Talk:James S. Shapiro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Larry Miller[edit]

1. I fear absolutely nobody - except Mr. Shapiro himself - knows who Larry Miller is. 2. That he won the Samuel Johnson Prize for non-fiction writing in 2006 is gratifying and his work "1599: a Year in the Life of William Shakespeare" is very interesting, indeed. I started the James S. Shapiro article, but, sorry, I won't write a summary of this book. As long as anonymous IP doesn't either I take the wikilink off. --Bogart99 14:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Tribunes Consuls Boars[edit]

In 1599, two characters, Flavius and Marullus, in Julius Caesar are correctly referred to as 'tribunes of the people' (p 173 pbk edition), then on p 176 they are referred to as consuls! Also the map of London at the front of the book shows the Boar's Head Inn as being located east of the city walls, but on p126 it is said to be "just outside London's western boundary". None of the three inn's of that name mentioned in the wiki article (in Eastcheap, Whitechapel, and Southwark) could be accurately described as being outside the western boundary, surely. Rateschecker (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

On page 68 of Contested Will, Professor Shapiro has this sentence: "Scholars still can't agree whether this was our Shakespeare or another who sued Clayton; whomever [sic!] it was, it fit the pattern of a tight-fisted Shylock all too well." It seems strange that such a grammatical mistake should survive the editing process. Rateschecker (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing your April 2010 remark also refers to Contested Will, but I can't tell what this remark or your July 2011 remark may have to do with the article. Are you suggesting the article should mention these errors? TheScotch (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


It's somebody's self published wordpress blog (which we don't link per WP:ELNO), and it has been spammed in the past by other accounts: example. - MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

From the site's About page:

The Literateur is a new online literary magazine featuring interviews with luminaries of the literary world, articles, reviews and exciting new creative works.

It lists an Editor and two Deputy Editors. They've posted interviews with several notable authors, who, yes, do have biographical articles on Wikipeda (e.g. Paul Muldoon, Christopher Ricks, Will Self, John Sutherland, Hanif Kureishi, and Barbara Trapido); which alone suggests an article on the magazine would meet WP:N. The link in question is to an interview with James Shapiro, the subject of this article, regarding his recent book, Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, which, yes, is discussed in the article. The interview is relevant, professionally conducted, and of direct interest to the readers of this article; and expands on the information in the article in a way that can not be integrated into the article (for, among others, copyright concerns). It is not a personal blog, nor in any reasonable sense, "self-published", as you claim by reference to WP:ELNO #11. In particular, the link in question would very likely pass as a WP:RS, and the standard for external links, while different, is a less stringent standard in that regard than RS.
If there is an editor spamming external links, then, by all means, deal with that editor appropriately. But the editor that added this link added it to precisely one article—this article—and was evidently and obviously a new Wikipedian (and not a spammer or a bot) struggling with the wikisyntax, as you can see from the edit history, and eventually gave up and removed the link s/he'd attempted to add. An experienced editor with topical expertise (me) then went in and re-added the link because after reading the interview and checking the site, and evaluating its relevance to this article, found it to be appropriate and informative; and entirely in concert with the relevant policies (much less guidelines, like WP:ELNO).
Please take some time to investigate before you blithely remove content from an article; issue warnings to new editors (Please do not bite the newcomers!); and especially when another editor disagrees and refers you to the talk page (at which point reverting a further time was not a constructive action to take). --Xover (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Advising me to 'Please take it to talk!' when I already have isn't very constructive either. As to your other points, despite your contentions this is an 'online magazine', (that is, a blog) which has previously been spammed by the blog owners. The mere fact that they are posting well conducted interviews with notable authors doesn't alleviate this, since notability is not inherited This very similar site should serve as an example. Nonetheless, I will not re-remove the link from this page unless and until we get another round of links added by single purpose editors. - MrOllie (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I referred you to the talk page again because in spite of my previous entreaty to do so you still reverted the link again. I would also strongly suggest that you re-read the various guidelines you refer to and reflect on how you act in relation to them. In particular, your interactions with , and the surrounding contribution history, that you referred me to concern me not a little. This was an obvious case of an inexperienced editor who was not aware of our conflict of interest guideline; a single editor acting in good faith adding a single (relevant) link to a single (relevant) article (or even two or three) is not “spam”, whatever other guidelines it may be in conflict with (self-promotion, notability, RS, etc.). Rather than help the new user out, you referred him to the wrong guideline, and as a result we may now have lost another potential Wikipedian. Upon reflection you may find that there were more constructive ways in which you could have handled that particular situation.
And as for unilaterally deleting the link at some future point, I would thank you to refrain from such action without discussing it with the other editors of this article first. Your bold removal of the link has been challenged, so I'll expect you—like all other editors, myself included—to follow the Discuss bit of the cycle rather than engaging in Wikilawyering. --Xover (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that a number of different editors consider this interview a useful source of information about the author. Wikipedia grows and thrives by welcoming new editors and discovering new sources of information. If the punitive rejection of all future links to would magically deter others from linking to adfarms and spam sites, I could support it. I have requested that author interviews at be accepted as a reliable source; those who have an opinion pro or con are welcome to express it there. Questionic (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

'works' and 'literature'[edit]

Why does 'Contested Will' get mentioned twice, once in 'Works', once in 'Literature'? Other books only get mentioned once. And why does a positive review of 'Contested Will' get mentioned? Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is a good place to start to find the answers to your questions. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
It's usual scholarly practice to give precise references. Sceptic1954 (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
It's an even better scholarly practice to learn the commonly-agreed policies and procedures. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Are my very specific questions likely to be mentioned there? I doubt it.Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia reference[edit]

I don't think it's completely irrelevant, but should not his WP reference (one among many) be in Wikipedia in the media with a link in a talk page section the way it is on the SAQ talk page? Tom Reedy (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


We could however have a reference from Niederkorn - an RS - re this forgery.

>In Contested Will, however, Shapiro gives the impression that he has just unmasked the forgery himself. Not until his prolix bibliographical essay at the end of the book does he make any concession by way of credit, and here’s all he says: “The only previous effort I know of to examine the Cowell manuscript is described in Nathan Baca’s report of Daniel Wright’s unpublished research on Cowell and his suspicion that the document may be a forgery, in Shakespeare Matters 2 (Summer, 2003).” Rollett is not mentioned at all. Obviously, Shapiro did not pick up the phone and call Wright, which could have saved him from such a blunder. Shapiro does repeatedly credit Nelson, though, for other work, and Nelson is cited, among others, in the acknowledgments for “help I’ve had along the way, in matters large and small.”

This is not an auspicious beginning for Contested Will.<

This would give balance if the text is going to quote positive reviews.Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP before we go through more of this horseshit. And while you're at it please read WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPV since you seem to be obsessed with "balance". Tom Reedy (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I have done a considerable amount of work on BLP so please refer me to a specific part. This is not supposed to be a hagiography of someone who has praised a wikipedia article. While we are at it isn't there a question of conflict of interest if any editors who have worked extensively on that article - SAQ - work on this aspect of this article? Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
No. I guess you're not familiar with the conflict of interest guideline. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC).
I read them it looked to me as though there might be a conflict so I mentioned it. If you say there isn't, that's fine. But to me there is the slight sense of a mutual appreciation society here. It's no bad thing to have someone who raises challenges. Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Sceptic1954 asked earlier "why does a positive review of 'Contested Will' get mentioned?", and I must say that I wonder about that too. Why is there any "review" at all? No other work of his is so honoured, and (as Sceptic1954 points out) it does smack of hero-worship. Not that it is a "review", of course, it's just a passing remark by a former "professor of English" in a newspaper review, not of the book, but of the film Anonymous. I think it should be deleted. Peter Farey (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I think as an English PhD and regular columnist for Esquire, Marche's comment has sufficient credibility here.--John Foxe (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
But that really isn't the only issue, is it? For example, Tom Reedy quite correctly advised a reading of WP:BLP, in which we find "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Even if we accept that a throw-away remark by a magazine columnist (be they ne'er so qualified) is appropriate, can we really describe "using a brain like Shapiro’s on the authorship question is like bringing an F-22 to an alley knife fight" as either conservative or disinterested? I think not. Peter Farey (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
If the aim is simply to back up 'definitive treatment' in the main text we could omit 'although' and the words from Marche which Peter Farey quotes above. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I don't even agree with Marche's characterization, since the book's purpose is to look at the sociological and cultural reasons for the existence of the SAQ, not to refute Oxfordism. The academic and popular reception of the book is certainly relevant to the article, but I agree with Peter that the tone is not disinterested and that the comment should be blotted and something more neutrally-worded take its place. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Tom. Like Albert and the Jubilee Sovereign, I have performed the first part of the trick. However, I still don't really see why this book should merit a comment of any sort when Shapiro's other publications apparently don't. Peter Farey (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I support Peter Farey's edit, that whole reference had become too long and we are better off without it. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
When I read the comment after reading Shapiro's book, I thought it was spot on. As I noted in another footnote (also summarily deleted), in an essay in TLS, "Forgery on forgery" (March 26, 2010), 14-15, Shapiro suggested that his findings regarding a forged document related to the Shakespeare authorship question would not quickly be reflected in Wikipedia articles devoted to "the fantasy that Shakespeare did not write the plays." He was right. This business is like a religion. Ah, well.--John Foxe (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
John Foxe, you will find that Shapiro subsequently praised the article on the Wikipedia Article on the Shakespeare Authorship Question, and to my knowledge it hasn't changed much since then. To my knowledge, and for better or worse, most committed Oxfordian editors have been barred from working on this page. There is some dispute as to whether the findings regarding forgery were Shapiro's see It does not appear to be a question of whether the quote from Marche which has been deleted was RS or not, but one of balance.Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I see that you added it to the James Wilmot less than a fortnight after it was published. I think that's pretty quick, myself. And I don't have time to look at the moment, but I'm pretty sure it was put into the Shakespeare authorship question article sourced from the book almost as soon as the ink was dry.

I think a larger point is that though his work is a big deal to the SAQ, his career isn't mostly concerned with the topic. To stress it in his biography article is a bit like having a major section in the George Washington article about his surveying career. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Balance schmalance. The whole business has a pseudo-religious feel to it, like folks who spend their time defending the Kensington Runestone or perhaps the urban legends used as examples in the Heath brothers' Made to Stick--John Foxe (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
If you're referencing the topic of the Shakespeare authorship question, then of course you are correct: it is a faith-based and evidence-less phenomenon. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, yes, we know all that stuff, Tom. Getting back to this article, however, I agree that the SAQ itself should receive no special emphasis in it. It is therefore perhaps worth noting that it was Nishidani who added Marche's comment originally, having probably been so amused by the "F-22/knife fight" comparison that he couldn't resist popping it in somewhere. Peter Farey (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
'"using a brain like Shapiro’s on the authorship question is like bringing an F-22 to an alley knife fight"'. Actually, that caught my eye, because it repeated an image, sorry for this, used by an academic reviewer of a book of mine, though obviously I won't cite it. Now the point in my case, was negative. While admitting I'd thoroughly destroyed the fictions I had undertaken to analyse, the scholar took a shot at me for overegging the pud. I'd barged round like one of Hemingway's bulls inside a Ming-vase dynasty-crammed China shop (to vary once more the conceit), smashing harmless things with excessive power. As in my case, Marche's words apropos Shapiro are negative. Like a dolchstoß while patting someone on the back with a cheery hail-fellow-well-met attitude. It's part and parcel of the Oxbridge social game, dear fellow, and surely any Pom with a yen for booktalk would catch it!Nishidani (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
In reverting my edit, you say "There's absolutely nothing anomalous in citing praise for a book in a bio." Couldn't agree more, me old mate, but then that was never my complaint, was it? What I did object to was (1) this particular publication being treated differently from all of his others, (2) the item failing to meet the criteria of being "presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone", as required by WP:BLP and (3) that it was just a passing remark by a former "professor of English" in a newspaper review, not of the book, but of the film Anonymous. To these, Tom added a couple more, so I wonder why you have ignored all of these points? Your Dolchstoß theory also works against your calling it "praise for a book", I would have thought. Peter Farey (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Also thought it was three to two in favour of Peter's edit.Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think a 'majority vote' is relevant, but I must confess that with there being some obvious support, and the absence of any voices at the time clearly disagreeing with what had been argued in favour of it's removal, I had assumed a rough consensus. Peter Farey (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
(Preparing reply. Will note your attack on my known sensitivities is a BLP/AGF violation and I am seriously thinking of an AE denunciation :) I mean, um, 'it's' for 'its'? No well-bred Englishman does that except to stick the boot in and bait nobs with a yen for propa awfografee, guv'nah).Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Strewth. Caught me bang to rights there, squire. No need for the cuffs. I'll cough. Peter Farey (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Am very tempted to revert on the basis of majority vote whilst awaiting consensus but I'll probably be told to read an encyclopaedia's worth of policy if I do.Sceptic1954 (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(a)The article is in development, and it is short. Its (sorry, it’s) shortcomings do not form a precedent. Were that to be the case, the article would never get off its arse/on its feet. That CW is at the moment annotated with one (of potentially many) evaluative remark means we should proceed to elaborate on the critical reception of his other works, esp. the marvellous ‘’1599’’ (and undoubtedly the forthcoming follow-up work) I’ll cite some articles I did considerable (sometimes all the) work on where this is normal. Raul Hilberg, Norman Finkelstein; David Dean Shulman (see section on ‘Dark Hope’); Israel Shahak; Irving Goldman; Franz Baermann Steiner; Ted Strehlow;Safa Khulusi; Irvin Leigh Matus; Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa (b) ‘Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.’

The genius of the Marche full quote, which use to be there, but now isn’t unfortunately. Is that it conveys both praise and, well, blame, in the one succinct passage. The book is ‘definitive’, but, at the same time, ‘as absurd as its subject’. It has criticism and praise in the same breadth. I call that ‘responsible, conservative and disinterested’. Remember BLP is concerned to avoid two extremes: blatant tabloid indiscretions and savagely unfair, poorly sourced criticisms of a living person, and gushing eulogies. Nearly all RS reviews of Shapiro are strongly positive indeed laudatory (justifiably so; in my view). This one cuts both ways, and since it will be difficult to find good scholarly RS that rubbish the book, Marche’s comment fills the need for balance.

(c) You look at the source and the person. The source is the New York Times Magazine, and the author is Stephen Marche, that it is an aside in a review of Anonymous, which treats the same subject and indeed in a sense responds to Shapiro (lamely), is neither here nor there.

(d) The practice I am familiar with is: if you have a stable passage challenged, while it is in the article, unless it is a grave violation of something like WP:BLP, WP:OR etc., you do not remove it, esp. if it is reasonably sourced and passes verification.

(e) Numbers. Excision:Sceptic 1954, Peter Farey, Tom Reedy: conserve- John Foxe, Nishidani (I only noted this because that new gadget tells you on your talk page if you’ve been mentioned somewhere. I hadn’t bookmarked the page or been tipped off.) A majority of one argues for removal so far. I reverted Peter simply because I dislike haste on this and (b) Tom said:’ comment should be blotted and something more neutrally-worded take its place.’ I.e. find another review, if consensus is for removal, and substitute Marche with replacement judgement on the book.

I get this problem all the time in the I/P war-zone, and that’s why I reverted. Anyone can just remove material out of distaste or whatever. But we are here to build articles, and throwing the burden of simple improvement, once a lacuna has been imposed, is a touch (not a tad!) lazy.

Generally, if Peter and Tom agree, as often, I shuddup. I'll slide back into a Hopkinesque 'elected silence' on this if someone can do us the courtesy of plunking in the substitute phrase, consensually agreed to here, 'while removing Marche's comment.Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

ps. 'Cough' is brilliant! (short'n curlies, bollocky thickets). Things like this make it a pleasure to work for wiki, even where editors disagree strongly.Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There's Niederkorn for a less favourable review, but I thought I'd get executed if I tried to include it. Maybe take out Marche and put it back in again when ready to develop article further, leaving it unbalanced because incomplete is surely bad practice here, like leaving a building incomplete to avid paying tax.. Sceptic1954 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Niederkorn is not a reliable source, as scholars and writers who protested about his laughable abuse of the NYTs to push a theory, while ostensibly being a neutral reporter on the theatre, showed. If Niederkorn, given that his lack of competence in the field, but accepting he is a theatre critic, you can argue for his inclusion only if it is balanced (WP:Undue) by several favourable reviews from the academic community to reflect the fringe/hostility vs mainstream appreciation relationship. (b) if a book is almost universally praised, as was Shapiro's, it is not an argument that you can't register praise from his scholarly community without 'balancing' it with criticisms. It is extremely simple to replace Marche's 'backhanded compliment' (you've written the definitive text, but you've wasted your talents) with any of several of two dozen straight compliments. Just to lasar-rub Marche and leave it at that is not constructive editing: it looks like getting rid of a comment one dislikes, for whatever reason.Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Nishidani, thanks for the lengthy response.
a) Fair point. But you added this note last October, and have since then left the (in my opinion) far better books 1999 and Rival Playwrights without comment, despite (as Tom has rightly reminded us) how relatively tiny a part the SAQ has played in Shapiro's career. Had you planned to add any more?
b) "It has criticism and praise in the same breadth. I call that ‘responsible, conservative and disinterested’." You seem to have omitted the rather important word "tone". The tone is, as anyone can see, far from either conservative or disinterested, whether his subject is either Shapiro or the SAQ.
c) OK, but as the book's main subject is not the Oxfordian theory, aren't we in danger of giving a skewed impression of it?
d) As I explained, I didn't just "remove it", but discussed the possibility of doing so with those working on it at the time. I was neither aware of who had originated the note, nor that whoever it was wouldn't be watching it or (if it had been you) that you were otherwise occupied with AE matters! When I worked out who had added it, I pointed this out in a way that I assumed would bring it to your attention.
e) So we should allow this note and await the eventual arrival of equivalent notes for the other publications, but any deletion of the note must simultaneously provide an acceptable substitute for it? I'm sorry, but a "lacuna" would exist only if there were other such notes. Isn't this a tad inconsistent?
I still think that, while anticipating a major expansion of the article in terms of the "Works", dear old George Freedley's Memorial Award as an episode in Shapiro's "Life" is quite enough for the time being. Peter Farey (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
p.s. Not sure that my reference to "coughing" had anything consciously to do with the anatomical features you mention. That aspect of National Service is something I managed to erase from my memory long ago. Peter Farey (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
(a) Oh mate. Cripes, I gotta huge workload privately, then see my contribs here - 2 days alone reading three books just to get myself off a bum rap and survive in this digital joint, and an obligation to thoroughly review the Ebionites article. Sometimes I even manage to 'get a life', mainly by eating on Sunday. For two weeks I've tried to write an analysis of 'Anthem for Doomed Youth' to honour an old friend, and with all these requests, have hardly got past 'stuttering rifles rapid rattle'. (Beginning to sound like a pommie whinger!)
(b) That I added the quote in October means nothing. I can't be all over the place like the proverbial aged lady's excrement, and a geriatric myself needs some backup support to write articles.
(c)The tone in the article is absolutely neutral. The supporting quote in the footnote has a wry tone. Th voice of the article as written by editors must be neutral in tone. The sources we use almost never are, but WP:BPL does not tell us to choose our sources according to those criteria. It tells us to write the article's body of text in that manner, which is what has been done. I think you're confusing the two. This distinction is fundamental in the I/P area where virtually all sources push a POV, which however doesn't mean we can't use them. We 'tone them' down, slipping our drafting gear into neutral (or we're supposed to).
(d)Actually, if we follow the precedent of many other wiki bios (I've indicated some I'm most familiar with), Contested Will requires a section development. It's non- existent. A bare hint of development has struck opposition, and that's problematical to some. And he does deal extensively with Oxfordianism.
(e) No problemo (ugh!). Since everything I do here, someplaces, is viewed with suspicion, I felt honour bound to note I hadn't jumped in because I was notified to tagteam or from any other dubious POV pushing reason.
(f) No, that's not fair, surely.Whaddya mean 'for the time being'. We just remove stuff and squat on our 'acres' waiting for someone to work the article? I could give dozens of articles where praise and criticism, works and responses, are added to bios. We have zilch here, and it looks, at this moment, quite censoriously POV to press for removal, while not pitching in to expand. My arquebus and your bodkin, at twenty paces, at Hyde(-the-sausage) Park this coming Sunday, chief.Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
From Tom's used of the word 'blotted', I guess he's reading Clive James's new version of The Divine Comedy, with the dubious, actually bad, incipit (he improves magnificently here and there much later on)
At the mid-point of the path through life,I found
Myself lost in a wood so dark, the way
Ahead was blotted out. The keening sound
I still make shows how hard it is to say.
Bit like working here, actually.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
All good stuff, I'm sure. But is there any chance of you re-editing your response so that your paragraphs "a" to "e" actually match mine? It makes it almost impossible to respond to it other than by hacking it up into those little pieces abhorred by those who must be obeyed. Peter Farey (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
la diritta via fu smarrita. colpa mia. Mo' te do 'na dritta (Roman dialect=here's the gen). Your (a) = my (b), see? Sorry.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
'Sawright, Ali. Using yours:
a) Yes I do understand, having likewise had too much to do occasionally (I'm sure I must have, although the circumstances escape me). Good old Wilfred, eh? The original whinging Pom if ever there was one.
b) Backup support you've got. But start a hare and it's bad form not to pursue it, what what?
c) WP:BLP says "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Both Tom and I took this to apply not only to the article but to the source as well. And why should the words of the quotee not also be subject to such constraint?
d) Yes indeed. This is what I was meaning when I wrote of anticipating a major expansion of the article in terms of the "Works". But placing this in a section about his "Life" is inappropriate. The prize-winning was just an event, not the book itself.
e) No worries (ugh!), although I was responding to your chastising me for having removed it, not commenting upon your putting it back again.
f) Go easy, sirrah, I first stumbled across this article on Saturday morning, and to me that reference stuck out like a chapel hat-peg. You've had nine months. Nix to the bodkin though. Having square-bashed at HM Tower of London, EC3, I naturally choose my trusty old fuzee. Peter Farey (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm choking on my porridge (esp since The Tower was 'porridge' in Eliza's age). The in-text comment, if you check now, is absolutely neutral. 'so long as the material is presented etc.,' unambiguously refers to what we editors do (our writing) when including the material into the body of the article (no double entendre intended by that, Sigmund). Compare the SAQ description in the lead re SAQ theories' status in scholarship to the actual footnotes drawn on. The analogy fits the contrast between our neutral description, and the source in the notes. (Personally I think that the "definitive work' (nothing is definitive in scholarship, of course) so far on this overall, Oxfordian or note, is Matus 1994.) Shapiro, thank goodness, wrote from a quite different and distinctively novel angle. That said, if a majority are for removal, the compromise solution is to excerpt it from the bio section, and open a Works and reception section and plunk it there as a tease to editors who will note the 'lonely little onion in a petunia patch' to invert the old song. Whaddya reckun, ay? Nishidani (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, go on then. Anything for a quiet life. How about this (by Robert McCrum in The Observer, 5 June 2005) for 1599? "Inevitably ... when Shapiro writes about an age before newsprint and photographs, there is an air of speculation about his reconstruction. Much as he may want to reach the common reader, Shapiro must also protect his scholarly reputation with here a defensive 'perhaps', there a prudent 'maybe'. None the less, his intuitions, especially about the crucial influence of Marlowe on Shakespeare's development, are deeply persuasive." :o)
Thanks for reminding me about those SAQ footnotes, btw. I've been meaning to take a hatchet to them for yonks. Peter Farey (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Apologies fr my silence, my phone line has broken down. I am in favour of omission of the words in question - I originally suggested them as a 'compromise' with anticipated opposition. However if everything here is by consensus rather than majoprity version then the person who goes on for longest wins and I don't want to go on longer. It's not a big point and the article doesn't have many readers. Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)