Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

excuse me?!

uh... i dont know if any of the other people that read this but have you ever noticed that the picture of shakespeare had a earing... is the picture real or did someone change it a bit... just wondering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.145.239 (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe an earring was a sign that the person in the portrait was a poet. Or something... Wrad (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a sign that wore an earring. It's not uncommon. Is there some reason why he shouldn't wear one? Shall you tell him or shall I? Paul B (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the significance of it being in his left ear instead of the right? Isn't that some kind of code?Tom Reedy (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that's I'm aware of, though I think there was speculation about that at one time. I remember reading one late 19th century analysis that speculated that it meant he'd been to Italy. Then there was the argument that sailors wore them, as depicted in The Boyhood of Raleigh, so maybe he was a privateer in the 'lost years'. Paul B (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, umm, that's not really the kind of code I was talking about!Tom Reedy (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that there's anything wrong with that!Tom Reedy (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question, it's part of the original image according to the NPG. Paul B (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

he was gay - the earring in the left ear

Now here's a fellow sporting a right dangler. qp10qp (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Hampton Court Portrait traditionally said to be of Shakespeare, bearing the legend aetatis suae 34 (his age, 34) shows a sitter with an earing (or rather a conspicuous knotted lock) in the left ear. I would venture to suggest that this was probably an aristocratic style that would not have been common among the middle classes. Certainly, one reason the Hampton Court Portrait has never attained much currency in orthodox Shakespearean studies is that the sitter is clearly of aristocratic rank. The painting is reproduced by Ruth Loyd Miller in Vol. II of her 1975 *Shakespeare Identified*, p. 411. This is a matter that deserves further study and investigation. --BenJonson (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think he was just a pirate AND NOT SHAKESPEARE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

More Authorship Debate

I hope nobody minds that I added Elizabeth I's name in with the other possible claimants. This was just an attempt to make that list more complete. (Although, I suppose I should have added the names of the Countess of Pembroke, Mary Queen of Scots, Anne Hathaway, Anne Whateley and the Countess of Rutland, too.) I had read it before in a couple places, but just used two specific references from my own library for proof that her name had been put forth in the past. I didn't think it would change the article and I certainly don't believe she wrote them myself! HaarFager (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What is it wrong you people here at Wikipedia? I went back in to make a minor edit to the above I had just added, (I forgot and left off the "I" behind Queen Elizabeth's title), and my edit had already been removed! Somebody named Smatprt said it was because she was never a major claimant. Nowhere in the line preceeding any of the claimants mentioned was there a point saying this was only the major candidates. As I remember it said "alternative candidates." Queen Elizabeth I has been proposed in the past as an alternative candidate. What is wrong with stating her name with the other proposed candidates? Don't you want this article to be comprehensive or do you just wish to include some facts but not all facts? HaarFager (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, without commenting on this particlular issue, it's absolutely clear that we do "wish to include some facts but not all facts". The idea that we could include all facts is laughable. The question to ask yourself is (bearing in mind that this is a featured article - one of Wikipedia's best): is the particular fact that you want to add significant enough to be here? If you can make that argument, then we have something to discuss. AndyJones (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The last I heard, there are some 70-odd names that have been put forth as "candidates." Listing all of them in an effort to be "comprehensive" is simply ridiculous, especially since none of them have evidence in the conventional sense of the word. Smarprt did the right thing.Tom Reedy (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for upsetting HaarFager. If ti helps any, Queen E is listed in the general authorship article (though not as a major claimant). Smatprt (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. We can't include all facts. It's impossible. What we do is include the most significant ones. Other facts belong in subarticles. You may also want to read the lengthy debates about authorship in the archives to get familiar with how the current version developed. Wrad (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• The discussion of minor claimants certainly does not belong in this article. . . . But -- those who are interested should add a new article on the question. (Personal note: Our Lit Prof spent several classes on this topic. I don't recall many details, but I do recall that there is lots of academic interest and debate. Oconnell usa (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Spoken version added

I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link above. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well done! I just had a listen and it was very smooth and professional. I'd love to see Hamlet get something like this! Wrad (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! This is great.Tom Reedy (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll put Hamlet down on my mental "to-narrate" list. Depending on real-life commitments and what-have-you, look out in a few weeks or so for progress. I think that Shakespearean pronunciation guide website will come in handy again!! Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sugestion of Main Picture

What do people think of the following?

Modifications: This image of Shakespeare is The Chandos Portrait, the same painting in this article, but in a version more"current". This version, aesthetically speaking, it gives a clearer view of the Chandos. What do you think about this replacement?

Look the others two pictures alongside, in a version of the first cut. We will discuss? Fernandoalexgraca (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the original version we had until the current version was put up. I like it better myself, but we had a big knock-down and drag-out over the current version. See "Chandos portrait" discussion about halfway up this page. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As User:Tom Reedy. The version proposed here seems brighter and more immediate and would better grace the article. It was, however, ousted in favor of the current lead image and there seems little prospect of getting agreement to put it back. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This has probably been already discussed, but - well, I like the Chandos portrait, too, but should the lead picture be one that we aren't even sure is him? Carlo (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Chandos portrait up for deletion

The Chandos Portrait (Image:Shakespeare.jpg) has been nominated for deletion in Commons since February. The discussion can be found here. Editors familiar with the subject and the image are welcome to join the discussion. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Film adaptions

Why is it not mentioned in this article that there are many feature-length film adaptions of Shakespeare's plays? According to the article Shakespeare on screen, there are over 420 of such films. – Ilse@ 14:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Have pity! Its one of the few pages where Hollywood doesnt interfere.

Quotations on the Right

Are the two quotes included in the article, from the "stage" speech in As You Like It and the "summer's day" sonnet, really representative of Shakespeare's work? Both selections are misleading because they seem like cliches when taken out of context. In context, both lead to reversals. The "stage" speech is not about creative expression, it is about the morbidity and brevity of human existence; the "summer's day" reference is not about beauty but its rapid decline - the sonnet goes on to argue that poetry itself is the only real preserver of beauty. If these quotes are to be included, they should be longer - the entire sonnet, perhaps, and Jaques' entire speech. Seb144 (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to quotations in the blue boxes that appear on the right side of the page (rather than being 'on the right' in a political semse). They are both just well-known lines. Are you suggesting that the self-ironising aspect of Shakespeare's writings should be included? How, in practice? Paul B (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm against including the entire speeches/sonnet. If you did so you'd then be able to argue that the speech lacks context without a wider knowledge of Jacques' character (that Shakespeare portrayed him as melancholy and was therefore distancing himself as writer from Jacques views, for example). Then you'd be able to argue, using the same reasoning, that we must include the entire play. Or, you could say that the sonnet lacks context outside its place in the sonnet sequence as a whole. I think the quotations are fine as they are. AndyJones (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Any quote from anybody is going to lack a certain amount of context, but some function alone better than others. My point is that these two do not fall into that latter category. You make a good point about Jacques' character, but I don't understand why the whole sonnet would be misleading absent its context in his other works. For either one, though, the quote would be too long. Maybe different quotes should be included. For example, some segments of Polonius' "fatherly advice" speech in Hamlet are quite famous, and though they are used for his characterization as self-aggrandizing and somewhat naive, they are at least mostly in tune with his larger speech - and they serve to humanize a character who otherwise operates mostly as a plot device, which implies that they aren't intended to be entirely ridiculous. That's not a great example, just a thought. Seb144 (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

did you know that shakespeare was gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.143.194 (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Plays

Under the Plays heading, there are several errors regarding the plot of King Lear. The first is a judgment call, but I don't think King Lear's "tragic error" was "giving up his powers." His flaw was his rash banishment of Cordelia (and Kent). And how does this flaw trigger later scenes leading to the violence? I think that sentence is poorly written. Secondly, the Earl of Gloucester, not the Duke, is the character who is tortured and blinded. Thanks.

75.111.128.201 (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Brandon

Fixed—thanks for the pointer. Don't forget WP:BOLD!--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The tragic action of King Lear begins with the giving up of the powers, which leads to a series of further tragic actions throughout the play. The tragedy begins at the beginning; it does not start later on. Lear turns the world upside down by giving up his powers. qp10qp (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably not so much the giving up of his powers as the way it's done - linking his abdication and dividing of the kingdom to the forced false declarations of love, rashly altering his plans when Cordelia is unable to perform, banishing Kent, etc. Ashton1983 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference here is between the words "tragic error" and "tragic flaw". Two very different things. The article as it stands is correct and no change is needed. Wrad (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare and authorship

Perhaps Shakespeare's skill was "being a playwright" - and if he were alive now he would be a film director with "based on a story by...", "with specialist information provided by..." (and a few cases of funding provided in response to product placement, and inclusion of names, pet texts etc) and similar comment screens. This way everybody can be happy - the "Shakespeare done it" and the "Shakespeare was actually (insert person of choice)" arguments.

This talk page is long - can somebody "do" the archive. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Done --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Info box color

Can anybody change it? I don't know how to do it and that green is ugly as hell. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow - that was ugly with a capital UG. I had to go to the template itself to change it, so I am not sure if the regular editors of that template will not revert my change - but I tried a dark blue to compliment the light blue links all over the page. We'll see if it holds. I left a comment at that talk page [[1]] if you want to support the change. Smatprt (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because one person does not like the color on one article is no reason to change it. The color has been in place for over six months. The color green was selected to denote library bindings of classic books. The blue that it was changed to is really fugly! pete 17:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was green for six months, otherwise I'm sure I would have noticed it. And classic books are bound in all kinds of colors.Tom Reedy (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Legacy/tributes?

Should a new heading be added highlighting how revered Shakespeare is? Towns in Ontario and Connecticut named Stratford both hold huge Shakespeare festivals, the former even houses a huge festival complex and has named its streets after his characters (not to mention the town named after him a few miles away). Movies and books have been written about him, and he is still the main focus in most high school and college English courses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.136.175 (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate

How has the traditional birthdate of 23 April been proven incorrect? I still see it written thus in other encyclopedias.jeanne (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We only have the baptism date of 26 April, and there's no proof of the day of birth. Only, as you say, tradition. The article covers this, sourced to Schoenbaum and Honan. qp10qp (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's described in sources as "traditional birthday" or similar words means that the writers are acknowledging that nobody knows when he was actually born. No encyclopedia worth its salt would claim he was born on 23 April, without this qualification. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

shakespeare gay???

iv heard that shakespeare was gay ?? is it true???

.......not that theres anything wrong with being gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.143.194 (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See the "Sexuality" section. qp10qp (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Shakespeare was not gay (amazing how I can say that with 100% assurance). His sonnets written to a young man were most likely laments to his son, who died early. Besides alot of Brit guys act and sound gay, but aren't. 24.116.132.146 (talk)Fan of dead white male

He probably liked double-edged swords. I'm not saying he's a Venetian merchant or nothin'... Just that he was no Othello. Just saying he could admire a good Antonio and a birra falstaff. In the name of his minor plays why does it even matter?

Shakespeare's misspellings of his name.

I recently (ten minutes ago) typed in Shakespear and forgot to add the 'e' on the end of his popular culturally announced last name, Shakespeare. It lead me to recall learning that William actually used to spell his name in many different ways, see this article here for a more defined article: http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html#2

This then made me make this post saying why should Shakespear link to Shakespeare? If the man himself once signed his last name as Shakespear, shouldn't people that search for Shakespear or William Shakespear link to an article about his life and not be redirected to William Shakespeare, the supposed correct spelling by those that assume ones name is classified by how many people believe that is how his name should be spelt? I believe all spellings of William Shakespeare's name should have their own seperate page that is constantly updated in unity instead of one simple page that is agreed upon by the masses.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Putnum (talk • contribs)

The effect can be achieved very simply by deploying a few redirect pages. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling was often inconsistent in the period, so there is little significance in the various spellings. It makes more sense for alternative spellings to redirect to the main page. This is MUCH simpler.

Christopher Marlowe is known to have signed his name "Christopher Marley." It means nothing. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

William Shakespeare

have you noticed in his picture he has an earing! you can go look for you self! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.174.202 (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Pretty common for writers back then. Wrad (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A few other people have earrings. I'd focus more on the whole superlative plays thing myself. But maybe I'll just spend the rest of my life wondering if he was gay. Because that's what Shakespeare would have liked us to think while reading those tragedies: "That is a nice earring?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Cranky theorists

I see in the Speculations section that one of these theories gets a mention (Oxfordian) with a link to the page. Why? Are we here to give these fantasists publicity or state the real facts for the people? Who supports its deletion? Felsommerfeld (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you look through the archives and look at the huge amount of discussion that went into that section. I am personally opposed to any change to the section whatsoever. Wrad (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Leaving just a brief summary, with the link to the main article, offers all the cover that's required but, given the past history of the piece, User:Felsommerfeld's version may not survive for long. De Vere has loyal supporters out there! --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

...and I'm not one of them, but I think that section has the strongest consensus support of any part of any article I've ever seen. I myself was involved in the countless discussions that lead up to it and wholeheartedly support it as is. It is an excellent compromise. Wrad (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And neither am I. The theory is a very well known "crank theory". Reporting on it is not the same as supporting it. (p.s., I'm bemused by Felsommerfeld's claim elsewhere that promoting such theories is somehow "left wing". Typically it has been criticised for being implicitly right wing, though such labels are really rather meaningless in this context). Paul B (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, also. We put a lot of discussion into arriving at this wording. Reporting the existence of the theory doesn't imply support for it. AndyJones (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but De Vere is mentioned twice! Which De Vere supporter here is getting the commission on Oxfordian book sales? Felsommerfeld (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

...especially when the section states that it is "almost universally" opposed among academics and is mostly a popular media thing. Wrad (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Never heard such poppeycock! Issues should be open for debate at any time, not locked down because it's already been discussed. Seems to me the voting was politically motivated first time round, trying to cater for the minorities. Now let me ask you a direct question. When the inclusion of this gratuity was first mooted, how many of you opposed it? And if you opposed it, why did you relent? Because you cared about minority views? What has happened to academic standards here? This is an encyclopedia not a refuge for the under-represented. So I think this should be deleted but I'll not attempt to force my way. We Brits are known for fair play. I'd just like to know who wants to stand up for their real principles and vote this nonsense off the article. Felsommerfeld (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit vastly improved the article, but as predicted, didn't stand long, because in fact we do not have any academic standards here. The paragraph you removed was added by crank theory supporters to publicize their favorite theories; sadly, we can do no better than that here at Wikipedia, because its collaborative nature means cranks achieve more input than deserved. - Nunh-huh 11:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's gratifying to know that there are reasonable people frequenting these forums. Sir, let me buy you a beer! By the way, it would help to know who's in charge here. Is it that Wrad fellow? He seems to have the most to say in its defence. Felsommerfeld (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Would I be right to assume that the renewed interest in the topic here results from the current Oxfordian putsch on Shakespeare authorship question? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• "putsch"?? Do you really believe that the government of Wikipedia was taken over by force by Oxfordians? Do you really believe that the administrators of Wikipedia (and the editors of the Shakespeare project) are that weak?Smatprt (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My aim is a simple one: to let the academics do their work here. There are too many politically motivated editors (not your good self) that are obstructing this by pandering to minorities. I say, if minorities want to be heard they should enter academia and do the work. We shouldn't give in to them just because they keep attacking these articles. Felsommerfeld (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• academics like contributor Tom Reedy? Even Tom agrees that the issue is noteworthy and that Oxford is the most popular alternative candidate. And he has said this while steadfastly believing that it's all nonsense.Smatprt (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no effective defence against attacks from "cranky" minorities: unless pandered to they disrupt and lay waste until they get their way. That was the situation here last year as the FA review was under way. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, but the attrition suffered was not worth the struggle to put it into practice—it's an example of "bad drives out good". --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I just don't want to talk about this issue anymore. It aggravates me. That, of course, doesn't mean you can't. I think that "crank theories" are a good name for them! Although... I could think of some stronger words. Wrad (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia will eventually have a sufficient base of reasonable editors who will delegate crank theories to the position of non-prominence that they deserve. Until that time, lone crank-theory advocates will have their way. I think Felsommerfeld's version is an improvement; if like-minded editors are disposed to enforce it, I will join them. With or without a beer :) - Nunh-huh 03:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this discussion is that some of you seem to be saying that no serious academics discuss this issue and/or no serious encyclopedia-quality sources acknowledge that the issue is worthy of discussion. However the sources for this section are academics such as George McMichael, Edgar M. Glenn, H.N. Gibson, Harold Love - even Wells and Schoenbaum. Most of these dismiss the theories as unworthy of support, but they all devote ink to them. And the publishers of this material include Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Manchester University Press. The standard was set long before Wikipedia was even invented. It's not like we simply make this stuff up or invent new Wiki rules to have them reported here. And I agree with Andy, Wrad and others when they state what should be obvious - that you don't have to support a subject to write about it. Smatprt (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone here is as cognizant of "Wiki rules" as you are, and perhaps more cognizant of the one about "undue weight". It's simply that we have a more realistic view of the weight that should be accorded to the "issue" in question than you do. - Nunh-huh 04:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight? 3 lines in an article that is 83 kilobytes long? Come on. Maybe, just maybe, you are a bit too prejudiced on this one issue. Is that possible? Smatprt (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No. - Nunh-huh 06:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys. Let me point out that this thread was started by a (self-admitted) sockpuppet for a vociferous Baconian that appears to have been set up either to discredit the “Stratfordian” point of view by taking an extremist position, or, as its sockpuppeteer intimated elsewhere, to merely cause chaos and discord among other editors regardless of their position on Authorship.

The small section on Authorship in this article was the result of a long and arduous process to reach a compromise all editors could live with, and several editors who are on record that they feel the whole “Authorship Question” is absurd have said that including mention of it, properly framed as it is, is at least acceptable. That some might wish that it was given a little more weight, and others that it was given a little less, is fair enough; but hardly a reason to get out the pitchfork and torches over. Agree to disagree for now, and let sleeping dogs lie?

I, again, propose we let this matter be for a while and cool off a bit (all of us, me included; there is no slight intended to anyone in that suggestion). If in a little while we still feel there is a problem with this small section (which has passed FAC, I'll remind you!) then lets bring it up while being studious to focus on the text and not the other editors. Discuss everything on the talk page first, suggest specific changes to the text with objective and reasoned rationale, and be willing to compromise. With a touch of humility and a happy helping of AGF there's no real reason why we can't discuss even this issue in a constructive way.

But let me also point out that the Shakespeare WikiProject currently has almost 600 articles within its scope, of which 269 are Stubs and 188 are Start class, that desperately need attention. We have 14 Top priority articles, of which only 2 are GA and 2 FA; and improving the remaining 12 to GA and FA would be a wonderfully productive use of everyone's time. There are a handfull of articles that have previously been nominated for GA and failed, for which we already have review comments that make them low-hanging fruit for promotion. We have yet to get the articles for even the most well known and important plays to FA standard! --Xover (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We've already agreed that Wikipedia is unable to relegate crank theories to their proper positions, and that Wikipedia is a non-academic exercise. So there's really nothing to let "cool off" or even discuss, until such time as the editing climate and editor pool change, or more rigorous standards begin to be applied. - Nunh-huh 07:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I watched this dispute from afar last year and it seemed to me that the sensible were beaten down by an organised posse of the fanatic. There is an argument that no alternative candidate should be mentioned because no noted scholar has endorsed one. But the dispute here seems to be whether an extra line should be granted to a particular candidate on the grounds of greatest popularity. If so, why isn't a line granted to Marlowe due to highest credibilty (at least he was an outstanding playwright) or to Bacon due to greatest intellect. Why is one criterion preferable to another? My personal view? I'd support its removal. But I anticipate organized resistance. ProsperoX (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh... is this Barry again? Sorry to doubt you, but you "watched this dispute from afar last year", but only registered as an editor yesterday? Right. "posse of the fanatic", "organized resistance" - we've heard this verbiage before... In any case, your statement that "no noted scholar" has endorsed one is also incorrect, but I expect you know that.Smatprt (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I registered as an editor today as well but I'm not Barry (not a friend I assume). I have a question after reading this. Why don't you compromise? The people who want to help this article by having this line included should be allowed to have it so long as the link it goes to Oxfordian theory is edited up to a good standard by the editors here (at present it's neither backed by a "notable academic" as someone said nor is it classed as a good article). Then everyone's happy. I see that the William Shakespeare article is the 47th most popular on Wikipedia (that's a lot of hits) so it makes sense that any article it cites should measure up. I DID say improved NOT attacked. Sycorax13 (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not willing to change it at all. It already was developed by compromise. Wrad (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Developed by compromise" doesn't mean "immutable". Articles always remain open to improvement. Sometimes that improvement can't happen because there are a disproportionate number of crank editors. Eventually the editor pool will improve and the changes will be made. - Nunh-huh 08:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrad is right - the section represents a compromise by all involved. (But I must sincerely doubt the coincidence that you and ProperoX both registered today, and are using slightly different takes on the same old stuff that Barry was raising most recently. Sorry, but fool me once...) Smatprt (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Prospero X and Sycorax 13 registered within twenty-four hours? In Barry's favor, he's never made it a big secret. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I oppose any change in the article. IMO any comprehensive general article about Shakespeare would have to mention the authorship controversy for the same reason the deer poaching story is included: simply because it is part of history and its existence is known by the general public. Whatever they want to do over at the Wiki authorship article is no business of mine, since fantasy is not my specialty. And I can testify that Smatprt is not a sockpuppet. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the change in the article. The issue for me is not whether or not the Shakespeare authorship controversy deserves mention but whether one particular aspect of it deserves TWO mentions. There is no logical reason why "popularity" is a stronger criterion in an academic article than "credibility" or "intellect". The line in question was bullied into the article and those who support it are accomplices in this tyrrany. There are some very good editors whose only aim is to uphold academic standards. They are justifiably angry and their concerns are being ignored. No one OWNS this article. If enough editors support the change (and I am ONE such voice) then it should be made and those who wish to control this article should follow Wiki policy on consensus. What mystifies me is why some of those who originally opposed the addition now support it. By the way, the gentleman who keeps going on about sockpuppets is trying to deflect attention away from the real issue. ProsperoX (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are these "academic standards" concerning the authorship controversy you claim these anonymous "good editors" are so eager to uphold? That all candidates get the same number of mentions?Tom Reedy (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"ProsperoX" (or Barry) - "tyrrany"? "accomplices"? Oh so dramatic, as usual. Well, to get to the heart of your recent post - obviously a consensus to change to the section is not going to happen, as the broad coalition on this talk page should show you. Nice try, but even in spite of your name calling you have failed (again). Time to drop it and move on. (By the way, the reason that the one theory is more popular is because it IS more credible and IS supported by numerous academic references. but I expect you KNOW that. Smatprt (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you'd like me to be Barry. I'm afraid I'm the wrong gender to take on the role! By the way, a little bird tells me that Xover and Smatprt have IP's located on the West coast! Very naughty! ProsperoX (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh my gosh - 2 West Coast editors! It must be a conspiracy!!! Right, Barry.Smatprt (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this discussion, but I figured I would throw my hat in. After reading everything that has already been argued, I haven't found my answer: Why does it not state somewhere in the first summary (or even have a tag eat the top of the article) that it has been doubted by many notable writers and historians that the William Shakespeare credited for these works is not the person (or possibly persons) that wrote them. I have been researching it all week and I came to Wiki to see what it said on this article and I am amused that there is barley a 3 sentence mention of it at the bottom of the article. I think that the Shakespeare authorship question page should at least be linked in the first paragraph. Chexmix53 (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the top summary. Last sentence, second paragraph. Wrad (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)