer Supports or Opposes (which reviewers usually put at the beginning of their comment, and update as they change their mind), and whether all the points raised have been addressed (which is usually indicated by the reviewer striking their comments as they feel they've been addressed). Thus, responding in a block after the review would be clearer and easier to parse depending on your perspective. But I agree, for a long point-by-point review it's hard to be clear without excessive quoting if you don't intersperse your comments. It's a tradeoff. --Xover (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

May I register, to protect my own arse here from nuclear fallout, that I was always secretly opposed to any strike-out. I'm a cricket fan, and the intrusion of baseball terminology disturbs my spiritual, natural and intellectual equanimity. Nishidani (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Just call it the body-line. Paul B (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Overview vs. Lede

A concern has been raised (in passing, elsewhere) that the Overview section and the Lede overlap to some extent, and so are redundant. Without having compared the two directly, I think the concern is valid (i.e. in that it merits consideration, not that any specific conclusion is a given), and we should probably give some attention to it. When the concern was brought up the suggestion was that the lede as it stands comes across as defensive (which comment I think is here intended to be viewed as a copy-editing problem rather than an NPOV problem), and that the Overview section would be a better starting-point for a new lede.

My personal feeling, prior to looking any closer at the issue, is that having an Overview section, generally, is a bit awkward (precisely because the lede is supposed to provide an overview), but that the function, the purpose, of the section in this specific article is appropriate: it eases the reader into the article in a way you can't in the lede because it a) has a length limit, and b) is required to summarize the whole article. Thus I suspect the redundancy here is more perceptual, and triggered by having two “introductions”, rather than structural. However, if it thus affects the reader, it is still a problem that should be addressed.

Could I get you all to take a look at the Overview section and the lede with an eye to rooting out any specific duplication or redundancy, and try to think whether there is any way we can do without Overview without losing essential information or overloading or compromising the lede? We should probably also be on the lookout for any ways in which it might come off as defensive and try to smooth out any we find.

Note that I'm posting this without having looked at the actual article so it's not a given that any changes are necessary at all, I'm just noting what superficially appears a valid concern that we should look at to decide what, if any, action is needed. --Xover (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have already made changes to avoid too much apparent repetition between the lede and overview sections. Paul B (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see all that much overlap myself, nor do I see the defensiveness in the lede, and it would be helpful to know what exact language is being referred to as such. The overview goes into more detail only on a few points mentioned in the lede and it also spells out the kernel of the dispute, which is not further developed elsewhere: the differing interpretations of what constitutes evidence for attribution. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's late here, but I hope, being sleepy and lazy by nature, that tomorrow morning I will switch on and see a neatly formatted double column section with facing 'lead' and 'overview' to facilitate easy comparison, so any residual problems can be ironed out. I've looked repeatedly for the defensive tone, and can't isolate it. I'll try and get back to this tomorrow for my ha'penny's worth. In the meantime, how are we with Ealdgyll's points? I think we were to drop a note there when we had completed our respective, and collected, responses. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

authorship first questioned

“Shakespeare’s authorship was first questioned in the middle of the 19th century, when adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time had become widespread.[4]”

Weren’t some of the earliest works published anonymously or with no author’s name on them, and if that is the case, does it not make this sentence misleading? DeVereGuy (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Many plays were first published without an author's name. That was entirely normal at the time. As Shakespeare's name became marketable it started to appear on title pages. It's rather like the way Hitchcock's films started to be marketed as "Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho" etc after Hitchcock became famous as a director, but the early films were not marketed with his name. This has nothing to do with "questioning" authorship. Paul B (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. Anonymous publication does not equal questioning authorship, and in fact Meres attributed plays to Shakespeare that had been published anonymously. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I agree with everything you’ve both said except that I still see this as a misleading sentence. It seems to suggest that there was in fact no question of authorship until the 19th century. If something is anonymous then the question of authorship is self evident because someone did write it. Someone doesn’t have to ask the question in writing to have it *be* a question. I don’t mean to be quibbling or semantic, but I think the sentence could be worded better.

If you mean to say that no one appeared to *care* who wrote the works, would it not be better to say that? DeVereGuy (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

But there is no evidence that there was any "question of authorship". The fact that playbooks did not give author's names is not a question. Other evidence from Meres etc indicates that Shakespeare's authorship was no secret. You see a play. You buy the playbook; just like seeing a film and buying the DVD. Probably some people did not care too much who the author was, just as some people aren't interested who directed a movie. I don't think we should confuse the fact that some people, obviously, did not know who the author was, with the idea that there was a question of some sort about authorship. It's obfuscation. Paul B (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying is that you don’t know, but the sentence, as it stands, suggests that you do know. “Don’t know” is the responsible and neutral point of view. Since the whole article is about the question of authorship, if you get the history wrong, you get nothing right. DeVereGuy (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we do know, from a mass of evidence that William Shakespeare was identified as the author of plays and poems. Of course it is impossible to know what anyone and everyone might have thought about anything, but if we adopt that that position, we get into absurdities. "We don't know if anyone believed that Queen Elizabeth came from Mars, but they might have believed that." So by that token, any history about anything cannot be written. We can't say that Einstein created theory of relativity, because for all we know someone might have thought of it before, but we just don't know about it. We can't say there was no dispute about the truth of X until Y came along because someone might have been sitting in a tavern disputing it with his mate 100 years earlier, but we just don't know.... Paul B (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I propose the follow edit to the second paragraph (replace paragraph) of the draft article:

While Shakespeare's identity was questioned by Joseph Hall (Satires, 1597) and John Marston (Pygmalion’s Image, 1598), * it wasn’t until the middle of the 19th century, when adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time had become widespread, that the “authorship question” became a matter of scholarly and public debate.[4] Shakespeare's biography, particularly his humble origins and obscure life, seemed incompatible with his poetic eminence and his reputation for genius and erudition,[5] arousing suspicion that Shakespeare might not have written the works attributed to him.[6] The controversy has since spawned a vast body of literature,[7] and more than 70 authorship candidates have been proposed,[8] including Francis Bacon, the 6th Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe, and the 17th Earl of Oxford.[9]

Citations (*): McCrea, The Case For Shakespeare, p. 138; H. N. Gibson, The Shakespeare Claimants, pp. 59-65. --Ssteinburg (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ssteinburg, and thanks for trying to help improve the article. Your comment here is exactly the right form: a concrete and specific issue, with suggested improvement, and the sources to support it. However, two notes: 1) the lead of the article should just summarize the rest of the article, so any such changes or additions needs to be proposed relative to some part of the article proper (and the lead might then later be updated to reflect this if necessary); and 2) it's not enough to “find a source that supports what I want the article to say”, but rather we need to survey the field of scholarship and reflect what their opinion of the matter is, and we give preference to “better” sources (based on criteria like peer-reviewed, published on a university press or well-regarded journal, author is well considered in the field, etc.). On that last point, Wikipedia has actively decided to limit itself to mainstream scholarship and accepting sources outside of the mainstream only in specific and very narrow circumstances. This means, in practice, that if mainstream scholarship says, for example, that Hall and Marston did not question Shakespeare's authorship, then it doesn't matter whether we can find a source that says they did; we can't include it. Only if mainstream scholarship on an issue should be of the opinion that there is room for discussion on the issue might such sources be used, but then only in the limited sense of supporting that, for example, “McCrea thinks this, but most scholars disagree”. In other words, based on this issue I think it will be very hard to incorporate the change you want here.
There are also further issues here. Your addition gives a lot of weight to the argument about Hall and Marston, but we have some limits on space and balance which would make it hard to justify giving this argument so much prominence. Again, the deciding factor isn't how persuasive that particular argument is, and especially not how persuasive you personally find it, but rather how important it is in the overall picture and relative to all the other various arguments made by authorship doubters (and that includes all the arguments they make that you personally may find unpersuasive or even a bit loony). For example, we know authorship doubters right now don't like to talk about any “conspiracy” in relation to their theories; but historically this has been a major thrust of anti-Stratfordian arguments, and so the article needs to discuss this aspect too.
In any case, thank you for making the effort of participating in a constructive way (I know that can be hard on articles like this). All else aside, we really do appreciate all the help we can get in improving the article. And please don't hesitate to ask if there is something unclear in the above comment, or if there is any other quirk of Wikipedia we can help you navigate. --Xover (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go over this? Neither Hall nor Marston ever mention Shakespeare. They satirise the writings of someone called "Labeo". Most scholars do not think either of them intend this as a code name for Shakespeare. Some think either or both may do, but Michael Drayton is the favoured candidate. Even if they do intend Shakespeare, they never question his authorship - or Drayton's or Daniel's or whoever it is. Hall says that "Labeo" should "write better" or "write alone" - that is he should not collaborate with other authors. Collaboration was common at the time, as we all know. So whether or not this refers to Shakespeare it is not questioning his authorship in the SAQ sense. Only someone willfully misreading McCrea could footnote the relevant passage as if it supported your views. He clearly states that he doesn't think that Hall's "Labeo" even refers to Shakespeare. As for Gibson, he is misled by the Baconian misidentification of "Labeo" as a reference to the Roman legal scholar, which it is not. So Gibson's views have been wholly superseded in this instance, as all otherwise reliable sources can be on specific details (including McCrea on Wilmot). Paul B (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Xover, for the considerate response. If I may, I’d like to pursue a couple of points. Since Stratfordians biographers and proponents routinely make the claim, with considerable emphasis, that there was no contemporaneous “doubt” about Shakespeare’s identity, the issue is obviously very important (to both sides), and it is, therefore, extremely relevant (even critical) to the paragraph in question. McCrea is cited elsewhere in the draft article. So, as a source he’s already been vetted. Gibson is an orthodox source. Clearly, Gibson’s intent was not to argue against Shaksper’s authorship. One may (as Paul B. has) take issue with Gibson’s assertions, however, Paul’s claims that Gibson has been refuted by broad and authoritative consensus of subsequent scholarship (I am paraphrasing) is, at this point, merely Paul’s claim. Further, I don’t think it serves neutrality, or the goal of giving the reader the complete picture (concisely of course), to hide the fact that there are differences of expert opinion within the orthodox community on an important question. The changes I have proposed are concise. They barely add length to the paragraph. They add highly relevant information. And they are, by Wikipedia standards, authoritatively sourced, indeed, do not draw on any “fringe” sources. I also need to respond to several of Paul’s assertions. To say that Gibson was “mislead by Baconian misidentification” is a statement of opinion on several counts and, on each count, debatable. I will not debate these matters here. It is clear that Gibson saw “Labeo” as evidence that Hall and Marston believed the name Shakespeare was a pseudonym. Whether Gibson believed (rightly or wrongly) that Bacon was the suspected author, and how he came to that conclusion, is beside the point. As to Paul’s comment, “Only someone willfully misreading McCrea could footnote the relevant passage as if it supported your views.” My “views” are not the issue and it is somewhat offensive be accused of “willfully misreading”. Obviously McCrea was not making a case for Oxford. But, McCrea closing comments on this question, on page 138, clearly indicated a position that “Labeo” was someone other than Shaksper. So, I ask again that the proposed edit be accepted. Thank you.--Ssteinburg (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, lets be clear. If you are not willfully misreading you are either knowingly misrepresenting the sources or you can't read properly. McCrea very very clearly says that Hall's Labeo is not Shakespeare. Gibson says maybe. To footnote the first sentence to these sources would be for Wikipedia itself to be dishonest, since neither of them support the assertion. Much of the rest of your reply is evasion. Paul B (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be correct that I have “misread” McCrea, and after further consideration, I would say he is unclear. He says, “…John Marston seems to identify Labeo as the Author [of V & A].” Later he says, “Hall specified in Book VI of his Satires that Labeo was a writer of “heroic” and romantic poetry, who imitated Sir Philip Sidney . . . Probably Hall had Samuel Daniel or Michael Drayton in mind.” This statement, and his other statements on that page, do not, in my opinion, logically cancel out the “seems” in the earlier statement. But, since McCrea is unclear, I withdraw McCrea as a supporting source. On the other hand, Gibson says, “We agree that Hall is patting himself on the back because he thinks he has guessed the identity of the author writing under a pseudonym . . .” That seems perfectly clear to me. The “maybe”, to use your word, applied to the identification of Bacon as the hidden author. Gibson says, “. . . but that he believed Bacon to be the author in question is not so certain.” So, in the case of Gibson, I suggest, respectfully, that you are “misreading” (I do not suggest that you are doing so "willfully"), and that, in terms of Wikipedia standards, he is a perfectly qualified source. As to your accusation of "evasion", I would ask you to clarify. What points have I evaded? Plus, let me say that, your accusation about "evasion" suggests that I am obligated to provide something. I'm not responding here out of any sense of obligation, and I rather doubt that Wikipedia would take exception to that. Since we are, presumably, having a discussion here about an actual edit, and not debating for the sake of debating, I am attempting here to be factual, relevant, helpful, objective, honest, and non-combative. You have accused me of "evasion", "willfully misreading", "knowlingly misrepresting" and you have attacked my ability to "read properly". Frankly, this does strikes me as rather personal. --Ssteinburg (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

McCrea says that Marston is referring to Shakespeare but Hall isn't. They are both using the Attius Labeo = bad poet code, but referring to two different writers. Marston, of course, says nothing about collaboration or use of someone else's name, so even if Marston is making a dig at Shakespeare, it cannot support the claim being made. As for Gibson on Hall, this is what he said (footnote on p.60), "the plain sense of Hall's words is "collaboration". He does not like a poem, which he believes is the work of two writers, and he tells the principal that he probably would have done better if he had written it alone, though it might be better still if he had left it unwritten. The word "swaine" like that of "shepherd" was a conventional pseudonym for poet, and accordingly confers this rank on the supposed junior partner. The names Shakespeare and Bacon are of course read by Theobald; there is nothing in the lines, as we shall see, to support the identity of either of the writers concerned." He then goes on to discuss Marston and after the line quoted by you he says that Theobald is "proably" correct in identifying references to V&A and Lucrece, but "such details, however, are found in other poems too so there is no absolute certainty". Only by conflating the Marston Labeo with the Hall one can this reading be made. Other sources, including McCrea, reject that conflation. In the end Gibson merely thinks it possible that Hall believed someone collaborated with Shakespeare on these poems. Again the source simply cannot bear the reading you are giving it, and neither source states anything like what the sentence you want it to support states. I'm sorry you were upset by expressions like "willfully misread", but I honestly could not understand how anyone could read what McCrea says and come to the conclusion that it supported the sentence you want to add. I'm still perplexed. Paul B (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You are perplexed because what you are seeing here is a primary example of the reasoning that underwrites anti-Stratfordism. I know that anti-Strats of all stripes find all kinds of "hints" about Shakespeare's supposed non-authorship, but neither McCrea nor Gibson say that "Shakespeare's identity was questioned by Joseph Hall (Satires, 1597) and John Marston (Pygmalion’s Image, 1598)" in any form or fashion, nor am I aware of any other RS source that makes that argument. This article is not the place to argue the point; it is descriptive only of both sides' arguments, so the edit has no place in this article, much less the lede. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Born, brought up, . .

I see 'raised' has been changed to 'brought up', an edit which recused my attention on this. I prefer the classics statement of George Steevens in 1780, which was clearly on the mind of the editor drafting this passage.

All that is known with any degree of certainty concerning Shakspere is — that he was born at Stratford-upon-Avon — married and had children there — went to London, where he commenced actor, and wrote poems and plays, returned to Stratford, made his will, died, and was buried.’

No mention made of his upbringing. That is technically an inference. Or amn't I forgetten sumthen? Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Title

the abbreviation "M." to denote the title "Master" that William Shakespeare of Stratford was entitled to use by virtue of being a titled gentleman

Three variations of 'title' in one sentence is too much, creating stylistically, a rhetorical hammering effect. Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it's going to have to be changed to something besides "recognised", which implies an informality about it that isn't correct. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

the abbreviation "M." denoting the rank of "Master" that William Shakespeare of Stratford was entitled to use by virtue of being a titled gentleman.? Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already made a change to "using the abbreviation "M." to denote the title "Master", properly used of William Shakespeare of Stratford, who was a titled gentleman". Paul B (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Here Tom Reedy reintroduced the words "a titled gentleman", giving us "the title "Master" that William Shakespeare of Stratford was entitled to use by virtue of being a titled gentleman", with the comment "revert to correct terminology", but I find "a titled gentleman" a comedy of errors. If Shapiro uses it he should know better. To say "titled a gentleman" would be possible, if lots of the same is wanted, but it's archaic. Moonraker2 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

'Gentleman' is a title. Just remove 'a' if you don't like it. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In trying to fix Cryptic's objection to 'documentary remains', we've got problems.

'Excepting literary records, critical commentary, and acting records, the surviving personal records from Shakespeare's life consist of mundane personal details such as vital records,'

(1) I.e., we have acquired a broken 'record' effect. I know we're all exhausted, but this won't do. I won'ìt defend 'documentary remains' but the attempt to amend the perceived obscurity has spoiled whatever virtue lay in the earlier formulation. Nishidani (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about this when I noticed you have fixed it. I like your solution, although from computer work I regard "data" as a mass noun and would change "consist" to "consists" to read "the surviving data from Shakespeare's life consists of". I know that matter is highly controversial (and that technically "data" is still a plural noun), and am merely mentioning it in case others feel it needs attention—I am happy with either wording. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought about that while writing the edit for five minutes, was called for coffee, then thought about it some more while going to buy cigarettes (my intake has doubled since I took on this article), and came to no conclusion.

(2) There's another problem, again stylistically.

The types of records that do survive for Shakespeare and the dearth of his personal literary remains suggest a person with a background very different from that of the author to sceptics, who find another mind altogether in the sublime works of art traditionally attributed to Shakespeare.

That's really awkward, with 'suggest' distanced from 'to sceptics', so that 'from that of the author to sceptics' grates harshly. I know that 'sceptics' must be at the end in this formulation, becauise the 'who' clause follows it.

I've re-edited this as follows.

Both the surviving records and the dearth of his personal literary remains suggest to sceptics the profile of a person whose background differed markedly from that of the author whose real identity they construct from Shakespeare's plays and poetry

I would put real in inverted commas 'real'. I don't think that we keep having to repeat 'attributed to Shakespeare', since it is clear Shakespeare refers to the works, and while who the authorial Shakespeare was is questioned, that a 'Shakespeare' wrote the works is not (except in the 'group theory' of antique rumour).Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Tom's final revision had a large number of minor points requiring tinkering but it did contain a virtue of an overall fluent stylistic rhythm which, as we do minor fixes here and there, is getting lost from view. This worries me, because though most of the requests to reformulate are based on sound judgements, the effect of focusing on a word, or a clause, and finding solutions has been to undermine the text of the integrated neutral voice it once had throughout. It risks acquiring a heckle effect for ears that read for consistency of delivery. We should therefore, in editing from hereon in, try to look at the paragraph flow as we tinker with each specific sentence, or wording issue. Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I considered moving "to sceptics" back in the sentence to join "suggest" but I refrained for the reason you give, Nishidani. I think your recasting of the sentence mostly works. But I submit that the "real" is not needed at all:

Both the surviving records and the dearth of his personal literary remains suggest to sceptics the profile of a person whose background differed markedly from that of the author whose identity they construct from Shakespeare's plays and poetry.

--Alan W (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Meant to add another comment. Disruption of flow, tone, consistent voice, and so on are inevitable in a context where editing is by a community. I think that the best we can do is comb through the whole from beginning to end yet another time once all the edits that comply with reviewers' requests have been made. I'll be glad to do this, and I hope others will too, though it would be best for us to coordinate our efforts, or we will run into the same problem. --Alan W (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Re the sentence discussed above, I'm wondering now whether "differs" would be better than "differed". The background is as constructed in the minds of the sceptics. That would make the sentence read:

Both the surviving records and the dearth of his personal literary remains suggest to sceptics the profile of a person whose background differs markedly from that of the author whose identity they construct from Shakespeare's plays and poetry.

--Alan W (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to simplify this by breaking up the sentence. Paul B (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And very well broken up. It did need an additional fix, however, to avoid the implicit comparison of a "profile" with a "person". Fortunately, we aren't having problems like these with the structure of every sentence in the article, or we'd never finish! --Alan W (talk)

More responses needed

Cryptic C62 has added more points that need attention (with more to come). See the unstruck points at Comments from Cryptic C62 (the new material has heading "Case for"). I'll start having a look at it soon, but might not get much done atm. Johnuniq (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If I survive the drowsy byblows of an Italian Sunday lunch, which usually requires three hours to get through, I'll try to go both through Earl and Cryptic's notes point by point once more, late this afternoon.Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of these points are not valid and the changes being made are turning the text into almost incoherent near-inaccuracies. Surely we can discuss these before hopping up the moment an editor expresses reservations? Tom Reedy (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I gotta go but I'll be back later this p.m. to edit. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Niggling

Praises of "Shakespeare" the writer are explained as references to the real author's pen-name, not the man from Stratford

I instinctively bridle at 'Praises' as an unqualified subject. I know one 'sings the praises of', etc., but I usually think that in this context, in standard English (anglocentric) prose, 'Praise' is used as an abstract generic noun, with plural meaning. I expect: 'Praise of Shakespeare . .is explained' etc. It's true I'm plum-tuckered out, flat out like a lizard slaking its thirst in the Stony Desert , burnt to a GrahamGreenish crisp etc., and may well be suffering from lexicological paranoia, but before the eyelids drop, and fingers wither, I thought I'd just pop this query. Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that you survive to read this, I will suggest that we cannot simply change "praises" to "praise". We'd have to write the sentence as:

Praise of "Shakespeare" the writer is explained as referring to the real author's pen-name, not the man from Stratford.

But I'm sure you knew this (unless you were truly hallucinating). The problem with this change is that it might be taken as a single instance of praise, or, if comprehended as praise in general, it still might not be quite what the passage is getting at. Aren't we referring to a number of more or less well-known praises that have come down to us in writings of the period, rather than just praise in general? Yes, the "praise in general" in a way encompasses the "plural meaning", but don't we mean to emphasize the fact that there were several individual instances? (Hang in there, Nish! Keep the faith! You will make it.) --Alan W (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

We all 'made it'. Naturally, as almost always, this is ambiguous and I mean that, in both primary senses! Thanks Alan.Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Great job!

Thanks to all who pitched in and achieved an almost-impossible task on such a controversial topic and formerly-troubled article. All of the changes that were made after FA nomination convinced me I dont' really have all that good an eye for first-rate quality when it comes to encyclopedia articles. I've nominated it at the featured article request page for April 23, and some of you who know more about this than I do might want to take a look at it.

I also hope that the improvements don't cease just because the page was promoted. I know plenty of work remains for the article to be as comprehensive and neutral as possible, and I hope some of you feel the same way. I do know that i plan to take a break for month or so from editing so I can catch up with a couple of projects I've neglected over the past year. (And maybe I can also stop using Brit spelling for a while and stop getting funny looks from people at work!) Once again, I really appreciate all the time and effort that went into this project. I think we can all be proud of our accomplishment. Cheers mates! Tom Reedy (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Wrad (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! While my reservations remain, the unstinting labours of a dedicated crew are certainly evident in the present form of the article. Fotoguzzi (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well done to all involved. The correct decision was reached and the article was improved significantly in the process. Poujeaux (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)