Talk:William Shakespeare/Authorship Archive

message: It is a lower middle class hobby horse which reconciles a fearful respect for Culture with an underlying destructive urge. It is directly comparable to Holocaust denial and Creationism. 
Wack jobs with authoritarian personality disorders are pretty much the only subscribers to classist theories of aristocratic authorship.
*whoever posted the above attack should be ashamed.   You violate wiki rules and then have the gall to diagnose the various "wack jobs". Comparisons to Holocaust denial???? Oh, Grow up!Smatprt 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smatprt, I'd suggest not feeding anonymous trolls. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Authorship Question is NOT "under debate" by serious Shakespeare scholars

message: In the authorship speculation section, shouldn't a new paragraph start when it says "Christopher Marlowe" ? It seems to me like the two theories shouldn't be lumped together like that, plus it sounds abrupt. Coppelia 03:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Authorship section

message: There appears to be debate over the Authorship section. The current section (as seen in Smatprt's edits at ) is essentially the consensus version we've had for a number of months (with the exception of a statement that Smatprt inserted with the support of myself and other editors, which says that "it is well accepted in academic circles that Shakespeare's plays were written by William Shakespeare and not another author."). However, since two editors have questioned having this much info on the authorship debate, we should see if consensus exists to keep the section as is or change it. The change would be to Nunh-huh's version at .
Personally, I believe we should keep the original version. While I don't believe in these theories, they do have some academic support and should be mentioned here.--Alabamaboy 14:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I much prefer the shorter version. I admit that's partly due to an aversion to "alternative author" theories; I think too much space gives too much credibility to these ideas in what is the main Shakespeare article. But I also think that the details are covered in the existing alternative author article, which even has its own sub-articles on Oxford and Bacon. Paul B 15:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the shorter version also, in an article of this length. WP:NPOV requires that we don't give undue weight to fringe theories. All of this material is covered in considerable detail, just one click away. AndyJones 17:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no "academic support", which is why the section is so notably devoid of any citations evidencing it. You appear to have confused "self-deluded nut jobs" with "academics". The short version is the only one which does not privilege this fringe POV thorough undue emphasis, and therefore the only one consistent with our NPOV policy, and the only one which does not mislead the reader by suggesting that this is in any sense disputed by anyone they need take seriously.  - Nunh-huh 19:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, there's not academic support, and you have evinced no references to academic journals that might indicate that there is. This is not about "sides", it's about not misrepresenting facts by suggesting they are disputed by someone significant. They aren't, and it's wrong and misleading for our article to suggest they are. "Self-deluded nut jobs" is an apt description of those who initially "found" the "codes" that "prove" that Shakespeare "wasn't" the author, and an apology is neither necessary or forthcoming. - Nunh-huh 23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: First we should discount Nunh-huh's behaviour, and therefore his opinion. Uhhhhh. No. that's not how things work. So if somebody came by here and said that only nutjobs believe Shakespeare really wrote his plays then we should discount his opinion just because he said something other people didn't think was polite? So one bad comment means nothing anybody says has any merit, and anyone agrees with him must also be ignored? Nonsense. And on top of that, just because he has strong opinions it doesn't mean the edits he is proposing end up slanting the article. He's not suggesting the article say that all those people are nutjobs, and nobody else is either.   DreamGuy 01:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's probably right next to the section where it condones misrepresenting fellow editors' statements. - Nunh-huh 00:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S.S. Unless someone comes up with some names of those "number of reputable scholars", the NPOV page will have to come up with a better example. - Nunh-huh 00:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You're the only one here commenting on a fellow editor. - Nunh-huh 01:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we should keep this discussion open for a few more days. At this point, though, consensus seems to be to go with the short version. I'm going to insert that version for now. If consensus changes, we can revert to the original version. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be hesitant to bring over someone's comments to this discussion without that editor doing it himself. The discussions on the two article's talk pages differ. This discussion is about whether or not to include more or less info on this subject in the main article. The other discussion is about NPOV and other concerns with the authorship article. --Alabamaboy 01:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That comment doesn't apply here anyway... How on earth can anyone be suggesting that having a whole big article on the topic, and apparently with other offshoot articles (unless those got redirected at some point), is "ignoring the opinions"? Ignoring them would be erasing the article completely and not mentioning at all. Ignoring them would be to have an article saying that they are nutjobs. Pointing out what they say, but included much-needed context that it is no way a widely accepted opinion by Shakespeare scholars is NOT ignoring them. Sheesh. DreamGuy 01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrad has already quite clearly stated (on this very page) that he favors the short version. Let's let him speak for himself instead of applying his comments on one subject to another entirely.  - Nunh-huh 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you feel that strongly about it, we can leave the discussion open for a few more days. Is everyone ok with that? --Alabamaboy 01:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Nunh-huh is right: the Anti-Strafordian nonsense is given undue weight. The subject already has separate pages, and we shouldn't muddle the general reader with poorly supported conspiracies. RedRabbit1983 02:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone inclined to take the NYT story seriously needs to check out the thread "Are you now or have you ever been..." at Shaksper. AndyJones 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It shpuld be noted that the "Dr. Roger Strittmater" referred to in Smatprt's comment is not an established academic but an ideologically committed Oxfordian who signed up for a PhD with the express intention of proving that the so-called "Oxford's bible" was evidence of links to Shakespeare. The PhD consists of lists of verbal connections and commentaries. Its acceptance was quite controversial at the the time. Professor Daniel Wright is rather more important. The circumstances and content of the NYT questionnaire are so obscure that its findings are vitually unintelligable.Paul B 09:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a largely meaningless list, most of whom are not specialists in the field. Being an academic in 'Management Studies', 'Biology' or any other non-Elizabethan field of research has no relevance to expertise in Shakespeare studies, and some of these titles are clearly virtually meaningless. A "visiting assistant professor" is basically someone who does a few part time lectures now and again. What is a "clinical associate professor"? Clinical? It seems to be a job title used in Nursing  and yet this person is listed as a literature professional. Paul B 07:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't knw why he has the weird title of "Clinical associate professor" but he does appear to teach English, but is clearly a bit of an oddball judging by his webpages  Paul B 07:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We have to accept that there is a hierarchy of experise here. The real experts are specialists in Elizabethan history and literature. Generic Eng Lit lecturers are of less worth as supporters, and well also have to take into account their positions in the scholarly hierarchy (job titles and status of institution). Excluding all the non-Eng Lit people, whose qualifications are irrelevant, we have a list of 11 names, one of which appears to be the same person mentioned twice (Dr. Joseph E Riehl, Ph.D.; Joe Riehl, Ph.D.). Of course in reality - if you include anyone who lectures anywhere ("community colleges" etc) and even part time lecturers - there must be hundreds of thousands of people in the English-speaking world who could be eligable for a list such as this. How many of these are specialists in the Elizabethan period? Patrick Buckridge appears, according to his CV to be a specialist in Australian literature . He appears to have published one essay of Marsden. Michael Delahoyde appears to be a professional maverick. Ren Drya works in a community college and does not appear to be Renaissance specialist, but rather a drama teacher. Warren T Hope is a part time lecturer at "The University of Sciences", which does not suggest a strong Eng Lit relevance. Raymond Thom Hunter has no affiliation, and I can find no evidence of any publications (that may just be because of the way the name is written). William Leahy is a genuine writer on Renaissance topics . His website says he is "very interested in projects dealing with Shakespeare and Authorship in some way", which does not make his position very clear. Joseph E Riehl appears to specialise in the 19th century writer Charles Lamb. So apart from Wright, there appears to be only one person on this list who can be said to be specialist in the area, and that is Leahy, whose own position remains unclear. Elsewhere he describes himself as an "agnostic". Paul B 11:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the debate will never end.  But more on the page itself.  My feeling is that this short version will inevitably re-swell in size after some time.  Give them some meat and satisfy them at least. Mandel 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you are not making sense. The portrait is a work of art innit? The arguments about the picture are purely art historical, but art historians are not experts on Shakespeare authorship. The points I am making about the picture are simply that art historians don't see anthing strange about it, not that they use it to prove Shakespeare was Shakespeare. Experts on Shakespeare and the law would be people who have published in peer reviewed journals on the subject, presumably they would specialise in Tudor/Jacobean law. Again, though, that's not in itself an authorship issue. Paul B 22:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, this conversation is taking place on the talk page of the article concerned, and on this page only. The only question to be addressed is whether the short or long version is to be preferred, and it seems the short one (the one inserted at least once by Alabamaboy, though later removed by Smatprt) is the one which most—indeed, nearly all—prefer. - Nunh-huh 17:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nunh-huh is correct. As I've said before, this discussion is only about whether the long or short section on authorship questions is included in this main article. This discussion is totally separate from the other discussions on other pages. I agree that sufficient time has passed for consensus on this issue, which is to go with the short version here.--Alabamaboy 23:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh dear, I thought we were there: Nunh-huh inserts a short, well-balanced and nicely readable version, seemingly in accord with the consensus. It didn't last the morning (sorry, I'm using UTC). Please don't start this all again! --Old Moonraker 08:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Your change restored links previously deleted. The place for detailed discussion about the popular "debate" about Shakespeare's authorship is in the subarticles, not here. - Nunh-huh 14:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on authorship section 

message: Thanks for assuming bad faith in your edit summary, Smatprt. Are you really going to put up a separate fight to retain the ugly and illogical use of  "term" on each of the involved pages? After there was 100% support for my rewrite at Shakespearean authorship question,, I was hoping you'd have the grace to let it go when I inserted the same changes here.  May I ask what exactly it is you suspect me of? My changes at  Shakespearean authorship question were intended as neutral stylistic improvements; everybody else thought that's what they were; but you keep implying I have some evil agenda (and therefore keep reverting me). What is that agenda, exactly?  Can't we try to assume that we're all trying to improve William Shakespeare and it's subarticles?  Bishonen | talk 15:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it bothers me? Well, yeah. I'm kind of disappointed to encounter this kind of behaviour at a page like this. Try reading what you revert before going into automatic mode. Since you've violated the WP:3RR despite being warned on your own Talk, I expect you'll get some time off to reconsider your editing practices.  Bishonen | talk 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Your sarcasm is charming. I "avoid" the question because it's nothing to do with me. Why don't you check the history to see who actually removed the Oxfordian theory? Since you make such a point of it, I expect they'd tell you why, if asked directly and in person. Bishonen | talk 04:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly what part of "don't revert five times" don't you understand? - Nunh-huh 18:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Bad assumption. There's no reason to discuss the merits of any particular "alternative" theory in this article. And once again, discussions on other articles have no bearing here. - Nunh-huh 04:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Do try to focus on improving the article rather than trying to score debating points. This article is not the place to discuss the merits of the various "authorship" theories, and you seem to be the only one who wants the "Oxfordian" link. And stop placing more than one link to the authorship manual in the article. It gets one link, not multiple links, per the manual of style. - Nunh-huh 06:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Try to be civil. God is not an elected position. The place to discuss the various "authorship" theories is in the article on them, which is linked to here. And false accusations and hyperbole about the "strength" of Looney should guide those who will assess your ability to weigh evidence in a neutral way. - Nunh-huh 23:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Smatprt, do you think you could retain a modicum of relevance to debates on actual pages in your responses. The pun is not and  -I think - never has been referred to on this page. It is referred to on the Authorship page, so don't add comments here about it here. And the alleged "POV deletions" I am supposed to have made here have nothing whatever to do with me. Your comment is rather rich since you have just deleted material on the Authorship page simply because it contradicts your POV. It is not, BTW, presumptuous. You know it because you have already been informed of the fact in the past. Paul B 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "What was cleverly inserted instead"

message: Nunh-huh is completely misquoting the MOS, saying it prohibits the same link appearing more than once in an article.  His recent edit is, in fact, against the MOS that recommends linking in opening paragraphs, as well as elsewhere in the article - just not in the same line or paragraph. Specifically:
"These links should be included where it is most likely that a reader would want to follow them elsewhere; for example, in article introductions, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions. Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page.
and:
"A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking which follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen.
Misquoting the MOS to conduct continued pOV harrassment is surely unacceptable. Eventually some neutral editors are going to become aware of these antics. Smatprt 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't misquoted; rather, you have misinterpreted. The MOS doesn't mean all links need to be in the introduction: that's ridiculous. The place the reader is MOST LIKELY to look for a link to the authorship "question" is in the section devoted to that question, and not in the introduction. - Nunh-huh 01:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine, wait and see if others agree with your analogy. - Nunh-huh 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet you don't wait. - Nunh-huh 03:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Addressing the portion of your comments I can make sense of: Not before you make an edit. Before you revert one. Yes, you've been recruiting, and it doesn't alter the fact that you are attempting to falsely depict a fringe view as more mainstream than it is. And lighten up on the labeling. - Nunh-huh 04:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Labelling: Oxfordian, Stratfordian. Do as you wish, then, and you will see what progress you make. - Nunh-huh 05:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal links

message: The words "particulary in the Oxfordian theory" were deleted, eliminating Oxfords position as frontrunner among the anti-strats, a point that has been acknowledged on other pages, and in the last major consensus, for some time now.  I'd like to see where we stand on this, since it was never addressed in the original discussion. Can the editors of this page please explain this deletion and if there was consensus on this, please show where?Smatprt 05:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add this, you should first find a citation for it in a reliable source. Agreement between Wikipedians at another article is not a reliable source. And then we will discuss where this "valuable" information belongs; I believe you will find that mostly everyone but you feels the authorship article is the place for it, not here. - Nunh-huh 05:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please explain the following edit