Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

Organization Problems - Bardolotry

I've moved the lede paragraph on Bardolotry to the Background section, where it logically belongs. How about leaving the edit in place for a few minutes so people can consider both the effect on the lede and on the section in which it is now placed? This is not something which can be discussed in the abstract. It needs to be evaluated visually as well as in terms of a logical structure of the article.NinaGreen (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your method or approach is wrong. With a lead with a long history of development, that is now stable for months, one does not just go ahead and make a major change, here a significant excision and readjustment of text, and ask that other editors then use the talk page to justify its partial or complete restoration from the relocated area back to the lead, Nina. It is not collaborative to do so.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The section logically belongs in the lede, for reasons that can be found in WP:LEDE. If anybody needs to "evaluate it visually" they can find it in the edit history. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to the old edit. Wrad (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It is glaringly out of place in that edit. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a valid point here - in fact I was thinking this yesterday independently. IMHO the lead is excellent, except for the first two sentences of the 2nd paragraph, which read as rather vague and flowery, not essential to the main point of the article, and more based on opinion than fact. For example the claim that "19th-century Romantics, who believed that literature was essentially a medium for self-revelation" is very much a matter of opinion and does not fit with the general view of the themes of Romantic Literature (Nature, historical myths, etc). And even if it is true, it is not central to SAQ. I think the lead should be a more concise statement of the facts, so I suggest replacing those 2 sentences with a simple statement that it started in the C19, so the 2nd para would look something like:

"Questions over the true identity of the author arose in the 19th century, and in the intervening years the controversy has spawned a vast body of literature,[7] and more than 50 authorship candidates have been proposed, including Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, Christopher Marlowe, Mary Sidney, the Earl of Derby and the Earl of Rutland.[8] Proponents believe that their candidate is the more plausible author in terms of education, life experience and social status, arguing that William Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the education, aristocratic sensibility or familiarity with the royal court they say is apparent in the works.[9]"

Discuss... Poujeaux (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does not matter if it is 'opinion', if the opinion is the consensus of reliable sources. However, it does seem to me to be problematic for various reasons. The argument that plays are 'self-revelation' does not actually feature strongly in early SAQ arguments. Rather, it's a feature of Oxfordianism, in which emotional identification with the True Author, struggling to 'express himself', plays an important role. Oxfordianism is a 20th century invention, not a nineteenth century one. The Victorian view is that Shakespeare is a magisterial moral and intellectual powerhouse, who has deep philosophical ideas to express. Bacon-as-Shakespeare is not expressing himself, but rather a view of the world, one shared by other illuminati of the period in Delia B's view. It's really very different from a 'Romantic' belief in self-expression. Also, this assertion does not chime very well with the other argument put forward by Scahpiro and others that Higher Criticism plays a role - a position which breaks down the model of individual authorship. In other words, Bardoloatry does not necessarily imply claims of self-revelation, rather more a belief in 'greatness'. Paul B (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not just drop the Romanticism phrase? It would work (and if I read Paul right, work better) without it.

"Scholars contend that the controversy has its origins in Bardolatry, the adulation of Shakespeare in the 18th century as the greatest writer of all time.[4] Shakespeare's eminence seemed incongruous with his humble origins and obscure life, arousing suspicion that the Shakespeare attribution might be a deception. In the intervening years the controversy ..." Tom Reedy (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's better and it puts the seeming incongruous with the greatness, so as Tom, Paul me and presumably Nina are happy with it I'll take that as a concensus and make that change. Poujeaux (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Stratfordian authority H.N.Gibson(frequently cited in this very article) the controversy began with John Marston and Joseph Hall in 1597 which view was even more fully affirmed by Stratfordian authorities Garnett and Gosse over fifty years previously. According to Stratfordian Richard Simpson arguably the most intelligent Stratfordian,aside from J.Payne Collier,in nineteenth century Stratfordian criticism,the Shakespeare Authorship controversy began with Robert Greene's "Farewelle To Follie" c.1587-88(but not actually published til 1592) and according to Dowden of Trinity Shakspere's most popular academic biographer ever,and others writing in 1869 it began with the publication of Narcissus(registered Fall,1593 but the only know surviving copy is dated 1595)the author named either Oxford or Bacon as the author. This crap about a nineteenth century origin of the authorship controversy should as Reedy well knows(for we patiently instructed him on the subject nearly ten years ago) should go back on the compost heap from which it has once again only recently re-emerged.Charles Darnay (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the above drivel by M. Darnay, it's fair to say that Bardolatry has been closely linked to the emergence of the controversy by several authors. It's a specifically Victorian variant, as epitomised by Carlyle, so the fact that the phenomenon has its origins in the 18th century is not important. I don't think we can say whether Bardoloatry was just a necessary or a sufficient condition. In any case "bardolatry" is just a simple word for a complex range of related views and attitudes. Paul B (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Stratfordian H.N. Gibson,author of the "Shakespeare Claimants"(which is frequently cited here) states,"With Marston's works there are no such difficulties.The introduction of the family motto[mediocra firma] makes it clear

that he had Bacon and no one else in mind, and his own echo of the lines in "Venus and Adonis" prove the same of the poem."(pp.63-64)."It may prove that Hall and Marston were the first proponents of the Baconian theory."(p.65)

You should really apologize to M. Darnay and to the readers whom you may,unintentionally no doubt, have mislead.Arthur Orton (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Charles. You must learn to avoid your quirks if you also wish to avoid recognition. Paul B (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary reverting by Tom Reedy

The two paragraphs beginning the Singularity of Shakespeare sub-section were RS sourced and referenced, but the the first of these has been repeatedly reverted--to be precise, deleted entirely, sentences and references alike. Although there were two prior discussions of the issue which I had made on the Discussion page, no other editor commented upon them in reply, including Reedy. Then the first paragraph disappeared. I found the culprit was Tom Reedy and ask him to explain saying nothing in discussion but reverting the first paragraph, contrary to rule after it was in place. The references are backed by RS. There are no apparent reasons, substantive or procedural for Reedy's action. For the good of the site, cease vandalism. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you restored an old series of affirmations dating back almost a year, which in the meantime have been shown to be, because dated, somewhat unreliable though sourced. (b) refuse to coordinate the formatting with that established for this article, creating a citational dissonance (c) introduce a word like 'bardology' which is apparently a word meaning discourse on or about Shakespeare, and quite distinct from bardolatry (See this first google result) (d) restored a text that in its sourced summarizes some viewpoints current in the 1950s and 1960s, ignoring, unlike the text you in turn deleted, what research has established in the following five decades. (e) you seem to ignore that almost all passages here have a long history of discussion, rest on intricate balancing of sources. (f) this is not quite the time, as the articles strives to meet the strictest criteria for FA pieces, which includes a 'stable text', to push through extensive challenges to patches of text without at least showing editors the courtesy of making first a proposal here so that it may be examined fairly and closely. As it is, we have an edit out of left field hitting the article at a very late stage, in a way that invites edit-warring. I'd be happy to discuss your proposal, if you reverted and presented it here so that all can comment on it.Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum

Do not understand your "happy to discuss your proposal" since you didn't when I wrote and entered it in some detail twice. The Stratfordian editing and reversions have gone on apace without any ecumenical discussion I have read, and I have followed it every few days. Thus there is a double-standard: I must discuss (and I did, twice, to no response); you need not. That is the underhanded method of killing the opposing research. Although you write as though the "latest" texts are more authoritative, in reality they are chosen, late or early, depending on whether you can hang your approach on them. If there is a long background of similar discussion getting repeated, under these terms it means you haven't been able to force it through successfully enough and persuade new editors, who have read otherwise and say so. Either certify RS texts or have none, but don't pick and choose what I can use, which amounts to none by your calculus. They are RS, meeting your own stated qualifications--academic, respectable press, qualified author--except you don't like what they say.98.207.240.11 (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The text you added contains a whole series of misrepresentations of evidence. For example you say that "mainstream authors" identified doubt in 18th century texts. This implies a consensus of the "mainstream" which is wholly untrue. As far as I am aware the authors you quote are merely providing a summary of evidence that has been used by anti-Statfordians. In any case they do not represent some sort of generic 'mainstream' view. Apart from the Learned Pig, which is expressly presented as a fantasy, the other sources in fact explicitly say that Shakespeare wrote the works. Indeed the footnoted source text (McMichael/Glenn p.56) states that "It seems that the first man to question Shakespeare's sole authorship of the plays was a certain 'Captain Goulding'" In fact the booklet was almost certainly not written by Goulding and the fact that Shakespeare was probably not "sole" author of some plays had been discussed many years before (as far back as Ravenscroft in 1687). In any case, not being the sole author is quite different from not being the author at all. Of course it is true that anti-Stratfordians have found hidden messages in Shakespeare's plays and in the works of other Tudor/Jacobean authors throughout the history of anti-Stratfordianism, but these are hidden. For example Ben Jonson explicitly says that William Shakespeare in the engraved picture is the author of the book, but anti-Statfordian choose to read this as a hidden statement of the opposite. The point is that the doubts were never read into these texts before anti-Stratfordianism began in the mid-nineteenth century. I have no problem adding that Anti-Strat writers find these hidden messages in Tudor/Jacobean literature, but there is no "controversy" beginning in this era, because there is no discussion. All the 18th century pamphlets are explicitly humorous, and the 'Goulding' text makes obvious completely absurd statements for comic effect. Modern reliable sources on this issue do not treat these as part of the history of SAQ. Paul B (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing arbitrary about my reversion; it was explained in my edit summary. You should include your complaints in your ArbCom testimony instead of continuing to insert undiscussed material for which you have no consensus. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Contradictory reasoning. My contribution regarding filling in the early history of doubt about the Stratfordian Shakspere figure was unremarked and unopposed for days, permitting me to enter RS material into the site. Silence is tacit consent. Your statements about consensus first and your edit not being arbitrary are non sequiturs. First I have not seen any of your edits prefaced by "Do I have consensus on this?", Thus, it is an understood railroad job, i.e., assuming a majority--not a consensus--whether or not it is stated and solicited. Second, when you edit-war, you assume it isn't, but when I restore the deleted material you conclude it is an edit-war. Note the contradiction. As for what I should submit to ArbCom, you are not authorized to advise. Conclusion: you're playing games. This is contrary to the mandating purpose of the site.98.207.240.11 (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Silence is tacit consent'? You ignore the follow-up 'ubi loqui debuit'. The silence of exhaustion, or the silence that just lets a buried argument, raised again and again, die a natural death. The Japanese speak of mokusatsu.Nishidani (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Incidentally, although I have repeated logged in the prompter says that I am not, so this will identify that I am the author of the statement that follows. In response to the above charge, you have discounted the sources and reasoning provided in my edit, on the basis that they were presented and rejected on some prior occasion. But your solution was not persuasive then evidently, as incorporated into the final product, given that the same exception to it is now occurring from a different participant. Hence, your attempt to associate me with a previous "rejection" (is there any reason to use the Japanese?) is itself a form of guilt by association. Specifically, your claim--that the edit contains a whole series of misrepresentation--fails by inspection. e.g., Emerson was mainstream and he said he could not marry the man and the work; Jonson really did make Shakspere out as a buffoon for assuming an otherwise laughable dignity, "not without mustard", etc. That is what they said, each in his own way, constituting dubiety, and they are RS by even your definition. So you attack me but not them also? Re-writing history won't do, and your generalizations do not stand up to actual quotation from the sources. Sorry about the 'bardology/bardolatry'. Terrible disrespect of Shaw's epithet there. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's fine within reason to express one's thoughts on the talk page, but when discussing edits to the article, it is best to rely on reliable sources. Other editors need to follow procedures that are based on policies. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who is the "you" being referred to here. Some of your comments appear to be replies to Nishidani, others refer to my remarks in this section. I said that the sources were misrepresented and are not in accord with more modern ones. I never said anything about Emerson, nor did anyone else in this section. He never denied that Shakespeare was Shakespeare, but he does belong to the era of "Doubt", so his views are relevant to some degree. Nevertheless, I don't understand how he relates to my comments which were about 16th-18th century material. Jonson's joke may or may not have referred to Shakespeare's coat of arms, but it is not an expression "doubt" about anything. It's a joke, quoted from Thomas Nashe. Neither Jonson nor Emerson are "RS" by either my definition or Wikipedia's definition. Please read WP:RS. Paul B (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum I agree other editors need to follow procedures that are based on policies. That would lead to a fair article. If the sources I mentioned in the edit are not RS, (preferred or unpreferred by other editors being a separate issue), please document and will revise.98.207.240.11 (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but you are making a substantial change to a section of the article that has been stable for some time. Accordingly it is up to you to provide reasons (based on policy) for why the previous text was unsuitable, and/or why the new text is an improvement. WP:TP explains how to indent comments. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum

Xover - here is the posting you could not find: > [1]. > Here is another > [2]. > And here was the first time it was brought up by another editor > [3]. The > material is accurate and properly sourced. It indicates that the assertions in the present article are not supported in the literature. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The second one is the same as the first one, with a typo fixed (unnecessarily, as we don't care about them on the talk page), and was an almost complete non sequiter in that discussion. The last one is the one you copied from Charles Darney. I don't know of any reliable sources who say the authorship question began before the mid-19th century, although they do say that anti-Stratfordians believe it by fanciful interpretations. And you need more than a book title for proper sourcing. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum In the effort to discredit what I was saying you state that I have quoted the same source twice. By 'another', I meant simply, here is another instance of a(n attempted) discussion before transfer to the article page, justifying the term discussion if followed by no comment. It did not have to do with a claim of providing two sources. But to take up your (mistakenly discrediting) point, both are the same, would there be something wrong with quoting the same reference twice? If you really want particular quotations, they can be supplied from that source. But in the course of discussion about a point, with individuals who are familiar with the historical sources, one of those (Gibson) whose thought bears on the point in question, I do not see that final footnotes are indicated by the discussion. If so, they will be provided. But here is a problem with my doing that. Since you have categorically cut out any appearance of contrary evidence, there seems to be no percentage in presenting a final detailed version for you to eliminate. When first entering this discussion in December I did go through the article making numerous changes in the direction of neutrality, virtually all of which work got wasted because you or an ally reverted that work. One phrasing you did retain because there was more pith in my expression than your own--but that is hardly an example of collaboration towards neutrality. It was more like presenting a jury evidence of co-operation that existed in the claim but not the neutrality.

If you "don't know any reliable sources" that provide evidence that "the authorship question" began before the 19th century, then you aren't able to read Marston and Barnefield. Their tributes (uniformly to Oxford/de Vere) are glaring evidence that the Shakespeare you are claiming was never in their minds as a question at all. Thus, retrospectively the or more properly our "question" of identity, one they themselves did not even consider as a question, has a foundation and an answer deep in the past, nearly contemporaneous with the subjects we have involved in the present dispute. What I am telling you, though I doubt it will be heard, is that you are ignoring primary and early evidence. But then again the presumptions upon which you and others operate require that that evidence be blanked or shunned, otherwise your points would be laughably discounted, for lack of foundation. (If you have ignored the actual foundational knowledge, the basis for the claim you do make will lack foundation.) If you did want to call Marston, Barnefield, Digges, Jonson, and others, fanciful interpretations instead of just my quotations of their words, then you have gone a long way towards detaching persuasive power from the very authorities you (at present mistakenly) use for your own position on the question. Without going into this at great length, a source you claim for your own position is the tribute entitled, "To the memory of my beloved, The Author Mr. William Shakespeare: And what he hath left us." It contains seventeen words in that title. On the 17th line of that tribute begins the sentence, "I, therefore will begin, Soule of the Age!" The writer then lists seventeen dramatists. The person addressed as "Shakespeare" is mentioned four times. Vere is a homonym of vier=four in German, a language familiar to Oxford and many of his educated readers. Seventeen is a cue to the 17th Earl of Oxford. If you think this formation of number cues is accidental or fanciful, see a doctor. It goesway beyond chance. Meres also mentions seventeen English dramatists versus sixteen ancient ones. This is asymetrical to the even listings elsewhere in his almanac. The cue is that there is one English dramatist listed twice. Which one? Oxford is listed first. Shakespeare so called is listed ninth. 1+9=10. 10 is orthographically almost identical to the Phoenician alphabet's IO, the Italian word for "I", but pronounced ee-oo, the enunciated initials for Earl of Oxford. Sorry again, if you think this asymmetry puzzle is fanciful. They put out whole books of such anagrammic puzzles and communicated with them. But you have to have a mind open enough to the past to comprehend what they were communicating. And it surely is not pat-pat cut-and-dried that the deceit or cover aspect of the puzzle was the truth. The truth was protected for the knowing. In the Meres symbology, Oxford (1) and Shakespeare (9) added up to Earl of Oxford, IO. Tell me if you seek to know the truth or to maintain a status quo that is fraught with error? If the former, you will have to change from being the arrogant fool to the humble seeker of who wrote these works. Then you will be my ally and I yours. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If you "don't know any reliable sources" that provide evidence that "the authorship question" began before the 19th century, then you aren't able to read Marston and Barnefield.

I see. You haven't read WP:RS. We are talking about reliable sources in the academic literature, not primary sources, esp. as interpreted in the fringe literature of authorship speculations. Nishidani (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, sorry, but crackpot interpretations of "Marston, Barnefield, Digges, Jonson, and others" does not qualify as evidence in the real world. If you have a source that outlines that particular methodology, I suggest that its proper place is in the Oxfordian article, which does allow the use of fringe sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

{{Zweigenbaum]]

Well that must have cracked through your denials. Nishidani, you imply by your statement that the evidence of the time doesn't matter, only selective interpolations of succeeding generations that inert academic belief has turned into the governing paradigm, and those only you endorse and require me to endorse as well. And to Reedy, whose concern is that "crackpot" theories don't count-- don't you mean you hope so coherent a discovery as I outlined in sources previously wielded by yourself (-ves) will not now work a catastrophe against your contention? Try as you may to bury it by all means with invective, the truth will out. The point remains the same. Writers of the time knew who wrote the works of Shakespeare and they left documentation to that effect. Ergo, it was well before the 19th century that a "question" or better phrased an ambiguity, existed contemporaneously. As Keats put it, 'Shakespeare' lived a life of allegory. Going back to sourcing, Price is RS, by your own admission. Just like Shapiro and the writers of the time, she has found evidence of early doubt and misattribution. And just like Shapiro and the rest, her "interpretations", whether you personally like them or not, are quotable because she is RS - published by Greenwood Press. And I provided sourcing to McCrae (RS), the Friedmans (RS) and to Gibson (RS) as well. Do you now justify to yourselves deleting four creditable sources? Maybe they are not modern enough, or some other pretext? In answer to Johnuniq, my last edit removed half a sentence in the second paragraph that was an opinion being presented as fact. (i.e., see below the assertion that Shakespeare became considered as a power and name all to himself, etc.-- but in whose generally accepted view, other than being the opinion of Schoenbaum?) At the least, it should say "According to Schoenbaum...", which is a neutral limiting reference and no problem. Instead it says: and depends upon the perception of Shakespeare as a unique genius in a class by himself. In the first paragraph, on the other hand, I merely added material that was missing, complete with the four reliable sources that just weren't good enough and just had to be deleted. To verify that edit: [4] Of course my contribution has been reverted repeatedly with impunity. Incidentally I continue to be unable to log in, by any attempted sequence, even when the system says I am logged in, it does not register. Hence these tildes may not appear. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"If you think this formation of number cues is accidental or fanciful, see a doctor."

"you will have to change from being the arrogant fool"

Thanks for calling our attention to my "invective" (abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will). Thanks also for giving us an example of the kind of "so coherent a discovery" you would fill this article with. I believe my characterisation of that "evidence" is WP:SPADE.

You wrote, "Since you have categorically cut out any appearance of contrary evidence, there seems to be no percentage in presenting a final detailed version for you to eliminate." My reply is that unless you at least present the details of the sources, your suggestions cannot be considered by other editors. A statement is sourced before adding it to the main page, not after, and in an article as contentious as this one, it avoids a lot of problems to present proposed major changes on the talk page for commentary by other editors instead of adding them to the main page with a promise of detailed sourcing later.

An alternative for you would be to add the material to the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship and see what reaction you get from the editors there. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum No systematically ignoring my posts now, I see, nor recognition of my exhorting Mr. Reedy to seek the truth. Yes your use of the word "crackpot" was invective, name-calling, used to belittle and/or discredit comprehensive analysis of long misunderstood passages, such as Meres's praise of Oxford=Shakespeare and Jonson's First Folio eulogy of Oxford, with its tissue-thin surface of being dedicated to 'Shakespeare'. The disparagement of SPADE, I assume original research labelling, is unfounded. The ideas were published or were delivered in ecumenical conferences. These are contemporary-based clues you have so far successfully walled from entry into the article by shall we say arbitrarily associating them with the pejorative fringe belief and such language. And yes, my assumption you would find a pretext to deny any non-doctrinal reference is confirmed by the hypocrisy of your jibe, 'at least present the details of the sources'. Anyone reading this page would realize it would only activate a brief scramble for yet another pretext, employing slanted literature, to exclude contradictory evidence. That has been the history of the discussion anyway. On the same level of exchange, I'm sure your phrase "non sequiter" is meant to spell non sequitur. But so what if the pro doesn't know his Latin? That was never the point. The mandating function of the discussion page is the important point--fairness--but it is impossible, under conditions of majority bias against minority evidence. The manipulations serve that goal. The only solution would be Wikipedia-required comparison of explanations while dealing with such contentious subjects. That would be a severe crack in your stone wall, thus a consummation devoutly not to be wished. Point-counterpoint discussion is merely interesting, informative, verifiable reading. Nothing to fear for us seekers of truth. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the note I put at User talk:98.207.240.11 a few days ago regarding getting help so that you can log on? Re your messages here: please be more succinct. For example, text like "No systematically ignoring my posts now" does not assist the purpose of this page. I'm not sure that there is any text in your last message that could advance a discussion of what improvement should be made to this article. I am not quite sure what you mean by "fairness", but I do not recall seeing that term in the policy pages that I have read. Perhaps you are thinking of WP:NPOV which requires that all significant views are represented fairly, proportionately, and without bias. That has to be read in connection with the other policies, particulary WP:DUE (which is part of NPOV); it is not the concept of "fairness" that a television interview might use to have "equal time". Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdenting here to try to get back to Zweigenbaum's original post)
Thank you for the pointers to the previous discussions. I assume you refer these to me as I was one of the editors that reverted your changes to the article? In any case…
I've read the posts you linked to, and I've read your following exchange with Tom in this thread, and I think I see why you appear to be frustrated. Let me start off by saying that I roughly follow your line of reasoning (I don't agree with it, but I roughly follow it). I am not sufficiently expert to refute any of it, and I freely admit this to be the case. However—and I believe this is the root of the confusion here—the merits of your argument are not actually the issue here! I'm sure you're generally aware of this, but perhaps have not fully internalized the consequences of that fact, but Wikipedia has a few very specific quirks that may not be immediately obvious. First of all, your argument attempts to establish the “truth”; and on Wikipedia the criteria for inclusion is not “truth” but verifiability. That is, it strictly speaking doesn't matter what the truth is—even when that can be consistently determined—just what the sources say that the truth is. That means—literally—that if the relevant sources say the moon is made of cheese then Wikipedia must also say that, even if you or I find it patently ridiculous. Further, another quirk is that Wikipedia explicitly does not use primary sources, for all but some very few exceptions, and especially not when there are secondary sources available at all (much less a plethora of them). This includes if the case should be that the secondary sources plainly contradict the primary sources. And finally, Wikipedia does not allow original research, even to the degree that you might feel the policies forbid you from thinking for yourself (and uncharitable way to put it, but true none the less). These are core content policies (as opposed to various behavioural guidelines that are merely intended to foster a collegiate editing environment) and shape the entirety of what Wikipedia is and how it covers the subjects it has articles on.
In other words, the arguments you make to, e.g., Tom above may be perfectly valid and definitive in general, but they rely on principles that Wikipedia by active choice has forbidden as a matter of policy. You may of course disagree with these choices, but unless you manage to persuade a great majority of the Wikipedia community to a consensus on changing these core policies, we cannot on this specific article disregard them.
I suspect when you get the impression that Tom (or the rest of us) are unwilling to listen and engage in debate it is partially caused by this confusion about the core policies, and partly because we are reacting to a long string of editors arguing for the same goal that you are, who have not understood this and have been unwilling to be educated. What you appear to be interpreting as acting in bad faith on others' part is in actuality caused by them acting based on those policies, and perhaps out of a little more frustration than is apparently merited.
I am sure you would be the first to admit that mainstream scholars scoff at and disregard the Authorship question, right? If we for argument's sake assume that your position is the correct one and mainstream scholars' position is the wrong one, then the place to remedy this is still not Wikipedia! I take from your argument that you want this article to fairly represent both sides and make sure that reader is not left with an impression about the subject that is, from your point of view, entirely wrong. But the thing is that Wikipedia as a project has made the choice that if the mainstream view of a subject is entirely wrong, then the articles should also be written in a way to leaves the reader with the wrong impression. This is of course counter-intuitive for most, no matter what your background—but it means you cannot “correct” this on Wikipedia! You have to first fix mainstream scholarship, and then Wikipedia can report on that correction.
If you want I can explain why the project has chosen these policies (or you can read them, they usually explain why fairly well), and if you would like to try to change them I can help point you in the right direction. But arguing for changing them, or arguing contrary to them, on this article will not help and will largely just cause frustration among the other editors.
Finally: if you would like to discuss the changes to the article that prompted this thread, by making arguments within the limits imposed by the mentioned policies, I want to assure you that I will listen with an open mind and attempt to understand your points. I cannot guarantee, obviously, that I will agree or be persuaded by them, but can guarantee that I will make a good faith effort to listen. --Xover (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I will just add a few point to what Xover said. I quote from your last message. You say we should discuss "Meres's praise of Oxford=Shakespeare and Jonson's First Folio eulogy of Oxford, with its tissue-thin surface of being dedicated to 'Shakespeare'." Now Meres says nothing whatever about Oxford being Shakespeare as I am sure you accept. He says they are two different people ("so the best for comedy amongst us bee, Edward Earle of Oxenforde, Doctor Gager of Oxforde, Maister Rowley once a rare Scholar of learned Pembroke Hall in Cambridge, Maister Edwardes one of her Majesty's Chapel, eloquent and witty John Lilly, Lodge, Gascoyne, Greene, Shakespeare, Thomas Nash, Thomas Heywood, Anthony Munday our best plotter, Chapman, Porter, Wilson, Hathway, and Henry Chettle"). Likewise Jonson says in words as plain as day that the person on the picture is the same as the person who wrote the book. He refers to the fact that the engraver could not draw his wit as well as his face and that "since he cannot, reader, look / Not on his picture but his book." It's his picture and it's his book. Same person. Now it is true that SAQ writers have chosen to find hidden messages here. They say that the opposite of the plain meaning is asserted. It may be that this argument is sufficiently notable in SAQ writings to mention here. But it would have to be a very common argument and we would have to point out the mainstream reading of the meaning too. We can't include every argument. I assume that the "eulogy of Oxford" is the poem entitled "TO THE MEMORY OF MY BELOVED, THE AUTHOR, MR. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE". Again the identity of the author is plain. It's difficult to imagine that Ben woulsd refer to an Earl as "my beloved", but of course I know Oxfordians read all sorts of hidden hints into this. However, we can see here that it's obviously a eulogy to the Contess of Pembroke! Should we include that too? As for Meres, this is a very very marginal argument and it is entirely restricted to Oxfordians, who have to explain away the fact that Shakespeare and Oxford are listed as separate people. This would not be appropriate here, sine this article covers all alternate author theories. It would be best placed on the article on Oxfordian theory in which its importance could be debated, since that article too should not be a rag bag of every argument ever invented, but should summarise the main arguments. Paul B (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Re: logging in, no luck, even by turning the machine off and trying to log in afresh. Re other remarks: admirable attempts to be patient concerning my objections to the system as employed in this webpage. To be brief, let's just return to the (in my view pretextual) criticism by Tom Reedy that there was no page number in the Gibson reference I used to establish that the question of the Shakespeare author's identity was a point of contention contemporaneously. This theory revolves around a polemical poem by Hall and a counter by Marston regarding who actually wrote Venus and Adonis and Lucrece. The Gibson discussion is on pp.59-60 en passim. Gibson is a dyed in the wool Stratfordian but he is honest enough to put the controversy in print. The primary evidence is still there, in the guarded ambiguous form that such exchanges had at the time. For our purposes, there does seems to have been a contemporary question of 'Shakespearean' authorship. But the details hardly matter, because the entire edit was rejected on different grounds. Those were that I didn't discuss sufficiently on the discussion page. When I established I had done so, the reverters sought other reasons--not modern enough, et al-- and Reedy arrived at an incomplete citation. None of that at the beginning, so I suspect reflexive bias right off the bat. As for the Meres and Jonson interpretations--we are not going to agree. Meres definitely set up the listing including Oxford and Shakespeare with intention, and I demonstrated the underground message in that. I can as comprehensively show that the introductory poem in the First Folio is a Cardano Grille surface message, hence its very odd almost flippant language for so momentous a literary event. Under terms of the present personnel and respective assumptions, all this is verboten despite that he research has been in print. It is relevant to catalyzing a solution to the historical issue of identity. Thus, I recommended a point-counterpoint approach, whose persuasiveness however would seriously weaken the present academic analysis as represented here. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You demonstrated no 'underground' message. Instead you give this: "the person addressed as "Shakespeare" is mentioned four times. Vere is a homonym of vier=four in German, a language familiar to Oxford and many of his educated readers." That's not an argument, it's just making stuff up. You could prove Mark Twain wrote Shakespeare this way (Mark is the second gospel; twain = 2. four is twice two = Mark Twain). None of it counts here, since it is not found in scholarly literature. That's what we call "reliable sources". Your arguments are WP:OR. As for Hall and Marston, have you read what they write. It's very very obscure, especially the former. Any number of interpretations are possible. Gibson simply says it's the only Baconian argument that can be taken seriously (and its only works as a Baconian argument) and then gives reasons against it. Do you have any evidence thast mainstream writers even agree with his comments these days? A one off expression of qualified sympathy for one argument is not enough to claim that there is any significant mainstream support for a controversy in Shakespeare's day. Even Gibson does not claim there is a controversy. Paul B (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this explanation Zweigenbaum. For the benefit of other readers, “Gibson” is…

• Gibson, H.N. (2005) [1962]. The Shakespeare Claimants. Routledge. ISBN 9780415352901.

…and the relevant cite is to pp. 59–60 (59–61 actually; Gibson's explanation of Theobald is on 59–60, but his debunking of it continues into p. 61).
I've taken a look at it and it refers to a section where Gibson discusses several arguments made by Theobald. One of these arguments refers to a a satirical poem by the Elizabethan satirists Hall and Marston, which Theobald interprets as referring to Bacon and Shakespeare (under the names “Labeo” and “Cynic”). Based on the identification of these persona with Bacon and Shakespeare, Theobald interprets the poem in a way that he finds meaningful given the identities he has assigned them. Gibson explains this and goes on to point out that there is no reason to assign these identities to the persona of the poem following by disputing Theobald's interpretation. Before launching into this point of Theobald's, Gibson writes “Theobald's next argument is, in my opinion, the one piece of evidence in the whole Baconian case that demands serious consideration.”
While I believe his meaning there was “Everything else is so far-fetch it's not even worth thinking about to debunk”, I'll grant that if inclined to you could make the case that he meant “This is actually a quite solid piece of evidence.”
In any case, I do not see how this is a suitable citation for a claim that there were doubts about the Authorship of Shakespare contemporary with Hall and Marston; only that Theobald (writing in, what, mid 18th century?) had made an argument to that effect which Gibson found unpersuasive.
Did I perhaps misunderstand you? I was under the impression that you would like the article to mention that there were doubts about Shakespeare's Authorship in the 16th century, and that you meant to cite that to Gibson pp.59–61; but Gibson only refers to Theobald, and only in order to debunk the argument. i.e. the cited source does not support the claim. --Xover (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum There is only one relevant point in Gibson's discussion vis-a-vis the question of contemporaneous doubt about the Shakespeare authorship. One poet of the time made oblique reference that there was a pretender. The other (Marston) responded. 'Labeo', a word associated with Bacon because of his family motto, played into the dispute, which to our eyes and ears is highly abstruse. Thus, whether or not Gibson went for the idea, he did point out information indicating there was curiosity and doubt as to the writer of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece. That is what I meant by the 19th century NOT being the beginning of doubt about Shakespeare's true identity. As for the Meres reference, though at first exposure you may be skeptical, perhaps read Robert Detobel's 'Shakespeare The Concealed Poet'. He goes into it in far more detail than I could in my tangential reference. You'll see that there is solid substance to the thesis, enough that it opens up understanding of just what Meres was doing in constructing the information as he did. he was both broadcasting that "Shakespeare" was an independent writer, a real person, and, to the discerning literary readers, that just the opposite was the case, "Shakespeare" and Oxford were one and the same. The IO theme [ee-oo] is evident in the Shakespeare canon as well as in Oxford's poetical works, acting as a family identification device embedded in the verse. Thanks for even granting the possibility of a valid contribution to knowledge in this area. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Zweigenbaum To provide further proof of questioning or doubt concerning the creations now associated with 'Shakespeare': Price, who is presently RS has, on pages 224-226, a section called "Early Authorship Doubts", with 1595 as the date of an early doubt that she located. Recall that the Hall-Marston exchange was 1597. On page 225 of her book, she states "Edwards became the first to imply the poet who wrote Venus and Adonis was an aristocrat".

Also, McCrea writes on page 21 "The Case for Shakespeare" (Mainstream RS): "some Anti-Stratfordians allege that Jonson's epigram "On Poet Ape", written sometime before its publication in 1616, reveals Jonson knew an actor being used as a front man". Gibson confirms this could have meant Shakspere on p. 45 of his 'The Shakespeare Claimants'. Also on page 21, McCrea writes "many scholars think that Jonson's 'Poet-Ape" is Shakespeare". McCrea's "many scholars" is right there in black and white.

In sum, two RS (one agnostic, Price, and one Mainstream Stratfordian, Gibson) that have written on the subject of early doubts. That this information has been excised from the article lends credence to the accusation that the current editors are selectively editing, i.e., cherry-picking, sources to support these editors' personal or collective views. Shapiro's model of Bardolatry followed by a backlash gets no support from the available history. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for your explanation. Let's see if I can recast this to illustrate why this is problematic in the context of Wikipedia's policies. Theobald, writing in the 18th century (iirc), asserts that the Hall&Marston poem was intended as expressing either doubt about the Authorship or that it was making veiled references to a specific hidden author. You, here, are making the same assertion, and you are citing Gibson. Gibson on the other hand, only mentions Theobald's assertion and refutes it. That is, Gibson is saying that the Hall&Marston poem is just a poem. In other words, using Gibson as a source we can say 1) that there exists a poem by Hall & Marston; 2) that Theobald, in the 18th century, adduced doubt from it; and 3) that Theobald i wrong and the poem is just a poem (the position Gibson takes). We cannot, still using Gibson, say that there was doubt in the 16th century, nor can we say that the poem had any meaning beyond “the plain meaning of the words” (i.e. without any kind of interpretation).
Now, if we were to cite Theobald we could say that there was a poem in 1597 that he interpreted as referring to Bacon and Shakespeare, but then we would need to assess whether Theobald fulfills the Reliable Source policy, whether his interpretation is still current among scholars (18th century scholarship has usually been superseded by now), and whether his research is generally accepted within the scholarly community. I am being a bit tedious in listing the detail—because my immediate assumption would be that Theobald fails on all these counts and would not be a suitable source for a Wikipedia article—but I wanted to explain why rather than just dismiss it.
From a superficial glance the same problem obtains for your proposed cite to McCrea: the source says that Anti-Stratfordians at some later date adduce doubt from the pre-1616 epigram, but the source itself does not construe the epigram as indicative of doubt. McCrea might be cited for doubt expressed today, based on an interpretation of a 16/17th-century epigram, but cannot be cited for a claim that doubt was expressed in the 16th century. That McCrea thinks Jonson was referring to Shakespeare in Poet-Ape is fair enough (I haven't checked, but I'll assume it's correct), but McCrea doesn't link the two theories (he doesn't believe in an alternate author, he just thinks Jonson was ribbing Shakespeare).
I am here deliberately ignoring the points you bring up regarding Meres, and your proposed cite to Price, in order to try to keep this discussion manageable. We can return to them once we've worked through the Gibson bit.
Finally, I am left with the impression that in your reasoning above you've focussed slightly too much on trying to persuade me that there was doubt about Shakespeare's Authorship even in his own lifetime. You don't need to persuade me of that—whether I believe it or not is strictly immaterial—you just need to show that a Reliable Source thinks it, and show that their view is still current (hasn't been challenged or superseded by other reliable sources). I can't stress this enough, so if you'll forgive the tedium I'll repeat it: it doesn't matter whether the editors on this page believe there is doubt about the Authorship of Shakespeare, it only matters what ordinary mainstream scholars such as Wells, Schoenbaum, and, yes, even James Shapiro say about it. Any argument you make that attempts to persuade us that there's doubt is essentially a waste of time, even if you succeed: we can only report what the reliable sources say. This is the mental hurdle I alluded to previously: the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. --Xover (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Xover, the "Theobald" he is quoting is not the Shakespeare editor; it is B.G. Theobald, author of Enter Francis Bacon (1932). Tom Reedy (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a mention of very similar allegations in this section:

All anti-Stratfordian theories reject the surface meanings of Elizabethan and Jacobean references to Shakespeare as a playwright and instead look for ambiguities and encrypted meanings. They identify him with such literary characters as the laughingstock Sogliardo in Ben Jonson's Every Man Out of His Humour, the literary thief poet-ape in Jonson's poem of the same name, and the foolish poetry-lover Gullio in the university play The Return from Parnassus. Such characters are taken to indicate that the London theatrical world knew Shakespeare was a mere front for an unnamed author whose identity had to be shielded.

It is cited to McCrea 2005, pp. 21, 170–1, 217. If that needs to be further particularised, I would have no objections as long as it is made clear it is an interpretation, cast in the form of allegations and not a fact accepted by the academic consensus, and not exclusive to Oxford (those should be in the dedicated article), since this is an overview of the anti-Stratfordian case(s).

I would suggest you (Zweigenbaum) write what you think should be inserted and post it here on the talk page for discussion. Also concerning your problems logging in: You might be using the wrong password, have you tried clicking on the "e-mail me a new password" button? You can change it once you log in with the temporary button. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Hall and Marston evidence is discussed in McCrea (pp.137-8 in the edition I use). He points out that the Labeo referred to is a Neronian poetaster Attius Labeo, not the famous jurist Marcus Antistius Labeo, which the Baconian interpretation depends on. Attius Labeo was notorious for his rubbish Latin translation of the Iliad, hence he epitomises bad and derivative poetry. He is mentioned in Persius, one of Hall's models. Hall's Labeo has been identified with various authors in scholarly literature over time - Nashe notably, or recently Daniel or Marston. As McCrea and others point out the other information given about Labeo's output make the identification with Bacon nigh-on impossible. Regarding the "poet-ape" you misdescribe what McCrea says. He says that it may refer to Shakespeare, but that it's an accusation of plagiarism, not of being a front man - only the actual author can plagiarise. So again, this is not evidence of an authorship controversy. Paul B (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum I did request another password, though the original got me logged in; the issue is that being logged in is then immediately countermanded by the edit page of discussion section which says I am not logged in. However, to the immediate last point as indicative of the discussion in general. Whether McCrea thinks Mr. X was not a front man but just a plagiarist, merely opens the reader's inquiry, would either of these be the creator of the greatest English literary works? That is an enormous assumption. We appear to be denying the obvious in search of a locked-tight case against any other person than Stratford Will as that creator. The uncertainty evident from such terms or conditions as "front man", "plagiarist", or contemporary and copious praise for another as "best for comedy" when the theaters were filled with viewers of the comic plays in the Shakespeare canon, plays that had appeared at court in the 1570's and '80's--point to a contradiction in the Stratfordian narrative that cannot be avoided by a disinterested reader. Although Hall and Marston are far from candid as to who and why, their language does deal with uncertain authorship or production somehow some way. They are getting at something representing to some of us a problem existing then being placed centuries later. It isn't just "a poem", ergo thankfully harmless and of no meaning. But all this must be swept aside by seemingly responsible scholarship. And what is left after ignoring the parts that don't fit, is the default narrative itself, repeated and endorsed right down to you gentlemen, respecters of validated or endorsed study. It is the very contradictions that tell you something is missing in that study. I would certainly take up the invitation (for purposes of discussion I'm sure) to provide a paragraph on the matter at hand. That McCrea, Gibson, or any other scholar do or did not believe the evidence of something afoot from the materials they find, will not make the materials null and void of probity toward another thesis. The final question though is what good would that do, if the thesis has not been previously mentioned in the orthodox literature. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum, you are assuming that contemporary writers considered Shakespeare to be the "greatest" English writer. You surely know that Jonson criticised him for sloppiness - writing too quickly and coming up with nonsensical lines because of it. Beaumont referred to him as unlearned, following the "dim light" of nature alone. In any case, Elizabethan and Jacobean writers were always insulting each other, just like Alexander Pope and his contemporaries did. You could fill a book with insults directed at Pope -incompetent, lying, plagiarising etc etc. None of that is evidence that there was an "authorship controversy" around Pope. In any case, it's only possible that the poet-ape may be Shakespeare. It may be no-one - just a type - or it may be one of any number of other writers of the time. I rather doubt Shakespeare is the most commonly identified candidate, but I haven't attempted to tabulate modern criticism on the issue. Shakespeare was both admired and criticised in his day, from Greene onwards. Paul B (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Standards of evidence

I am not sure what the purpose of this section is. The gist seems to be that one group relies upon one set of data while another group uses another set. That kind of argument may be advisable in a case where one group uses the Bible to explain scientific observations while another group excludes the Bible, but to say that the two groups in this article have different sets of input seems nonsensical and confusing to a new reader.

If the standards section is somehow relevant, I do not think that anyone would argue that the Anti-Stratfordians have specialized in cyphers more than the Stratfordians, as the Stratfordians have conducted stylometric analyses more than the Anti-Stratfordians. (My understanding is that cyphering is more definitive of what the Baconians, Nevilleans, and to some extent the Oxfordians are engaged in. Some cryptographic allusions promoted by Anti-Stratfordians have been posited by Stratfordians.)

Perhaps my personal beef is with the word, "rely," even though it is used for both sides in this section. Words such as "emphasize," "specialize," or "concentrate on" would allow that either side was not leaning on one fact or narrow argument to the exclusion of all others.

Again, if this section is somehow necessary to the article, it seems to consider Anti-Stratfordians as the opposite of academic Shakespeareans and literary historians. Again, this is confusing to a new reader who would wonder what the Antis were studying if not Shakespeare and literary history. If the line read, "By contrast, mainstream academic Shakespeareans and literary historians...," I believe few would be confused or feel insulted.Fotoguzzi (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the handling of evidence is at the core of the debate, it is necessary to the article. That particular section introduces the two sections on anti-Strat and Strat evidence and give an overall assessment of the differences, i.e. Strats use historical evidence, which anti-Strats discount as evidence of a conspiracy (for one example). And for all oractical purposes, anti-Stratfordians are the opposite of Shakespeare scholars and literary historians. No Shakespeareans or textual scholars base an attribution on extracting biography from a fictional work, especially stage drama. Now if the author's biography is known, they certainly look for what could be biographical references (see Wells and Taylor Textual Companion (1987, 1997) p. 77), but they certainly don't base the attribution of the plays of Shakespeare on biographical readings. Anti-Strats do.

And the section, with its clear explanations of the differences, unconfuses new readers, not confuses them. The rest of the two sections goes on in detail, or as much detail as the article needs. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Fotoguzzi, I think what Mr. Reedy is trying to establish is that the questioned party has all the evidence and the questioning party has none, end of dispute. I "handle" the evidence exactly as a Stratfordian scholar would--does the information (linguistic, historical, or primary source) constitute clear and convincing evidence consistent with already established evidence, or at least does it form a basis for a working theory toward that clear and convincing evidence? Only by ignoring a tremendous amount of available evidence can the (Stratfordian) theory proposed by the defending party claim proof of their proposition. Hence there is an unfathomable difference between the parties, but that difference is not based upon their proving things differently,as asserted in the evidence section, but on one side insisting on the established bibliography favoring the established and possibly mistaken theory, while the questioning party considers that bibliography and its embedded assumptions subject to logical analysis. For example, Mr. Reedy and Stratfordians generally wish to discount the otherwise universal function of literary criticism, to adduce the life of the writer in understanding the writer's work. This is because there is NO correspondence between the life of the Stratfordian and the Shakespeare canon. The explanation you read above can be analyzed sentence by sentence in that context. Thus a comparison of the two approaches in the Wikipedia site would show contradictory gaps of the questioned (Stratfordian) party. Similarly, point and counterpoint style in the article has been outlawed by Mr. Reedy and his colleagues. The narrative becomes more and more strained under the light of logical analysis, i.e., how can Shakspere be Shake-Speare if he couldn't write his name on his will? Denial thus becomes the primary aspect of the Stratfordian contribution to the Wikipedia editing process. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum - your characterization of the "universal" function of literary criticism is far from universal, and may even be idiosyncratic. The idea of using literary criticism to "adduce" the life of the writer, to understand the writer's work, is in fact considered a fallacy in mainstream literary criticism. I do not mean to be perjorative, or to introduce a judgement here. My point is that mainstream literary criticism is different from the kind of literary criticism practiced by Anti-Stratfordians (as far as I can tell.) This dovetails with Tom's point - mainstream Shakespeare scholarship and Anti-Stratfordian scholarship in many ways come out of different critical, historical, and scholarly traditions, and an overview of those differences in useful to the reader. I will also say that your discussion above, and elsewhere, tends to move from discussing the article, to discussing the subject of the article. While you are entitled to your opinions, and your passion for the subject can be a great asset toward making this a great article, this talk page is not a forum for discussing Anti-stratfordian claims, but for discussing this article. I fear you are doing more damage than good, especially to casual observers who drift in here. Kaiguy (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum

There is no intention to do damage, --and to speak on the substance of your post, if literary criticism of Dante, Chaucer, Tolstoy, Twain, and a thousand others utilizes some generating frame of reference out of the lives of the artists involved, then that fact contradicts the assertion that no one in literary criticism refers to lives in order to enlighten an understanding of works, presumptuous one to one parallels excepted. As to discussing the article effectively, that appears an impossibility if an entire field of scholarship regarding the inquiry is discounted on an a priori basis. Reference to approved sources on relevant facts that contribute to the alternative view also has a hard time sifting through the net of what is considered kosher. Anyone reading this discussion page would notice an irreconcilable gap between the orthodox and the skeptical and that at present the former maintains the upper hand by majority means. If I point the conflict out, I don't see that as damage but responsible comment regarding a given article. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried. If Chaucer and Dante are supposed to be mainstream literary criticism, but no one in the twentieth century is, let that be the final argument for a standards of evidence section. Kaiguy (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Do not follow this, some kind of put-down perhaps. The appreciation of Dante's journey into the Underworld is increased by understanding the metaphors of his contemporary writers, one of whom made an allusion Dante picked up when writing the Inferno. (F.W. Locke, 'Dante's Perilous Crossing', Symposium, Winter 1965) So personal experience properly understood can contribute to an understanding of the allusions in the work, no matter who the writer is or when he wrote. Literary criticism of Dante or any other writer must deal in some way with the social frame of that writer. Arbitrarily or pretextually separating author and life (deconstructionism) has become merely a convenient way for defensive Stratfordian scholars to justify there being NO parallels between the life of Shakspere and the existence of the Shakespearean canon. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start a debate, because we've already gone pretty far afield. No one is arguing that biographical information about an author can shed light on his works. Stratfordians (gah) believe that since almost no biographical information on Shakespeare exists, the ability to see the influences of his life in the works is necessarily limited. Anti-stratfordians believe that not only does biography shed light on the works, the converse must also be true - namely, that the works will illuminate the life of the author. (And as Shapiro points out, a good number of Stratfordians do this too.) But this is not the "purpose" of literary criticism; mainstream literary criticism since the beginning of the 20th century (from the New Critics to "Death of the Author" and beyond) has rejected the idea that concrete biographical detail is approachable through the author's works. Ergo, Anti-startfordianism rejects this mainstream critical view, ergo, Anti-stratfordianism uses different scholarly approaches and standards of evidence than mainstream scholarship. (I've tried throughout to be neutral - I'm not saying anti-stratfordians are wrong, or their use of evidence is wrong - just that they use it in ways vastly different from mainstream scholars. The debate began about whether a section explaining this is necessary in the article, and as the back and forth here shows, it definitely is.)Kaiguy (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well as I wrote earlier in this thread, Shakespeare scholars do look for what could be biographical references (see Wells and Taylor Textual Companion (1987, 1997) p. 77, for a good example), but they certainly don't base the attribution of the plays of Shakespeare on biographical readings, nor do any other literary scholars that I know of except for anti-Stratfordians. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum I assume the position stated here is that respectable literary investigation does not intrude into a given work to state conclusions about the author's life, since that is right or wrong, in any case circumstantial information. However, the legal system, in search of missing persons for instance, do use what is generally referred to as circumstantial evidence. The legal profession comments on the book industry in the following. Towit: "Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence" (Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials."

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence#ixzz1AZdpqcLu

CRIMINAL LAW/LAWYER SOURCE: http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/circum-evidence.html Criminal prosecutors often rely heavily on circumstantial evidence to prove their case. Civil cases are often based solely, or primarily, on circumstantial evidence, particularly in cases involving liability.

Thus, circumstantial evidence if it is effective in determining liability or culpability, it may be effective in identifying a given individual. There is little or no circumstantial evidence that in one area, the literary, Shakspere ever wrote anything or was a writer. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence of his usury and business activities. Hence, the assumption that Shakspere was behind the writing known under the name Shakespeare is possibly the greatest circumstantial argument in English literature. The circumstantial evidence is limited to a 1590's payment for acting, association with the Globe and other theaters, names on plays, and a March 1604 dispersal of red cloth as one of the King's players. The literary name, not the person, received praise throughout. Then the 1622-3 writings for the First Folio posthumously glorified the Stratford person. This is a circumstantial record so full of holes, lawyers love to debate it and Powell, Blackmun, Brennan, Stevens, O'Connor, and Scalia of the Supreme Court doubted the validity of the argument Shakspere wrote Shakespeare. I would recommend a demonstration of circumstantial evidence for Oxford's contention, just to be fair, and see if it is persuasive. That Shakespeare scholars do not use circumstantial evidence is no reason it cannot be used in this solitary case in English literature wherein a fraud and deception may have been committed and a person who could write the Shakespeare canon may be missing from history. This is why the legal profession loves the study. Their position is, if Shakspere were tried as writing Shakespeare, he would walk. But literary historians who have painted themselves into a corner hate the idea of having to defend their case. Only by eliminating the entire concept of connection between life and work can the Stratfordian hypothesis keep from collapsing. It may be a losing game. Standards of evidence in this webpage does not benefit from delimiting means of understanding the topic, simply because the Shakespeare field has made that mistake. It may become a laughingstock if it does not face up to the field's unnecessary denial of practical methodologies because these instrumentalities may weaken that field's side of the argument. Or it may be miles ahead of the field it reflects, if it shows a circumstantial argument can be credible. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Things to do

Here are the todo items noted by Tom back on the 10th, with added points from Poujeaux, since the original thread has been archived. I've not restored any of the comments since off-topic and/or controversial stuff had been interspersed with the action items and the processing of them, and I didn't want to restore a too heavily edited version of people's comments. The original thread can be found in Archive 20.

1. Ref cleanup. Consistent format, complete bibliographic details.
2. Use of the terms “Stratfordian” and “anti-Stratfordian”. Should this be noted in the text just as a fact of the SAQ jargon that has evolved instead of being in a note?
3. One-sentence paragraphs. I think I've got them all but they should be checked again and edited if any are found.
4. Embedded links—first use only. Dupes needs to be de-linked.
5. Section titles: "arguments" vs. "evidence". Any suggestions? Or is this a problem?
6. Repeated use of 'all' in sec 1.1.
7. Consistent use of italics. I think all play titles, books, journals should be in italics and I have fixed some. But what about Shakespeare's Sonnets, or TV programmes...

If we could try to keep this section of the talk page focussed on the todo list, and take any longer discussions or major changes to separate sections, that would be appreciated. --Xover (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some trivial consistency issues: In the wikitext, there are two paras which are split into two lines. I assume we want these joined (the lines are 'Since 1845, Bacon...' and 'Oxford's use of the "Shakespeare"...'). Also, the heading "Standards of evidence" is the only one which has spaces like "== Heading ==". Several headings are followed by no blank line, while others are different. I can attend to these items if worthwhile. Is "no blank line after a heading" what is wanted? Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Fix 'em to whatever is MOS, and thanks for pointing them out. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do (but it might not be for 24 hours or so since I will be occupied elsewhere).

This edit fixed a couple of spellings to UK, and added a template that British English is to be used (good!). However, it changed two quotations. Search the article for "a courtier, a lawyer, a traveller in Italy" (was "traveler") and for "with the humours of Sr John ffalstaff" (was "humors"). Should these two cases be changed back to the original? Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph in Shakespeare authorship question#Alternative candidates needs a citation; and unless the source makes a summary very like what we do in the article, we'll probably need several cites that all say almost all of it (i.e. we need to avoid the appearance of novel synthesis). --Xover (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got sources all the way back to Chambers that say it (using the exact term "conjectures", which I iimigaine is the only contentious word), but I thought since it was a summary it didn't need a cite. I'll pull one out sometime in the next few days. (Historical and biographical are really the same.) Tom Reedy (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom has now put in the word 'case' in the 'case for' and 'case against', so I think we can cross out 5. This removes a potential accustion of bias. Poujeaux (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"reputation" for "eminence"

I suggest we change that in the lede. The word "eminence" has confusing connotations to some readers, implying stateliness or high social rank. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree. But what in the world do we change it to? My shortest summation of it is that we mean to say his wit, erudition, literary/artistic genious, and actual worldly success was an ill fit with his base origins in a rural town. How do you cram that into a word or two without running into the exact same problem that “eminence” does? --Xover (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was to replace "It was also noted, however, that Shakespeare's eminence seemed incongruous with his humble origins and obscure life" with "It was also noted, however, that Shakespeare's reputation seemed incongruous with his humble origins and obscure life". (We also need to rewrite that section again, as noted above, but we've all been distracted.) Tom Reedy (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that eminence is troubling - may I toss out "renown" or even "standing" as suggestions? Kaiguy (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think “standing” has the same problem as “eminence” (it tends to imply social standing in a way that leads people to look for the blue blood). “Renown” fits better, IMO, but may run into the problem of indicating he was merely famous and not that he was considered a natural genius, with unique insight in the human condition, etc. etc.; and I think “Renown” and “Reputation” both have the same problem in that sense. I wouldn't actually oppose either choice brought up here, but they don't fall perfectly into place for me either.
Would returning to something neighbouring bardolatry help? Maybe if we start from “Idolatry”, to avoid the discussion on jargon in the lede, and recast the entire sentence in that light? Or is that too much right now? --Xover (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Shakespeare authorship question was first posed in the middle of the 19th century. By then the adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time had become widespread, and its expression often extreme.[4] It was also noted, however, that Shakespeare's eminence as a natural genius seemed incongruous with his humble origins and obscure life,[5] and some began to suspect that the man known as Shakespeare might not have written the works attributed to him, with the real author hiding behind the name."

Something like that? Now my only problem is the phrase "obscure life". Kaiguy (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed that some of the second graf as re-written merely repeats the first and repeats itself. There is no reason for this repetition. Look (repetition bolded):

The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him, and that the historical Shakespeare was merely a front to shield the identity of the real author or authors, who for reasons such as social rank, state security or gender could not safely take public credit.[1] Although the idea has attracted much public interest,[2] all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief with no hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims.[3]

The Shakespeare authorship question was first posed in the middle of the 19th century. By then, Bardolatry, the adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time, had become widespread and its expression often extreme.[4] It was also noted, however, that Shakespeare's eminence seemed incongruous with his humble origins and obscure life,[5] and some began to suspect that the man known as Shakespeare might not have written the works attributed to him, with the real author hiding behind the name.[6] Thus began a controversy that, in the century and a half since then, has spawned a vast body of literature.[7] More than 70 authorship candidates have been proposed,[8] including Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, Christopher Marlowe, and the Earl of Derby.[9] Proponents believe that their candidate is the more plausible author in terms of education, life experience and social status, arguing that William Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the education, aristocratic sensibility or familiarity with the royal court that they say is apparent in the works.[10]

This just makes it long, loopy, and repetitious. I propose we go back more-or-less to what we had in the 2nd graf with a few tweaks:

The question about Shakespeare’s authorship was first posed in the middle of the 19th century, when Bardolatry, the adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time, had become widespread. But Shakespeare's biography, with his humble origins and obscure life, seemed inconsistent with his poetic eminence and reputation as a natural genius,[5] arousing suspicion that the Shakespeare attribution might be a deception.[6] The controversy has since spawned a vast body of literature, [7] and more than 70 authorship candidates have been proposed,[8] including Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, Christopher Marlowe, and the Earl of Derby.[9] Proponents believe that their candidate is the more plausible author in terms of education, life experience and social status, arguing that William Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the education, aristocratic sensibility or familiarity with the royal court that they say is apparent in the works.[10]

We need to get this done and forget about it. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been silent about this, but I haven't really forgotten about it, and I've been playing around with variations.

Your last version, Tom, is not bad at all in my opinion. I see you've finally dealt the coup de grace to my "It was also noted, however". Not that I'm complaining; I agree that it's too loose and colloquial for the context. The only thing I'm still uncomfortable with is "the Shakespeare attribution". Sounds too much like jargon. I think it would seem odd and incompletely comprehensible to the average Wikipedia reader. So I would request that we strongly consider splicing back in at least part of my original wording for that phrase. So my revision of your last submission above would then become:

The question about Shakespeare’s authorship was first posed in the middle of the 19th century, when Bardolatry, the adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time, had become widespread. But Shakespeare's biography, with his humble origins and obscure life, seemed inconsistent with his poetic eminence and reputation as a natural genius,[5] arousing suspicion that the man known as Shakespeare might not have written the works attributed to him.[6] The controversy has since spawned a vast body of literature, [7] and more than 70 authorship candidates have been proposed,[8] including Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, Christopher Marlowe, and the Earl of Derby.[9] Proponents believe that their candidate is the more plausible author in terms of education, life experience and social status, arguing that William Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the education, aristocratic sensibility or familiarity with the royal court that they say is apparent in the works.[10]

Discussion...? --Alan W (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Alan W that "the Shakespeare attribution" is too tricky for the lead, and offer the following possible replacement for the second paragraph:

Shakespeare's authorship was first questioned in the middle of the 19th century, when Bardolatry, the adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time, had become widespread. Shakespeare's biography, with his humble origins and obscure life, seemed inconsistent with his poetic eminence and reputation as a natural genius,[5] arousing suspicion that Shakespeare might not have written the works attributed to him.[6] The controversy has since spawned a vast body of literature,[7] and more than 70 authorship candidates have been proposed,[8] including Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, Christopher Marlowe, and the Earl of Derby.[9] Proponents believe that their candidate is the more plausible author in terms of education, life experience and social status, arguing that William Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the education, aristocratic sensibility or familiarity with the royal court that they say is apparent in the works.[10]

Tom's last version, and Alan W's version, and my version are identical after the "[6]". My version uses "attributed to him" which repeats para 1, but that might not be too bad? Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm good with either version. Somebody change it and let's get the rest of the work done so we can go to FA. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I like John's slightly more concise version though I would suggest using Kaiguy's trick of omitting the B word but linking to it: "when adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time ...". This makes it a little more concise and omits the jargon word that casual readers may stumble over. Poujeaux (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, plus I substituted "incompatible" for "inconsistent", which is more accurate diction. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Glad this worked out. --Alan W (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page auto-archive interval

Now that the volume of edits on this Talk page has subsided a bit, could we perhaps increase the auto-archive interval to 10 days or so (it's currently set to 5 days)? I'd normally just change it myself, but given this was made subject to criticism and interpreted as censorship (or some such) recently I'm asking for indications of consensus first. --Xover (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Although even with the 5-day frequency, the page hovers around 85kbs, go ahead and try it. If it lards up again we can always change it. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Strat and Strat terminology

How about something like this to replace the note we now have? I cribbed it from the Baconian page.

Those who subscribe to the theory that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him have come to be referred to as "Anti-Stratfordians", while dubbing those who maintain the orthodox view that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote them "Stratfordians".

As far as I have been able to discover, the two terms were first used almost simultaneously in "The Shakespearean Myth", by Appleton Morgan, Appletons' journal, Volume 8, p. June 1880, but of course we can't include that in the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion, exactly as it would be presented (in italics, with no bold, but with no indent in the article):

Those who believe that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him are known as "Anti-Stratfordians", while those who maintain the orthodox view that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works are dubbed "Stratfordians".

Someone is sure to add {{cn}}! Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this an improvement over what is currently there, and if so why? Personally, I don't really like 'dubbed' or 'dubbing'. If we want to avoid the cn question we can just start with "In this article,...". Poujeaux (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The other problem is that most Stratfordians don't consider themselves Stratfordians most of the time. The term is used only in the context of the SAQ.Kaiguy (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

How about something more like this - "Those who subscribe to the theory that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him call themselves "Anti-Stratfordians", while dubbing those who maintain the orthodox view that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote them "Stratfordians". Makes it clear that both terms are Anti-Stratfordian terminology.Kaiguy (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've always disliked the Strat/Anti-Strat terms, and this looks like a good solution. (Shakespeareans and Anti-Shakespeareans would have been a contender, but it seems to be too late now.) --GuillaumeTell 18:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I like Kaiguy's solution (mostly) as well. Not that I see anything wrong with the note as it is now, but then I don't know the background as well as others here. Mainly I'm chiming in to voice my agreement with Poujeaux: "dubbing" strikes a discordant note to my ears, at least in this particular context. Why not "calling"? "call"..."calling" maintains a parallelism that I think would work. --Alan W (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

For me, the trouble with 'Shakespeareans' and 'anti-Shakespeareans' is that it changes the terminology used elsewhere. So long as there are established words for the meanings needed, wouldn't it be odd for Wikipedia to decide it could do better?

No doubt the vast majority of people, asked who wrote the works of Shakespeare, would say Shakespeare, but I'm still not sure about "orthodox", which might suggest some preference for that view. How do people feel about "the majority view"? Moonraker2 (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

From Wiktionary - Orthodox, "Adhering to whatever is traditional, customary or generally accepted." If anyone has an argument that the Stratfordian stance is not orthodox, but merely the majority opinion, let them make it. I know there's some thinking that there may be a NPOV problem there, but I think I've seen Anti-Stratfordians refer to the orthodox position, i.e. call themselves (with pride) heterodox. Otherwise, I think "Those who subscribe to the theory that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him call themselves "Anti-Stratfordians", while calling those who maintain the orthodox view that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote them "Stratfordians"." works fine. (I changed 'dubbing' to 'calling' but I also like 'designating' for the second clause of that sentence - something in me chafes at using call/calling twice like that.)Kaiguy (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare on Trial, Part 1

Is there a reason that the sentence "The verdict came down heavily in favour of the man from Stratford" says 'man from Stratford' instead of 'Shakespeare'? I don't have access to the reference, and I wondered if it was because that's the way the reference framed it. (My contributions are going to lean more toward trying to liven up the prose - I'm not the scholar that some of the others here are.) Kaiguy (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this trial, but what's said in this paragraph is a terribly vague way to declare the outcome of a pseudo-legal process. If we look at how Wadsworth reports it, I imagine a change to "William Shakespeare" or "William Shakespeare of Stratford" would be justified. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Unearthing Proof

I wonder what people would think about changing the name of this section. Since none of the attempts to 'unearth' proof here were successful, I suggest changing it to something like "digging for evidence", or "proof" or something. There's also some smaller but somewhat substantial edits I'd like to suggest in this section: a) in the second paragraph, the second sentence reads "His dredging machinery failed to retrieve the concealed manuscripts" - I'd like to change the ending to "any concealed manuscripts" as I feel now it suggests that there are in fact manuscripts there, he was just unsuccessful in retrieving them, b) there are several references to "deciphering" or "decoding" that to me, imply that the idea that they were encoded or enciphered is correct or accepted. I'm not sure what the solution is to that phrasing, or if this is just my own bias creeping in, and it should be left alone, and I'd appreciate other people's thoughts on these. Kaiguy (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "unearthing" isn't the right word here. The section is about some strenuous special efforts, rather than the general search for evidence. How about "In search of proof"?

I also agree with changing "the" to "any". The expression " believing she had decoded a different message" is surely fine, but perhaps the same approach is needed earlier. "Orville Ward Owen used his famous cipher wheel to decode detailed instructions..." might become "Orville Ward Owen used a cipher wheel to decode, as he believed, detailed instructions..." Moonraker2 (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)