The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 April 2011 [1].

Shakespeare authorship question[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tom Reedy (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) and Paul B (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC), Nishidani, Xover[reply]
I have added Nishidani and Xover based on the work they've done on this FAC; they may remove themselves if they disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past 14 months this article has received an extensive makeover that at one time involved probably half of Wikipedia's administrators (not really, but it sure seemed that way sometimes). It is probably the most accurate and balanced short treatment of the topic that can be found on the Internet. POV issues were wrung out of the article (often painfully) during an intensive editing process by many excellent editors over the past few months. Once the scene of many POV battles, the article and talk page have achieved a high degree of stability over the past several months and has been edited with a high degree of collegiality. All references used in the article are from scholarly and reliable sources, an achievement in itself given the nature of the topic. Thanks to a lot of extremely talented editors, this article can serve as a model for other related Wikipedia articles. My hope is that this group of editors continues to work on those pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom has put in a tremendous amount of effort over the past year, and there has recently been a nice collaboration going with several editors involved in the preparations for FAC. I am happy to certify this nomination. --Xover (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

72.234.212.189[edit]

Andy Walsh[edit]

  • I'll say once more: Off-topic discussion, continuation of previous disputes, and discussion of editors will not be tolerated on this page. I've just moved volumes of nonsense to the talk page—if this can't kept to concise statements directly actionable to WP:WIAFA, I will consider administrative actions for disruption applied to involved individuals. This is not the place to carry on your disputes and grind axes. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Andy's comments here were originally posted in response to 72.234.212.189 in the section above, but as I think he intended them as general comments on the FAC I've added a subheading also for these. --Xover (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab / EL check[edit]

Image review[edit]

Source review[edit]

Sources comments: In view of the number of cited sources, the sources review may take a while, but it is under way. Brianboulton (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Later): The sources in general look excellent. There are a few general issues arising:-

I should be obliged if someone with the appropriate tool would do the copyvio checks. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All sources/citation issues raised by me have been resolved satisfactorily. The query about the reliability of "Ross" is someone else's. Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearWarfare[edit]

"(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process."
If you're referring to all the comments and complaints from authorship advocates that have been moved to the talk page, that will never cease, but as far as the page goes it's been stable for a while now, greatly facilitated by the a recent ArbCom case that put the entire topic (and this page in particular) under standard discretionary sanctions to enforce Wikipedia policy and halt POV edit warring. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I can understand the reaction, but let's stick to the actual wording of the criteria here. Wrad (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one would hope that the ArbCom case helped. But I'm not entirely convinced of that—there was that edit war yesterday with BenJohnson, for example. NW (Talk) 19:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I see this as a partial WP:IAR case - if the article has to have absolutely no edit wars (and is not protected), then those who espouse the finge theories only have to edit war to keep this from ever being a FA. If one takes a historical perspective, this is stable. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a judgment call. Please don't take this as my brushing the issue aside, but perhaps we can leave this to the FA coordinators to decide and in the meantime focus on content? I think I speak for many of the nominators when I say that such a focus would be welcome. Wrad (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was an Arbcase, sanctions are in place, we don't use 1e to penalize FA candidates for disruptive edits. Contrast this FAC, for example, to the Catholic Church FACs, where an arbcase was rejected because it wasn't yet "ripe", but we repeatedly saw valid, actionable Opposes from long-standing and experienced FA writers and reviewers, whose Opposes were based solidly on WP:V and WP:WIAFA. That article failed 1e stability, and was subject to frequent edit wars and ownership, which had not been resolved by an arbcase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GrahamColm[edit]

Support - with regard to Criterion 1a. This is an engaging and well-written (brilliantly in places) contribution. I have a few nit-picks, but these are for consideration only.

I didn't like "run-ins with the law". I think it spoiled the eloquence of the prose.
There is a possible fused participle here "leaving a signed will disposing of his large estate". I don't mind them if the meaning is clear, but others do.
Here, "The language of the will is mundane and unpoetic, and makes no mention of personal papers, books, poems, or the 18 plays that remained unpublished at the time of his death; it also omits shares...", the subject of the sentence is the language of the will, not the will. So what does "it" refer to? And how about "prosaic" instead of "unpoetic"?
Final nit-pick, how about "twelve" instead of "a dozen"?

Thank you for all the hard work on this article. Graham Colm (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would "brushes with the law" be better? I don't like the cacophony of "altercations", but that's just a personal preference.
RE "unpoetic" vs "prosaic", I think the first points out the contrast between the language of the will and what anti-Stratfordians imply the language should be in the will of a poet; it's the expectation vs the reality that is seen as some kind of evidence. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted 'run-ins' to 'brushes'.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria[edit]

Comments - I'm not going to support or oppose this article since I've done a bit of work on and related to it, but I have some comments/suggestions:

  • Addressed, with the possible exception of the two "death" subheadings. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a bit heavy in places, but much better, thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issues mostly addressed to my satisfaction; good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch[edit]

Support I have read this carefully and read a few of the online refs to spot check that the article accurately reflected the sources. I feel this more than meets the FA criteria, and am glad to support. I have two suggestions to improve the article.

  1. Since it is difficult to decipher Shakespeare's surviving signatures, perhaps an explanatory note could be added giving the spellings he used. This might follow the sentence In his surviving signatures William Shakespeare did not spell his name as it appears on most Shakespeare title pages. in the "Shakespeare's name as a pseudonym" section.
  2. I am surprised that the "Alternative candidates" only discusses four of the "more than 70 authorship candidates [which] have been proposed". While I understand that the four main candidates are presented in the section, I wonder if an introductory paragraph (before the section on Bacon) might help. Looking at the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, I think I would mention the more well known of the candidates in a sentence (Richard Burbage, Sir Francis Drake, the Jesuits, Sir Thomas More, Sir Walter Raleigh, the Rosicrucians, Edmund Spenser, Sir Phillip Sydney, and Cardinal Thomas Wolsey. I would also mention the royal candidates: Elizabeth I, James I, Mary Queen of Scots, then say something like However the four major candidates are ... (list them).

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen[edit]

GuillaumeTell[edit]

Support. I've been following the progress of the article for many, many months and have been particularly impressed by the open-mindedness of the principal editors. Their ability to set out, using WP:RS, the positions of the proponents of the main authorship candidates from a WP:NPOV, and their openness to the many and varied suggestions for improvements to the article, despite a great deal of provocation from a number of quarters, and their attention to detail, has been exemplary. Minor disclosure: I've done a bit of copy-editing (some of which is still there!) on the article from time to time. --GuillaumeTell 00:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton[edit]

Comment, leaning Support: I only have one point to make, which is that I feel that the preamble to the "Case against Shakespeare's authorship" section is not written with the degree of non-partisanship required in a neutral encyclopedia article. There is an editorial voice present, which is effectively refuting the case while it is being presented. The "case against" should be summarised baldly, without comment; the refutation is part of the "case for". This is the only significant issue to which I think that further attention is required in what is in nearly all respects an excellent article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jdkag[edit]

Oppose: The article does not cover the subject of "The Shakespeare Authorship Question' but rather the subject of "The Stratfordian Responses to the Shakespeare Authorship Question." The article does a poor job of portraying its subject, covering only a biased subset of the basic reasons for which the authorship question exists. Furthermore, the reasons that are given are covered in a superficial and disparaging manner, whereas most of the lengthy and unwieldy article tries to argue that the authorship question is not valid. Why did none of Shakespeare's contemporaries record meeting the man who was the writer (before the publication of the First Folio)? Why did no patrons leave records of patronage? What became of all the manuscripts? It's almost as if the authors of the article are afraid to publicize the real reasons why notable men and women over the years have raised the authorship question. References that could provide some insight into the authorship question have also been removed under the pretext that such references are not RS. See the discussion at: Talk:List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates#Cite_RS. In short, this is far from being FAC material, IMHO. Jdkag (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(inserted): Permanent link to thread Jdkag refers to above: [5] --Xover (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link-- I'm not finding this actionable, but have converted the "actionable" list below to bullet points so I can try to sort out the responses. Xover, could you please add the corresponding numbers to your response section? Most of the "actionable" list provides no sources, or is opinion, or does not engage WP:WIAFA, but please number your responses so I can sort out what's what. Paul B, I haven't yet processed your response on the talk page, but numbering them may also be helpful (I'm getting there!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So do you have any specific actionable objections? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These "why" questions apply equally to most other writers of the time, whose lives are generally not well documented. Hardly any play manuscripts of the time survive. The point, as it happens, is made inthe article ("No letters or signed manuscripts written by Shakespeare survive."). Of course any references to meeting the writer Shakespeare would be and are interpreted by SAQ afficionados as part of the conspiracy or as the intentional use of the "real author"'s pen-name. It's an unfalsifiable system of argument. Our rules require that the balance of argument be given to the mainstream position, so Jdkag is asking that we suspend the rules in this case. Paul B (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not cover the subject of "The Shakespeare Authorship Question' but rather the subject of "The Stratfordian Responses to the Shakespeare Authorship Question."

In layman's language, you are saying the article covers the SAQ theories in terms of what WP:RS say, and not in terms of what WP:Fringe books argue, and that what notable people like Charlie Chaplin or Mark Twain, or sundry lawyers and United States judges, have said should be given equal treatment with what Shakespearean scholars say on a question of Elizabethan history.Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actionable items:

  1. article's first line opens with a negative term (argument) instead of a neutral term (theory, belief, etc)
  2. ”Shakespeare’s authorship was first questioned in the middle of the 19th century” – according to whom? Other views? “Some scholars believe that…” would be more NPOV. (Also, the anomalous lack of records, which was noted by early biographers, is equally relevant to the subject.)
  3. no statement in lead as to why the four candidates are mentioned
  4. "Shakespeare’s authorship was not questioned during his lifetime" – Other views? How can this be a proven fact? Shouldn’t it be “As far as scholars have been able to determine… although authorship doubters believe…”
  5. lead ends with “They campaign for public acceptance of the authorship question as a legitimate field of academic inquiry and to promote one or another of the various authorship candidates”. This is an article about the theory. It’s not about the doubters themselves. This line does not belong in the lead.
  6. ”Anti-Stratfordians claim that this indicates a person very different from the author reflected in the works” – use of “claim” is not neutral. Suggest “believe” or “say”.
  7. Case Against Shakespeare section: There is an editorial voice present, which is effectively refuting the case while it is being presented. The "case against" should be summarised baldly, without comment; the refutation is part of the "case for".” I believe this especially applies to the first two sentences in the section, which serves as a set-up for the “case for”.
    No examples of this "editorial voice". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. History and particulars of the “group theory” are inadequate, both in the history section and the alternative candidates section. The various group theories have received much attention over the years. One would not know it from this article.
    No examples based on high-quality reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Baconian and Oxfordian theory sections are too long and detailed. They are not summaries and do not even follow the basic technique of Wikipedia Summary Style. Why is the unpublished George Frisbee given so much weight, for example? Major arguments surrounding the candidacies are also missing, such as Oxford’s bible, Bacon’s Tempest connections, etc. In short, expert opinions on the minority viewpoint are not represented accurately, if at all.
  10. The article is quite long, especially the history section, which has its own article. Again, summary style is not being followed. The "case for" section is also incredibly long and throws the weight of the article out of balance. Perhaps the section needs its own article?
  11. Process: The preface to the list for featured article criteria, states that these criteria are: "in addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles." Good behavior/process (e.g., adherence to WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY) is a fundamental WIKI requirement for all articles, one that is not met by the SAQ page. Given the assumptions of the current editors regarding editors of differing viewpoints and regarding how those differing viewpoints should be treated, it is not likely that the SAQ page will meet fundamental WIKI requirements in the near future.Jdkag (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not relevant, there was an Arb case, please focus on the text and reliable sources, not editor behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these issues have been discussed previously on the talk page. A key problem is finding a reliable source - what would you suggest as a RS for the Oxfordian or Group theory? Poujeaux (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issues not only have been discussed, they have been resolved, although not to the satisfaction of a few anti-Stratfordian editors, so these are just a continuation of previous disputes, as Andy Walsh noted earlier. The article reflects the academic consensus, which is what Wikipedia requires, and which is the main objection from those editors. By bringing up such objections it appears to me that this FAC process is being looked at as an extension of the SAQ talk page. What Ruhrfisch noted about edit warring also applies to bringing up previous disputes: those who espouse the fringe theories only have to continue to do so for it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy and keep this from ever being a FA.Tom Reedy (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to Jdkag's concerns:
  1. the term “argument” is no less neutral than “theory” or “belief”, and does not carry any inherent negative valuation. Theory would be inappropriate since it does not fulfill the scientific definition of that word, while belief, while quite possibly a more apt description, carries the connotation of religious belief and thus would in fact be less neutral.
  2. That Shakespeare's authorship was first questioned in the middle of the 19th century is supported by the citation at the end of the sentence (which is going an extra mile since the lede normally need not have cites) and if necessary we can add Schoenbaum and Shapiro. The lede summarises the article and so it would be inappropriate to add any new information here, and in fact the issue is addressed in more detail in the article. The lack of records issue, and that it isn't in fact “anomalous” at all, that you bring up is already covered in the article.
  3. The issue of why these four candidates are singled out has been addressed elsewhere on this page, but in any case is explained in the body of the article.
  4. Those reliable sources that do address the issue of whether any doubts were raised about Shakespeare's authorship during his lifetime do not support there being any alternative views of the issue (there were no doubts during his lifetime). That SAQ adherents argue that this is impossible to prove or allege that various cryptic clues are in fact examples of such doubt is addressed in general terms in the article, but are not dealt with specifically and in detail since the reliable sources does not support giving these two specific examples of their approach such prominence.
  5. The SAQ (vs. its supporters), in this sense, is more akin to a popular movement, and thus inseperable from its supporters; you cannot discuss the SAQ without also touching upon its adherents, as, in fact, all the reliable sources do.
  6. Your concern with whether SAQ supporters “claim” or “believe” that a lack of literary or educational evidence suggests a different type of person than the author of the plays has been addressed: it now uses the construction “taken to indicate”. Note that I dispute the alleged lack of neutrality in the word “claim” here; it was used precisely and appropriately.
  7. The alleged editorial voice present has been addressed elsewhere on this page (where Brian originally made it, and from where you appear to have copied this point verbatim).
  8. The group theories are covered proportionately to the attention they are given by reliable sources, and are in fact dealt with in several places in the article.
  9. In fact, the Bacon and Oxford sections exactly follow the recommendations of the summary style guideline, and each are 4-5 paragraphs long (which, you might even argue, is too short), and they summarize the relevant candidacies as well as is possible without first writing featured articles for all of them. The selection and weighting of the points included in the candidate sections are made, as best possible, based on what the reliable sources emphasize, rather than what arguments you personally consider to be the most persuasive. Oxford's bible, for example, is not particularly emphasized as an argument made by Oxfordians in the reliable sources, and in fact other Oxfordian editors here would (and have) vehemently challenge its merits. That said, specific suggestions for improvements accompanied by the reliable sources to back them up, are most welcome (these sections are challenging to write and source).
  10. The article, while certainly long, is far from the longest article, and not even among the top largest featured articles. And in fact (as you know, since that is where you appear to have copied this point from), this has been discussed extensively on the article's talk page and in the peer review, and the consensus was that the length was appropriate.
  11. Your concerns about process are not relevant for FAC and FAC is not the appropriate venue for those concerns. Given the recent ArbCom case, to which you were a party, that or ANI would probably be the appropriate venue to express such concerns.
This should address all the concerns you have listed as actionable points. I hope you will take the time to revise your Oppose in light of this. --Xover (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BenJonson[edit]

You need to make your comments specific, and avoid personal criticism of editors. This has been explained to you before. Poujeaux (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see comments of Softlavender and Jdkag. I support their reasoning fully. I addition to the reasons cited regarding content -- lack of NPOV, failure to cite appropriate sources, sources cited that filter the claims of a particular position largely if not exclusively through the eyes of the contrary party, undocumented claims that amount to accusations since the POV of one side is characterized in a particular manner without allowing the well-known citations to the point at issue to be entered into record due to entirely bogus claims of the lack of RS, misuse of claims of "fringe," etc. -- there are the issues of process well described by Jdkag above: --68.55.45.214 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Commentary about editor behaviour moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 68.55.45.214 appears to be BenJonson who just forgot to sign in. --Xover (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comments by Jdkag have been addressed, and since these are the only actionable items you provide (by reference), your concerns should have therefore been addressed as well. I hope you will take the time to revise your Oppose. --Xover (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding any actionable examples based on reliable sources, and remind reviewers to refrain from personalizing issues already covered in the Arb Case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Proposed New Version of Oxford Subsection that Meets NPOV requirements by BenJonson moved to Talk:Shakespeare authorship question per my posts below. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC). [reply]

Surely BenJonson's post belongs on Talk:Shakespeare authorship question? I will move it there shortly, unless somebody proposes a good reason for keeping it here on FAC. As far as I can see, it bears no resemblance to a review. Bishonen | talk 17:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Do these bracketed numbers refer to actual sources? If so, what are they? Paul B (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, a version with actual footnotes is now on Talk:Shakespeare authorship question. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I do not know where this is supposed to go, since unlike some other editors here I'm not really a professional Wikipedian, and sometimes find the processes involved more Byzantine than I'm able to readily negotiate. However, here is the version with footnotes supplied, per Mr. Barlowe's request. If it needs to be moved, please be my guest. I don't know if a University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation can be considered RS according to the prevailing interpretations in this cosmopolitan location on the internet (especially by one whom, as Mr. Reedy so politely and sensitively avers, teaches at "one of the worst colleges in the country") but would venture to suggest that the other references at least ought to be considered so by anyone without a profoundly non-NPOV perspective. Got to go to my internet journalism class. Enjoy--BenJonson (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supplying footnotes. I've moved the footnoted version to Talk:Shakespeare authorship question. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I think he must have simply forgotten to copypaste from edit mode. OK, sorry, BJ, but I'm relocating your post. I'm not making this move to make things difficult for you. Your suggestion for a rewritten article section simply belongs on the article talk, not on FAC. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
To avoid complications if the suggestions by BJ are relocated to the SAQ talkpage, I have posted some reflections there.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Historical Evidence": ".[68] In addition to the name appearing on the title pages of the poems and plays during his lifetime, " ... I believe this is a misleading statement. It sounds like his name appeared on the title page of ALL poems and plays. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Romeo_and_Juliet_Q2_Title_Page-2.jpg for one example. Knitwitted (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know that it did not appear in early play publications, but increasingly did later. The phrase "the poems" means that it appeared on all the published poems (V&A; Lucrece; sonnets) "and plays" means it also appeared on plays. However, I've rephrased to remove any ambiguity. Paul B (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition to the name appearing on the title pages of poems and plays..." still sounds the same to me. Maybe it should be "In addition to the name appearing on some of the title pages of poems and plays..." Knitwitted (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same because "the" was the only issue. And it does not appear on "some" of the title pages of Shakespeare poems. It appears on all of them. Paul B (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, a little more candor and specificity would help here. The name appears on NO title pages of plays until 1598. After that, it appears on MOST of them. Also, it appears on several plays that no one now thinks were written by "Shakespeare." The article should reflect these facts, and allow both theories an opportunity to explain them. It should also probably point out as well that 1598 is the year in which Francis Meres floats his *Comparative Discourse*. I wonder what your explanation for this might be. Moreover, there is a second interesting year that is obviously pivotal in the history of the publication of play quartos: 1604. In that year the publication of new quartos fell of dramatically. Something around 16 (depending on exactly what you count) were published during the 13 or so years before that. After that, until the 1623 folio, only four new plays where published, one of the quarto of Othello in 1622 (after which the licenser George Buc was removed from his office for "senility"). How do you or "Nishidani" or Tom explain this? And don't you think that it should be represented in the article? After all, you guys like to make a big deal out of the fact that Oxford died in 1604, why not also admit that some other interesting and possibly relevant things happened in 1604? Or is that a problem because you can't explain it any more than your academic colleagues can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenJonson (talk • contribs)
Your conspiracy theories are not taken seriously by scholars of the period, so there is nothing for me or Nishidani to explain. It's not up to us. It's up to the consensus of scholarship. Your "points" are not actionable. I am happy to respond in more detail on the talk page, but the essential point is that this story you are telling, in so far as it is intelligible, is not AFAIK addressed by reliable sources. As has been stated repeatedly, we try to follow what they say. Paul B (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per Paul. You appear to ask us to evaluate your personal theories, as published here, for inclusion into this article. Our job, as I'm sure you must know by now, is to read reliable academic works and report faithfully their contents. While almost all those registering an oppose vote here subscribe to the Oxfordian theory, the article cannot be allowed to dwell exclusively on the speculations concerning the Earl of Oxford. Two relevant pages at least in wikipedia, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship and the Oxfordian Theory - Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays, by common agreement, require extensive revision for improvement to meet minimal levels of quality. Those who are disappointed with our method, which is that endorsed by the protocols governing FA artcles in wikipedia, and who believe strongly that these things can be done better, that WP:NPOV can be improved, have an ample, unconflicted opportunity there to show us how exactly these alternative proposals work out in concrete terms. Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You've proven my point about Wikipedia's zealous quest to provide misleading information. Shakespeare's name may appear on all the title pages for poems but certainly NOT for all the plays. Knitwitted (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just what I said. Hence the wording. Your preferred wording, "some of the title pages of poems" is factually incorrect. You wouldn't want that would you? However, discussions of minutiae such as this should be undertaken on the talk page of the article. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knitwitted[edit]

Oppose. Tom Reedy's assertion "Why don't you give the link to the 2003 article so people can read for themselves what was reported?" as proposed here was used to counter an argument. This implies that the journal Shakespeare Matters is a reliable source. Also, the Wikipedia article James Wilmot also cites Shakespeare Matters (footnote 6). The Wilmot article is part of Wikipedia's "Shakespeare authorship question" series. There are no cites in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question article to the journal Shakespeare Matters. Knitwitted (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod[edit]

Softlavender[edit]

NON-NEUTRAL:

Reads as if the title of the article should be "The Case for the Stratfordian Authorship of the Shakespeare Oeuvre." The overwhelming amount of weight is given to Shakespeare. Numerous important omissions in the case against Shakespeare, not to mention of course abundant critical omissions in the case(s) for an alternative candidate.

Non-neutral wording: Anti-Strafordians are accused of citing "conspiracy" against the true author (this is hardly and rarely the case). Non-neutral and indeed patronizing characterizations of anti-Stratfordian positions: "the lack of documentary proof is a staple of anti-Strafordian arguments"; "construed"; "claiming to find"; "exposing the romantic view of Oxford as Shakespeare"; "the case of Oxford relies on ..."

'Nowadays, Oxfordians tend to steer clear of such loaded terms as 'conspiracy' or cover-up', but it is impossible to avoid them when discussing the Prince Tudor theories.' (Brit ed.p.223)

Stratfordian sources are continuously used to typify anti-Stratfordian positions.

Section on "Lack of documentary evidence" is in particular missing some core anti-Stratfordian points.

Lack of important anti-Stratfordian interpretation of the cited "Swan of Avon" poem (Oxford had a home in Avon; etc.)

Sections on the alternative candidates extremely short and extremely biased. Absurd over-emphasis on ciphers in the Oxfordian section -- this has never been a lynchpin in the Oxfordian candidacy.

Per FA policies, opinions must be given weight according to their prominence. Since the Oxfordian candidacy is by far the most prominent alternative authorship these past 10 to 90 years, it should be given extensive weight in the article, rather than being be what to be appears to be a footnote, and a very misleading one at that.

Very partisan (and clever I might add) insertions of the conclusions of some 'turned Oxfordians', with no mention whatsoever of the thousands of 'turned Stratfordians'. Speaking of which, this includes the fact that the Supreme Court decision about Oxford was very notably overturned in 2009 [6]; this is glaringly omitted from the article, whilst the early now overrided ruling is given plenty of emphasis.

Mention of Wikipedia (twice) in the article. Can Wikipedia really be objective about itself? I think not; mention in the article of Wikipedia as a format for the authorship debate reads as objecting to mention that the debate exists; ergo, why does this article even exist?

I am not finding any actionable items here, based on high-quality sources (which are not supplied) that have not been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NON-STABLE:

My opinion is that the SAQ question is far too dynamic a subject for the article to become a set-in-stone Featured Article. It's one of the hottest topics in the humanities. There are well-researched new books or documentaries on the subject -- that is against the Stratfordian authorship -- coming out at least every year. This will only increase after the September 2011 Anonymous film starring Vanessa Redgrave and Rhys Ifans, and its companion documentary film. The SAQ is a discussion that will become more and more discussed by academics as the years go on. We've seen that happen exponentially even within the past 5 or 6 years.

One huge problem I foresee with the article is that after the Anonymous film -- and the concomitant documentary about Oxford which is now in production that is going to be released along with it -- is released in September 2011, there is going to be a lot more journalistic and academic discussion of not only Oxfordianism, but also the entire Shakespeare authorship question. This article certainly shouldn't be come a featured article until all that has occurred and cycled through and stabilized. In fact, I think the dynamic and continually debatable nature of the subject precludes an article of this sort from being a featured article, because it will continuously need to be updated, and there will always be debate about how to word the updates, and so forth. Softlavender (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding non-stable. If Barack Obama can be an FA, this can be an FA. If William Shakespeare can be an FA, this can be an FA. Things change, but that shouldn't cause us to fear that we won't be able to maintain quality in the future. Wrad (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, all of Softlavender's concerns have been addressed. I hope you will find the time to revise your Oppose. --Xover (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Methinx[edit]

Note, the size of FAs generally becomes a concern at around 10,000 words of prose-- they are plenty of FAs longer than that. Stats as of this version are:

Other issues raised in this Oppose are (or will be) covered elsewhere on the FAC. Size concerns become actionable if reviewers show specific instances where summary style has not been adequately used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fotoguzzi[edit]

Answered to my satisfaction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buchraeumer[edit]

Leaning to Support. My only query would be the following: In the section on Oxford, it says that the case for him is based on: "... biographical correspondences found in the works, ...". Being aware that these correspondences are in many cases extremely tenuous or tortuous deductions, I'd wonder if it would be in keeping with NPOV to describe them as "alleged biographical correspondences found in the works" or similar. My point is that a reader unfamiliar with these theories would probably read much more into this than is warranted by the Oxfordian "evidence".

Generally, I am very happy to see this article still further improved, even in recent months. It's an impressive, interesting, and immensely useful overview. (My 20-odd edits to this article were all minor MOS things, starting about 2 years ago when reading it through out of curiosity; I've never had the artcle watchlisted, and was unaware of the extreme contentiousness of the SAQ until a few months ago). Buchraeumer (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and while examining this, 'biographical correspondences in the works' is not as exact as this standard would require. The meaning is of course:

alleged/putative correspondences with events in his life and plots in the plays'?

Suggestions all round on how we do this? Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about "the belief that the plots and characters in the plays derive from incidents in his life". Paul B (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be ideal, IMO. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better, yes. But the finicky dickhead inside me, anticipating in paranoid fashion, possible challenges, murmurs querulously: 'can 'characters' be said to 'derive from' incidents? Tom? You chew through this stuff everyday for breakfast, don't you? Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it, but varied the phrasing. Alter at will, grammarian. Paul B (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice, now. I do think the article's tone is neutral, and its organization is now excellent. Also very nicley illustrated. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PametPuma[edit]

This comment illustrates as well as any the Sisyphean task of trying to address the objections of anti-Stratfordian advocates. The term "belief" was changed from "theory" to address specific objections brought up by an earlier Oxfordian critic. These types of whip-saw conflicting interpretations are rife in the FAC comments from anti-Stratfordians, partly because of the dissension within their own ranks (more than 70 candidates have been put forth as the true author, all of whose advocates use the same arguments against Shakespeare's authorship), partly because they all consider the academic consensus to be a deliberate conspiracy against The Truth, and partly because they want to return to the days when the page was a promotional tool for Oxfordians, as almost every comment makes clear to outside observers. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion on this point moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warshy[edit]

Ssteinburg[edit]

Noting that Mr. Reedy is one of the most vocal and active partisans defending the orthodox viewpoint (a fact, not a criticism), the fact that he has maneuvered himself into a position as one of the principle editors of this ostensibly “neutral” article sets up an inherent violation of the expressed intent of Wikipedia policy for featured articles. This problem could only be overcome by a consensus among the opposing contributors that the article is, indeed, “neutral”. However, that will not be possible as the article now stands, nor is it, in the opinion of this contributor, an achievable goal. The article, at the moment, is biased, subtly and not so subtly, in favor of the orthodox viewpoint and cleverly attempts to discredit both the anti-Stratfordian viewpoint and those who hold it. The idea of “neutrality” is, in our opinion, a perfect fallacy. We suggest, as an alternative, that the article have two parts of equal length, each part presenting the opposing view, leaving each side to be as partisan as it desires to be. If the article is granted “featured” status in its current form it will be a clear victory for proponents of the orthodox viewpoint and will, ultimately, be an embarrassment to Wikipedia. --Ssteinburg (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is the first and only comment this username has ever made. Wrad (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis would be a clear violation of our NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note this appears to be pure commentary, and neither review or support or oppose vote, and should probably be moved to talk. --Xover (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing actionable here; please do not continue posting personal commentary that does not enegage WP:WIAFA to the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiguy[edit]

Support. Note that I've been an occasional contributor to this page, especially in the last few months. I believe this article walks an incredibly fine line, giving solid coverage to the various subtheories without giving undue weight, reflecting scholarly consensus without being POV - I never really thought this article could get to this point, and I'm glad Wikipedia is proving me wrong. Kaiguy (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth[edit]

Comments Leaning support, but not quite there yet. Some concerns, some issues with writing and one sentence fragment (ouch!) keep me from being a support. Note that I was especially on the lookout for bias issues while keeping in mind this is or is close to a fringe theory.

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)[reply]
I just realized I have FAs to my credit that are shorter than this review, sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your review. I appreciate the disinterested perspective and am happy that you found no major POV issues. Some of your criticisms point out places where we knew what we wanted to say but didn't say it quite well enough for a naïve reader to grasp, and that is much appreciated. We'll go to work on those and the rest of the points directly. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In order to not make this page any longer, I have copied the above points and placed them on the article talk page so the editors can mark them off and discuss them. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status note here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia[edit]

Continued discussion on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

Wassupwestcoast[edit]

Cryptic C62[edit]

Support. I have begun reading through the article for clarity, accessibility, and neutrality. In order to avoid cluttering up this already enormous page, I have left my comments on the FAC talk page. Please respond to individual concerns there. After an exhaustive, productive, and yet somehow light-hearted prose review, I am very happy with the article in terms of clarity, accessibility, and neutrality of phrasing. And, before I forget, I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the nominators for taking on what must surely have been a monumental effort to bring the article to where it is now. Regardless of whether it is promoted or not, take pride in knowing that you've made the encyclopedia better. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More