Talk:Shakespeare authorship/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Old comments

Sorry, pls delete if necessary. Thought it might be relevant to denialism, etc. My apologies. JailersDaughter

“”So while a crackpot theory about 16th century playwrights can seem irrelevant, literature and history teachers should keep in mind that addressing the noncontroversy in the classroom can help students to better understand and challenge intelligent design and denialist pseudohistories

—original author

- don't think that justifies this article's existence - by that criterion almost any subject of dispute could be used as exemplars of deception.   ^Contribs_Talk 16:32, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Agree, but in the meantime, if the article is to exist, it should include both sides of the argument. After all, the "science" used to justify the historical attribution is exceptionally weak. Perhaps a real article should examine how tenuous the historical attribution to the Stratford lad actually is. Mythbuster 16:46, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Err... who the F**k cares?   ^Contribs_Talk 16:48, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

{{delete}}  ^Contribs_Talk 16:48, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Well... since your are spending your time here, it looks like you care! Walt whitman cared. Mark Twain cared. Freud cared. But who the heck were they and what did they ever do???!!!??Mythbuster 16:54, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Appeal to authority? :-) I just think it wastes time & energy.   ^Contribs_Talk 16:57, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Then why are you spending your valuable time here? (Don't get me wrong - I think the article is crap, but at least now it's full of crap instead of just crappy! 75.144.246.14 00:21, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

deletion of material

I have reverted to a version that includes most of the material that has been added to this article. The material that was deleted was done so without explanation and without summary. I have no idea why.Mythbuster 02:42, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

I have rebuilt, as you know (and with your help), most of the good stuff that was here that was deleted for no clear reason by Lyra. It was tedious digging through the diffs, too! Hopefully a little streamlining and some more copyediting will make this into a decent article. By the way, what all that crap about ID, and how does it relate to this topic? ħuman 01:49, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree - all that stuff about ID is entirely off topic. I'm not sure where it came from but once there, I felt it needed it need the added material to show that it doesn't apply. I'd have no objection to seeing it all removed.Mythbuster 00:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, that ID stuff is weird. It just confuses the topic at hand and the arguments on each side. Let's see if any of them have substance or use, and if not, clean up that lead section. ħuman 00:46, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Deletion warning

As this has, as far as I can see, NOTHING to do with the site's mission and is being used to push some weird agenda, I intend to delete it in 5 hours unless someone comes up with a GOOD reason not to.   ^Contribs_Talk 06:34, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Deleted

this talk page will be deleted in 24 hours   ^Contribs_Talk 11:41, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

We will not submit to your demands! We don't negotiate with terrorists! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Sleepy Jack the fire drill} 11:51, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

If you view the first ever version, it actually had some good mission-oriented stuff. Don't we do pseudohistory and historical revisionism? Lyra § talk 12:09, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

I restored it and adjusted it to fit in the mission. If the actual premise afflicts you then please say why. Goatspeed! Lyra § talk 12:36, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Why?

What the ***** relevance has it to us?   ^Contribs_Talk 12:38, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

I say again, don't we do conspiracy theories, historical revisionism, etc? Lyra § talk 12:40, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

(ec) wrote that before reading your comments above - sorry   ^Contribs_Talk 12:43, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

OK Lyra § talk 12:43, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

From the home page: "We welcome contributors,and we encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in a constructive dialogue." I disagree with the thrust of this article. Having studied the subject, there is cause to doubt the historical attribution put forth by "Stratfordian" defenders. Not based on snobbery, which is a typical accusation, but on lack of scientific evidence. I am attempting to fill out this article to reflect this. If I read the dictate on the home page correctly, I don't see what the problem is. Mythbuster 02:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Lyra - Please be careful about mass reverts. In reverting multiple edits, some broken link and reference edits were also reverted. Thanks Mythbuster 16:46, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

I am put in the unenviable position of disagreeing with both the article as it stands now, and with its critic here just above. On the one hand, there is as a matter of principle always cause to doubt any historical theory, no matter how well-established it may appear to be. While it is unlikely to be true, the reasoning behind the 'non-Shakespearean' theory is not unreasonable in itself, dismissing it as simply a "crackpot theory" and "denialist" seems more than a little unacademic, and definitely not a proper way of arguing against it, or any other theory (barring the truly outlandish ones like New Chronology or similar stuff).

That said, on the other hand, one should also realize that the evidence put forward by the 'doubters' is extremely questionable, and that very few, if any, mainstream academics actually support the theory. Also, it is meaningless to talk about "scientific evidence" in this context - history is a humanistic academic field, not a scientific one, and the methods involved are completely different. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 17:01, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough - and I agree with AKjeldsen on the basic thrust of this addition. Calling it "crap" or "crackpot" is simply name-calling for the sake of name-calling. More academics see the merit of the issue every day, and the subject is now being taught at more than once "place of higher learning". The issue has been written up in numerous peer-reviewed publications and has gained adherents ranging from college professors to scientists to theatre practitioners of every stripe. Some would even say that in the last 2 decades, a fundamental shift has taken place regarding acceptance of the issue. Mythbuster 21:53, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

I support deleting this article. The Shakespeare authorship issue should be regarded as legitimate for all of the reasons stated in the "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare," available to read, sign and download at [1]. The declaration gives a well-reasoned, moderately-written presentation of the arguments and evidence supporting the non-Stratfordian position. It lists twenty prominent authorship doubters of the past, including such luminaries as Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, Ralph Waldo Emerson, William and Henry James, Sigmund Freud, Orson Welles, Charlie Chaplin, Sir John Gielgud, Sir Tyrone Guthrie, John Galsworthy, Mortimer J. Adler (editor of the Great Books), Paul H. Nitze (co-founder of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies), and Supreme Court Justices Harry Blackmun and Lewis F. Powell, Jr. John Paul Stevens is also in their camp. The point of the list is not to argue from authority, but, rather, to counter false allegations by the orthodox that all doubters are irrational, deluded "conspiracy theorist." It is they who seek to suppress the issue by arguing from authority.

The Declaration describes the major reasons why most orthodox scholars have long accepted the traditional attribution of the works to the Stratford man (similar name on the works, First Folio testimony, Stratford monument), but explains why doubters find them inconclusive. It then presents detailed evidence and arguments for doubting the traditional attribution. These include: (1) not so much as a letter written in his hand, (2) his six alleged signatures, all poorly executed, each spelled differently suggest an illiterate, (3) his detailed will lacks anything Shakespearean, or any indication of a literary career, but is entirely consistent with a business and theatre career, (4) the absence of any evidence of education, (5) the illiteracy of his parents and daughters, (6) the absence of developmental experiences associated with literary genius, which has led academic experts on genius to reject him,(7) the contrast between his known background and the vast knowledge displayed in the works, which orthodox scholars cannot explain, (8) the fact that no book he owned, or that is known to have been in his possession, has ever been found, (9) the complete absence of evidence of payment for writing, or of patronage, or association with the nobility, (10) the absence of any commendatory verse from him to any fellow writer, or from any fellow writer to him prior to the First Foliio, seven years after he died, (11) the absence of any commentary on Shakespeare's works from anyone claiming to have known him, or identifying him as the Stratford man, (12) his elusiveness, i.e, the lack of evidence that he was ever a prominent public figure, or that Elizabeth I or James I ever spoke or wrote his name (much less ever met him!), and the absence of any poem by him eulogizing Elizabeth upon her death, (13)records of business activities in Stratford early in the reign of James I, while his acting company performed several of "his" plays at court, (14) the seventy extant documents that relate to him, all of which are non-literary, (15), his uniqueness among writers of his time in lacking evidence of a writing career (see "Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography"), (16) the absence of evidence anyone in Stratford ever thought he was a writer, or that he ever put on a play in Stratford, (17) people who clearly knew him seeming not to associate him with the author, (18) lack of any mention of the death of the author, Shakespeare, in 1616, even by his fellow actors, remembered in his will, or anyone else until seven years later, (19) his detailed knowledge of Italy, the setting of half the non-history plays, despite never being there, (20) lack of any mention in the Sonnets of the death of his 9-year-old son, (21) he never mentioned Stratford, or wrote a play that seemed to reflect his own life experiences, (22) virtually all the plays are set among the upper classes, seemingly written from their point of view. Finally, it quotes two famous orthodox scholars, historians Sam Schoenbaum and Hugh Trevor-Roper, expressing their frustration at the lack of evidence connecting the life of the Stratford man to the works.

This Declaration has now been signed by over 1,300 people, including over 230 current or former college or university faculty members. Most notably, Dean Keith Simonton, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Psychology at UC Davis, winner of the Francis Galton Prize for lifetime achievement in the study of creativity, and widely regarded as the world's leading expert in creativity and genius, sits on the Academic Advisory Board of the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition (SAC), which issued the Declaration. Not only did he sign it, he was a co-author. This man is a scientist, par excellence.

Further, the New York Times conducted a survey of Shakespeare professors at a random sample of U.S. colleges and universities in April 2007, and found that 17% had doubts about Shakespeare! One would not find 17% (or 1%) of biology professors expressing doubt about evolution vs. intelligent design. So the Shakespeare authorship controversy does not belong in the category of pseudoscience/history.

Now, let's briefly consider another possibility. It has been noted that the case for the traditional attribution to the Stratford man relies to an extraordinary degree to one piece of evidence -- the prefatory material in the First Folio, published seven years after the death of Mr. Shakspere, and pointing to him for the first time as the author. Challenged in a debate to specify what one could point to in the works to argue that Mr. Shakspere had written them if the First Folio didn't exist, the reply was: "What a curious question!" He could not tie the alleged author to his alleged works! We have seen such faith in the truth of a single text, to the exclusion of other kinds of evidence, before. In the case of total reliance on the Bible, we refer to it as "Christian fundamentalism." What we have in the case of the authorship controversy is what I call "First Folio fundamentalism." Stratfordianism -- the view that the Stratford man wrote the works -- is, in fact, a quasi-religious cult. If the authorship issue is to be addressed at all on this site, it should be in these terms. \

Thanks very much. I apologize for the length of this posting.

Schoenbaum 16:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)Schoenbaum

I want to reiterate that this article should be deleted, for the following additional reasons:

1. It is incorrect to characterize the authorship controversy as "pseudohistory" just because there is a disagreement over a question of historical fact, and one side happens to be in the majority. The anti-Stratfordian position is based on evidence, not ideology, despite what detractors claim. For example, see the "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt" at [2]

2. It is inaccurate, and unfair, to attribute the authorship controversy to "conspiracy theorists." It is the historical facts that have led so many highly credible people to doubt the traditional attribution of the works to the Stratford man, not some psychological trait of the doubters. If the controversy were due to a psychological trait, why are there no doubts about other great writers? There is only one authorship controversy. How is it that these alleged irrational, incompetent "conspiracy theorists" are able to focus so clearly just on this one author, and no other? It makes no sense. If there were no such thing as a genuine conspiracy, why does the word "conspiracy" exist? Sometimes conspiracies are real. One can't just rule them out a priori; it's a question of evidence. It has been said that "the one great theme running throughout Shakespeare's plays is the difference between appearance and reality, and the difficulty of knowing which is which. The plays themselves are full of conspiracies; no play is without one. Many have multiple conspiracies. If Shakespeare believed in conspiracies, and portrayed them repeatedly in his plays, why should we be so credulous? Those who accuse authorship doubters of being "conspiracy theorists" are engaging in smear tactics.

3. The author of this article says Stratfordians are "those who support the historical attribution." Using "historical" begs the question of whether the traditional attribution is historically correct. This sentence should define Stratfordian as "those who support the traditional attrbution."

4. There is no "resemblance between arguments put forth by 'anti-Stratfordians' and proponents of intelligent design." Arguments for ID have repeatedly been shown to be empirically false, and have no support among scientists. Arguments of non-Stratfordians are clearly empirically-based, and have a great deal of support among scholars -- especially those in empirically-based fields like history, psychology and anthropology. But even many English professors have doubts about the Stratford man.

5. The claim that the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare "requests that schools 'teach the controversy'" is false. No such phrase appears in the Declaration. ID advocates try to mandate that ID be taught in biology classes against the will of biologists. The Declaration only states that the authorship issue should be regarded as "a legitimate issue for research and publication, and an appropriate topic for instruction and discussion in classrooms." There is no mandate that teachers be required to teach anything to students against their will. The aim is merely to remove the stigma so teachers and students are free to study it if they wish. Even ID opponents have no problem with teaching about it outside of biology classes. Stratfordians would ban discussion of the authorship issue throughout academia. They seek to suppress it totally.

6. The proposal that "literature and history teachers should . . . (address) the issue in the classroom (to) help students better understand and challenge both intelligent design and denialism." is presumptuous. It assumes the authorship issue should be regarded, and taught, in the same light as "intelligent design" and "denialism." For all of the reasons I have stated, this is unwarranted. The authorship issue should be treated on its own merits, and not taught as if it were illegitimate.

For all of these reasons, it should be clear that the author of this article has an unwarranted ideological bias against the Shakespeare authorship issue, and is incapable of writing objectively. His thinking is characterized by logical errors, especially question begging and circular reasoning. I therefore reiterate my support for deleting this article. The Wikipedia article on the authorship issue is more than sufficient. There is no need for another article on the subject on RationalWiki. Schoenbaum 15:51, 12 June 2008 (EDT) Schoenbaum

Not that this is something I care much about, but I note that out of the 22 Declaration arguments noted above, no less than 14 are based on an 'absence' or 'lack of evidence'. I assume that you are not unaware of the considerable problems with arguing e silentio? --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 16:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Schoenbaum, if you are right (I don't know enough about the subject to really hazard an opinion), wouldn't it make more sense to rewrite the article to take those things into account, rather than just deleting it? If the theory is undeservingly labeled as pseudohistory, mightn't it be "on mission" to elucidate why it isn't? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Sleepy Jack the fire drill} 16:22, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

AKjeldsen and Oldersig, please tell me who has the burden of proof on this website? The article in question presents not one piece of factual evidence to support its position. Rather, it makes a series of unsubstantiated allegations that anyone who questions this established orthodoxy is crazy. In other words, this forum is being exploited by reactionary First Folio Fundamentalist ideologues to smear their opponents. The "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt" does a much better job of presenting the orthodox position than this article, and it then gives a detailed presentation of the empirical reasons for doubting the traditional attribution of the works to Stratford's Mr Shakspere. Stratfordians have yet to refute a single fact in the Declaration, nor have they responded to our challenge to write a counter-declaration presenting the evidence in support of their claim that there's "no room for doubt" about Mr. Shakspere. Yet despite all of the factual information I've presented, it sounds like you think the burden of proof is on me, and that this vacuous, fact-free "article," if it can even be called that, should stand unless I write a counter-article refuting it. Refute what? There's nothing to refute! I will consider replying if someone writes an article laying out a coherent, factual case in support of Mr. Shakspere. The burden of proof should be on those claiming that there is "no room for doubt," and that the issue should therefore be suppressed in academia. That burden hasn't been met, and unless it is, this article should be taken down. It is a disgrace. The article on Wikipedia is sufficient to address this issue. I have no interest in reinventing the wheel. Schoenbaum 01:18, 13 June 2008 (EDT) Schoenbaum

All this appears to have become a match between two (?) sets of people who want to argue about the identity of someone who did or didn't exist 400 or so years ago. Personally, I don't think that it matters - the play's the thing - who cares except some boring old farty academics with nothing better to do? </incite>   ^Contribs_Talk 01:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I have a better idea, Schoenbaum: Why don't you rewrite the article? Wouldn't that be both much easier and much more... fulfilling than writing these immense walls of text? --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 04:36, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I have a better idea. Delete this article and refer people who want to know about the Shakespeare authorship issue to the Wikipedia article: [3] As I said, I have no interest in reinventing the wheel. Aint gonna happen. I reject the premise of this website. "Rational" Wiki compared to what? The "Irrational" Wikipedia? There's only one truth, so why have a separate website that pretends otherwise? Everyone here should go work on Wikipedia articles. Instead, this forum provides an alternative site for people to launch totally unsubstantiated smears by comparing views with which they disagree to intelligent design, and other pseudoscience/history. It forces people concerned about truth to do double duty to stamp out their lies. I will none of it. Whoever proposed deleting this article got it right, but I'd delete the whole site. I'm out of here. Schoenbaum 10:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT) Schoenbaum

Okey-dokey. Bye-bye, then. Don't forget to write. *waves* --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 11:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I have a problem with this article in that I have no idea what it is on about. It is a terribly written piece. And I don't see the point to it. Bondurant 10:57, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

After reflection, I agree - Delete the whole thing. It's simply pointless. Mythbuster 01:41, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Can we have a debate about this without everyone demanding it be deleted immediately? Please? If the theory has merit, we should use the article to give an explanation of why it isn't pseudohistory. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Sleepy Jack the fire drill} 01:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

The problem is that the theory does not have merit, not because it is 'pseudohistory', but simply because it is crap. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 13:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Why not?

What's it got to do with anything? As a subject it's insoluble - there'll never be proof one way or the other and it doesn't matter at all who wrote the bloody things. They're there & that's good enough for me. If there has been some cover up or something, so what - it's purely academic & has no connection to the real world - angels dancing on pinheads - that's what it is.   ^Contribs_Talk 02:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Of course it matters. Speculation over repeating themes in Shakespeare's work (the Dark Lady and the Fair Youth in his sonnets, for example) would fall apart if these things were not the work of one man. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Sleepy Jack the fire drill} 02:05, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I can't say that I have explored this issue in depth, but I think there is plenty on this topic that could be an RW article. The fact that people are quoting signed petitions from "academics" to support their theory is enough to peak my interest. That is so Discovery Institute. tmtoulouse ^provoke 02:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

But remember, if we're wrong we have to delete the whole site :) <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Sleepy Jack the fire drill} 02:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only does RW need to be erased but we all are ordered to go to wikipedia and work on the "one truth" of NPOV. tmtoulouse ^provoke 02:16, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Walt Whitman quote

I made this mistake once, random people voicing their opinions in articles are not acceptable. Better to say that these people had such opinions than give a quote. Lyra § talk 20:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I added (and re-added) the Mark Twain quote because it was so priceless. Part of RationalWiki is it's "Snarky Point of View" policy. The quote makes things quite snarky, so I say we can leave it up; for the simple reason that it's funny, not because "Mark Twain once said something about this subject". Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I agree, was talking about the Whitman quote. Lyra § talk 20:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah, okay. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Yea, if the Shakespeare denialist want to write something convincing, and want to separate themselves from creationist they need to stop using their techniques. Petitions of "experts" and quote mining are not how arguments should be advanced. They are what AIG does. tmtoulouse ^provoke 20:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

The Whitman quote speaks to the fact that the plays betray the aristocratic nature of the author of the author - all those 'better to be noble", and 'the peasants are good for a laugh' sentiments. Whitman knew how to be snarky too - he's just a little bit less obvious!Mythbuster 05:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

At worst it is quote mining with out proper context and analysis, and at absolute best it is an argument from supposed authority from someone that may not be the best "authority" on authentication of Shakespeare authorship. Random quotes are a mainstay of creationist/ID tactics and do not make good arguments. Go check out what CP has done to cp:evolution to see just how silly argument by quotation can get. Make your argument by constructing evidence and logic, not quotes. And since this is apparently a contentious article sources will be needed on both sides. tmtoulouse ^provoke 13:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Mark Twain quote

Well, poo. The Mark Twain quote was removed because "No quotes (see talk). Twain also taken out of context - another no-no I believe..." Aw, killjoy. The reason I included this:

"A country bumpkin like Shakespeare could not have possibly written such magnificent works"—Mark Twain, completely missing the irony of that statement.

was to be humourous. I wasn't citing him to support a particular side, I was citing him to elicit a chuckle from the audience. Per our "Snarky Point of View", surely that makes it worthy of inclusion? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I am sympathetic to this and it seems a valid exception to me. tmtoulouse ^provoke 23:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Um, wasn't the "SPOV" thing coined by Jellyfish! some weeks ago, not an official "policy?" Lyra § talk 23:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

But then again, my largely forgetting organ of brain... Lyra § talk 23:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Lyra: SPOV goes way, way back to the early days of RationalWiki. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:35, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I made that rule up within weeks of the angst-ridden birth of RW 2.0 - I hope is being properly misapplied here? ħuman 23:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

It hasn't been properly misapplied until I get called a "proselytizer of fun". Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I liked that Twain quote. Is there a half-decent, enjoyable and interesting to read article buried in the diffs here? And how come after all this time no one has welcomed Schoenbaum (hope I spelled that right, I'm only editing this section so I can't copy it - but he called 85 something "Oldersig", so I guess I'm ok)? ħuman 23:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

By the way, saying Twain was missing the irony had better be a triple-entendre, because if it's not, it's silly. ħuman 23:59, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me...

...that what could have been (and may still be?) a hilarious and informative article (although barely on-mission) got mangled and destroyed by too many editors thinking it mattered. I never would have thought to see a struggle to get something written on such a subject here. Can't we just be outrageous in presenting both "sides", since it is equally obvious that Wily Shakestwerp couldn't possibly have written all that stuff and that Wilhelm de Speare Shackle most certainly did, so there?

I also liked a lot of the arguments presented in the first edit, which were deleted en masse in the second edit. ħuman 00:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

One other fact that I for some reason didn't think to include: the most likely marker of the authorship "theory" as pseudohistory is the fact that the 17th Earl of Oxford died in 1604, while Shakespeare wrote until at least 1611 (The Tempest). JailersDaughter

Actually, there is no concrete evidence that Shakespeare wrote anything after 1604. On the other hand, an interesting question is why, at the supposed height of his career, did he abandon primary authorship and allow lessor writers like Middleton to finish his works? The answer is obvious if he died and left several works unfinished (Macbeth, Two Noble Kinsman, etc.) Mythbuster 23:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Another interesting fact - Shakespeare's works were regularly published until 1604, when regular publication simply stopped for several years. If he died in 1604, then the stoppage makes sense. Also - if he was still alive, then why did he allow publication of the deeply personal and potentially embarrassing Sonnets in 1609? Mythbuster 23:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it *is* irrelevant, but that's the point ...

Again, the original reason I posted this and felt it was 'on mission' was that there seemed to be quite a few similarities between the "Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare" argument and various forms of pseudohistory (and intelligent design, a point which has been made by others -- see the citations in the article.) I often use the so-called 'debate' in the classroom as a jumping-off point for discussing logical fallacies, pseudohistories, and why 'question everything' is not necessarily the same thing as skepticism.

And yes, the argument that one 16th century guy wrote another 16th century guy's plays is irrelevant, but that's precisely the point. It also doesn't make sense in the context of what we know (based on documentary evidence) about loose notions of 'authorship' (this is back when copyright belonged to printers, not 'authors'): yes, Shakespeare's plays most likely had many contributors other than Shakespeare; no, there was no vast conspiracy to cover up the work of one individual with the name and identity of another individual.

Thanks for humoring me and not taking this *too* seriously. JailersDaughter

<3 Kiss Kiss.   ^Contribs_Talk 20:51, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Shakespeare the playwrite

Perhaps that was exactly what he was - the sixteenth century equivalent of the modern film director and/or ghostwriter (and the handbills had the equivalents of 'based on a story by...', 'technical information provided by...'. 'information on royal protocol and events in France by...' etc. Thus #all# the arguments are correct.

James Joyce, apparently, said of his book Ulysses that he had put in enough puzzles to keep the critics busy for 50 years - and that was the way to remain immortal. Perhaps Shakespeare was of a similar attitude and set out to confuse/provide work for future literary theorists. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems a little soft on the Anti-Stratfordians...

Considering the fact that the issue is not exactly mainstream within literature circles, why are we softpedaling this? We need lulz. Especially on the classism matters. EVDebs (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Another explanation

William Shakespeare (or both of them), Francis Bacon and all the rest, were a group entity (so Shakespeare also wrote Bacon etc). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• New one on me. Cite? EVDebs (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

pointless section

Why on earth do we have a section on whether or not Dickens was misquoted on this subject? This recently added section seems absolutely pointless. I would like an explanation of its value, please. Otherwise, I will delete it.Mythbuster (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes

Here are the changes I am making which seem to be under contention. If you disagree with them, let's discuss it here first rather than going back and forth.

::I'm glad you agree our changes are under contention. Since you are the one proposing changes, I would ask the same of you - lets discuss them here before installing them.^{— Unsigned, by: Mythbuster / talk / contribs}

• I am removing the second Twain quote. Having two Twain quotes about his Anti-stratfordian position makes no sense. I'm leaving the one that seems most representative.--^talk 05:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

::Actually, the first Twain Quote wasn's anti-strat. It was Twain being snarky in a way that did Rationalwiki proud. Did you not get it?^{— Unsigned, by: Mythbuster / talk / contribs}

Embarrassingly enough, no - and I just read that essay last month! I see what you did there.

However, I still have a couple of problems. (1) I think it actually is kind of confusing and weird-looking to have two contradictory quotes like that, and (2) you keep switching back the formatting away from the template that looks better. How about we actually move the quotes to their respective sections (shk and anti), fix the formatting, and solve it that way?--^talk 06:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am cleaning up the lede again, which should be clear and concise. It's true that it's a lack of knowledge about Shk's history that have led to people doubting him, as well as what we do know (son of a shoemaker yada yada), but it's better to leave it generalized in the lede and specify later.--^talk 05:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

:which is precisely what the original wording did. The general reason for the entire debate, according to mainstream scholars, was this lack of information and the questions concerning Shakespeare's 'lost years". Specific reasons (education, auto-biographical, etc.) should come later, as you say.^{— Unsigned, by: Mythbuster / talk / contribs}

It doesn't look to me at all like the wording it general in the beginning and specific later, since a parenthetical addendum suggests one specific reason ("lost years"). But you seem really, really insistent on some particular stylistic choices, so I'm not going to keep fighting about this one.--^talk 06:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I note that the wording on the survey was also swapped back with the previous version. As far as I can see, the way this is phrased has some major problems.--^talk 05:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

::Then let's be specific about the survey. I'll make an attempt and see what you think. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mythbuster / talk / contribs}

Way better, thank you.--^talk 06:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to be suggesting that Stratfordians are just unwilling to ask the hard questions and ignoring the issue ("Stratfordians (those who support the historical attribution) argue that most scholars and academics see no reason to challenge traditional beliefs and often refuse to acknowledge that the debate even exists.") This is, of course, not true. Every scholar of Shakespeare is well aware of the question, - they're not ignoring the "debate" any more than biology researchers are willfully ignoring a debate on intelligent design.--^talk 05:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

::Wow - you really need to read up on the subject before making sweeping statements ("This, of course, not true") Have you read Shapiro? Apparently not. I will provide a reference for this. Shapiro actually chastises his mainstream colleagues for giving over the field to the anti-strats. I could go on, but it would be better for you do do your own research and then report back here. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mythbuster / talk / contribs}

You are really up on your stuff, that's awesome! I do wish you wouldn't be so disdainful, but I'll give you my writing plan soon and report back.

No, I haven't read it. But I am given to understand that even he doesn't seriously doubt. Indeed, here's a quote from the book, pulled from one of the reviews (Hope, Warren. "Is That True?" Brief Chronicles Vol.2 2010 Issue II): "“It’s an exasperating question, for the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive that only William Shakespeare of Stratford could have written these plays and poems." Indeed, a glance through the reviews in the London Review, Spectator, Commentary - really, most reviews I can find aside from those in the Oxfordian - all seem to confirm what I said: everyone is aware of the issue, but simply do not agree that there is much reason to doubt. I might be at fault for being too rhetorically broad, but the facts seem rather more in line with what I have found.--^talk 06:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• With the survey, it again seems to be trying to skew the issue to take a 6% "yes" and lump it in with an 11% "possibly." A 17% "yes or possibly" doesn't indicate the actual serious support for the position among scholars, which is very slender.--^talk 05:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

::As I said above, we should then be more clear, and not muddy it even more. The solution on this one is easy - simply break it down so that no one is hiding anything. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mythbuster / talk / contribs}

• I don't know why the third part of the second paragraph ("numerous candidates have been proposed") was re-inserted, beyond someone's preference for their own wording, but it seems out of place here.--^talk 05:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• In the Oxford entry, I have removed the parenthetical criticism. Firstly I think those sorts of insertions are hideous and unreadable, so if we put that caveat in, it should be done right. But I also think that it's wrong and just muddying the waters - Shk's later work wasn't published until later, held back until the First Folio, but to take Winter's Tale as an example, even though it wasn't published until 1623, it was definitely performed in 1611. To imply that they were held back and trickled out Shk's death, as if it was parallel to the hypothetical trickling out of Oxford's plays, makes it seem as though publication and performance are the same thing. But the conspiracy depends on Oxford dying, and someone editing his plays to reflect later events and then slowly releasing them. They're not equivalent and this quibble seems invalid to me.--^talk 06:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

::Well, you are muddying the waters even more with your phrasing. Btw - Winter's Tale is not a good example, as there is no scholarly consensus on when it was written. It was based on Pandosto (1588). The great Edmond Malone (mainstream) theorized that the 1594 listing in the Stationers' Register "a Wynters nightes pastime" might have been Shakespeare's play. Tannenbaum wrote in"The Forman Notes" about the discrepancies in dating, noting that Hunter believed in a dating of "about 1605). Back to your point, however. You say that the conspiracy depends on someone editing his plays to reflect later events. The problem is that there is no concrete evidence of this. Let's look at the Gunpowder Plot, which some critics say is reflected in Macbeth. Are you aware of what that connection is? It's all based on two words - "Farmer" and "Equivocation". Obviously, Farmer is a quite common word so it little proof of anything. As for "Equivocation", while it has been theorized that this is a reference to Garnet's defence of "equivocation", the problem is that it could as easily be referencing the 1584 Doctrine of Equivocation, which was discussed in England well into in the 1590s. Also, A. R. Braunmuller stated that he found the 1605–6 Macbeth arguments inconclusive, and argued only for an earliest date of 1603. The dating problem surrounding Macbeth is also complicated by the fact that the play was revised by later hands, and entire scenes were added. See the problem? ^{— Unsigned, by: Mythbuster / talk / contribs}

Wait, so your solution is just to entirely remove the point about how many critics believe that Shakespeare's works refer to events that happen after Oxford's death? That doesn't seem reasonable, given that even you admit that this is a matter of contention among critics. I'll let you do it, since you seem to want to write any changes yourself.--^talk 06:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have swapped and relabeled the major sections again. The pseudonym thing is clearly "evidence" against Shk, so I put it in there. And it is bizarre to put the conspiracies before the majority view. I have left the candidates section before the majority view, in order to provide context for the majority view (plus I also think it reads better).--^talk 05:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

::Whatever. The article is about anti-stratfordianism, so it made sense to me to start there and then provide the mainstream response (and the final word). If you think that is "bizarre", then there is nothing really I can say.^{— Unsigned, by: Mythbuster / talk / contribs}

Context seems important.--^talk 06:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Minor edits:

• Again emphasizing that the Sea Venture was probably a primary source for The Tempest, which points away from Elizabeth. This is pretty much agreed-on, as far as I know, thanks to phrasing that frequently parallels Strachey's.--^talk 05:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

::As far as you know? Again, I'd ask you do to your homework. Let me give you a hand: See this article - Stritmatter, Roger; Kositsky, Lynne (2009). Leahy, William. ed. "‘O Brave New World’: The Tempest and Peter Martyr's De Orbe Novo". Critical Survey (Berghahn Journals) ISSN 00111570. Mainstream scholar Kenneth Muir put it best - "the extent of the verbal echoes of [the Bermuda] pamphlets has, I think, been exaggerated. There is hardly a shipwreck in history or fiction which does not mention splitting, in which the ship is not lightened of its cargo, in which the passengers do not give themselves up for lost, in which north winds are not sharp, and in which no one gets to shore by clinging to wreckage," and goes on to say that "Strachey's account of the shipwreck is blended with memories of Saint Paul's – in which too not a hair perished – and with Erasmus' colloquy." He is referring to Erasmus's Naufragium (1523) and Richard Eden's 1555 translation of Peter Martyr's De orbo novo (1530), which, since the 18th century, have been the acknowledged sources. These arguments were expanded upon in 2007 and 2009 in the article I mention above. So.. what I am saying... is the jury is still out and your statement that it is "pretty much agreed-on" is simply not accurate. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mythbuster / talk / contribs}

Strimatter et al acknowledge repeatedly in the opening pages of their paper that the wide consensus for many years has been on the shipwreck accounts as sources. Among many other examples, they provide:

"A widespread conviction that Tempest must necessarily be dated to 1611 has for two centuries received apparent confirmation from the belief of many that Shakespeare’s chief Tempest source and inspiration was a series of reports – Jourdain 1610, ‘True Declaration’ 1610, and especially Strachey (1625), of the July, 1609 shipwreck of the Sea Venture off the coast of Bermuda."

"To Vaughan and Vaughan (1999), ‘Commentators since the late eighteenth century have generally agreed that The Tempest reveals Shakespeare’s incidental indebtedness to this highly accessible source…’"

It is true that they are casting "grave doubt" on the matter and that it is being discussed. But to pretend that it has not been the consensus for a very long time among very many scholars seems to me like convenient forgetfulness, especially when the citation to which you point me agrees with me on the consensus view.

It seems pretty clear, anyway, that you shouldn't include every possible doubt while excluding any views that have been questioned, no matter how strongly you are behind Oxford. Please write in the consensus view on the matter, or let me do it.--^talk 06:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Adding snark with a different additional candidate. This one is even less likely to be taken seriously, which bizarrely seems to be a concern of Mythbuster.--^talk 05:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

::Again with the "bizarre" label? Look, if you want to make fun of some religion or other, go wild. The problem with your Mormon joke was that it just wasn't funny. Now had you said "Joseph Smith" instead of "Jesus", then you might have raised a chuckle :) ^{— Unsigned, by: Mythbuster / talk / contribs}

Sorry to have offended you, I just thought it was really strange the way you wholesale reverted all of my changes, even the ones like template changes and jokes. You may not have thought it was funny, but that's a matter of personal taste. Regardless, I'm glad I found a joke that worked for both of us.--^talk 06:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Re-adding snark in the See Also, because: yes, really. There's a good reason why almost no credible Shakespearean scholar is a serious Anti-Stratfordian. It's bullshit. When you get right down to it, there's just not much reason to doubt Shakespeare and even less reason for any of the alternates.--^talk 05:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

::which is the crux of the matter. It's really not for you to say what is bullshit and what is not. There is a lot of scholarship out there that you are simply not aware of. Again - all I'm asking is for you to do your homework, not state theories as fact, and perhaps ask me about my reasoning before throwing the "bizarre" label around so easily. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mythbuster / talk / contribs}

I apologize for calling you bizarre, especially since you are sufficiently offended to start casting aspersions on my erudition.--^talk 06:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Removed some weird mitigating things about the linguistic analysis. Read the plays, seriously, and go to the scholarship on the analysis. I provided one good reference link about it, but there's a lot more in the library. It's one of the very clear distinctions at work, since East and West Midlanders had little overlap in their dialects in this respect: you either did one, or the other. It's mostly an artifact of the West Midlands' previous use of "make" as their auxiliary, patterned after the Norman "fait"; some conflict occurred in usage (the main hypothesis is that "make" became redundant in some contexts), and they adapted to "do" whereas their neighbors took "did." To draw from the parenthetical objection for evidence: in Henry IV 1, Bedford says "I do remember it, and here take my leave To go about my preparation." (Act 1 Scene 1). Compare to Oxford's Who Taught Thee First to Sigh?: "Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest?"--^talk 05:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

::I'd be far more interested in seeing a reference that says there is a consensus of mainstream shakespeare scholars that agree Shakespeare spoke and wrote with a West Midlands accent. Can you provide such a reference? Also, consider that as a rule we have no idea what accent Shakespeare spoke with. Having left Stratford at an early age, where did he go? How did those "lost years" affect his accent? After absorbing the London environs, how did that affect his accent? Finally, comparing a poem from Oxford's juvenilia to the more mature works (decades later) fails to take into account his progression as a writer. It's not as clear cut as you would have us believe. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mythbuster / talk / contribs}

Obviously we don't know what Shakespeare "spoke," as when such a term is used it reflects the fairly common belief that people speak the same dialect in which they write.

Perhaps I'm just the confused one here. To the best of my knowledge, Shakespeare wrote consistently in one dialect, which happens to be the one of the area in which he was raised in the West Midlands. I gave a good example of this dialect's use and difference. It's not a question of "style," but grammar.

I am afraid I don't have any cites on hand; I'll get back to you with this tomorrow, I suppose.--^talk 07:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course both dialects used "do" and "did" as primary verbs as well, but in their use as auxiliaries it looks pretty clear-cut.--^talk 11:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So is this bullshit?

Looks like the words "IDists" and "creationists" are being bandied about quite a bit here. Is this a manufactroversy or what? I have no idea myself, it's just sort of caught my eye with all the back-and-forth on this. I don't know much about ol' Will besides what I read in high school. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Like the article says, there have been various theories for a long time, mostly because it's a big fancy target. We don't know much about a lot of playwrights from that time, but the missing information about Shakespeare has allowed for a wide variety of poorly-supported theories to spring up. There's actually a society dedicated to promoting the Oxford theory (the most popular one). Most dedicated scholars of Shakespeare don't think there's good reason to doubt Shakespeare's authorship, though.--^talk 07:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete

I am at a loss to understand what this has to do with RW's objectives.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's crank history.--^talk 07:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be presented in that way. The article seems to acknowledge the existence of some sort of real controversy while pointing out that it is a minority position.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As it stands the article is mostly dominated by Mythbuster, an Oxfordian. We are... discussing the matter.--^talk 11:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I lean towards the group theory. It's just that Oxford is the leading alternative candidate, so there are far more reliable sources that discuss him. Oddly enough, mainstream scholars are now saying that Shakespeare (yeah, the Stratford guy) collaborated with other writers more often than they originally believed. So now I expect competing theories that agree Shakespeare wrote as part of a group, but will now argue about who the group was! But to answer Bob, if RW is to study the "full range of crank ideas" than I would expect that range to include ideas that are sometimes called "crank" by mainstream militants, but actually have a respectable minority position and growing academic support. Now that SA is being taught at the university level, and is endorsed by more than a few academics, it seems to fall into that category.Mythbuster (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cover Story

Please do not archive this section.
I am fairly happy with this article, and I think it coherently represents an on-mission subject. The idea of Shakespeare authorship has a lot of woo associated with it in the past, as the article details, and yet there are some valid concerns. All of these things are discussed in a fairly clear and well-sourced manner in the article, and there's even some decently funny jokes (I think, anyway). It's also in a subject area (humanities) that would be fairly new to the frontpage, and valuable in that way.--^talk 04:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea

1. --^talk 05:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
2. --Mythbuster (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nay

1. Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
2. Marginally interesting dispute but off-mission 13:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
3. Don't see its missionality Scream!! (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
4. While the subject sort-of fits within "documenting the full range of crank ideas", I think it's best to keep the cover space for articles around the core mission subjects of pseudoscience, anti-science, authoritarianism & fundamentalism. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
5. Nay, though with a rewrite of the actual text I would vote yea. Blue (is useful) 23:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
6. nay. doesn't seem really highly mission, though it has it's conspiracy value. GodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 02:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Goat

1. I don't know enough about this for gold, but should definitely be at least bronze, if not silver. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
2. I'd support for silver. 22:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
3. No idea. I realise this isn't helpful, but I thought I'd make myself clear just in case. ADK^{...I'll legislate your dollhouse!} 22:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
4. It's on mission, but I've yet to read so I don't know if it's good enough.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Closed and conclusions

Alas, I guess this doesn't make it to cover story. I am going to promote it to silver, since that seems unobjectionable, and I guess keep improving it. One day!--^talk 02:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm decidedly not liking the article in its current state. One, it has a vastly overlong introduction. Two, these sections worry me:

While a controversial theory about 16^th century playwrights can seem irrelevant, literature and history teachers should keep in mind that addressing the issue in the classroom can help students to better understand and challenge both sides of a controversial question. An interesting aside to the debate is the fact that numerous writers, including Mark Twain, Henry James, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Walt Whitman, have made statements expressing their doubts about the historical attribution.

“”A country bumpkin like Shakespeare could not have possibly written such magnificent works

—A sarcastic Mark Twain

“”So far as anybody actually knows and can prove, Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon never wrote a play in his life.

—A less sarcastic Mark Twain.

Okay, famous poets and fiction writers from 19th century America have expressed their doubts. Why do their opinions matter at all? It's interesting, but neither relevant nor good evidence. I'm also unnerved by the "teach the controversy" line. The article's own survey says that 94% of modern Shakespeare scholars reject anti-Stratfordianism, and 93% say either that it is a conspiracy theory without convincing evidence or a "waste of time and a classroom distraction." Teach the controversy, indeed.

Three, the authorship candidates section expounds why each would be a likely candidate but does not delve into contradictory arguments and evidence. Fourth, the anti-Stratfordian arguments are repeated throughout the article, even in the section supposedly for the mainstream view. And that's my biggest beef: why, with the magnificent body of evidence the article presents, have the anti-Stratfordians not succeeded in introducing a reasonable doubt to the authorship question? Why is their viewpoint overwhelmingly rejected by scholars?

We are humoring these pseudohistorical conspiracy theorists with our article. It is well sourced and reasonably well written, but I do not think it merits a silver or gold without these issues being dealt with. Blue (is useful) 03:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"Okay, famous poets and fiction writers from 19th century America have expressed their doubts. Why do their opinions matter at all? It's interesting, but neither relevant nor good evidence."

It is, as the article says, an interesting aside. The Mark Twain thing in particular is pertinent because he has been one of the most well-known skeptics, and his essay on the matter is very famous.

I understand your hesitation about teaching the controversy. But while I think the article amply demonstrates that a preponderance of scholarship and evidence is on the side of Shakespeare, the fact remains that there is some controversy and serious questioning going on, with some arguments and evidence on their side. In particular, a few books have been published in recent years that firmly challenge the established ideas.

It's true that Oxfordians in particular have been a very vocal and very small minority over the years, but lately the questions have shifted into more serious areas. This is a matter of recent trends, more than anything.

As you can probably see from the above discussion, I look on the controversy somewhat askance, but even I can't deny that there is of late a serious discussion being engaged in. This article isn't humoring a clamorous minority that's trying to gin up confusion on the point and then teach that confusion with false equivalence - it's acknowledging that minority's ridiculousness at times while still paying heed to increasing discussions taking place among the major Shakespearean community.

It does need some more eyes, of course. It's mostly been myself and Mythbuster (who represents the polar opposite view against Shakespeare) and a third serious editor, informed about Shakespeare and relevant scholarship, would be welcome. Mythbuster may have succeeded in winning out on too many conflicts.--^talk 03:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

dumb question not about the article, but the subject

Why is this an issue? No one questions if Kit Marlow wrote his stories (or why he would not take credit for more famous stories). No one says "oh, Chaucer, he didn't write what he wrote". Or Molière. what am i missing. --GodotGet over it!. 01:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Class issue. Тy^talk 01:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated, but it has a lot to do with the position of Shakespeare as one of the greatest, if not simply the pinnacle, of English writers. It's a tempting target. Further, many people are very familiar with Shakespeare but not with his context, so they bring modern ideas of authorship to the table that mislead them. And of course, there are the uglier class issues at work - the idea that the son of an illiterate glovemaker couldn't possibly have written these works.--^talk 03:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy label

I note a bit of editorial controversy over the 'conspiracy' label that some wish to apply to the article. Now that the term is most often used as a pejorative, I wonder if its being added here for that reason. Elizabethan England was not only the age of enlightenment, but also the age of plots, conspiracies and intrigues. If we label the SAQ as a conspiracy, then are we going to explain the context within the time period? For instance, we have the Babington Plot, the Bye Plot , the Gowrie conspiracy, the Gunpowder Plot, the Main Plot , the Ridolfi plot, the Throckmorton Plot and the Popish Plot, to name just a handful. And lets not forget the Essex Conspiracy/Rebellion, where the staging of Shakespeare's Richard I played an integral part of the 'plot'. We also have established scholars telling us that William Shakespeare did not write alone, but wrote many of his works as part of a group. Is that a conspiracy as well? In any case, lets have a good discussion and see where it leads us, shall we?Mythbuster (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"Conspiracy" as used on RW usually refers to a hidden intrigue among a select group of people that hides the truth about an event or person. Events such as the Gunpowder Plot were conspiracies in a strict sense, but not in the way in which the "conspiracy" template would imply. In other words, open and historical conspiracies, such as Watergate or the Gunpowder Plot, are not our focus here.

Why would you think that the critical consensus on Shakespeare's collaborations was a conspiracy? That is not hidden knowledge, since it's widely published and believed. What is conspiratorial about it?

As I see it, the conspiracy tag is perfectly appropriate. It refers to the allegations that a small group of individuals, including at the least Shakespeare and the true author (but almost certainly others would have needed to be involved), who have hidden the truth about the authorship of the plays and spread a false version of events. This theory is not widely accepted, but is instead strongly advocated by a minority. What aspect of the authorship theory does not fit the definition of a conspiracy theory?--^talk 22:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I think the label is misapplied. The version you describe is incredibly fringe and irrelevant; the version where perhaps some works assigned to Slick Willy may have been partially or entirely assembled by others is still just an interesting academic thought. There's no freaking conspiracy. ħuman 01:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the article? It is explicitly and almost in whole devoted to that "incredible fringe and irrelevant" theory.

The lede: "The Shakespeare authorship question, also known as "Anti-Stratfordianism," is the contention that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was not the author of the plays traditionally attributed to him."

I agree that an article that discussed the possibility of collaboration on some of Shakespeare's work would not be an article about conspiracies. But that's not what we're discussing. This article is about the idea that someone else secretly wrote Shakespeare's work and then colluded with other people to hide this fact and present the world with a widely-accepted lie. It is almost the definition of a conspiracy theory.--^talk 02:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll give you that it is barely one. And to what end, this "conspiracy"? ħuman 02:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

To convince the world that William Shakespeare wrote the plays and sonnets, even though he was not the real author.--^talk 02:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

From an person who Teaches English, Thanks for this Article

Thanks Rationalwiki for putting this together. I often recommend my students read this article if they're confused about the issue. It seems nobody else on the internet really wants to call bullshit bullshit on this issue, except a few tepid English teachers and some rather charitable craftsmen who put this together. And yes, you're right, this issue is the Creationism of the humanities, and it's followers are tremendously cult-like. My own professors refer to them as acting with the historical methodology and argumentative skills of Scientologists. Especial thanks to AD for fighting off the people who are attempting to be soft on the issue on this talk page.

I added some info on Dryden, the one Shakespeare play we have in manuscript, Elizabeth, and Marlowe. Enjoy, or take it down if it's jarring.--Asklepius (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Your stuff looks pretty good, and is much-appreciated.--^talk 10:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

jeez you guys, your writing sounds like middle school. The authorship question isn't the theory – it's the debate ABOUT the theory. At least get the damn grammar right.Mythbuster (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Surely this could be trimmed down.

I appreciate debunking this conspiracy as much as the next informed individual, but this article'd be significantly better as a shorter piece. The header alone's long enough to be an article in its own right. All that needs to be said is there's significantly less chance Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare than there is of him being commissioned by Morpheus of the Endless to write A Midsummer Night's Dream. Not to mention, if this article was shorter, it'd make it easier for people to actually use as a resource to discredit the theory. *Asterisk* (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

stratfordi[an]ism

Is there a consensus on anti-stratfordianism versus anti-stratfordism, anti-Stratfordism, Anti-Stratfordianism etc? If all are fine then, erm, fine. Personally I prefer antistratfordianoriginismexpialidocious. Fonzie (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't far off from cover article

We need more cover articles. This isn't far off, it seems to me. It's also a classic and popular case of pseudohistory vs history. Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

There, some work's been done. I'd vote for front page right now - we could use it - and as more attention is brought to it, more polish will take place. Better we front the near-"finished" content at this stage, in my view. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Renewed efforts

I vote this page be included among our front page articles. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I dug up the old nomination from five years ago. The most common reason for opposing the nom by then was that it wasn't particularly relevant to the mission - perhaps this has changed now?--JorisEnter (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for undertaking that piece of detective work, Joris! That being said... Five years ago is a century ago in internet time, never mind on a collaborative wiki where the majority of blood is new by now. I certainly disagree with the suggestion that the article isn't missional - Shakespeare authorship crankery is classic pseudohistory (read summary plus the first header of the article), never mind that this is the strongest article we have for the entire nav. Allow me also to point out the major revisions the article has undergone in those five years, including recently. For these reasons, I'm putting the issue to a new vote. I vote for Gold. Any takers? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

My objection to cover storying is not missionality but presentation-ality. For example, vaginal steaming should never be a cover article, because putting that on the front page would make RW look juvenile. Similarly, including this on the front page would make RW look, well, boring. Weak oppose. FuzzyCatPotato of the Inexperienced Rollerblades (talk/stalk) 22:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Strong support: This is an all too common crank issue that even predates the internet. If this is not part of our mission, what is? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed an interesting piece of crankery, though not the most common one. Having a look at our mission statement, it seems that #2 ("Documenting the full range of crank ideas") is the most applicable, and perhaps a bit of #4 ("Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media") or #1 ("Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement"). That said - the article itself is great, and debunking a fairly well-known form of pseudohistory seems like something fit for the front page. Support.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I would support it for cover story. It's missional, as it fits well into the pseudohistory category. Boring is in the eye of the beholder. I hope someone appreciates my new Francis Bacon image with caption, which should de-boring the page a bit. Bongolian (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I quite liked it. :)--JorisEnter (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

That makes four for covering, one against. Anyone else?--JorisEnter (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Bumping this so perhaps someone will respond.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Bump for the bump. This really is an exceptionally well sourced article, although the english is a little impenetrable (in an academic sense) at times. Still... Time to Gold it? Based on the above, we're at four editors in favor, one editor giving a "weak oppose". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is indeed time to go for gold. Four ayes and a single weak nay suggests that this is probably good enough.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I've also started a quick cover abstract here. It's currently just a copy of the intro section, but it's a start.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting article

• McCrum, Robert (8 January 2017 00.03 GMT). "How ‘Sherlock of the library’ cracked the case of Shakespeare’s identity: Literary detective Heather Wolfe reveals how her passion for manuscripts helped unravel mystery of who the bard really was". The Guardian. Retrieved 14:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC). 

--JorisEnter (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Neat, thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Saw that, and expanded the paragraph about Shakespeare's coat of arms with information from the article. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Class aspects

Were Downton Abbey, 'numerous TV programs on the royals', The King's Speech etc written by upper class persons #or# by middle class scriptwriters (with or without a degree)? If the latter why couldn't Shakespeare have written his plays (especially if he had access to the nobility willing to beta-read his plays)? 86.191.127.28 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)