Talk:William Shakespeare - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GuillaumeTell (talk | contribs) at 15:18, 1 October 2009 (→RfC: Is note "e" relevant: Pseudoscience). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:18, 1 October 2009 by GuillaumeTell (talk | contribs) (→RfC: Is note "e" relevant: Pseudoscience)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Shakespeare article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

William Shakespeare is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 10, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 31, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 1, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
April 5, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
November 24, 2006	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
June 6, 2007	WikiProject A-class review	Not approved
June 19, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
June 28, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 14, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of June 20, 2006.
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elizabethan theatre (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Elizabethan theatreWikipedia:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreTemplate:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreElizabethan theatre

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

London High‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

England Top‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Poetry Top‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Shakespeare Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Core

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.
	This article has failed an A-Class review.
	This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Warwickshire Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Warwickshire, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Warwickshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.WarwickshireWikipedia:WikiProject WarwickshireTemplate:WikiProject WarwickshireWikiProject Warwickshire
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Template:WP1.0

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Collaboration footnotes

--Xover (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the various “…cowritten by…” type footnotes, I see they're only used in the list of plays. The relevant plays, being probable collaborations, are also marked with a † to indicate that they're collaborations. And just to make absolutely sure we cover our bases, several of them are also marked with a * to indicate they're romances. So for a bunch of these plays the name is followed by “…*†”.
I think I may have suggested this before, but I really don't think we need to specify the various theories on collaborations in this article at all, and certainly not crammed into the list of plays. My suggestion would be to just get rid of all these footnotes and, if anything, cover that material over in Shakespeare's plays somewhere.
If we absolutely must have all the possible collaborations in this article, I think it would be much preferable to add a full section on it (yes, even considering our space constraints) and maybe a main article link over to Shakespeare's collaborations (which, trust me, can stand a lot more material; it's almost a stub!) or something.
Thoughts? --Xover (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to list all the collaborations here. Way up the page I suggested we mention collaborations in the lede as a way to be more accurate than just saying he wrote 38 plays, but I think a mention of collaborating could be worked into the Plays section with a link to the appropriate article. Once we get this worked out, then we would need to turn to the lede and have it reflect the information in the article.Tom Reedy (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tom. In the Plays sections it seems a few sentences that give one or two representative examples (such as an early collaboration and a late collaboration) would cover it. And in the lede, for example, why not just say "His surviving works and collaborations consist of 38 plays..." or "His surviving works, including collaborations, consist of 38 plays...". Would something along those lines be a clean way to address it? Smatprt (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not add this phrasing (taken from current lede to collaboration article and recast a bit to fit the section better) to the opening of the Plays section? It's a nice intro to the subject of the plays, and would fit the bill in terms of adding a bit on collaboration to the section.

Like most playwrights of his period, Shakespeare did not always write alone and a number of his plays are collaborative, or were revised after their original composition, although the exact number is open to debate. Some attributions, as with Titus Andronicus and the early history plays, remain controversial, while others, such as The Two Noble Kinsmen and Henry VIII, have well-attested contemporary documentation.

I looked at it at the beginning of the section and at the end. Both seem to work, but since Shakespeare seemed to begin as a collaborator, I thought it most appropriate at the beginning. But either way works since he ended that way, too, and some later works like Macbeth, were revised while Shakespeare was still alive. Anyhow, the addition is short and to the point. If you want more, of course, there is additional information that could be pulled from the existing collaboration article, but in my opinion this would do it. If readers want more details, as contained in the notes we're trying to delete, they can easily get them from the main article. If we did this, we could then delete the similar language that appears at the beginning of the Classification section, where I think everyone agrees, it doesn't really work.Smatprt (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are two placements of the material to look at - With the above material at the beginning], and with it inserted at the end ]. I already self-reverted them. Smatprt (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

My suggestions:

1. Let's don't worry about the lede until the main text is done.

2. Let's completely rewrite instead of trying to adapt. For instance, I would begin with the observation that a good deal of textual evidence has been put forth supporting Shakespeare collaborating with other playwrights, mostly early and late in his career, and that the idea isn't new, but has been suggested almost since criticism began.

3. Let's take our time. We've got plenty of time; we don't need to rush; it's not like we don't have an acceptable product right now. We need to take the time to do the research and let that determine the timetable. I myself have several projects going right, now, as I'm sure everybody else does, and I can't drop everything to help hammer this out in three days.Tom Reedy (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea of collaboration wasn't originated by critics. The title page of the 1st edition of 2NK described it as by Fletcher & Shakespeare. I don't think there were any critics before then (1632, was it?) who suggested it.

May I remind people yet again that there are many different degrees of collaboration, ranging from Macbeth, nearly all by WS, to More, nearly all not by him. Any phrasing as vague as those suggested above doesn't take account of this. Peter jackson (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully grasp the premise of the rewrite. I thought the complaint was that the footnotes were too detailed. Do I understand that details about authorship issues are now to be addressed in the main text? Surely the question should be whether this stuff ought to be cut altogether, not promoted into the main text. It's a difficult field to summarise. It is not even certain where Fletcher collaborated with Shakespeare, let alone the others. My suggestion—if the notes are to go—would be to replace them with something at the beginning of the section, saying that commentators differ on the precise extent and nature of the collaborations. In the lead, we could just say "38 plays that he wrote or collaborated on". (I would say to Peter Jackson that there's a limit to how precise one could be on numbers without straying into either false precision or pedantic fussing.) qp10qp (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. I thought we were trying to move the information in the notes into the main text, but I agree with you: the less added to the article the better. And including general information in a general article is certainly no vice. (As far as the extent of Fletcher's contribution, I think it's been pretty well established and accepted what parts of 2NK and H8 are his.See Vickers, Shakespeare, Co-Author. A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays)Tom Reedy (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, there's enough consensus for Fletcher to be assumed Shakespeare's partner (though some scholars have denied that he collaborated in Henry VIII at all), but it would be very tricky to make a precise sentence about that partnership if we attempted to detail all the collaborations in the article by play. Park Honan, for example, summarises: "Fletcher's hand has been found in Henry VIII or All is True—though there is no external sign that he wrote any part of this. In Cyrus Hoy's linguistic study of Henry VIII's playtext, mainly confirmed by J. Hope's work in 1994, Fletcher emerges as the writer of only a few scenes, and as one who 'touched up' or added very short passages to the work of Shakespeare, who wrote most of the drama". This is my point: that even with Fletcher, a concise summary of the position would be difficult to concoct: so much more so for the other collaboration and co-authoring issues. But I really don't think this article needs to go there. qp10qp (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think mostly we're in violent agreement here. :-)
The suggestions presented above, as best I can tell, reflect an attempt to remove the current footnotes (who try to cover all the details and thus end up falling prey to both your concerns here: “false precision or pedantic fussing”) and to do so by incorporating a general note of the collaborations in the main body text. The suggested prose boils down to “Some of his plays were collaborations.” Unless I'm much mistaken, that well enough reflects the opinions you and Tom have put forward here (except I'm not clear on whether you, qp10qp, think the footnotes should stay, as they are, or be removed by one method or another?)
For reference, my opinion is that we should remove the current footnotes that talk about collaborations; that we should try to find some way along the lines of Smatprt's suggestions above to mention the collaborations; that if we can't find a way we're happy with doing that then it would be preferable to just delete the footnotes outright and trust the reader to find these facts in the linked Main article articles.
I've ended up being somewhat ambivalent about Smatprt's suggested solutions: they fit well both places he tried them, and the text is rather good, but the standard set by the existing prose in this section (Plays) is very very high and makes Smatprt's text look worse by comparison. I was inclined to agree with the suggestion to use that text at the beginning of the section, but now I'm thinking more along the lines of it needing a good copy-edit to try to make it as tight as the rest of the plays section. (by the way, iirc those bits were you, Andy, Tom, and Wrad, with the final copy-edit by Qp? In any case, major kudos to those that were involved: that's some of the best and most coherent prose, on a very difficult subject to summarize, that I've seen.) --Xover (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Good points all, and I agree that a good copy-edit would be a welcome thing to anything we were to add, especially considering the high quality of the the rest of the article. To clarify, it was my intention to create a short summary that would replace all the existing collaboration notes, not as an addition to them. With the link to the collaboration article clearly available, if readers want more info, it's only one click away. It may be a bit vague, as commented above, but any further level of detail would be out of place unless it had its own section.Smatprt (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Several editors now have suggested simply adding "and collaborations" or "or collaborated on" to the lede. Alternatively, we could also use "including collaborations". Since the article itself does mention collaborations, to add this to the lede seems like an easy choice that would reflect current article content. So the sentence could read:

"His surviving works, including collaborations, consist of 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems." or

"His surviving works and collaborations consist of 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems."

Do we have a consensus on one of these alternatives, at least? I agree with Qp10qp and others that any further detail in the lede would be problematic. Smatprt (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the first is better, but I suggest it be modified like so: "His surviving works, including some collaborations, consist of 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and several other poems." That leaves room for those collaborations outside the canonical 38, such as STM and who knows what else. I take it all the collaboration notes will then be deleted. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree your modification sounds better. But we should probably wait to delete the notes until after we add those sentences to the play sections. I agree with your suggestions above concerning "textual evidence has been put forth supporting Shakespeare collaborating with other playwrights, mostly early and late in his career, and that the idea isn't new, but has been suggested almost since criticism began." Did you have a suggestion as to how to incorporate those ideas into this sentence (below)? Or would you like to have a go at a complete rewrite?

I keep getting whip-sawed back and forth on what the intent of this is. I thought we were just going to mention it once with a link and then forget about trying to elaborate in this article. What's the general consensus on this?

And what exactly is the "well-attested contemporary documentation" for the collaboration of H8? I'm unaware of any. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Good catch - H8 should not be listed in that way. As to your other question, I thought the intent was to eliminate the footnotes and replace them with a few sentences of prose within the body of the text. Based on the discussion, it appeared that the Plays sections was the most agreeable place. Right now we have both the footnotes and some vague wording about collaborations in several places. IMO, the notes should go and the current collaboration wording needs a good rewrite and be placed in the Play section instead of having a bit in the play section and a bit in the Classification section (where it doesn't really belong at all). I still think your original suggestions were on target.Smatprt (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Taking into account Tom's suggestions above (July 13), as well as the H8 mistake he identified, how about something along these lines:

Critics have long concluded that Shakespeare collaborated with other playwrights, mostly early and late in his writing career. Some attributions, as with Titus Andronicus and the early history plays, remain controversial, while others, such as The Two Noble Kinsmen, have well-attested contemporary documentation. Textual evidence also supports the view that several of the plays were revised by other writers after their original composition.

I would suggest adding this (or something similar) to the beginning of the Plays section and then deleting the similar language found in the Classification section and elsewhere, as well as all the related footnotes. And then put a fork in it and call it done! Smatprt (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, no "long concluded," whether it be by critics or scholars. It reminds me of grading all those freshman papers while chewing tinfoil. And let's reach a consensus on what we're doing before deciding on the wording. I'm OK with it either way, but I lean toward cutting instead of rearranging. Thoughts from other editors? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't very happy with the "long concluded" either, but I was working toward your suggestion that it should be stated that "the idea (collaboration) isn't new, but has been suggested almost since criticism began." In general, however, I prefer inclusion of material instead of deletion, wherever possible. Right now, the references to collaboration are sprikled around somewhat halfhazardly. It would be nice to see them consolidated into something clean and concise. And then get rid of those footnotes! Cheers.Smatprt (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently no one is all that interested in following through on the revision, so I guess we'll just let it sit.Tom Reedy (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm still interested so have made a couple of changes based on this discussion thread.Smatprt (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I did some tweaking. We need refs for the last two sentences in that graf.Tom Reedy (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Plays section

--Xover (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As a response to the criticism that the four periods are too neat, I've removed the first paragraph of this section (see below). This was originally added in response to a specific request at FAC that the section have an overview to introduce it. As such it has no content separate from that which follows and is therefore dispensable.

Scholars have often noted four periods in Shakespeare's writing career.<ref>{{Harvnb|Dowden|1881|loc=48–9}}</ref> It is widely believed that until the mid-1590s, he wrote mainly comedies influenced by Roman and Italian models and history plays in the popular chronicle tradition. His second period began in about 1595 with the tragedy Romeo and Juliet and ended with the tragedy of Julius Caesar in 1599. During this time, he wrote what are considered his greatest comedies and histories. From about 1600 to about 1608, his "tragic period", Shakespeare wrote mostly tragedies, and from about 1608 to 1613, mainly tragicomedies, also called romances.

As for the rest of the section, I would caution anyone who seeks to change it to bear in mind the danger of this information becoming listy. That would, in effect, make it more difficult to read. It's very tricky to cover all Shakespeare's plays in such a short space (to say the least), and to make it readable there have to be some generalising patterns and groupings. Obviously, it would suit those who don't believe Shakespeare wrote these plays to have the scholarly traditions on chronology and periods destabilised, but that in itself should not be the premise on which any revision of this section is attempted (if revision be thought necessary). qp10qp (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a fix! Not only does it take out unnecessary and vague text, it eliminates an outdated reference. Deletion should be used more often. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Qp10qp. Definitely an improvement without. AndyJones (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, much better. Avoiding the idea of "four" defining periods makes much more sense.Smatprt (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I found one remaining use of the word "tragic period" that originally tied to the leading (now deleted) paragraph, but was now all alone in the wilderness.... I tried a recasting of the sentence. Feel free to adjust as needed Smatprt (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Signature SVG

SVGs are preferred here on Misplaced Pages..they allow infinite resolution zooming in, with no loss of quality. They also have more crisper lies, allowing for a more clean image. The SVG I have provided is a trace of the original image, and is literally the same, just in a different format. I don't see the fuss of changing it. Connormah (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Discussion on note "e"

I've changed the numbers on the note that was recently added to accurately reflect the survey. Why it was added is beyond me; this article is not supposed to be a digest of antiStratfordian news events. Comments on deleting it? Tom Reedy (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not required in the slightest. And proves nothing anyway. qp10qp (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's propaganda. It doesn't mention how that percentage is less than the % of Americans that believe space aliens have contacted humans (64%), abducted humans (50%), or contacted the U.S. Government (37%). It's less than the number who believe that man was created by God within the last 10000 years (47%). It's roughly equivalent to the number who think the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks (13%). In short, we don't decide authorship by polling the populace, or professors of all disciplines. There is almost no belief so stupid that fewer than 17% of people believe it. - Nunh-huh 19:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it ever possible for you guys to assume good faith? Calling the original note "misleading" does not do that, nor does creating a confrontational edit summary. This article is hardly a summary of antiStrat events, so I really don't understand that comment. I did not post the note, but did recast the sentence to reflect the subject of the line (the minority percentage) and provide the actual quote from the survey. Calling people's beliefs "stupid" is also uncalled for. Is there a reason that every time anything (even remotely) related to the authorship is discussed, that AGF goes out the window and the name-calling and bullying begins anew? (And speaking of accuracy, the survey was not amoung "professors of all discilines", it was of "Shakespeare professors" - you all might actually read the survey language before misrepresenting it.) Also, the original figure was actually accurate in that 556 Shakespeare professors were surveyed at 637 colleges that offered English Lit degrees. Of those, 265 actually completed the survey. That distinction wasn't particularly clear... and Tom's change didn't really clarify that either. For me, that isn't the point since its the percentage that is the key bit of information being communicated here.

To the point - I think the note should stay. There has been a long-standing mention of the acedemic establishment and their "universal" rejection of the authorship issue for quite some time - a mention that had no reference attached such an extraordinary claim, btw. Now there is a note, with a reference. I, for one, appreciate the clarity and the added information. After all, isn't supplying properly referenced information on "all human knowledge" what Misplaced Pages is about? The note and references are completely appropriate to the section in the article.Smatprt (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There's little to add to Smatprt's well reasoned response. I simply gave a reference for the unsourced "almost universal rejection among academics". The word "universal" isn't even used in any of our global warming articles (a hugely debated issue where agreement among climatologists is 96-97% in recent surveys), so I changed the wording to "(small) minority". Anyway, though people on both sides may find solace in them, the media used the survey's results largely as a reaffirmation of the traditional viewpoint. Indeed, the accompanying article (though perhaps written by an avowed Stratfordian) had the title Shakespeare Reaffirmed. Of course, you can take issue with the way the survey was conducted, like "professors of Elizabethan era history may be a better informed and/or less biased crowd than literature professors", or the more common but less defensible "college professors are all pot-smoking liberals", but it was the only survey I could find, except that (current and old) members of the US supreme court voted 4:3 anti-Stratfordian (5 witholding an opinion). Hey, they are academics too;-) Kidding aside, the note would greatly benefit from some more survey results, for example among historians and/or from the UK. I'm surprised there are so few around. Afasmit (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is note "e" relevant

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list:

Media, the arts, and architecture

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Is note "e" in the "Authorship" section relevant to the article? Smatprt (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I find the note completely relevant to the article and the section where the note appears. Prior to another editor adding the note and adjusting the sentence accordingly, the article stated there was near "universal" rejection of all alternate authorship candidates in "academic circles". Quite an extraordinary claim with no reference to support it. By adding the note and a proper reference to the New York Times survey of Shakespeare professors, we now have some verifiable information from a reliable source that directly addresses what the "academic" establishment actually believes. I fail to see why having this information represented in the article would not be considered relevant. I support keeping it. Smatprt (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we go, yet once again.

1.The original note was misleading because is dishonestly stated that 17 percent of 556 Shakespeare professors answered either "possibly" or "yes" to the question, when in fact it was only 265, because only 48 percent—265—of the 556 even bothered to respond to the survey. I think a good case could be made that if a professor was an antiStratfordian, he would have made it a point to answer the survey.

2.The note is misleading because it lumps “possibly” along with “yes,” when in fact “possibly” could also count negatively.

3.The note is misleading because only 16 out of 265 surveyed answered “yes” to the question, while 217 answered “no,” about as close to “universally rejected” as you’re going to get. I think a good case could be made that a lot of the non-respondents thought it was a silly waste of time because of the survey topic, and that the true percentage of antiStratfordians is closer to 3-4 percent than 17 percent, especially given that 93 percent of those surveyed called it "A theory without convincing evidence" or "A waste of time and classroom distraction."

4.The note is misleading in the context of the statement because it surveyed only American universities.

5.The note is irrelevant to the article because the article accepts the authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford; it only includes the mention of antiStratfordianism to avoid a tedious edit war; and it is not the place for misleading statistical campaigns.

6. Finally, the form of the authorship mention was hacked out in a long and contentious dispute, and you yourself have defended it from others who wanted to add more material to it that questioned the primacy of Oxford as the leading contender. Introducing another change will do nothing but cause another long and unnecessary dispute.

On another, more personal note, let me say that these constant attempts to wedge antiStratfordian propaganda into this article grow tedious and cause one to doubt your good faith in matters of this sort. No major editor from here that I’m aware of goes to the antiStratfordian articles and insists on constantly introducing material that goes against the main themes of the articles and harasses the editors, but you seem to think that’s perfectly acceptable to do here. I for one would like nothing better than to be able to go away for a while and not come back to find that you’ve tried yet again to insert more antiStratfordian material in this article, but I can see that will never be.Tom Reedy (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Tom, please note that there is no foundation for failing to assume good faith here. The note in question was added by an uninvolved editor and Smatprt merely edited that addition; and the addition and the subsequent edit are both entirely consistent with good faith efforts to improve the article. What I think you fail to take into account is that Smatprt, and others interested in Authorship, focus on that topic because that's what they're interested in and will tend to add information and wording supportive of that because they're convinced it is correct. I, personally, think Authorship in all its forms is absolute bunk, but just because the edits in question are incorrect doesn't mean they were not made in good faith.
That said; without actually looking thoroughly at the NYTimes article and the survey it is based on myself, I find your (Tom's) evaluation of the statistical validity of the survey convincing. It suffers from selection bias, and would, even if statistically valid, not actually be measuring the relevant data: scientific consensus is not measured by majority vote so this poll would not bear on the question at hand. In other words, this NYTimes article and survey should not be used to support the sentence in question.
More importantly, the note, even with a better survey, is redundant: the sentence as a whole is already sourced to multiple reliable sources. In other words, my !vote here is that the note is not needed and shouldn't be based on this source material even if it was. --Xover (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My personal feeling--which I identified as such--is not the issue here, that being why this note is superfluous. However, it's worth noting that everything Smatprt contributes carries an authorship subtext without blatantly proselytizing and accompanied by a perfectly "innocent" explanation of how it's merely to make things clearer, which implies premeditation, which in turn might cause one to suspect collusion. Whatever.

Speaking to the original topic, we have four editors who have contributed much to the article siding on deletion of the note--qp10qp, Nunh-huh, Xover and myself, and one editor--Smatprt--who has instigated several edit wars over authorship siding on keeping the note ostensibly contributed by a drive-by editor--Afasmit--who I assume also supports keeping the note, since he praises Smatprt's "well-reasoned response." That's a survey I support. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope that we all agree that blunt statements need to be referenced. To get back to the climate change comparison, imagine the furor if the global warming article simply stated that its occurrence is almost universally accepted among academics without a link to the surveys showing the 96-97% agreement among climatologists. If one or more of the four references given at the end of the paragraph discusses a serious survey among academics, the results of that survey would be great to add and the reference should follow the sentence. If the authors of the books simply discuss the authorship question and come to the conclusion that all doubt is just so much codswallop, near universal rejection doesn't automatically follow. Like most "drive-by" readers and editors I cannot check these texts, since I do not have any of these 4 books in my library and the particular pages are not accessible via google books. In contrast, the new reference gives access to the data of a clearly described survey from which people can draw their own conclusions. And, again, it would be much better if the results of more surveys are known.

It is unclear how adding a supporting reference to an existing statement can be considered in bad faith. Unless good faith here means blind faith, which I admit I'm bad at. Afasmit (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you haven't brought up Galileo yet. I daresay the statistics indicating the percentage of scientists who believe global warming is real were not gathered by a newspaper via an e-mail survey, hardly my idea of a "serious survey among academics." In addition, vast numbers of climate scientists have signed petitions urging that action be taken to counter the effects of global warming. when vast numbers of Shakespeare scholars and literary historians sign a petition urging the acceptance of the Shakespeare authorship question as a valid literary topic, then we can revisit this issue. As it is now, we have 4 for deletion, 2 against. Who calls the shots on pulling the plug? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks not withstanding, I'm afraid Tom really does not understand this process very well. It's not about vote counting, its about discussion and forming a consensus. If that does not work, then we can try other forms of dispute resolution including administrator involvement. The RFC was made to invite non-aligned editors to comment. I, for one, will wait to hear more comments. I will say that Xover, you might actually read the survey and article. As to Tom's complaints, such as the note is "misleading" because it only includes American universities, well, as always, Tom can find something wrong with just about everything. On the one hand, he can accept such ridiculous phrases like "near universal" even when they come without a proper reference, but on the other hand, he can't accept a survey of Shakespeare professors at American universities that offer degrees in English lit as a reliable source?

FYI, if I recall correctly, those 4 references at the end of the line in question were all referring to the extraordinary statement that the Oxfordian theory is the most prevalent. 4 references might seem overkill, but that was what was required to fend off those who were either ignorant of the facts or just didn't want to accept them. The "near universal" bit still needed a reference. I think we all know that such a statement would be pretty hard to verify, especially given the NY Times survey. At least the Times reference does substantiate the sentence as it stands now - that only a small minority of scholars believe there is reason to doubt. I have to wonder if the real reason some editors don't want the note is that it puts the lie to their oft-made contention that no serious scholars doubt the standard authorship view. Is that what is really going on here? Is that why, for example, Tom continues to insult editors, continues to make false accusations and use inflammatory terms and statements? All in the defense of "good scholarship"??? Smatprt (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate you explaining to me how a consensus is arrived at without "vote counting." And you are being misleading yet again by saying that my only complaint is that it surveyed only American professors. Deal with the major objections.

After a long and contentious argument sparked by your last contribution, in which we all agreed the article needed less--not more--footnotes, I am objecting to this addition for two main reasons:

1. The survey misleadingly overstates the support of antiStratfordism among college professors. As Xover pointed out, it suffers from selection bias in that it states the results only for those who deigned to answer the survey, which logically selected out those who considered the survey's topic too ridiculous to spend time answering, and given the evangelical nature of antiStratfordists, it included a larger percentage of them than is actually the case.

2. This article is about Shakespeare. If you want to use a misleading survey done by a newspaper, the article on antiStratfordism is the place for it.

However, if you agree to use this version of the note, I have no objections (it is a mirror image of the original, with the bias going the other way, which illustrates how difficult it is to use these types of surveys in an even-handed manner):

In a survey sent to Shakespeare professors at 556 American colleges that offered degrees in English Literature, less than 3 percent (16) answered “yes” when asked if there was “good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon.” Out of those 556 queried, less than 48 per cent, 265, responded to the survey.Tom Reedy (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misquote me. I never said anything remotely approaching "only complaint". Accusing me of being "misleading" and then misquoting me to back up your attack is not helpful. For an explanation as to the meaning of consensus, as opposed to vote counting, I suggest you contact an administrator. Suffice it to say, here is the policy:"RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes." Also "Mediate where possible - identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart." These are the policies, Tom. I didn't write them. I don't always agree with them, but we all have to live with them... including you.

Regarding your comment #1, quite frankly, you are simply making assumptions based on your personal feelings. You have no data to support your claims. The Times developed the methodology and reported the results accordingly.

Regarding comment #2, "a misleading survey done by a Newspaper", am I correct in understanding that you do not consider it a reliable source for the purpose of this article? Smatprt (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the deluge of all those comments from non-aligned editors, and I don't want to get in a back-and-forth pissing contest with you, but I'll answer your questions and then shut up and wait for all those comments. As for your complaint about misquoting you, I was referring to this comment from you: "As to Tom's complaints, such as the note is 'misleading' because it only includes American universities, well, as always, Tom can find something wrong with just about everything." That is the only point you chose to address. As to your other two comments above, the survey is biased, and my figure of less than 3 percent is more accurate when the bias is taken out of the survey by making the two logical assumptions I mentioned, and I do not consider the survey a reliable source for this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The debating floor has now been opened to others, but there seems to be little left to add: Tom's response ("Here we go, yet once again") seems to cover all the points I would have made. Thanks for the trouble saved! --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We have to be aware of the context here. Firstly, the authorship of many Shakespeare plays is in dispute. For example several collaborators may have worked on the Henry VI plays, and Pericles, Prince of Tyre is generally accepted to have been part-written by other authors. These claims about collaborations, alterations, cuts and other attributions are a standard part of Shakespeare scholarship in just the same way that they are of other authors and artists. To give an analogy, art historians will dispute whether this or that painting is the work of Rembrandt, or by one of his pupils or imitators. There is a whole "Rembrandt Project" dedicated to this. This is wholly different from the claim that the entire works of Rembrandt were actually painted by the Prince of Orange, or whoever. In other words there are two "authorship" debates, the mainstream one concerning attribution, and the "conspiracy theory" one that says Bacon or Oxford or whoever wrote the entire canon. The problem with this survey is that the question as asked does not allow the respondent to distinguish between the two controversies. The wording was, is there "good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon." Note the phrase "principal author". There is good reason to believe that he was not the principal author of several plays, so we don't know whether those who answered 'possibly' or 'yes' were accepting that he was not the principal author of some of the plays, or of poems such as A Lover's Complaint. The question seems to be carefully phrased to produce a positive response from some scholars. Furthermore the "possibly" respose may imply simply an acceptance that we can never wholly rule out anything. Possibly Milton did not write Paradise Lost. Who can be absolutely certain? The 'possibly's may simply reflect the scholars' need to affirm their open-mindedness. Also, the survey, as reported merges the 'possibly' responses with the 'yes' responses. And as I said above, even the 'yes' responses could easily be a result of the respondents acceptance that Shakespeare was not the "principal author" of some of the plays. So the problem here is that the survey itself is fundamentally flawed and misleading. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Any more comments? Hello? Anybody there? (sound of crickets)Tom Reedy (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is further discussion and comment on the thread at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Paul B (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've been following this. Some sort of note is clearly required, but, as written, note "e" seems to me to be Pseudoscience. GuillaumeTell 15:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories: