| Revision as of 16:00, 16 December 2010 editNinaGreen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users24,072 editsm →Need to discuss edits← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:01, 23 December 2024 edit undoGråbergs Gråa Sång (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers57,545 edits →Upstart Crow as an "example": ReplyTag: Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Peer review|archive=2}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=no}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history|action1=PR |
|
{{Wikiproject Shakespeare|class=b|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=02:08, 19 February 2010 |
|
{{Archive box |auto=long |bot=MiszaBot I |age=30 }} |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1 |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=344933400 |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 16 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=PR |
|
== Simplify the article! == |
|
|
|
|action2date=14:07, 5 January 2011 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Shakespeare authorship question/archive2 |
|
|
|action2result=reviewed |
|
|
|action2oldid=406052516 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAC |
|
There is too much talk and little gist in the current article. The only thing that matters is the boot-shaped country. |
|
|
|
|action3date=23:54, 3 April 2011 |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1 |
|
|
|action3result=promoted |
|
|
|action3oldid=422220858 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
1., Commoner William Shaksper of Stratford has never been to Italy. |
|
|
|
|maindate=April 23, 2011 |
|
2., The italian-themed "Shakspeare" works were written by a person who had been to Italy for a lenghty period. |
|
|
|
|maindate2=April 23, 2017 |
|
3., Game over for stratfordians! |
|
|
|
}} |
|
4., Optionally choose your favourite Oxenford or else to take the commoners place. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Shakespeare|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Literature|importance=top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Online source|year=2011 |
|
|
|section=August 2011 |
|
|
|title=Misplaced Pages's Shakespeare 'Problem' |
|
|
|org=] |
|
|
|date=August 2011 |
|
|
|url=http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/wikipedias-shakespeare-problem |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|year2=2011 |
|
This is about as much as anybody needs to know about the authorship issue and any further words are futile. Computerized textual analysis proves the royal dramas about the english kings were written by the same person who wrote the italian-themed plays, therefore W.S. remains merely an amateur theatre performer and the real bard was? (probably Oxford). ] (]) 20:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|section2=October 2011 |
|
|
|title2='Anonymous': New Hollywood Film Shows William Shakespeare as Someone Else |
|
|
|org2=] |
|
|
|date2=October 2011 |
|
|
|url2=http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/anonymous-hollywood-film-shows-william-shakespeare/story?id=14725443 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|year3=2010 |
|
:Nice and short. I like it. I will replace the current article with your concise version as soon as you explain to my satisfaction how you came to know point 2. ] | ] 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|title3=''Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?'' by James Shapiro |
|
:And indeed how you know 1. ] (]) 23:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|org3=] |
|
|
|date3=2010 |
|
|
|url3=http://books.google.com/books?id=W8KtHtT3jNYC&pg=PA216&dq=wikipedia+shakespeare+authorship+question&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f5BcUdPdGLS6yAHayYHoCg&ved=0CEsQ6wEwAw#v=onepage&q=wikipedia%20shakespeare%20authorship%20question&f=false |
|
|
|wikilink3=] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|year4=2013 |
|
== George Wilkins == |
|
|
|
|title4=''Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy'' Paul Edmundson, Stanley Wells, eds. |
|
|
|org4=] |
|
|
|date4=2013 |
|
|
|url4=https://books.google.com/books?id=DdjhN1wO6tYC |
|
|
|wikilink4=] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|year5=2019 |
|
The section on "Personal testimonies by contemporaries" includes the sentence "Inn-keeper and part-time dramatist and pamphleteer George Wilkins collaborated with Shakespeare in writing Pericles, Prince of Tyre, with Wilkins writing the first half and Shakespeare the second" |
|
|
|
|title5=Shakespeare Wrote Insightfully About Women. That Doesn’t Mean He Was One. by James Shapiro |
|
Surely this needs some qualification. At least something like "believed by some authorities to have collaborated" needs to be inserted. |
|
|
|
|org5=] |
|
In any case it is not an example of a "Personal testimony" and probably doesn't belong in this section. ] (]) 00:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|date5=2019 |
|
|
|
|
|
|url5=https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/06/shakespeare-was-not-woman/590794/ |
|
No one has defended the Wilkins section since I highlighted the problem. I am hesitant to delete as the author is obviously more knowledgeable than I am. I will give it another few days- till 10 December. ] (]) 08:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
:Check the article. The section was deleted the very day you suggested it . There is no longer any Wilkins section! However, the known personal link between Wilkins and Shakespeare plus the good evidence of collaboration is relevant, though maybe too specific to include here. ] (]) 10:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
::You are quite correct about Wilkins ,Tigerboy. And beware the term "inn-keeper" Wilkins was a plain pimp and at least once convicted in court of viciously beating one of his tricks.Some of the documents were discovered a hundred years ago by Alfred Wallace who discreetly printed them only in a publication from his local university.Leslie Hotson discovered a second document linking Shakspere (to use Will's own preferred spelling) to the skin trade and other gangland connections(Leslie Hotson"Shakespeare vs. Shallow" 1936)but Hotson chose to ignore the obvious link to the earlier Wallace discoveries.These were fully utilized by Alden Brooks in "Will Shakspere,Factotum and Agent"(1937),"Will Shakspere and the Dyer's Hand"(1943),and "The Other Side of Shakespeare"(1963) and incorporated by myself into John Michel"s "Who Wrote Shakespeare?"(1995).Diana Price independently arrived at exactly the same conclusions a couple of years later. |
|
|
|
|counter = 32 |
|
::In 2008 Stratfordian Charles Nichol published a book length documentation entitled "The Lodger",which was most enthusiastically received by the main stream press but not by David Kathman and his ever faithful Tom Reedy over at Hlas and at their definitely non-"mainstream" Shakespeare Authorship Page.They are still printing the Wilkins was an inn-keeper blarney. |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
::By the way,a considerable number of apparent Shakespeare lines show up in the Wilkins novel,"Pericles".If the appearance of Shakespearean matter there proves that Shakespeare collaborated with Wilkiins than Paul should be arguing,if he is in any way capable of consistent logical argumentation,that the novel was likewise a collaboration between Shakespeare and Wilkins. |
|
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
::I have posted this information before but Tom keeps censoring it in hopes of concealing their slight intellectual mendacity. |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive %(counter)d |
|
::Hope you get to read this before it goes. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:::Well well well. If it isn't my old buddy from out of the past. I thought that was you when I read your first comments on the Alden Brooks page, but I wasn't sure until now. I read an interesting paper of yours just yesterday about the history of Baconism in the ''Oxfordian'', I believe it was. Your essays at least have the virtue of not being boring, which is rare for anti-Stratfordian literature. |
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
:::I'll look up the Hotson paper; it sounds interesting, but Wilkins is referred to as a victualler and tavern keeper by Nicholl, see pp. 198-9. Why you find it surprising that an actor, playwright, and theatre sharer would rub shoulders with prostitutes, pimps, and gangsters is beyond me; the industry is still full to bursting with them. And just FYI, every comment and every edit on Misplaced Pages is archived and readily accessible by clicking on the "history" tab or the archive page link. ] (]) 05:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= |
|
:::Obviously the novel was a ''de facto'' collaboration between Wilkins and Shakespeare, even if Shakespeare was not personally involved in its publication. As for whether or not Wilkins was a pimp, what difference does it make to his or Shakespeare's authorship? Is there some law that says pimps can't write? ] (]) 19:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:::I had a look at Hotson. Fascinating stuff. There's nothing in there that I can see about "the skin trade". Why you seem fixated on commercial sex is something of a mystery. Hotson's evidence suggests that a dispute between the thoroughly unpleasant William Gardiner and the slightly dodgy ] got out of hand and Shakespeare got caught up in it. Big deal. ] (]) 20:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Graph:PageViews}} |
|
:: Thanks for drawing my attention to the change.] (]) 03:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
Can some good soul here point non-initiated novices on where to look for/(find?) the "Hotson paper" being alluded to above? Thanks. ]] 00:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's called ''Shakespeare versus Shallow''. It was published as a book, and can be found in several libraries. It can also be read online in whole or in part. . There is a summary of the argument on the ] page. ] (]) 01:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I got the book today from the remote stacks and have been reading it. So where's the gangland connection? I haven't found it yet. ] (]) 04:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's a bit of a mystery. I guess you promote Gardiner and his hapless stepson Wayte to the status of a mafia don and his henchman. With a bit of imagination Lee and Soer can become gum-chewing gangster's molls, on the basis of zero evidence. ] (]) 12:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
Thank you very much! ]] 02:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Missing sentence == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the second paragraph of ] part of a sentence is missing. It's between Sir Toby Matthew and Jesuit Southwell; a citaiton/footnote seems also to be damaged. ] (]) 17:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:That was introduced by one of Tom's edits. I've tried to give what I think was the intended sense and cited the Feil article, which first argued that Matthew was referring to Thomas Southwell. ] (]) 20:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Looking good == |
|
|
|
|
|
As much as I abhor the edit warring and the incivility which has gone before, I must say... the article actually looks pretty good now! --] (]) 03:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, it's amazing what can be done to a page when edit warring stops and peace reigns for the first time since its creation! |
|
|
:Thanks for the kind words. If you have the time, your input would be appreciated at the . |
|
|
:Cheers GG. ] (]) 13:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Need to discuss edits == |
|
== "Theories"? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A theory is a hypothesis that is supported by evidence. Are these hypotheses supported by enough evidence to be called theories? ] (]) 05:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
Nina, I welcome any edits or suggestions that tighten up the accuracy of this article, but you should discuss edits to this page, since almost every change is subject to challenge on this type of page. As per the Wadsworth cite, a vast conspiracy certainly falls under the category of "some type of conspiracy", and neither does he say all conspiracies are such. Also please double check your page numbers; all cites have to be accurate so that reviewers can check them easily. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Grassynoel's hypotheses (that "a theory is a hypothesis", and that such a theory/hypothesis is "supported by evidence") assume a particular definition of "theory" — one that requires evidence. There are other definitions that may be a better fit for this article. For example, according to the Misplaced Pages article ] "A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon." And according to the article ] "A theory is a rational type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking." Also, since Grassynoel's hypothesis ("A theory is a hypothesis that is supported by evidence.") doesn’t mention "enough evidence", it can't be tested against Grassynoel's question: "is there enough?" If Grassynoels’s hypothesis were "A theory is a hypothesis that is supported by ''enough'' evidence" — then "enough" would need to be defined. ] (]) 15:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
One item I wish you would help with is the summary of the Oxford case. It is around 750 words right now, which is really about 50 words too much. Anything you could do to condense it further and weed out any inaccuracies would be appreciated, but it has to be a description of the case, not an argument for it. ] (]) 02:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::A hypothesis must also be supported by evidence Although its proposition may not, or cannot provide definitive proof, the possibility of the existence of such a proof ought not to be capable of being rendered impossible with counter-evidence. Such counter evidence should be tangible or demonstrable in a non-hypothetical manner, not by thought experiments. It may not be a collection of suppositions, inferences and guesswork. None of the Shakespeare authorship candidates have any tangible evidence supporting them and without such evidence cannot escape being branded "fringe". ] (]) 13:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Not only is the Shakespeare truther cult not supported by enough evidence to call their nonsense a legitimate theory, it is, in fact, not supported by ANY evidence whatsoever. Neither material nor circumstantial. It's an argument founded solely on baseless speculation and ahistorical presumption. ] (]) 17:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Reconsideration of Recent Edits == |
|
:Nina I asked you to please discuss any changes on the talk page. Ogburn is not the only anti-Start who makes that argument. This article is a tertiary source, and Ogburn is a primary source as far as this article is concerned, so the statements pertaining to the SAQ arguments have to be cited from secondary sources. You might want to take a look at how this article looked a year ago; that's what we don't want. We also don't want any edit warring, so please discuss your edits when they might be subject to challenge. ] (]) 03:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::You cannot delete sources, leave only one, and then write "according to ". The statements you attribute to Shapiro are cited in Schoenbaum and other sources. ] (]) 04:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
I have restored another recent edit by ], after discussion on our talk pages. Moving further discussion here, in case others have comments on these, whether in agreement or disagreement. I will likely make one or more changes later. --] (]) 02:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Your reverts of the recent changes were correct. For example, changing "interpretations of literature are unreliable" to "interpretation of literature are unreliable" (omitting "s" but keeping "are") is wrong. Further, it is not ''one'' interpretation but multiple, so the plural is correct. Likewise, inserting "a" to make "but a highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters" is wrong when the whole sentence is read. It is not easy to find grammatical errors in a featured article. ] (]) 02:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for your perspective, Johnuniq. There are a few cases where I think ]'s changes do hold up. Otherwise, yes, this is a very seasoned and well-overseen piece of writing, and, after all these years of scrutiny by thousands of pairs of eyes, it would be odd that so much of a grammatical nature should still need changing. --] (]) 12:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ''Upstart Crow'' as an "example" == |
|
Standards of Evidence |
|
|
Reedy writes: "By contrast, academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely on the documentary evidence in the form of title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies, all of which converge to confirm William Shakespeare's authorship." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That seems a little misleading to me, as what UC does is to satirise Mark Rylance as a 'just asking questions' Shaks-spar skeptic. But our text isn't entirely clear what it's being cited as an example ''of''. Nor have I seen the original source. ] (]) 16:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
This is false, as there is no documentary evidence whatever that William Shakspeear of Stratford wrote anything at all. In fact, no literary manuscripts in his hand exist. Bibliographic evidence - such as title page attributions - does not constitute documentary evidence. Modern stylometric studies are also not documentary evidence, but analyses of bibliographic materials (the printed plays and poems) conducted by scholars. Further, there is no "testimony" by Shakespeare's contemporaries in legal documents that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays, poems and sonnets--there is the "testimony" of legal records of a William Shakespeare as an actor and theater investor-owner, but not playwright. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Late answer, but it was a recurring plot-point, see for example . ] (]) 23:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:There are in fact title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him—all which are classified as documentary evidence by historians. ] (]) 09:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Redirection? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should Anti-Stratfordians redirect here? It doesn’t say that it does. ] (]) 18:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Tom, I'm happy to discuss specific edits, but it's a lengthy and time-consuming process, and what seems to be needed, according to IronHand's comments on the Peer Review page is an overhaul of the entire article to make it more neutral: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It looks like it currently does redirect here. ] (]) 20:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::Comments from Ironhand41 This article is not written from a neutral point of view and therefore is not ready for peer review. First, it is biased rhetoric. For example, the authors of the article go to some length to make those who don't accept the traditional attribution look odd and quirky by using negative adjectives to describe them. Second, the article casts the dispute as between academics and non academics. But there are a few academics who agree with the doubters and their number is growing. Additionally, there is a significant list of non academic intellectuals who have looked into the controversy and decided that the academics have it all wrong. The "us-versus-them" framework of the article as presently written creates a false dichotomy. Good arguments don't rely on appeals to authority and the claim that scholars and academics are neutral is an insult to anyone who has attended a university. Third, there are those of us who don't have a large stake in the authorship controversy, but whose interest and participation has increased precisely because of the underhanded ways a few academics and traditionalists have attempted to skew the argument in their favor. It would seem that waving a hand and declaring there is no doubt about who wrote the Canon doesn’t work well anymore. This probably explains Plan B; the effort to dress the skeptics’ arguments in a Stratfordian pinafore and claim with a straight face that it represents a neutral point of view. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Should our text mention that a syndicate was behind the alleged authorship of the Nancy Drew stories by Carolyn Deane? == |
|
:::I think you might be surprised at the extent to which you and I agree on many of the major issues concerning the authorship question. For example, for years I've been perhaps THE strongest opponent of the Prince Tudor theory and any of its variations because of the lack of historical evidence for it. I therefore find it odd that the SAQ article (and Shapiro's book) give the Prince Tudor theory such prominence without citing Christopher Paul's article which refutes it on the historical evidence (Shapiro cites Paul's article on p. 313 ('For an Oxfordian critique of the theory etc.'), but doesn't even mention evidence against the Prince Tudor theory in the text of his book). If anything will eventually overwhelm the Stratfordian position on the authorship, it's acceptance by the general public of the Prince Tudor theory when Roland Emmerich's film Anonymous is released next year. Hardy Cook realized this, and asked on his Shaksper list for suggestions for strategies which academics could use when the film is released. In the interest of neutrality, the SAQ article should mention the evidence against the PT theory, not merely the claims for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raising a question from a person banned from editing Misplaced Pages text. ] (]) 22:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::But on a more general note, it seems to me that the SAQ article doesn't come to grips in a neutral way with the real issue, which is the fact that the reason the controversy has existed for so long, and simply won't go away, is that although the evidence in historical documents for Shakespeare of Stratford's career as an actor and theatre shareholder is strong (a strength in the Stratfordian position which Shapiro barely mentions), the historical documents for Shakespeare of Stratford as the author of plays and poems is much weaker, and subject to endless argument because when Stratfordians argue that a particular documents (such as an entry in the Stationers' Register) refers to Shakespeare of Stratford the author of plays and poems, anti-Stratfordians argue that it refers to the pen-name. The SAQ article doesn't really focus on these key points. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Not the text in ''this'' article. ] (]) 23:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::On another more general note, it seems to me that the SAQ article is living in the past. I haven't read Wadsworth, but however valuable his book might have been in 1958, it's not going to be read much today by anyone. Even Schoenbaum is pretty outdated. Shapiro now holds the field, and although his defense of the Stratfordian position is strangely weak, he provides a good overview of the authorship controversy.] (]) 15:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
A theory is a hypothesis that is supported by evidence. Are these hypotheses supported by enough evidence to be called theories? Grassynoel (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
That seems a little misleading to me, as what UC does is to satirise Mark Rylance as a 'just asking questions' Shaks-spar skeptic. But our text isn't entirely clear what it's being cited as an example of. Nor have I seen the original source. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
