Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

Recent Deletions

I would like to question the deletion of material here[1], that contained the edit summary:

"Reverting to earlier revision. Latest changes include mistakes in spelling, grammar, etc., as well as material which I believe was already decided by consensus years ago should not be here.)"

Having searched the archives, I see no "consensus" that the material deleted "should not be here". In fact, I don't recall Slater's "Seven Shakespeares" ever being mentioned before. I do see from the article and talk page histories that a short section on the group theory had long been a stable feature of this article, and that more recently, these mentions have been deleted, with very little explanation based in policy. I also see that Tom said

"I would have no problem with a few paragraphs about group theories if it met the criteria of a featured article and went through the collaborative editing procedure for this article as per the arb sanctions (i.e. 1. talkpage, 2. talkpage, 3. talkpage), but I see no reason to include a vague paragraph that doesn't add anything beyond establishing that such theories exist; we already have that. I would think it would begin with Delia Bacon's group and selectively bring it up to date, using reliable sources, but I don't really want to take the time to research and write it. Apparently no one else does, either."

I can only say that I have some interest in doing so, and would appreciate assistance from anyone that cares to give it. The item on Slater's "Seven Shakespeares" was a small step in that direction. Tom's suggestion to start with Delia Bacon's group I fully agree with. But the suggestion that every edit be talked and talked and talked on the talk page is not, what I believe the ArbCom was calling for. (Unless, of course, every minor edit is deemed "heavily controversial", a description I would have a hard time applying to this particular edit.) Smatprt (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

While we discuss this particular deletion, here is a very short starter section on the Group Theory that I plan to post to get things started. I think it adds good information, is well referenced, and uses Reliable Sources:

While more than 70 historical figures have been nominated at one time or another as the true author of the Shakespeare canon, only a few of these claimants have attracted significant numbers of followers. In addition to sole candidates, various "group" theories have also achieved a notable level of interest.

I wasn't referring to Slater's "Seven Shakespeares" but the Shakespeare Roundtable Web site, which others questioned a couple of years ago. As for the other things in my comment, well, it was a bit disturbing to see a Featured Article that had been polished with such care over years suddenly edited with phrases like 'in which Ms. Bacon expanded her the "group theory"' and spelling Edmund Spenser's name "Spencer". You may know better (I assume nothing, since I don't know you; I know you have a history working on this article years ago before I started working on it, but I haven't seen any new edits of yours before, to the best of my recollection), but it just looked bad to have this sloppy stuff wedged in here all of a sudden, looking like it was dashed off hastily. An FA deserves better.

As for the content of your edits, I leave that to others. I joined mostly to help with copyediting and the like. Now that a discussion has been started between you and Tom and Paul on this talk page, I will leave the rest to them, who know the sources a thousand times better than I do, and anyone else who cares to join in. --Alan W (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Group Theory

Collaboration in playwriting was common during the Elizabethan era, with writers such as Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, and William Shakespeare appearing as co-authors of plays. Recent scholarship has indicated that many collaborations went unrecorded, including a number of Shakespearean works. It is not surprising, therefore, that various group theories of Shakespearean authorship have been proposed. As early as the mid-1800's, authorship researchers have theorized that a group of writers was responsible for the Shakespearean canon. In 1857, the first published book focused entirely on the authorship debate, The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare Unfolded, by Delia Bacon, was printed, in which Ms. Bacon proposed the first "group theory", attributing the works to a committee headed by Francis Bacon and including Walter Raleigh, Edmund Spencer and Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, among others.

A group theory was also proposed by Gilbert Slater in The Seven Shakespeares (1931), in which he theorized that the works were written by seven different authors: Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere - 17th Earl of Oxford, Sir Walter Raleigh, William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe, Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke, and Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland. In the early 1960's, Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, Roger Manners, William Herbert and Mary Sidney were suggested as members of a group referred to as "The Oxford Syndicate". In addition, playwrights such as Christopher Marlowe, Robert Greene and Thomas Nashe have all been proposed as participants. Some variants of the group theory also include William Shakespeare of Stratford as the group's manager, broker and/or front man.

I look forward to your comments.Smatprt (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Smatprt, we discussed this a year ago. As I recall, no-one other than you wanted to add a section on the group theory. As usual, your version of the section was a thinly veiled promotion of variant Oxfordianism. This one is less direct, but still pretty thinly veiled to legitimise the theory by placing it in the context of Elizabethan collaborative writing - none of which remotely resembles the scenario envisaged by anti-Strat groupists. Some versions, btw, also have WS as a writer. Paul B (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually, there was a section on the group theory in place for years. And more recently, on two separate occasions, Tom said he just hadn't gotten around to the group theory yet. Also, in speaking for the both of you, he said "Neither of us have mentioned excluding a section about groupists; our objection is that what has been offered adds nothing at all beyond a celebrity endorsement". So, in the present version, the offending celebrity endorsement is no where to be seen, and the information on the re-occuring group theories certainly adds additional history and interest to the article, imho. As far as "thinly veiled to legitimize the theory by placing it in context of Elizabethan collaborative writing" - where else would one place it, contextually? The theory, if true, would be just another example of Elizabethan collaborative writing. Perhaps I am not understanding your complaint? Smatprt (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. - could you modify your tone in the future? Saying "As usual, your version..." is just picking a fight I have no interest in. Please just discuss the edit, and not my supposed motivations. Smatprt (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't tell me to "modify my tone" or my tone will become more high pitched. Paul B (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any problem including a group theory section (after all, Delia Bacon's was such), but it certainly should not be introduced as if it sprung from modern research on collaborations. IIRC all the groups had some political purpose--either cranking out propaganda for the government or against the government. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What book is by Wells and Orlin? This is referenced in a note in the new Group Theory section, but it doesn't lead to anything in the References section. Could somebody please provide a properly formatted Harvard reference for this book? This is what I mean by throwing in items sloppily. The note is incorrectly formatted, and it leads nowhere. I don't have access to this book, so I can't provide the proper reference or fix the note the way it should be fixed. --Alan W (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Same holds true for Messner and Vickers (not the same Vickers source as the one already given). Smatprt, you seem to have access to these sources. Could you please put them into proper Harvard format and add them to the References section? A long time ago it was agreed that we would use that format consistently in this article. --Alan W (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm still deeply unhappy about this section. Firstly, some minor issues: Delia Bacon's was not the first book wholly on the question. That was Smith's Was Lord Bacon the author of Shakespeare's plays?, though admittedly it was cobbled together quickly to spoil DB's claims to priority. Is there any justification for calling her "Ms. Bacon"? The removal of the claim that Raleigh was not the leading poet in her model would, I suggest, seem wholly absurd to anyone who has actually read DB. Raleigh is mentioned uncountable times. Oxford is mentioned once in the entire book, in the introduction, where she says "He [Raleigh] became at once the centre of that little circle of high-born wits and poets, the elder wits and poets of the Elizabethan age that were in their meridian there. Sir Philip Sidney, Thomas Lord Buckhurst, Henry Lord Paget, Edward Earl of Oxford, and some others, are included in the contemporary list of courtly company." That's it. Most of these people are never mentioned again the entire book. So I think we should look for what the consensus of reliable sources say about what her actual theory of authorship is.
A more general problem is that there are many may variants of tthe group theory. I can see no reason why Seven Shakespeares is plucked out as somehow the main book after Bacon. Is there any specific rationale for this choice? Any source? Paul B (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Smith's publication was a 15-page pamphlet, not a book. He did follow up with a book a year later, but by that time Bacon (not Ms. Bacon; the term is a barbaric anachronism) had published her door-stop. Churchill and Gibson are good sources to use for the group theories, and yeah, Oxford was barely mentioned until the 1880s, and even then he wasn't a major figure in any theory until Looney invented his identi-kit methodology of literary attribution. Seven Shakespeares, which describes the various authorship theories up to 1931, said that Oxfordism been refined into a group headed by Oxford, and that it had supplanted Looney's single-writer Oxfordian theory by 1931. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it depends on how you define a book. Appleton's Shakespearean Myth (1881) appears to be the first clear articulation of group theory (of course DB is so evasively waffley it's difficult to even know if she actually does have a "group" theory or not). MCcrea claims that Ziegler had a group theory, but that's not my memory of what he says. The we have Thomas W. White, Slater and W.M. Cunningham - all in the late 19th century. After Looney, Oxford gets to be a groupie. Percy Allen has him in a group in his later writings (with Will of Stratford as a fellow writer) and of course we have A. J. Evans's Shakespeare's Magic Circle (Derby + Oxford with a little help from their friends). Michell seems to be pro-group too. So we could have a rough model of the evolution of the most prominent group theories. Paul B (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Tom and Paul, your edits have made my concerns about "Wells and Orlin" and a second "Vickers" moot. And "Julian Messner" turns out to have been the publisher of that book actually by Calvin Hoffman. I've regularized the citation of that book. Re "Ms. Bacon", you know, that was bothering me too, but I couldn't quite grasp what was wrong with it. "Barbaric anachronism" is a good one, Tom. :-) I can guess why Smatprt wrote "Ms. Bacon": to distinguish her in the sentence from Francis Bacon. But there are other ways to avoid that confusion. And we wouldn't write "Mr. Looney", so why "Ms. Bacon"? Her contemporaries would have called her "Miss Bacon", of course, but that's still not right in this context. --Alan W (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

For information, Calvin Hoffman's book was published in three versions. The first was by Max Parrish in London in 1955 and was called The Man Who Was Shakespeare; the second was by Julian Messner in New York in 1960, with the title The Murder of the Man Who Was 'Shakespeare'; the other was a paperback version of the second, published by Grosset & Dunlap, New York, in 1965. I've added the details of the original to the article. Peter Farey (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter: Thanks for this additional information. You can help even more with this item. Right now, since no one but, apparently, you, has ready access to the books directly (the only text we have now is an excerpt published on the Web by PBS), if you can provide the page number of the edition you feel is best that has the information cited (I am referring to the citation later on, in the new group-theories section), together with the proper title and publisher and so on, we can change the bibliographical information in the References section to that of that book, and not have to refer to the Web version at all. Both the books and the Web excerpt are valuable sources ("primary" sources in this case, but I think acceptable in this context), but the one on the Web is a degree removed from what is most desirable. Better to cite the book directly. Either you can make the changes yourself, or you can put the information here, and I will be happy to add it. Oh, and to be clearer, we don't need both Hoffman editions in the References given that this article is not primarily about Calvin Hoffman. Let's consolidate them into one, the edition you feel is best. (And we need that page number for the group-theories citation.)

Also, I see that Jehochman has reverted one of your edits, and it's true that you shouldn't have removed the Schoenbaum citation. But we can add back a citation to Hoffman's book at that place, without removing that to Schoenbaum, pointing to the improved entry in the References for Hoffman, once you provide the information. --Alan W (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer Paul's question, from above, "I can see no reason why Seven Shakespeares is plucked out as somehow the main book after Bacon. Is there any specific rationale for this choice? Any source?" - Paul (resisting the obvious "plucking jokes") :-) I cited Seven Shakespeares because it, in turn, is cited by just about all the recognized RS's in this article, Gibson (devoting 19 pages to it!), Schoenbaum, Shapiro, and even the Claremont study. You have been quoting these books for years, dude :-) Smatprt (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

But seriously, yes, I agree, there should be more examples cited. Smatprt (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A somewhat odd argument. It's "cited" - i.e. referred to - in several books we use. All of the books I mentioned are are also referred to the sources we use, so I'm somewhat perplexed by this argument. Paul B (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Kinney & Craig's Book

Perhaps this has been discussed before, but it surprises me that there is no mention -- or maybe there is, and I'm missing it -- of Kinney & Craig's book, Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship, in which they employed computational stylistics to demonstrate to most people's satisfaction -- mine, certainly -- that Shakespeare was the author of his own works, and nobody else.

So, while the content of this article is still worth discussing from a historical perspective, shouldn't the article adopt that perspective, now that there is valid scientific evidence -- dare I say proof? -- that neither de Vere of Oxford nor anyone else deserves credit for Will's life's work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorJoeE (talk • contribs) (Apologies for my brain fart in forgetting to sign this...DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 21:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC))

Interesting, but does the book address Oxford, Marlowe etc? It can't address some candidates, such as Derby, because we have no works by Derby to compare with Shakespeare's. It's unlikely to look at Bacon as he too is not known as a poet or playwright. Paul B (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Really it just demonstrates (again) that the works, excluding the collaborative parts, are the product of one author. It also demonstrates that the STM fragment is by Shakepeare and that he revised Kidd's Spanish Tragedy. It's very convincing, IMO. (And it does address Marlowe's contributions to the H6 plays, IIRC.) Tom Reedy (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed convincing; perhaps I should whip up a brief summary for the article. Another book that deserves mention, which I don't see referenced, is James Shapiro's excellent Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? -- which explores the additional question of WHY Shakespeare's authorship has been contested, and why such speculation persists, despite the abundant evidence that Will wrote his plays, and a complete lack of evidence that anyone questioned his authorship during his lifetime. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 21:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it would get more than a sentence or two, if that. My memory fails me, but I don't believe they mentioned the SAQ at all. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Shapiro is referenced many times. I'm surprised you say you can't see it. Paul B (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I thought that was his other ("Year in the Life") book. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 21:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Seven Shakespeares group theory

I've been reading Slater's Seven Shakespeares and so far what I've picked up is that Slater agrees with Delia Bacon's theory of a group or writers producing the works, with the substitution of Oxford as the chief executive of the group and the substitution of churning out propaganda plays for the government in place of setting the stage for democracy. He says that the plays exhibit different characteristics, that Bacon wrote R2 and R3, LLL was written by Derby, and Hamlet written by Oxford, etc. IOW he creams off the biographical arguments from all the single-author theories and says they're all correct. Interestingly, he appears to accept the positive evidence for Stratford Shakespeare as well, imagining that Oxford met the actor William Shakspere (of course, it's always "Shakspere") through Robert Greene and recognized his genius and enlisted him to polish the works of other writers, later on to botch plays together, and then gave him a free hand to write plays on his own. After Oxford's death Shakspere went his own way by writing romantic plays instead of patriotic propaganda.

Slater, who was an economist, gives a very good economic analysis of Elizabethan policies at the beginning, but then when he gets into talking specifically about the theatre and Oxford he takes Ward's biography--all of it, including the Interludes--as gospel, so pretty soon you don't know what information to trust. He makes a very convincing argument that Shakespeare's Italian geography is accurate, and his style is a pleasure to read compared to Looney, the Ogburns, Anderson and Stritmatter. I'm only 50 pages into the book and so far I haven't had to grit my teeth at the style or throw the book across the room at some idiocy, and I'll probably finish it in the next day or two. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please review for WP:RS/AC and WP:WEASEL

Regarding the tags that were removed after I placed them here: [2],I added them because the current article is not in compliance with either WP:RS/AC or WP:WEASEL. Please review the WP:RS/AC policy. Keep in mind: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." In this context "directly" it means "precisely" or "exactly". There is nothing precise or exact about:

• "Shakespeare scholars see no reason to suspect that the name was a pseudonym or that the actor was a front for the author" (all? some? no reason? They all say that?)

or this sweeping statement:

• "Anti-Stratfordians rely on what they designate as circumstantial evidence" (according to whom? All Anti-Strats? Some? What about physical evidence or documentary evidence?). Your citations don't answer these questions.

And any weaselly phrasing (as per these examples found at WP:WEASEL: "some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says ...") needs to be addressed. Smatprt (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of WP:WEASEL, since it's open to misuse as if it implies that one simply should not say that "some people assert X". In fact of course it states ""Weasel words" are statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite, or stronger in the way they are made". In other words is not weasely at all if some, most or all experts really do say X according to reliable sources. I don't quite know how these statements can be made more pracise. Do you want the exact percentage of Shakespeare scholars who say this? Are you denying that anti-Statfordians use the term "circumstantial evidence" on a regular basis? Do they also claim to use "physical evidence"? Maybe, but frankly, I don't know what that would be. As for documentary evidence, clearly they refer to documents, but this is usually to discover some hidden meaning in them. That's not what the phrase "documentary evidence" standardly means. You are asking for information that is not in the sources and then - apparently - blaming the use of the sources because it's not there. Paul B (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

And yet somehow this article achieved FA status with those statements there.

The lead is overly cited and makes clear that the vast majority of Shakespeare scholars (those who have thought about it, at least) agree with the statement. You can probably count on both hands the number who disagree, as the lead references make clear.

As to circumstantial evidence, there is no documentary or physical evidence that proves Shakespeare was written by someone else, it is all "circumstantial", except it really isn't in the real sense of the word. It is mostly speculation, misreading, special pleading, distortion, anachronistic interpretation, and flat-out making things up that are used to support anti-Stratfordian theories.

This is simply more of the same strategy you employed to keep this article from being improved and promoted to FA. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really have a dog in this hunt -- i.e. my contributions to this article have been minimal, so far -- but my neutral observation, FWIW, is that your examples of WP:WEASEL are not weasel wording at all. Mostly, they are accurate summaries of source material, which in effect is exactly the opposite. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-Stratfordians rely on what they designate as Circumstantial Evidence" - What's weaselly is the entire construction of the sentence, which implies that anti-strats only use circumstantial evidence, and in the context of the paragraph, implies that academics only use documentary evidence. Neither is the case as my recent edit shows. That version also implies that all anti-Strats are the same and use the same techniques. Diana Price, for example uses nothing but documentary evidence to draw her conclusions, as the regular editors here know.

A neutral summary would state that anti-Stratfordians present a combination of documentary evidence, including title pages, family records, and written statements made by 16th century commentators and literary critics; physical evidence, such as Bacon's note book, Marlowe's coroner's report or Oxford's Bible; and circumstantial evidence, such as similarities between the characters and events portrayed in the works and the biography of their preferred candidate; literary parallels with the known works of their candidate; and hidden codes and allusions in Shakespeare's own works or texts written by contemporaries. And academics use circumstantial evidence as well - including textual studies of every kind. It's completely weaselly to lump all anti-strats together and make such sweeping statements. Smatprt (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. You need editorial consensus before you make such (ill-written) changes to an FA article. Academics don't need circumstantial evidence to establish Shakespeare's authorship, which is what this article is about. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of current wording

I sincerely question the accuracy and NPOV of the following statement:

"At the core of the argument is the nature of acceptable evidence used to attribute works to their authors. Anti-Stratfordians rely on what they designate as circumstantial evidence: similarities between the characters and events portrayed in the works and the biography of their preferred candidate; literary parallels with the known works of their candidate; and hidden codes and cryptographic allusions in Shakespeare's own works or texts written by contemporaries. By contrast, academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely on documentary evidence in the form of title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies. All these converge to confirm William Shakespeare's authorship. These criteria are the same as those used to credit works to other authors and are accepted as the standard methodology for authorship attribution."

As written, the graph implies that Anti-Strats use ONLY circumstantial evidence. This is incorrect and is a generalization that also implies that all anti-Strats use the same methods. Consider these rebuttal points:

• Anti-Strats also use documentary evidence to build their various cases. This includes written reports from contemporary commentators such as Webbe and Puttenham. Anti-Strat researcher Diana Price, a published expert on the subject, for example, uses documentary evidence on a regular basis. Price is a RS for this article already, and her work is well known to the editors.
• Anti-Strats have used Bacon's personal notebook and Oxford's personal bible, which is certainly documentary, if not physical evidence (depending on the argument being made).

As written, the graph implies that Shakespeareans and literary historians use ONLY documentary evidence. This is also incorrect and implies that all these researchers use the same methods. Consider these rebuttal points:

• Experts in authorship attribution, including Shakespearean attribution, regularly use Stylometry, which is a form of circumstantial evidence. In attributing Edward III, for example, common techniques used have been variously referred to as "stylistic analysis", "textual comparison", "verbal parallels", etc. - the same kind of "literary parallels" that, when used by anti-strats, are correctly called "circumstantial". This double standard certainly needs to be addressed.
• In their attempts to attribute Sir Thomas More to Shakespeare, experts used these techniques: "Spellings characteristic of Shakespeare", "Stylistic elements similar to Shakespeare's acknowledged works" and "audience perception" - all forms of circumstantial evidence.

Thus my recent edit and current suggestion:

"At the core of the argument is the nature of acceptable evidence used to attribute works to their authors. Anti-Stratfordians present a combination of documentary evidence, including title pages, family records, and written statements made by 16th century commentators and literary critics; physical evidence such as Bacon's note book, Marlowe's coroner's report or Oxford's Bible; and circumstantial evidence, such as similarities between the characters and events portrayed in the works and the biography of their preferred candidate; literary parallels with the known works of their candidate; and allusions in texts written by contemporaries. Academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely on documentary evidence in the form of title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him. Academic researchers also use circumstantial evidence to bolster their case, including biographical parallels, contemporary allusions, and textual and stylometric studies. These criteria are the same as those used to credit works to other authors and are accepted as the standard methodology for authorship attribution."

I look forward to comments and suggestions for alternative wording. Given this information, how to structure this paragraph is anyone's guess. Attempting to define the "core of the argument" is tricky enough, without adding opinions stated as facts, and sweeping POV generalizations. Smatprt (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Smatprt, since you've gotten back from your latest topic ban you've done nothing but relentlessly and aggressively attack the SAQ pages to try to make them reflect your point of view. In fact, that's a fair summary of your entire Wikipedia editing career, which has earned you numerous blocks and literally years of topic bans. What you've really accomplished is demonstrate that you really don't have a good grasp of the topic beyond what the fringe literature says and you don't really understand the WP POV policies. This latest complaint is nothing more than an attempt to disrupt a featured article and divert us into even more time-wasting wrangling.

As you have been told above, the documentary historical record established Shakespeare's authorship. All those "biographical parallels, contemporary allusions, and textual and stylometric studies" are scholarly inquiry, and not used (except peripherally) to establish Shakespeare's authorship of his canon, which is assumed. Anti-Strats do not rely on the historical record; in fact they reject the historical record and bring distorted and perverse readings into play to try to find "evidence" for their man. The text as it stands is correct and reflects the scholarly consensus and the references in the article.

You need to step back and stop this endless nit-picking nonsense. The Arbcom decision is still in effect. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yawn. (keeping in mind that dee l'huomo costumato astenersi da molto sbadigliare, (a well-mannered man should refrain from yawning overly).Giovanni della Casa,GALATEO overo de'costumi, in N. Bettoni, (ed.)Prosatori del secolo XVI, Milan, 1831 p.249.

As written, the graph implies that Anti-Strats use ONLY circumstantial evidence.

In fact this is how Oxfordians frame their arguments. I.e. (to cite sources that are unreliable for Shakespeare but reliable for what the kiddies in the hermeneutic sandpit toss up

• 'Looney had said that a case based on circumstantial evidence must stand or fall depending on whether it finds corroboration by turning up more and more coincidences that fit the established pattern or runs into a dead end by turning up facts that undermine the case.'Warren Hope,Kim R. Holston, The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Authorship Theories,McFarland, 2009 p.93

• Shakespeareans reply that there is not a shred of documentary evidence linking anyone else to the authorship of the plays, advocates of rival candidates respond that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence-and, moreover, many reasons to doubt Shakespeare's claim.' James Shapiro,Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, Simon and Schuster, 2010 p.8

• 'De Vere's candidacy as an alternative Shakespeare is bolstered by an imposing cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence that demands serious evaluation.'William Farina,De Vere As Shakespeare: An Oxfordian Reading of the Canon, McFarland 2006 p.11,

• 'the nature of the evidence that will result from this method is circumstantial rather than documentary. Warren Hope, Kim R. Holston,The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Authorship Theories, Farland, ‎2009 p.75

• 'anecdotal evidence does not substantiate a claim to authorship in this case, if it cannot be supported by further evidence. This could for example be documentary proof in the shape of a body of facts, or it could be circumstantial evidence.’ Sten F. Vedi,Elsinore Revisited, 2012 p.20

• 'The case for Oxford thus far is circumstantial. But the principal reason that I question Shakespeare's authorship in the first place is a matter of evidence. If Shakespeare was the author the title pages proclaim him to be, then he would have left behind some personal evidence with which to support one simple statement: He was a writer. There's the rub. He is the only Elizabethan playwright of any consequence whose life as a writer is unsupported by any documentary evidence to support his alleged career as a professional writer.Diana Price Letter to the New York Times.New York Times, 24 February 2002.

• 'In the past 50 years, hundreds of scholarly articles, some with near-smoking-gun quality, have provided abundant circumstantial evidence in favor of Edward de Vere as Shakespeare. Lay persons tend to think that circumstantial evidence is weaker than direct evidence but the converse is often true, as taught in all law schools.'Paul Hemenway Altrocchi,Malice Aforethought: The Killing of a Unique Genius, Xlibris Corporation, 2010 pp.25-6

• 'Although often derided by mainstream academics, the case for Edward de Vere as the man behind the “Shakespeare” mask—first advanced in 1920—is based on an overwhelming body of circumstantial evidence.'Mark Anderson, Shakespeare By Another Name, ‎Untreed Reads Publishing 2011p.x

• 'THE THESIS OF THIS BOOK, THE “OXFORDIAN” PROPOSITION THAT Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built upon circumstantial evidence. There is no single “smoking gun” document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc.' Mark Anderson, Shakespeare By Another Name, ‎Untreed Reads Publishing 2011 p.382

• 'We invite readers to weigh the enormous volume of circumstantial evidence offered in support of de Vere.'Richard Malim, 'Introduction', in Richard Malim (ed.) Great Oxford: Essays on the Life and Work of Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604, De Vere Society/Parapress 2004 p.8

• 'Curiously, however, the gradual accretion of circumstantial evidence seems to be producing a biography of de Vere that could inform and and transform our understanding of the writing of Hamlet.’p.192 Eddi Jolly,'THe Writing of Hamlet', in Richard Malim (ed.) Great Oxford: Essays on the Life and Work of Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604,De Vere Society/Parapress 2004, pp.180ff. p.192

• 'Based entirely on circumstantial evidence, this still-popular theory overlooks the fact that Bacon never wrote blank verse.'R. Kent Rasmussen,(ed.)Critical Companion to Mark Twain: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work, ‎2007 p.584

• 'The question of the authorship of the poems and plays is to be determined only by the weight, not of direct, but of circumstantial evidence. John H. Stotsenburg,An Impartial Study of the Shakespeare Title,Morton, 1904 p.370.

• “There’s an awful lot of circumstantial evidence – obviously, there’s no absolutely documentary evidence on either side – but there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence that connects the Earl of Oxford to those works,” Beauclerk noted.'Rebekah Hearn 'Circumstantial Evidence? Author promotes alternative Shakespeare theory,'

This last instance is clear evidence that Price doesn't understand the distinction made in most other sceptic sources, but underlines that all the sceptics have to go on is what they call 'circumstantial evidence'.Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop wasting editors' time, etc. Everything Tom wrote there reflects with judicious precision the state of the art with regard to those who, airing their eccentric fantasies, play high Shakespearean stakes with that old fart.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

So we are supposed to entertain Smatprt's "proposal": "At the core of the argument is the nature of acceptable evidence used to attribute works to their authors. Anti-Stratfordians present a combination of documentary evidence, including title pages, family records, and written statements made by 16th century commentators and literary critics; physical evidence such as Bacon's note book, Marlowe's coroner's report or Oxford's Bible; and circumstantial evidence, such as similarities between the characters and events portrayed in the works and the biography of their preferred candidate;". This makes absolute nonsense of the phrases "documentary evidence" and "physical evidence". If I am accused of shooting you, then blood-splatter on my clothes would be physical evidence, and a letter expressing my intent would be documentary evidence. A copy of a book interpreted to contain a secret cipher unintelligable to anyone but the interpreter is not "physical evidence" just because a book is a physical object, and it is not documentary evidence just because a book is also a "document". You may as well say that the First Folio itself is anti-Stratfordian physical evidence and documentary evidence, because it's a book. We all know that that there are no "title pages, family records, and written statements made by 16th century commentators and literary critics" saying that anyone other than Shakespeare wrote the canon. None whatever. This is now entering the land of Oz. Or rather it is deeply, deeply disingenuous misuse of the English language. Paul B (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Check your Stratfordian privilege! Don't you know that Oxfordian scholarship is exactly the same as academic scholarship, except when it's different? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

'This is now entering the land of Oz.' Jeez, that's pretty rough on the Aussies who might, despite their larriken insouciance to everything but grog and skirt, accidently turn up, chuck a shufti at the page, and feel somewhat offended. They identify with the able lout Magwitch, not that pompous aristocrap.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Those Aussies know their munchkins from their elbows, and Jack Maggs would never squeal even on a pommie toff. Paul B (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Where I have difficulty with the words as they stand at the moment is in the alleged "contrast" between circumstantial evidence and documentary evidence. Circumstantial evidence is normally contrasted with direct evidence and (as Paul B. reminds us) documentary evidence with physical evidence.

In fact most of the circumstantial evidence offered by anti-Stratfordians is documentary, and most of the documentary evidence offered by Stratfordians is circumstantial. Each school uses its own set of circumstantial evidence to develop corroborating evidence. I think that Tom's own words in his and Dave K's "How do we...?" illustrate why I say this about Stratfordians too. "It's true that no one single document states categorically that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote Hamlet and King Lear, but then no such document exists for any other playwright of the time either. The evidence is cumulative and interconnected, and taken as a whole it leaves no doubt that a single man was actor, author, and Stratford property owner."

The problem is that the current wording encourages the reader to misinterpret the phrase "documentary evidence" as meaning "direct evidence". That there is some direct evidence on the Stratfordian side is not disputed (at least not by me); it's just that it's not direct evidence for the conclusion that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works attributed to him, only for other conclusions from which that final one can be inferred. Peter Farey (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Peter. I think what you miss here is Tom's careful qualification of 'circumstantial evidence' with 'what they designate as . .' In writing what he wrote, Tom simply took the kind of source evidence I provided above (see now James Shapiro, above p.8), where the anti-Stratfordians explicitly state that their approach is based on (inferences from) circumstantial evidence. They have no documentary evidence, whereas formal Shakespearean scholarship has explicit documentary indications corroborated by a mass of circumstantial evidence that confirms what, at least in standard historical method, the period sources state quite unambiguously. The rule is, we write according to what the parties argue, and there should be no doubt here that by the ipsissima verba of the doubters, there is no 'smoking gun' (physical evidence), and we only have conjectures based on counter-hypotheses that are grounded on a thorough going Pyrrhonism with regard to normative rules of historical analysis. Smatprt's argument flies in the face of what prominent representatives of his own position clearly affirm, and is, for that reason, based on the kind of 'craven scruple' over commonsensical interpretations that Hamlet complained of. Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss the careful inclusion of the words "what they designate...", nor your selection of examples demonstrating this. In fact I am quite happy to acknowledge that my own version of the Marlovian theory is based entirely upon circumstantial evidence. What is simply not true is your claim that anti-Stratfordians have no "documentary" evidence as such, since any inquiry into a subject like this is inevitably based mainly upon historical documents, from which both circumstantial and direct evidence are taken.

What you clearly mean is that they have nothing equivalent to the title pages, for example, where the name 'William Shakespeare' is given as the author, thus providing direct documentary evidence that someone called William Shakespeare was being presented as the author at that time. But this difference is neither accurately nor adequately described by the alleged "contrast" between the two types of evidence, circumstantial and documentary.

I'm not sure why you include yet another attack on Smatprt in your response to me, by the way. I thought that my comments were just as critical of his version as they were of the existing one! Peter Farey (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What makes the phrase, "no one single document states categorically that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote Hamlet and King Lear ..." true is "of Stratford-upon-Avon". We have many documents stating that William Shakespeare wrote Hamlet and Lear, and many documents calling Master Shakespeare the author, but what was being addressed in that sentence was the anti-Stratfordian insistence that the name coupled with his permanent address was necessary to identify him as the author.

To address Peter's concern I see no problem with expanding the sentence to read "direct, documentary evidence". But in my understanding documentary evidence is a document whose contents plainly states whatever point is being contended, such as the Stationers' entries that name Shakespeare as the author of his plays. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No Tom, as I understand it those Stationers' entries are direct documentary evidence that someone named Shakespeare authored the plays, and therefore excellent circumstantial evidence that the guy from Stratford did. Peter Farey (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This point is the entry into the anti-Stratfordian mindset. There is nothing circumstantial about a document explicitly naming the person who wrote a play. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. And the Stratfordian mindset appears to be simply to ignore the detail of whatever any anti-Stratfordian says, just because that's what he is. Is there any chance of someone responding to the specific points I have made about the problems with the current categorization of the types of evidence as if I were a reasonably intelligent human being, rather than yet another barmy anti-Strat? Peter Farey (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Peter, according to your usage of the term, every type of evidence would be classified as circumstantial. What, in your opinion, would count as direct, documentary evidence? Would your birth certificate count? It seems to me that if the official governmental entries naming William Shakespeare as the author of, say, Lear would not be direct, documentary evidence, then your birth certificate would not be either. It would be merely direct documentary evidence that someone with your name was born, and therefore excellent circumstantial evidence that you were born--or maybe just direct documentary evidence that the document exists? This lawyerly hyper-literalism parses meaning so close as to render it meaningless. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Tom, before reacting, why don't you spend a moment rereading what I have actually said? For example I did say that "those Stationers' entries are direct documentary evidence that someone named Shakespeare authored the plays". The relevant point, as you nearly got right when you said "documentary evidence is a document whose contents plainly states whatever point is being contended" is that, other than the word 'document', this is precisely what direct evidence (either documentary or physical) actually is. Whether it is direct or circumstantial depends solely upon just "whatever point is being contended".

All I am saying is that, as it stands, the article appears not to have a clue about about just what the different types of evidence are, and that this confusion is most evident in the bit espousing the Stratfordian position. If you disagree with the way in which I have interpreted those types, then please tell me why. Peter Farey (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The article states, "...academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely on documentary evidence in the form of title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him ..."

What exactly is inaccurate about that? The only direct evidence we have is documentary, since all of the people with first-hand knowledge are dead.

I offered above to change that to "direct, documentary evidence".

It also says, "Anti-Stratfordians rely on what they designate as circumstantial evidence ...", implying that their designation stretches the meaning of circumstantial evidence, which is the case, since most of the "circumstantial evidence" consists of speculation treated as established fact. I.e., if the plays directly reflect events in the author's life, then the fact that Oxford was waylaid by pirates is alluded to in Hamlet.

I don't see the confusion, myself. Instead of going around in pointless semantic circles, let me ask you this: how would you write the sentence? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The distinction in 'types of evidence' does not, as far as I can see, reflect any understanding of the historical method. It reflects the rules of evidence in a case of law, as is almost invariably the case in what the SAQ theorists write. The rules of evidence in law are not those used in historical analysis, for the simple reason that (a) no lives are at stake (b) no one is to be deemed guilty or innocent (c) the evidence of history is not 'verifiable', it's just what happenstance leaves behind in the records, (d) there are no possibilities of interrogating reflexively the witnesses. You therefore go on the 'evidence', documentary, circumstantial, etc., that exists, and do not proceed, as all sceptics do, on the basis of the premise that the evidence itself is dubious.

To go back to your lawyerish conjunction of WS/Hamlet/Lear and the Stratchap. If (a) the title pages of Hamlet Q1,Q2 gives William Shakespeare as the author, as does the First Folio, and (b) first folio contains Ben Jonson’s praise of William Shakespeare as the ‘Sweet swan of Avon’, then you can only challenge the inference that (b) corroborates (a) and allows us to identify WS of the theatre with the Stratford monument's writer, by turning up from the archives hard evidence that raises serious doubts over the equation historically made between the 'two' Shakespeares. Scholarship has that hard evidence, scepticism has nothing but a suspicion that it's somehow all 'circumstantial'.

Please note that on one equivocation of the word 'circumstantial evidence' in one line of a long article, you deduce that the whole article appears not to have a clue about just what the different types of evidence are. Disappointing, Peter. The article reflects faithfully what the best scholarship states and, has passed intense scrutiny by a lot of very cluely wikipedian FA experts from a large variety of backgrounds. What you are saying is that the historians, lawyers, English professors, scholars et al., who produce this kind of discourse are clueless. That may be possible. But, as Aristotle said, history is based on what occurred, not on what on what might have happened. If you prefer the latter, then poetry is what you should write. Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I echo Peter's request that you respond to the specific issues being raised? To recap:

• The article implies that all anti-Strats use the same methods, and only use circumstantial evidence. I have cited the work of Diana Price as an example of an anti-strat researcher that uses documentary evidence.
• The article implies that Stratfordians use only primary evidence, in contrast to the circumstantial evidence used only by anti-Strats. I have cited the attribution process of Edward III, which relied on style and verbal comparisons, as an example of standard attribution techniques used by mainstream scholars.
• Why is it that when Stratfordians use stylometrics, it's called "documentary evidence", and when anti-Strats use stylometrics, its called "circumstantial"? How can you "contrast" these? Isn't this a double standard?

Would it be possible to address these points? Smatprt (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're wasting our time. Attribution methodologies such as stylometry are not used to identify Shakespeare as a writer of the canon in the SAQ sense of the word. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That, of course, is nonsense. Jeez, it's even discussed here in your own article, for god's sake ("as well as modern stylometric studies"). And again, you fail to address the specifics being raised. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comes to mind. So, again I ask: how come when Strats use stylometrics it's not circumstantial evidence, but when anti-Strats do, it is? And how is it, for example, that when McCrea uses Shakespeare's supposed "Warwickshire dialect" as one of his proofs, how is it that isn't "circumstantial". Are you really sticking to your position that defines such evidence as "documentary"? Smatprt (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

REad the entire sentence. It does not make the claim that stylometric studies are "documentary evidence", although I suppose if we went by your understanding it would be, since the words are printed on paper. And attribution studies are not authorship studies in the SAQ sense. McCrea is not using dialect words to attribute the works to Shakespeare. He's using them to show that the author had special knowledge usually known only to Warwickshire natives. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So you do admit that stylometric studies are, indeed, circumstantial? Smatprt (talk)

Still silent on Price, I see. You just can't admit that she uses documentary evidence, can you? Smatprt (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a debate forum. Price qualifies the documentary evidence to suggest that Shakespeare was a con. In effect, her study proves that if you disqualify all the documentary evidence for Shakespeare's authorship, no documentary evidence for Shakespeare's authorship exists. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed the sources and they support the wording of the passage in question. If you want to dispute the edit, take it to the boards and we'll waste another week there. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

My difficulty with the current version is solely to do with a "contrast" being apparently drawn between circumstantial evidence on the one hand and documentary evidence on the other. Which type of evidence is typical of which theory had nothing to do with it, but the impression given that one of them is not "documentary" and the other not "circumstantial" cannot be right. Tom asks how I would write the sentence. How about:

"By contrast, academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely mainly on direct documentary evidence—in the form of title page attributions and government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office—and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies." Peter Farey (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fine with me. The use of dashes makes it a bit more comprehensible as well. You could probably leave out "in the form of" because the dashes make it clear that what follows are examples. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I apologize to any historians, lawyers, English professors, scholars et al. who may have been offended by my remark about the article appearing not to have a clue about about just what the different types of evidence are. Any such offence was entirely unintentional. Peter Farey (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No harm. Peter, if you dislike the language, write a note to the de Vere and Baconian societies to notify them of the confusion in the way they represent their methods. The distinction made is one that sceptics use, and we, as the page authors, can hardly complain about their usage, since we are obliged to reproduce it accurately. They say their argument is circumstantial, as opposed to the documented case that Shakepeare wrote Shakespeare. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that anti-Stratfordians could be used as reliable sources for information about any case other than their own. In fact I see that no source is given for the sentence in question, unless it is covered by the reference to Shapiro and Love further on. I know nothing of the latter, but Shapiro mentions "documentary evidence" only twice in the section cited, neither of which could be considered a source for the words in our article. Peter Farey (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that anti-Stratfordians could be used as reliable sources for information about any case other than their own.

Quite true. I used them as reliable sources for information about themselves: the sources cited amply confirm that they regard their arguments as 'circumstantial' as opposed to 'documentary', in the sense that the latter word bears in S.Schoenbaum's, William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life, (1975). Normative historical science accepts that the documentary record amply underlines and corroborates the accepted historical and contemporary identification of the London playwright with the Stratford Shakespeare. In writing: 'Shakespeareans reply that there is not a shred of documentary evidence linking anyone else to the authorship of the plays ; advocates of rival candidates respond that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence—and, moreover, many reasons to doubt Shakespeare's claim.'(p.8), Shapiro is contrasting what normal scholarship does, with what counter-factual speculation does. I note that Smatprt remains silent on the fact that his argument has been shown to be specious, since the evidence shows that de Vereans and Baconians accept their case is purely 'circumstantial', and therefore, to attempt to equivocate by asserting that, to the contrary, their case shares the same methods as standard scholarship, whereas in fact their method defies the documentary record, is just wasting people's time. The distinction 'documentary/circumstantial' contrasting normative Shakespearean studies from fringe studies is everywhere attested, and it is faux naif to pretend that no such distinction exists.

You differ, in that, while acknowledging the reliably unreliable sources I cited do indicate that what Tome wrote faithfully reproduces what these guys do, you ask us to provide an academic source that makes the obvious point. You are not then contesting the truth of Tom's draft, but rather that it is unsourced (or that, you'd prefer a legalistic definition of terms which, however, in historical scholarship, are used with less forensic rigour. It's rather like asking an astronomer to document the statement that the earth moves round the sun, since a fringe biblical view argues the contrary, and since the fringe view exists, the universal facts have, by parity of proof, to be confirmed by reference to RS.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If we need to tinker with the passage, I suggest that we use Harold Love, Attributing Authorship:An IntroductionCambridge University Press p.199 to gloss 'documentary evidence' ('clear documentary evidence' being what Love describes as the material 'orthodox scholarship' refuses to discard p.199) and pp.203-207, for 'circumstantial evidence', esp. where Love writes

'The Shakespeare Authorship controversy is an appropriate place to review the role of circumstantial evidence in scholarly reasoning, since most of the proposed demonstrations are of this kind. The presentation of circumstantial evidence usually takes the form of the bringing together of a series of indications which in themselves are not strong or convincing in the hope that they will be more impressive as a unity.'p.203.

I.e. rather than 'direct', 'clear' can gloss 'documentary evidence', and for 'circumstantial evidence' as the basis of sceptical arguments Love's text pp.203-7, esp. p.203 can be introduced as a reference, with Shapiro's remark on p.8. as a further ref.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Both Shapiro and Love are already cited. Smatprt's complaint is not that the statements aren't reliably sourced. His complaint is that we're not presenting the fringe view with equal status and with parity of methodology with the academy's, which is his definition of NPOV. In his view the page should be a debate. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I know. I was replying to Peter, who can understand the arguments, and raised some queries.Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No. My complaint is that you are applying a double standard in this section. And that this section is not written from a neutral point of view. You have written this section and cherry picked your sources to support your own viewpoint, instead of a neutral overview. Smatprt (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Your opinion has been stated, answered, reformulated, refuted, and restated, and rebutted. Next.Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The noticeboard is that way ⇒. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Smatprt, Wikipedia rules require us to adopt what you call a "double standard" with regard to fringe topics. We have a different standard for fringe authors than for WP:RS authors. Frankly I can barely understand some of your points. Whoever said that stylometrics constitutes "documentary evidence"? It's no such thing and never was. Yes stylometrics is used by what you call "Strats", but it is not used to identify WS of Stratford as the author of, say, Edward III. It is used to argue that passages in Edward III are probably by the same author as the canon of Shakespeare's works, identified as WS of Stratford because that's who everyone who commented at the time said he was. As for Price, she doesn't use documentary evidence, she tries to find arguments to discount documentary evidence. Paul B (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani. As I suspect you know very well, my words "I wasn't aware that anti-Stratfordians could be used as reliable sources for information about any case other than their own" were in response to your clear indication that the words "documentary evidence" were employed because "They say their argument is circumstantial, as opposed to the documented case that Shakepeare wrote Shakespeare." I was not asking for a source, only pointing out the lack of one which could have negated that indication. Frankly, I don't see what objection you can have to my preferring Tom's suggestion of "direct documentary evidence" anyway. That part of the lede which presumably summarizes this bit calls it "direct evidence" after all.

Meanwhile I did, at Tom's request, suggest how the sentence I object to—an objection which has nothing at all to do with my stance on the authorship question—might be slightly amended. I would appreciate it if someone would respond to that suggestion. Peter Farey (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Misprisions abroad, then. I see them in others, as others in my responses. Sorry if that is the case here. Peter, I don't mind 'direct.' I suggested 'clear' because it is thus used in Love, and sources were called for. My point was simply that Tom's original draft hewed close to the sources, and (b) 'circumstantial' and 'documental' evidence has a different valency in historiographical as opposed to legal language. I eschew speaking of anti-Stratfordians generically, because I think the only interesting position there is that for Marlowe, the rest is hysteria generated by, mainly, lawyerly minds with an affective afflatus, a sense of victimization for an unsung hero, and an inability to understand that arguing a case in a modern court uses a form of paranoid scepticism about the truth status of the given evidence that, were it applied, rather than used uniquely with regard to the figure of Shakespeare, to historical studies across the board, would lead to absolute pyrrhonism. The deVerean/Bacon line is not tenable for this reason. It implicitly recognizes two methodologies, a unique one for documentary evidence regarding the historical Shakespeare based on modern criminal law, while accepting that the normal methods for evaluating the probative value of historical evidence hold for the rest of historical research, where hermeneutic paranoia and casuistic doubt in defense of an improbable theory is not standard. I don't see this strain in Marlovian studies, which was why I was surprised to observe you adopting the juridical style re evidence so beloved of the other camps. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Not intionally juridical, I assure you. But as soon as I see something said to be "by contrast" to something else I expect to see them more or less mutually exclusive, which documentary and circumstantial evidence (as I, with no legal background whatsoever, understand the terms) are certainly not. If you wish to use the term "documentary evidence" in any other sense than the legal, then I would recommend that you remove the link to the Wikipedia mini-item about it (or, better, rewrite that item!), which at the moment certainly fails to support any other interpretation.

I'm glad to see that someone appreciates the difference in the approach adopted by most of the more prominent Marlovians these days to those of the other more popular persuasions. Pity that Shapiro assumed otherwise! Peter Farey (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

'Circumstantial evidence' requires inference, in contrast to documents like the title page of Hamlet (1605) which ascribes the authorship of Q2 to William Shakespeare, which prima facie does not oblige us to infer that William Shakespeare was the author. That's the contrast Tom's point marks out. Of course documents can engage in false attribution, something which we catch out when circumstantial evidence undermines the documented ascription: Jean Hardouin anticipated all of these fellows, since he thought nearly all ancient literature was falsely ascribed, and concocted just a few centuries before his own time. He had no circumstantial evidence for the position. I often think this whole challenge (apart from Marlowe) is a rerun of Hardouin, mutatis mutantis.Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Peter, I did respond, and Love is all we need to support the statement that anti-Stratfordians rely on what they term as "circumstnatial evidence". He devotes several pages to that. And the term "documentary evidence" I think is accurate, even in the legal sense of the word. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Tom, my apologies. It having been suggested to me a couple of years ago that it might be more helpful if I didn't insert my comments within the previous text—as I was used to doing in hlas—I tend not to look for anyone else having done so, and miss it if it has been superceded by a later edit when I log in.

Just to ensure consensus, therefore, is it ok for the rest of you if I edit it to the following?

"By contrast, academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely mainly on direct documentary evidence—title page attributions and government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office—and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies."

I see no particular reason for adding to the sources already provided, but if anyone thinks that more is needed, please go ahead! Peter Farey (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I just made the edit before reading your response here, Peter. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And I usually check the history page for changes for the very reason you mention--I've missed a few response myself in the past. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And just FYI, Peter, the Love section "Circumstantial evidence" starting on page 203 begins, "The Shakespeare authorship controversy is an appropriate place to review the role of circumstantial evidence in scholarly reasoning, since most of the proposed demonstrations are of this kind. The presentation of circumstantial evidence usually takes the form of the bringing together of a series of indications which in themselves are not strong or convincing in the hope that they will be more impressive as a unity." After giving some examples, he remarks that "all of them [links] are so extremely fragile that only the prior assumption that Oxford was the work of Shakespeare's works would have allowed them to be accepted for a moment.... This is not the stuff that conclusions are made on and if the gallant colonel [B.M. Ward] applied the same kind of reasoning to military intelligence received in the field his regiment must have waited a long time between victories." Tom Reedy (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I still believe the section is not written in a neutral manner. It still implies that anti-strats use only circumstantial evidence, when that is obviously not the case. Similarly, what precisely is the "contrast" between both sides using stylometrics, for example? Any proposal on how to address this? Smatprt (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

For the moment, some parts of the planet, including the WWW, are democratic, and therefore you are entitled to your 'belief'. You yourself, like most true believers, are not neutral. The points you raise have been answered, however, and you keep failing to listen. As Tom said, take your personal beliefs to the appropriate board if you are unconvinced. It's pointless rehashing for the nth time what has been rehashed here, and in the world of scholarship for, what is it, 13+152 =165 years, without achieving anything more than a yawn from an exhausted technical community that has more interesting things to do than listen to a broken disk of a popular LP. Nishidani (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

We've been through this bullshit since Day One: anti-Strat claims POV because he doesn't like the wording, the source is quoted in the ref to show that the article is following the source; then he goes to another section to make the same complaint. Later on he complains about too many source quotations in the references. It is nothing but unnecessary disruption to try to exhaust the editors, which was the prevailing strategy before this article was brought into policy alignment and promoted to FA status. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)