From 'Shakspere' to 'Shakespeare' (Wikipedia Discussion Entry)

Thank you for the correction on "manuscripts". I knew this was a dangerous term to use, I just didn't know the better one to apply in the moment (just putting it in quotes might have helped). Your further comments only further support the need for a section devoted to the issues of applied names in this case. This would be a good place for you to make your above arguments, properly attributed. But, in an encyclopedic article dedicated to chasing down the facts in a case of literary history (and mystery for many), an explanation at least is needed to explain why historians, educators, publishers, researchers, etc. would go from a man's taken name of "Shakspere" to "Shakespeare" (hyphen removed)—especially when the latter term comes separately as an attribution to the greatest body of literature in the English language. To do so skips over important factual details necessary for establishing, or controverting, theories of attribution. More importantly to the unconvinced, it might appear to be a too-convenient closing of the literary history/mystery loop: what starts out as a pen-name for a hidden author, gets attributed later to a similar-sounding name on a real person, ends up finally conflated as the same thing. This might appear to arise from a biased view of the facts, there being no other logical way to go from "Shakspere" to "Shakespeare".[[User:Empirecontact|Artaxerxes]] ([[User talk:Empirecontact|talk]]) 19:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)