Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

Simplify the article!

There is too much talk and little gist in the current article. The only thing that matters is the boot-shaped country.

1., Commoner William Shaksper of Stratford has never been to Italy. 2., The italian-themed "Shakspeare" works were written by a person who had been to Italy for a lenghty period. 3., Game over for stratfordians! 4., Optionally choose your favourite Oxenford or else to take the commoners place.

This is about as much as anybody needs to know about the authorship issue and any further words are futile. Computerized textual analysis proves the royal dramas about the english kings were written by the same person who wrote the italian-themed plays, therefore W.S. remains merely an amateur theatre performer and the real bard was? (probably Oxford). 87.97.98.167 (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice and short. I like it. I will replace the current article with your concise version as soon as you explain to my satisfaction how you came to know point 2. Bishonen | talk 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

And indeed how you know 1. Paul B (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

George Wilkins

The section on "Personal testimonies by contemporaries" includes the sentence "Inn-keeper and part-time dramatist and pamphleteer George Wilkins collaborated with Shakespeare in writing Pericles, Prince of Tyre, with Wilkins writing the first half and Shakespeare the second" Surely this needs some qualification. At least something like "believed by some authorities to have collaborated" needs to be inserted. In any case it is not an example of a "Personal testimony" and probably doesn't belong in this section. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No one has defended the Wilkins section since I highlighted the problem. I am hesitant to delete as the author is obviously more knowledgeable than I am. I will give it another few days- till 10 December. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Check the article. The section was deleted the very day you suggested it [1]. There is no longer any Wilkins section! However, the known personal link between Wilkins and Shakespeare plus the good evidence of collaboration is relevant, though maybe too specific to include here. Paul B (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You are quite correct about Wilkins ,Tigerboy. And beware the term "inn-keeper" Wilkins was a plain pimp and at least once convicted in court of viciously beating one of his tricks.Some of the documents were discovered a hundred years ago by Alfred Wallace who discreetly printed them only in a publication from his local university.Leslie Hotson discovered a second document linking Shakspere (to use Will's own preferred spelling) to the skin trade and other gangland connections(Leslie Hotson"Shakespeare vs. Shallow" 1936)but Hotson chose to ignore the obvious link to the earlier Wallace discoveries.These were fully utilized by Alden Brooks in "Will Shakspere,Factotum and Agent"(1937),"Will Shakspere and the Dyer's Hand"(1943),and "The Other Side of Shakespeare"(1963) and incorporated by myself into John Michel"s "Who Wrote Shakespeare?"(1995).Diana Price independently arrived at exactly the same conclusions a couple of years later.

In 2008 Stratfordian Charles Nichol published a book length documentation entitled "The Lodger",which was most enthusiastically received by the main stream press but not by David Kathman and his ever faithful Tom Reedy over at Hlas and at their definitely non-"mainstream" Shakespeare Authorship Page.They are still printing the Wilkins was an inn-keeper blarney.

By the way,a considerable number of apparent Shakespeare lines show up in the Wilkins novel,"Pericles".If the appearance of Shakespearean matter there proves that Shakespeare collaborated with Wilkins than Paul should be arguing,if he is in any way capable of consistent logical argumentation,that the novel was likewise a collaboration between Shakespeare and Wilkins.

I have posted this information before but Tom keeps censoring it in hopes of concealing their slight intellectual mendacity.

Hope you get to read this before it goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Darnay (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well well well. If it isn't my old buddy from out of the past. I thought that was you when I read your first comments on the Alden Brooks page, but I wasn't sure until now. I read an interesting paper of yours just yesterday about the history of Baconism in the Oxfordian, I believe it was. Your essays at least have the virtue of not being boring, which is rare for anti-Stratfordian literature.

I'll look up the Hotson paper; it sounds interesting, but Wilkins is referred to as a victualler and tavern keeper by Nicholl, see pp. 198-9. Why you find it surprising that an actor, playwright, and theatre sharer would rub shoulders with prostitutes, pimps, and gangsters is beyond me; the industry is still full to bursting with them. And just FYI, every comment and every edit on Wikipedia is archived and readily accessible by clicking on the "history" tab or the archive page link. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the novel was a de facto collaboration between Wilkins and Shakespeare, even if Shakespeare was not personally involved in its publication. As for whether or not Wilkins was a pimp, what difference does it make to his or Shakespeare's authorship? Is there some law that says pimps can't write? Paul B (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at Hotson. Fascinating stuff. There's nothing in there that I can see about "the skin trade". Why you seem fixated on commercial sex is something of a mystery. Hotson's evidence suggests that a dispute between the thoroughly unpleasant William Gardiner and the slightly dodgy Francis Langley got out of hand and Shakespeare got caught up in it. Big deal. Paul B (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to the change.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Can some good soul here point non-initiated novices on where to look for/(find?) the "Hotson paper" being alluded to above? Thanks. warshy^talk 00:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's called Shakespeare versus Shallow. It was published as a book, and can be found in several libraries. It can also be read online in whole or in part. [2] [3]. There is a summary of the argument on the Francis Langley page. Paul B (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I got the book today from the remote stacks and have been reading it. So where's the gangland connection? I haven't found it yet. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of a mystery. I guess you promote Gardiner and his hapless stepson Wayte to the status of a mafia don and his henchman. With a bit of imagination Lee and Soer can become gum-chewing gangster's molls, on the basis of zero evidence. Paul B (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! warshy^talk 02:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Paul glad to see that you now realize the well known Elizabethan researcher, Leslie Hotson (who previously discovered the Marlowe inquest) is not a Hodson and Tom has discovered that he did not write a pamphlet.As there are only two Shakespeare documents discovered by Stratfordians in the past hundred years it is well to know both of them.

Moreover, since you admit that you are quick reading (you would have to renounce neo-Stratfordianism entirely if you ever took up thoughtful reading) it is, perhaps, understandable that you fail to differentiate between a book and the document contained in the book.The document is a complaint filed by William Gardiner of attempted murder. He accuses Francis Langley, William Shakspere(Kathman used to believe this was another gentleman of the same name), Anne Lee who lives in an alley by the Clink and Dorothy Soer.

Gardiner may well be lying (as Heminge and Condell may well be lying when they claim they received manuscripts from the author exactly as he conceived them, no George Wilkins or Tom Middleton or John Fletcher to their recollection) in accusing a female resident of an alley and a second woman(whose husband sent in his own lawyers to explain that his wife was on her own) when he accuses them of murder,but he is definitely intends to designate them as what you not incorrectly term "molls"

Francis Langley. There is far too small a commentary but you will find the few Strats or anti-Strats out there generally regard this as some kind of shakedown; they just what exactly was going on. Langley filed a counter complaint that he was the one in danger of his life, but you may recall that he took up show business after being forced (as I recollect with no document at hand)out of government service.The pot is calling the kettle black. Sounds like gangland to me. Though who the spiders and who the flies is anybody's tossup. Certainly nobody would a widow on Gardiner's evidence. There's a life of FL written in the late seventies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Darnay (talk • contribs)

There was no complaint of attempted murder. The phrase "for fear of death and so forth" is standard formula used in writs of attachment. Since you seem to delight in trivial slips, some of which are not slips at all, then I shall point out that it was William Wayte who made the complaint, not Gardiner. And Langley did not file a counter complaint. He filed first. You have your facts all over the place. As has been pointed out many times "the swearing of peace bonds was frequently undertaken tit for tat", as O'Dell says, so the so-called threat from Langley, WS and the women is probably meaningless. We all know that Pericles was not part of the Folio, nor was Two Noble Kinsmen. In other words H&C chose those works which were mostly Shakespeare's work. What do you expect? So I made a typo, accidentally writing Hodson insted of Hotson for a brief period. Why do you crow about this triviality? It's not as if your own contributions are not full of typos and factual errors. Yes, of course the Gardiner/Langley conflict may have been "some kind of shakedown", but we don't know what kind and it was initiated by Gardiner. But the reality is that we don't know what it was about. However, Hotson is clear that we have no reason whatever to take the view that the women concerned were "molls" or anything else. Hotson implies they were probably connected with the theatre in some way. His best guess is a landlady and a maid. Where you get the idea we know what street Anne Lee lived in I've no idea. Hotson was not able to identify either woman and makes several suggestions. I suspect you just make up stuff. Joseph Pearce states that Anne Lee was the wife of Roger Lee. The couple were noted for their activities in the Catholic cause, especially hiding Catholic priests. How Pearce knows this is a mystery to me. He just asserts it. Paul B (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul:" Since you seem to delight in trivial slips, some of which are not slips at all."In that case they must be mendacious. " So I made A typo, accidentally writing Hodson insted of Hotson FOR A BRIEF PERIOD".Hmm. So you pushed the trigger once and it just kept firing?

since you had never Look,Paul.you are not talking to Sranley Wells or even Tom Reedy here.I can well understand that you didn't catch the name of an author of a book of which you had just learned existed.I am concerned that(a) you and Reedy,whose been the eys and ears of David Kathman for nearly ten years, never knew the document existed before and (b)when you did get around to scanning the book you merely reiterated seventy year old,and rather inane,conjectures by Hotson.

I've got my facts turned around?You've got the order of what you allege to be facts turned around .You admit,"it was initiated by Gardiner" therefore Langley countered with his complaint.Wayte was then sent in on behalf of his Uncle.No, I was not making any mistake on either count of your indictment.

Moreover,I recollect (though you have seen the Langley compaint more recently than I) that it is Gardiner-Wayte who first drag Shakspere,the estranged Madame. Soer and Widow Lee in as co-defendants.

The manager of the theater is listed next to Will Shakspere so Hotson does think that the case has "something" to do with the theater.Well,they weren't actresses,they were not shareholders,may be they held the toffee apple concession in the "lobby".There is exactly one steady relationship which women whose husbands were no longer responsible for them held in the Elizabethan theater.To paraphrase Soer's position,contra Hotson's,"That was no lady. That was my wife."

As you well know, Henslowe kept the accounts of his brothels right in with his other theatrical accounts and son-in-law Ned took the best tapestries from one of the brothels straight into Dulwhich college when he decided to endow that worthy institution.Why Hotson was puzzled by what the connection could be surpasses understanding.

"There was no complaint of attempted murder. The phrase 'for fear of death and so forth' is standard formula used in writs of attachment." Yes,which is handy for the posthumous reputation of a lot of homicidal Elizabethans show people.In fact you recently posted a short list of such on another thread erroneously implying that I was not aware of the same.The circumstances here warranr the harsher (and by no means uncommon interpretation.

I can understand why gentle,almost Victorian, Hotson wanted to back off but you and Reedy?Why stop ye now for breath? Suc(,on the basis of FL's overall record) was the interpretation of Langley's biographer who escaped the unpleasant inferences by raising the mistaken identity defense(which we hear a lot around here),i.e. it wasn't Shakespeare bur another gentleman of the same name. At least that's where I think David Kathman derived it when he raised it at the debate we held in Los Angeles about ten years ago. The only thing for which I might need to apologize is Anne Lee's domicile but I expect to find she can be placed very close to the Clink and the word "alley" comes in there somewhere,I always correct misstatements. Speaking of which(and getting us back on topic at long last) you wrote,"We all know that Pericles was not part of the Folio, nor was Two Noble Kinsmen. IN OTHER WORDS H&C chose those works which were MOSTLY Shakespeare's work.." The "other" whose words these are is yourself and they speak for yourself alone.H&C or(as Malone found on cogent grounds) Ben Jonson pretending to be H&C)claimed they had received the copies which they were printing from the author perfect as he conceived them. None of this most of this or most of that.

When Brian Vickers first resurrected these very old attributions,the Kathman Reedy blog nearly deafened themselves with a chorus of denials.Further if,just once,you would read a little more pensively you would find that I did not say any specific attribution was correct as a I quite accurately compared the Heminge-Condell-Shakspere situation to the Langley-Shakespeare-Gardiner situation.We do not know to what extent any of them were telling the truth.Charles Darnay (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You can write gibberish such as "since you had never Look,Paul.you are not talking to Sranley Wells" and then spend several sentences making a big issue about the fact that I briefly typed Hodson before correcting it to Hotson. O tempora o mores. Gardiner "initiated" it because of the actions that led Langley to file the suit. If there was any shakedown he was doing the shaking. The order is clear in the sources and you have got it totally, utterly, completely wrong. Langley filed a complaint against Gardiner then his agent Wayte filed against Langley et al. Read the book. I've no idea what Kathman said, nor do I care. I will not contiue to discuss this here since it has nothing to do with the article. If you want to thrash over the details on your talk page I am happy to do so. Paul B (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Since you have never HEARD,Paul." For once we are able to acknowledge that you have a valid ground for complaint..Unlike you efforts to rewrite the Gardiner=Wayte complaint or even worse rewrite Hemine and Condell or-as Malone perceptivelly maintained-Jonson writing as Heminge and Condell.

"ReAD THE BOOK".We were trying to staert a discussion on George Wilkins and we cited the most pertinent contemporary document available Shakspere in 1597 was mixed up in a "business" entterprise with a mawd and a procuress(the "widow" can play the role) and a very fewe years later he is having breakfast at his lodging house with this bawdmaster who just happens to drop in.

Next we find him acting as go between for the landlady's daughter."Sweet Little Mary Mountjoy".(I forget if this phrase comes from Alfred Wallace or J.Q.Adams).Either way the groom takes "sweet little Mary" for a honeymoney at George Wilkins"s inn cum brothel or brothel cum inn as you like it.Even by today's standards ,so far as they may be said to exist,this is pretty kinky stuff.

Later.The infeerence Wilkins shows up at the Globe which runs two of his notably untalanted productions.The inference is obvious that lead stockholder Shakspere was payin off some unknown favor

The Globe successfully runs a show called "Pericles"(there is at least one piece of internal evidence concerning Charles Blount,8th Lord Mpontjoy,which strongly suggests it was written not later that the earlier 1605) in 1607-1608 1608.or earlier.An edition billed as by William Shakespeare.solo appears shortly thereafter.Heminge and Condell dismiss it(and many other Shakespeare editions) as inauthentic.We do not know whether or not the Quarto represents the same version previously played at the Globe.

The Heminge and Condell(or Ben Jonson) statement held until Victorian times when a major effort was made to give the first three acts in Wilkins.

A major against this was the obvious one that a major dramatist like Shakespeare wouldn't be caught dead collaborating with a miserable hack like Wilkins.Then came the Alfred Wallace documents in 1010.

Personally,I think Will sold ,or swaped for unknown considerations, somebody else's manuscript(written at latest early 1605) with old pal Wilkins.However,Paul,you stated sometime back before you became obsessed ny Leslie Hotson's admittedly fascinating book,that you could advance evidence(though somewhat complex) that Will was collaborating with Wilkins in the text as we have it.If so you would have an excellent argument for a Shakspere authorship.The first oone that I would have seen here.

By all means advance it. I positively won't heckle you or even say anything until you are through.

Paul:"I've no idea what Kathman said, NOR DO I CARE."

Just a minute ,don't you receently what you just wrote about Dave over oon the biography of Oxford thread.Don't you know that Stanley WQlls has made David an international authority on the authorship questiion? And Kathman will soon appear in three further officiallly sponsered British publications as their authorship expert.

They couldn't find a better in the entire British Isles.You can't buck authorities like this.And Reedy will shortly be butting in here to inform you of said fact.

Trotsky was booted from the Soviet Union when he started talking like this.Never mind what other sad things happened to him.

Missing Sentence 

In the second paragraph of Shakespeare authorship question#Sir Francis Bacon part of a sentence is missing. It's between Sir Toby Matthew and Jesuit Southwell; a citaiton/footnote seems also to be damaged. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That was introduced by one of Tom's edits. I've tried to give what I think was the intended sense and cited the Feil article, which first argued that Matthew was referring to Thomas Southwell. Paul B (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking good

As much as I abhor the edit warring and the incivility which has gone before, I must say... the article actually looks pretty good now! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's amazing what can be done to a page when edit warring stops and peace reigns for the first time since its creation!

Thanks for the kind words. If you have the time, your input would be appreciated at the peer review.

Cheers GG. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Need to discuss edits

Nina, I welcome any edits or suggestions that tighten up the accuracy of this article, but you should discuss edits to this page, since almost every change is subject to challenge on this type of page. As per the Wadsworth cite, a vast conspiracy certainly falls under the category of "some type of conspiracy", and neither does he say all conspiracies are such. Also please double check your page numbers; all cites have to be accurate so that reviewers can check them easily.

One item I wish you would help with is the summary of the Oxford case. It is around 750 words right now, which is really about 50 words too much. Anything you could do to condense it further and weed out any inaccuracies would be appreciated, but it has to be a description of the case, not an argument for it. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina I asked you to please discuss any changes on the talk page. Ogburn is not the only anti-Start who makes that argument. This article is a tertiary source, and Ogburn is a primary source as far as this article is concerned, so the statements pertaining to the SAQ arguments have to be cited from secondary sources. You might want to take a look at how this article looked a year ago; that's what we don't want. We also don't want any edit warring, so please discuss your edits when they might be subject to challenge. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You cannot delete sources, leave only one, and then write "according to [that one source]". The statements you attribute to Shapiro are cited in Schoenbaum and other sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Standards of Evidence Reedy writes: "By contrast, academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely on the documentary evidence in the form of title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies, all of which converge to confirm William Shakespeare's authorship.[24]"

This is false, as there is no documentary evidence whatever that William Shakspeear of Stratford wrote anything at all. In fact, no literary manuscripts in his hand exist. Bibliographic evidence - such as title page attributions - does not constitute documentary evidence. Modern stylometric studies are also not documentary evidence, but analyses of bibliographic materials (the printed plays and poems) conducted by scholars. Further, there is no "testimony" by Shakespeare's contemporaries in legal documents that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays, poems and sonnets--there is the "testimony" of legal records of a William Shakespeare as an actor and theater investor-owner, but not playwright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.71.250 (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There are in fact title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him—all which are classified as documentary evidence by historians. Tom Reedy (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I'm happy to discuss specific edits, but it's a lengthy and time-consuming process, and what seems to be needed, according to IronHand's comments on the Peer Review page is an overhaul of the entire article to make it more neutral:

Comments from Ironhand41 This article is not written from a neutral point of view and therefore is not ready for peer review. First, it is biased rhetoric. For example, the authors of the article go to some length to make those who don't accept the traditional attribution look odd and quirky by using negative adjectives to describe them. Second, the article casts the dispute as between academics and non academics. But there are a few academics who agree with the doubters and their number is growing. Additionally, there is a significant list of non academic intellectuals who have looked into the controversy and decided that the academics have it all wrong. The "us-versus-them" framework of the article as presently written creates a false dichotomy. Good arguments don't rely on appeals to authority and the claim that scholars and academics are neutral is an insult to anyone who has attended a university. Third, there are those of us who don't have a large stake in the authorship controversy, but whose interest and participation has increased precisely because of the underhanded ways a few academics and traditionalists have attempted to skew the argument in their favor. It would seem that waving a hand and declaring there is no doubt about who wrote the Canon doesn’t work well anymore. This probably explains Plan B; the effort to dress the skeptics’ arguments in a Stratfordian pinafore and claim with a straight face that it represents a neutral point of view.

I think you might be surprised at the extent to which you and I agree on many of the major issues concerning the authorship question. For example, for years I've been perhaps THE strongest opponent of the Prince Tudor theory and any of its variations because of the lack of historical evidence for it. I therefore find it odd that the SAQ article (and Shapiro's book) give the Prince Tudor theory such prominence without citing Christopher Paul's article which refutes it on the historical evidence (Shapiro cites Paul's article on p. 313 ('For an Oxfordian critique of the theory etc.'), but doesn't even mention evidence against the Prince Tudor theory in the text of his book). If anything will eventually overwhelm the Stratfordian position on the authorship, it's acceptance by the general public of the Prince Tudor theory when Roland Emmerich's film Anonymous is released next year. Hardy Cook realized this, and asked on his Shaksper list for suggestions for strategies which academics could use when the film is released. In the interest of neutrality, the SAQ article should mention the evidence against the PT theory, not merely the claims for it.

But on a more general note, it seems to me that the SAQ article doesn't come to grips in a neutral way with the real issue, which is the fact that the reason the controversy has existed for so long, and simply won't go away, is that although the evidence in historical documents for Shakespeare of Stratford's career as an actor and theatre shareholder is strong (a strength in the Stratfordian position which Shapiro barely mentions), the documentary evidence for Shakespeare of Stratford as the author of plays and poems is much weaker, and subject to endless argument because when Stratfordians argue that a particular document (such as an entry in the Stationers' Register) refers to Shakespeare of Stratford as the author of plays and poems, anti-Stratfordians argue that it refers to the pen-name. The SAQ article doesn't really focus on these two key points.

On another more general note, it seems to me that the SAQ article is living in the past. I haven't read Wadsworth, but however valuable his book might have been in 1958, it's not going to be read much today by anyone. Even Schoenbaum is pretty outdated. Shapiro now holds the field, and although his defense of the Stratfordian position is strangely weak, he provides a good overview of the authorship controversy.

I definitely don't want to get into revert wars, so if there could be some agreement by editors of this page on the two general key points mentioned above, we could all edit along the same lines without having to discuss each individual edit on the Discussion page beforehand, and if a problem develops because of a particular edit, that edit could move to the Discussion page and be reverted until agreement is reached. What do you think?

NinaGreen (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I've noted your comments below on this topic. Since the main problem with the page seems to be neutrality, I've deleted the non-neutral personal comments from the lengthy footnote on the 'fringe theory', and added a 'citation needed' note. The fact that Alan Nelson knows no-one in a particular organization who supports an anti-Stratfordian authorship theory can't be cited in a neutral Wikipedia article as a reliable source, and in any event, Alan knows Dr. Dan Wright, who runs the authorship studies program at Concordia, and presumably Dr. Wright belongs to the organization in question, so the accuracy of Alan's statement is debatable, even putting aside the issue of neutrality. And David Kathman's statement that most university professors devote as much attention to the subject as they do to creationism is belied by the 2007 New York Times survey which found that 72% of those surveyed covered the authorship issue in their classes.NinaGreen (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I've also removed the Dobson footnote which termed the authorship controversy 'an accident waiting to happen'. It's statements such as this which give the article its non-neutral tone. I've left the Bate citation in the footnote.NinaGreen (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, you can't remove WP:RS references that directly support a statement and then tag it with "citation needed". Tom Reedy (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, as I've said in the section below, I don't want to get into revert wars over this. The issue is not whether these are reliable sources. The issue is whether the statements quoted from those sources comply with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. The SAQ article will never get past peer review, never mind be granted FA status, unless it's neutral. Would it be better if you went through the article first and deleted all the non-neutral statements since you take exception to my doing it?NinaGreen (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

How Should Shapiro Be Cited?

I just added a citation for Shapiro, and I've noticed that there are two different page numbers given for every Shapiro reference in the article. Can someone explain?NinaGreen (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the topic of this article is an English subject, in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines the spelling is British and the British edition of the book is cited first with the American edition page numbers in parenthesis (see the book's entry in the bib). I'll get to your comments in the above section later, but it seems that the process is working so far in that I'm editing your edits to tighten up the accuracy and citations. Any disputes I feel sure we can hash out on the talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I can only cite the page numbers in the copy I have (American edition); hopefully someone can supply the page numbers for the British edition.NinaGreen (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Spearing The Wild Blue Boar

A new book out on the authorship controversy. I don't now whether it will be of relevance in editing this page.

http://artvoice.com/issues/v9n50/theater_books_for_christmas

NinaGreen (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not new; I've had it for a year or so. It's basically an amateur anti-Oxfordian rehash of all the mainstream SAQ books up to Shapiro. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Someone told me it was new. I'd not heard of it.NinaGreen (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The author has a blurb from David Kathman.Why be so dismisive ,Tom .The poor guy is over ninety years of age and if he ever gets a quick chance to play a suporting role in the neo-Stratfordian Follies it will depend as yours did on Kathman expertise.

WikiProject Alternative Views

I just noticed that this page is part of WikiProject Alternative Views, and am copying below the statement from the project:

Wikipedia's policy is to write articles from a neutral point of view describing not just the dominant view, but significant alternative views as well, fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Because alternative views lack the widespread acceptance enjoyed by dominant views and often suffer from a lack of coverage in verifiable and reliable sources, fewer editors know or care about them, and this imbalance puts alternative views at risk of neglect, misrepresentation, and a level of coverage not in keeping with their relative notability. This project aims to counter that tendency by facilitating collaboration among interested editors. This should all be done while following our basic content principles. It should not be an excuse to correct supposed suppression from the mainstream orthodoxy, to engage in original research, or to use sources that aren't verifiable and reliable. We are not here to correct real-world coverage. We are here to report real-world coverage. We are not here to counterbalance real-world sources. We are here to balance according to real-world sources.

Doesn't this fact alone dispose of the 'fringe theory' issue?NinaGreen (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"This should all be done while following our basic content principles. It should not be an excuse to correct supposed suppression from the mainstream orthodoxy, to engage in original research, or to use sources that aren't verifiable and reliable. We are not here to correct real-world coverage. We are here to report real-world coverage. We are not here to counterbalance real-world sources. We are here to balance according to real-world sources."

My suggestion is to thoroughly famliarise yourself with what those bolded areas comprise, especially Wikipedia's basic content principles as they have been interpreted through the various resolution procedures. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I have no disagreement with anything in the policy. It just seems odd to me that what Wikipedia itself terms an 'alternative view' would be designated in the article as a 'fringe theory'. The statement still lacks a citation. Perhaps when one is found that will help to clarify the situation.NinaGreen (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina apparently you disagree with WP policies and guidelines since you removed the citation and tagged the statement. The citation is acceptable as per WP:RS, which is why I suggested you familiarise yourself more with WP policies and guidelines. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, see below. I removed it because I'm following Wikipedia policies, not because I disagree with them! The statements are as far from neutral as can be, and neutrality is a pillar of Wikipedia policy.NinaGreen (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

EXTREME PERSONAL AND REFERENCE BIAS

The peer review submission by Tom Reedy is anything but neutral. Reviewing the footnotes he used to support his contentions, I read some of the most misinformed and bilious remarks about other scholars and other scholarship that I have ever seen. Kathman's and Nelson's in particular are little more than polemic, with Shapiro, Bate, Smith, and Wadsworth also characterized by summary judgment, unsupported by any specific factuality. The basic point of departure into polemic is their common assumption that Gulielmus Shakspere of Stratford and William Shake-Speare/Shakespeare of literary renown were one and the same person. Since this cannot be asserted without numerous contradictions collapsing the argument, it throws into question the (lack of) scholarly motives of the individuals involved. There can be no neutral discussion under these terms, and in this case Tom Reedy's neutral point of view is a travesty. The defensive posture of asserting that Elizabethan authors did not write out of their own experience and social frame, for instance, is clearly disproven by their individual biographies. The only biography to work chasm is that of the subject in discussion, Gulielmus Shakspere of Stratford. --Zweigenbaum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweigenbaum (talk • contribs) 16:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Modifying Argument to Theory then Hypothesis

Zweigenbaum Considering the strife that has resulted from loaded word meanings, I have modified "argument" to "theory" in the article. This is a less contentious usage in the direction of achieving neutrality of point of view. --Zweigenbaum Zweigenbaum (talk) 00:31, 23 December 10:

Zweigenbaum After noting that someone reverted the "argument" term at the beginning of the article, I followed the link supplied regarding it and used alternative wording found there, although this is not a science article. Either word is neutral, theory or hypothesis, as opposed to argument, which is not. Zweigenbaum (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum needs to discuss major changes with more editors than just Zweigenbaum, and an agreement between Zweigenbaum and Zweigenbaum is not really an agreement, is it? I am more than willing to listen to Zweigenbaums reasons why Zweigenbaum thinks the word "argument" is a loaded term, but Zweigenbaum has furnished no reasons for Zweigenbaum's belief, and until Zweigenbaum does, Zweigenbaum will have to be content with the traditional term "argument".

The word "argument" is not a loaded term, and aptly describes the many theories challenging Shakespeare's authorship in the same way that "question" (as in "Shakespeare authorship question) acts as a collective noun encompassing all those theories. In addition, and more importantly in my view, it is a traditional description of the SAQ, where "theory" is used for each individual candidate (Oxfordian theory, Marlovian theory, Baconian theory, etc. etc.) and "debate" implies a formal or informal discussion attended by interested observers, of which there have been several, none of them referred to as anything other than a debate (nobody has ever said anything to the effect of "Did you hear the hypothesis/theory/controversy between the Oxfordians and the Stratfordians?"). "Controversy" implies a contentious disagreement between experts or academics, such as the controversy over "A Funerall Elegye in memory of the late Vertuous Maister William Peeter", now settled, or the controversy over the authorship of "A Lover's Complaint", which is still ongoing. Within the academy there is no controversy; it is all from outside originating from mostly amateur Shakespeareans with little or no scholarly training. The use of the word "hyposthesis" as a collective noun for the many anti-Stratfordian theories in inaccurate in that it implies only one in a way that "argument" does not, and (as you have already commented) it is used most commonly with scientific topics.

I recommend that Zweigenbaum read WP:NPOV, especially the section Impartial tone, which states "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." We are trying to root out non-neutral language in the article, and Zweigenbaum's suggestions are being utilised for that purpose when it doesn't lead to inaccuracy.

Zweigenbaum might also begin new sections at the bottom of the page, so that other editors won't miss Zweigenbaum's comments. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum

Hmmm. A rather intense repetition of my name there, fourteen of them. Are you talkin' t' ME? HUH, I don't see no one else standin' hih. Are you talkin' t' ME? --Robert De Niro. One could conclude there is an ad hominem intent involved, and something to be considered in the final reckoning of the charge of non-neutrality. Like I said elsewhere, "The same thing that makes you strong will kill you in the end." --Neil Young. Getting annoyed at me is not going to help you solve this paralysis.

I added a new section, particularly meant for the matter of "argument-theory-hypothesis-and what's next?", which pertains to the section above it, concerning biased language that is decided non-neutral by any definition. Sorry if that snafued.

Now to Tom Reedy's reasoning. Contrary to charge I presented a reason, not a belief, that theory or hypothesis are preferable, being sufficient and non-combative in tone. 'Argument' implies conflict, opinion, and tension between or among the parties. This need not be the case and theory or hypothesis fits the neutrality standard. He clings to 'argument' as an expression of the matter of the Shakespeare Authorship question. But a question is not an argument and vice-versa. If 'theory' is too high-flying and 'hypothesis' is too respectable for that dirty Oxfordian intrusion, what shall we do to describe the Shakespeare authorship question? What about "The Shakespeare authorship question refers to a difference of determining the identity of arguably the greatest writer in English and even world literature. This major difference of assigning fame and honor involves distinctly contrasting means of using evidence and historical sources in defense of one of several contentions. The main ones are the traditionalist Stratfordian William Shakspere and since 1920, the nobleman Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford." Anything wrong with that? If so, we're like Odysseus, never at a loss. There is the colorless word "proposition". "The Shakespeare authorship question concerns the proposition, episodic since 1920, that another Englishman, not William Shakspere of Stratford, wrote the works of Shakespeare. Before that, a flurry of interest in Francis Bacon was the rudimentary response to the astounding achievements of the Shakespearean figure, amazing if considered to be an uneducated commoner from humble beginnings."

Now a word about your temper. In future, feel free to use the pronoun 'you' or possessive 'your', instead of the repetitive disrespectful misuse of my name, when circumstances occur that involve addressing me. That is offensive. It all goes to the final reckoning of how neutral your approach is. Just as a mnemonic device: "My mind it scuffs at pettiness that plays so rough/ Kick my feet inside handcuffs say OK I've had enough/ What can you show me?" --Bob Dylan Just let me know if you can live with a neutral term less combative than argument, and we'll discuss it. Zweigenbaum (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I was conforming to your obvious preference to be referred to in the third person, old boy, as evinced in the titles of your comments. Is there any reason you can't begin your new sections at the bottom of the page instead of in the middle where everybody has to hunt for them? All you need do is hit "new section" tab at the top of the page and everything is done for you. Give it a title and insert your comments and save the page. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum No problem. Due to manifold differences of view about the article's neutrality, I suggest a compromise of using the term 'proposition' with a slight change of verb for clarity, in the first sentence. The impasse should be noted publically, and this is the purpose of the neutrality tag at the top. We can make progress even though it is there. Remember Tom, we are not petty men; we are not small. Zweigenbaum (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Achieving Neutrality

Tom, I see you've restored this citation, and I'm not going to get into a revert war over it, but the statements are a long way from neutral ('creationists', 'UFO sightings','schismatics', 'ignorant of facts and methods', 'dismaying', the patronizing 'touching', 'creationists', 'dark conspiracy','I do not know of a single professor', the dismissive 'like St. Louis it's out there', 'nothing he can say will prevail' etc.)

^ Kathman 2003, p. 621: "...in fact, antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence. Professional Shakespeare scholars mostly pay little attention to it, much as evolutionary biologists ignore creationists and astronomers dismiss UFO sightings."; Schoenbaum 1991, p. 450: "A great many of the schismatics are (as we have seen) distinguished in fields other than literary scholarship, and their ignorance of fact and method is as dismaying as their non-specialist love of Shakespeare's plays is touching."; Nicholl 2010, p. 4 quotes Gail Kern Paster, director of the Folger Shakespeare Library: "To ask me about the authorship question ... is like asking a palaeontologist to debate a creationist's account of the fossil record."; Nelson 2004, p. 151: "I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... Among editors of Shakespeare in the major publishing houses, none that I know questions the authorship of the Shakespeare canon."; Carroll 2004, pp. 278–9: "I am an academic, a member of what is called the 'Shakespeare Establishment,' one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less, by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare—and, some say, who participate in a dark conspiracy to suppress the truth about Shakespeare.... I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him. Like others in my position, I know there is an anti-Stratfordian point of view and understand roughly the case it makes. Like St. Louis, it is out there, I know, somewhere, but it receives little of my attention."; Pendleton 1994, p. 21: "Shakespeareans sometimes take the position that to even engage the Oxfordian hypothesis is to give it a countenance it does not warrant. And, of course, any Shakespearean who reads a hundred pages on the authorship question inevitably realizes that nothing he can say will prevail with those persuaded to be persuaded otherwise."; Gibson 2005, p. 30.

If the article is ever to be accepted as neutral, this sort of thing has to go. Neither you nor I should be trying to 'prove' our position here. The objective is to present a neutral summary of the authorship controversy so that readers can make up their own minds. Right? There's been a lot of harsh language on both sides, but this article isn't the place to present any of it.NinaGreen (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As per my suggestion above,you should familiarise yourself with WP policies and guideliines, especially WP:NPOV. You might want to begin here.

We report what sources say; we don't say it for them, not do we tone them down or ramp them up. These comments are mild compared to a lot of stuff out there, but the fact of the matter is that the academic community considers the SAQ a fringe theory with no evidence, and they don't think too much about it. Those stats you quoted about Shakespeare professors (as opposed to scholars) are in line with how evolutionists treat creationism: they "cover" it by dismissing it. In no shape or form is the SAQ part of the accepted scholastic curriculum, except to dismiss of disparage the claims. That you know of one or two professors who treat it as a serious theory does not invalidate the scholastic consensus, and in fact the topic is banned from the Shakespeare Association of America as well as Hardy's listserv as a serious topic of discussion.

To recap: we present the various sources of each side by describing what they say neutrally, not by tempering or censoring their comments. Wikipedia's bias is toward the academic consensus, and the objective is not to present a neutral summary of the authorship controversy "so that readers can make up their own minds"; it's to present each point of view accurately and in context. If that entails offending the sensibilities of either side, that's too bad. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you think those quotations are over the top, I've got lots of "lunatic fringe" and worse if you want me to post them. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I disagree. I don't see Wikipedia as a forum for presenting mud slung by both sides and then calling it 'neutrality' because both sides have gotten to sling some mud (and in fact in the article as it stands, only one side has gotten to sling mud anyway, so the article isn't even neutral on that ground :-). Wikipedia is a forum for dispassionately presenting the arguments for both sides, keeping the mud-slinging out of it, particularly on controversial issues. We need to step back from a partisan position so that we can edit the article from a neutral point of view. It really isn't that hard. I don't in the slightest care whether this article 'proves' anything about the authorship one way or another so long as both sides are presented neutrally and impartially, without any pejoratives from the combatants (by 'combatants' I mean the sources quoted, not the editors of this article :-).NinaGreen (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, if the academic consensus holds that the SAQ is without merit, it must be stated so and the statement must be reliably cited. That is all. If the SAQ proponents say that William Shakepseare was an illiterate grain merchant who grew up in a cultural backwater and so couldn't have written the works, then it must be stated so and the statement must be reliably cited. That is all. The reason those quotations you object to are there is because any statement liable to be challenged has to be cited, and even with a cite, without quotations it was being challenged every time a new editor read the lede, just the way you are doing now.

And respectfully, you aren't really responding to what I say; you have only said you disagree and then give your reasons—not Wikipedia's—for why you object. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote:

Nina, if the academic consensus holds that the SAQ is without merit, it must be stated so and the statement must be reliably cited. That is all.

I agree completely that the majority view must be presented as the majority view, as per Wikipedia policy. I have no argument whatsoever with that. But I have not yet seen a reliable source cited in the article which says 'I speak for the academy, and not for myself, and the academy says the SAQ is without merit'. Instead, I've seen this sort of statement from Alan Nelson cited: 'I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare'. Does Alan know all 1300 members of the SAA? Has Alan questioned each member personally concerning his/her views on the authorship issue? This is clearly not the consensus of the academy. This is merely Alan Nelson stating what his personal experience suggests to him about the consensus of the academy. And it is flatly contradicted by the results of the 2007 New York Times survey of professors who teach Shakespeare at U.S. universities. So who are we to believe -- Alan Nelson's view based on his personal experience, or the Shakespeare professors who responded to the New York Times survey? I don't disagree in the slightest that 'if the academic consensus holds that the SAQ is without merit, it must be stated so, and it must be reliably cited'. What I obviously disagree with is the reliability of the sources you've cited for that statement. How can you cite Alan Nelson's view of the academic consensus based on his own personal knowledge, and not cite the New York Times survey on the academic consensus? I would be quite happy with a statement on the academic consensus which cited the New York Times survey. That survey shows what the majority of university professors teaching Shakespeare think. Why not just cite the results of that survey and be done with it? That would state the academic consensus fairly, and would meet the Wikipedia requirement of neutrality. At the moment, none of the sources cited is reliable in terms of the issue of academic consensus because each source is simply someone speaking for himself, not speaking for the academy. So the citations are neither reliable, nor neutral.NinaGreen (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So are you arguing that the NYTimes polled every Shakespeare professor in the world, and that's why it should be valued over Nelson's experience of the Shakespeare Association of America (of which he is a very respected member), as well as all the other testimony supporting that statement? (Because you have a habit of picking out one ref and basing your argument on that as if that were the only evidence adduced for the section.)

And by the way, Wadsworth is a good reliable reference. He was a very respected published Shakespeare academic and the rebuttals, like the arguments, haven't changed all that much in the past 50 years. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, no, of course I'm not arguing that the New York Times polled every Shakespeare professor in the world. I'm arguing the very clear and irrefutable point that you can't claim to represent the views of the academy in the SAQ article by citing the comments of three or four members of the academy (and in any event your first citation is by David Kathman, who isn't a member of the academy). If you're going to make a claim concerning the position of the academy in the SAQ article and not violate the Wikipedia pillars of neutrality, verifiability and no original research, you have to cite the best evidence you have of the academy's collective view. The only evidence of the academy's collective view that I'm aware of is the New York Times survey, which is recent (2007) and representative. If there's something more recent and more authoritative which represents the collective views of the academy, by all means cite that. If there's nothing which can be cited which verifiably represents the collective view of the academy, then delete the section from the text of the SAQ.NinaGreen (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag because the assertions of POV are vague and all over the place. How an editor who has not contributed one edit is able to tag an article based on unsupported generalised assertions as he posted earlier is simply ludicrous. A sentence such as "The basic point of departure into polemic is their common assumption that Gulielmus Shakspere of Stratford and William Shake-Speare/Shakespeare of literary renown were one and the same person" is pure nonsense. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User: Zweigenbaum Since you made a point of issuing the following statement, I as its target wish to respond to it.

"I have removed the POV tag because the assertions of POV are vague and all over the place. How an editor who has not contributed one edit is able to tag an article based on unsupported generalised assertions as he posted earlier is simply ludicrous. A sentence such as "The basic point of departure into polemic is their common assumption that Gulielmus Shakspere of Stratford and William Shake-Speare/Shakespeare of literary renown were one and the same person" is pure nonsense."

Under ordinary conditions in a face to face encounter, I doubt you would try this. In our hopefully civil context, I would appreciate you managing your own anger and sensibilities so that substance rather than opinionated characterizations occupies the exchanges. To the main point. You had no right under rule to remove the notice of a neutrality dispute. These responses demonstrate too well that there is a neutrality dispute. That is sufficient cause to post a notice, whether I've recently enrolled as an editor or not. Therefore, kindly adjust your approach and methods if you can. I know there must be a protocol to protest someone trying to take over a Wikipedia subject section, and as I understand you are a follower of David Kathman, the last word in bias on this topic, maybe that will be the eventual course.

As to whether my remarks were ludicrous and/or pure nonsense, that remains to be proven. The judgment was asserted and followed by unacceptable and arbitrary censorship. Is it possible you are also responsible for moving the lengthy comments below to an out of the way archive location, so you would not have to deal with their import? Is this neutrality? I seriously doubt. It appears to be an action in bad faith. The archived remarks are totally relevant and should be considered, not ignored, whatever the rationalization for doing so.

The sentence you quoted is far from the complete statement that I made under the discussion category, but I will be happy to back it up. James Shapiro's 'Contested Will' operates on the very assumption I cited, that the Stratford burgher named Gulielmus Shakspere and the literary giant whose moniker was Shake-Speare/Shakespeare were identical. If that were the case in fact, there would naturally be factual support in the form of letters, books, bookcases, desk(s), writing implements, manuscripts, exchanges with other writers, remarks from and to writers and university scholars, contracts, local anecdotes (which last an extremely long time), visits from dignitaries and other writers, sales, legal suits regarding pirated materials, recovery actions, encomia and elegiacal literature upon the writer's death, and so on. In this evidentiary profile of the Stratford burgher there is literally nothing, though similar materials exist to a greater or lesser extent for all other contemporary writers. Consult Ms Price's documentation if truly curious. There was a person, honored in his own time, who presented many of the same "Shakespearean" plays at court in the 1570's and '80's, with the same plots and characters but differing titles. He was given covert, discreet, but unmistakable tributes by writers and almanac compilers during the era and remembered as the apex of Elizabethan literature after his death. That person, whoever he was, was surely not from Stratford, whose now most famous citizen was noted not at all at his death, even by fellow townsmen, until useful in the First Folio publication. All of the writers making tribute were friends, colleagues, or former employees of the Herbert brothers or Jonson, themselves followers of de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. It is not prudent academic practice to ignore the obvious, but people are often foolish. Therefore the statement that "The basic point of departure into polemic is their [Stratfordians'] common assumption that Gulielmus Shakspere of Stratford and William Shake-Speare/Shakespeare of literary renown were one and the same person," is not ludicrous, not nonsense, not vague and all over the place. If the shoe fits, wear it. My statement pertains specifically to the subject matter, a unique one of secrecy and deception, and especially to the methods of study, namely, the Stratfordian (i.e., your) incapacity to come close to a "neutral" point of view. Operating on the wrong basic assumptions, you will never reach an acceptable objective analysis. The only way to rectify what has been submitted for peer review is to utterly re-write it from a more removed perspective.

I do not expect an apology for the aspersions, which I regard as a fine example of a believer's emotional reflex to a disturbing challenge upon his beliefs, resulting in an attack on/dismissal of the messenger. In Latin class we learned to call it ad hominem arguing--if you can't beat the argument, go after the speaker. This may not be in the relevant literature, but it is a fact: we're not children any more. Attacks don't work. You'll get more respect with reasoned statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweigenbaum (talk • contribs) 10:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Why you feel the need to write Shakespeare's first name Latin is some thing of a mystery. There are many records of Shakespeare which clearly indicate that the writer was one and the same person who was born and died in Stratford. Why on earth do you think there should be "letters, books, bookcases, desk(s), writing implements, manuscripts,..." etc? How many are there for other playwrights of the period. Do we have Kyd's or Marlowe's bookcases etc? Just look up how many of Marlowe's letters and manuscripts survive. Yes, of course sometimes some letters and some manuscripts of some authors survive. More often not. Every single piece of evidence discovered concerning Shakespeare is consistent with his being an actor/writer. All Shakespeare specialists know this. And it is the views of specialists that determine content on Wikipedia. Paul B (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

User: Zweigenbaum In response to Paul Barlow: Sorry but we have a communication gap. Your assertion that "Every single piece of evidence discovered concerning Shakespeare is consistent with his being an actor/writer," is without evidentiary foundation. The seventy pieces of evidence that are legal documents irrefutably tied to Shakspere the person, which have been seen by specialists or others, definitively show him as money-lender, land-owner, broker, business proprietor or investor, defendant in civil suit for intimidation, active court litigant--but not in any manner an author or playwright. This is unique among his contemporaries. To a greater or lesser extent, each and every other writer left SOME KIND of evidence of being a writer in addition to printed works with their names on the covers. But none at all for the greatest writer of the age? Credence requires inquiry. This is the crux of the evidentiary dispute, bearing so heavily on the capacity of his proponents to write a clear and convincing sentence of probative support for their position. Reliance on authority does not constitute a trail of evidence. Yes, the name on the play title pages are evidence, but of publication of the printed name only, not the person you assume and believe is synonymous with that name. It was clear at the time that hyphenated names were pseudonyms and unhyphenated 'Shakespeare' attributions were never contemporaneously confused with the Stratford Shakspere. Further and overwhelming 'evidence' appeared in the form of the First Folio, but again with no connection to the person you honor, and with mysterious elements tying the entire episode to the Herbert brothers, relatives and followers of de Vere; to writers associated with them; to a highly ambiguous introduction and to a more ambiguous monument plaque statement; to dedicatory language supposedly from two actors but in a style suspiciously like Ben Jonson's. In no discernible way, did the First Folio evidence confirm Shakspere's authorship simply by (intentionally confusing?) reference to him--that seems to be the nature of the ruse then and now. You wish to believe what you are told is true, but manifold facts do not appear to support that wish. This inconsistency between available evidence and traditional reputation beclouds any effort toward 'neutral', or in another word, unbiased, thinking. The contradictions do not go away. They are factual. They must be faced dispassionately, even if that means a readjustment in our understanding. --Zweigenbaum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweigenbaum ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 19:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum, writers didn't "leave" evidence. They didn't put it in a time capsule. Evidence either survives, more less by chance, or it doesn't. It's subject to a thousand natural shocks. Most written material has just been thrown away, crumbled away, got lost or used as kindling. It would be nice if more material relating to Shakespeare existed. But every single piece of evidence that does either says he was a writer or is entirely consistent with that fact. When aristocratic or other writers wanted to publish anonymously they used names like "ignoto", or just published with no name. Creating a whole persona around a real human being from Stratford is wholly unprescedented, utterly bizarre and nonsensical. There is no contradiction between "available evidence" and traditional reputation. Shakespeare is exactly the type of person we'd expect to have written the plays - an active man of the theatre with a middle-class education. Paul B (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Trivializing a respondent's words is not debating. Elizabethan writers "left" plenty of evidence in their known biographies and documents as to being writers and writing works. These are on record and referenced in scholarship. For the sake of brevity, just access the research of Diana Price in 'William Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography'. You will find dozens of artifacts listed for numerous writers. You will find none for Shakspere of Stratford. We're talking about evidence here, not speculation to win a point. If you have anything beyond a playwright's name similar to Shakspere's on a title page, let's see that "every piece of evidence" and discuss it. The First Folio introductory materials, once understood as to their origin and motivation, become evidence AGAINST your contention. That includes the introduction, the etching, the tributes, and the dedication to the Herberts. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the use of evidence as presently propounded in the Stratfordian model is not being used neutrally, free of bias, but incorporated into a speculative theory accepted over time but beyond the power of available facts to support a case for authorship. Generalized comments such as you present are defensive in nature because they are not buttressed by the preponderance of evidence, or at this point any evidence. Reedy's attempt to skew the debate into a respectable us versus a kooky anti-Stratfordian them, like a wrestling match on TV, is inherently not neutral. --Zweigenbaum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweigenbaum (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum At this point (December 19, 2010 12:15 AM) I note that on more than one occasion Tom Reedy has reverted the neutrality tag I placed at the top of the contested article on Shakespeare authorship, presently under discussion and peer review. The following is the rule forbidding so doing.

"In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."

It is clear that under this language Reedy is defying the recommendations of the neutrality section. I assume rule-breaking with impunity is actionable and wonder whether the editors agree. Of course further action will be moot if Reedy stops the unlawful practice. Thank you. Zweigenbaum (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the talk page for an article. Per WP:TPG, please restrict your comments to policy-based attempts to improve the article. Many people believe many things, but more than belief is needed to justify tagging an article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And more than cherry-picking the bits you like out of the template usage notes is needed, too. Please turn your attention to your own action (=adding the template), Zsweigenbaum, instead of hopping right to the question of removing it. Removal discussion only comes into play when it was added appropriately. This is the central advice for when it's to be added:

Quote:

• The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor.
• The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
• This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. However many shouting SPA's turn up here, inflating the fringe viewpoint "among Wikipedia editors", it doesn't make the tag appropriate, and I consider your reinsertion of it without giving reason (see section "NPOV violations" below) to be tendentious editing Neither you nor Warshy seem interested in trying to justify the tag. Merely using it to make the article look bad is not what the tag is for. ("This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.") What matters is that only one side has high-quality reliable sources (and it's not the Oxford side), as has been shown on this page. The tag is inappropriate. Please desist from your tendentious editing, or you may find yourself blocked for edit-warring. I'm also considering full-protecting the article until such time as a compromise—obviously distant at this time—is worked out. Bishonen | talk 09:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

Zweigenbaum Sorry the charge that I have reverted the editing of another editor without comment toward the issue, i.e., neutrality of the proposed article, is patently false. I explained in plain language in my first communication why the proposed article is biased. While it includes the most virulent of polemical and ad hominem attacks upon the "fringe element" so called, there is no reference whatsoever to the opposing scholarship, as though there weren't any to cite. As to my "reverting" Reedy's removing the neutrality tag, his action is the one requiring justification not my original one being restored. His removing my use of the notice--and no one to this point can claim acceptable neutrality on his behalf--is a retaliation for the embarrassment of a valid use of the device. This is unacceptable according to rule. As is obvious from the outset of my contributions, an "improvement" of the article is possible, not from tangential suggestions about it, which would not change its biased thrust, but clarifications about basic assumptions that have led to it and whatever use of reference and citations are being used to support them. The most obvious example of an unexamined assumption therein is that no writerly evidence for Shakspere of Stratford exists, with reference to Diana Price's 'William Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography'. This is basic research pertaining to the personality favored in your persuasion. Reedy does not grant credence and consideration to this detailed work or indeed any Oxfordian scholarship. It is difficult to reach consensus on such an unbalanced footing, and demanding co-operation as I sense you do towards that end is inappropriate. Consensus follows from agreement on the validity of the evidence presented. Let us seek that valid evidence by bona fide consideration of the available elements and supporting materials leading to the dispute. The article will benefit from them, once included. This has yet to happen. The peer review status so far appears to be a stonewalling action of positing the Reedy position in prominence, and then keeping it there before the public as though it were the last word, no dispute at all. Stating outright that there is a neutrality issue is not tendentious but reflective of fact. Removing the tag is the objectionable action. As to the cherry-picking, I am not quite sure what was meant by the charge--a review of the entire footnoting background is cherry-picking? Thank you. Zweigenbaum (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(Then we're even: I have no idea what you mean by "the peer review status." But was I referring to footnotes, really? Didn't I speak of "cherry-picking the bits you like out of the template usage notes "? [/me checks her edit.] Why, yes, I did. "The template usage notes." I don't know how to put it any more clearly. And I mean exactly what I say, so please don't take the trouble to "sense" my intentions.)

Quoting you:

"As to my "reverting" Reedy's removing the neutrality tag, his action is the one requiring justification not my original one being restored. His removing my use of the notice--and no one to this point can claim acceptable neutrality on his behalf--is a retaliation for the embarrassment of a valid use of the device."

Nonsense. You reverted Tom just as much as he reverted you. A revert is a revert. Please read and inwardly digest WP:3RR and Template:POV instead of inventing "rules" out of whole cloth. What this page doesn't need is yet another IDIDNTHEARTHAT editor. And please don't invent quotes from me, either. You state that:

1. (Bishonen called my position 'belief' without specifics for that charge)[4]
2. "Bishonen made reference to "Specialists" as the only acceptable authorities."[5]

That's some misunderstanding there. I haven't said either of those things. Never used "belief" or "Specialist" on this page. Perhaps somebody else has, and you (like me) have trouble understanding who wrote what here? Let me explain: I sign my posts by typing four tildes (squigglies, like this: ~~~~) at the end of each post. The squigglies automatically turn into my username plus a timestamp when I save. Please do the same, and we won't have a problem. Sign at the end of your posts; don't add your name at the beginning or somewhere in the middle, which confuses everybody. (Don't you usually sign, say, letters at the end?) Keeping this principle in mind, you will find that these posts are mine:[6][7][8][9] [10]; no others. It would be great if you read them and paid attention to the words that actually do occur in them. It may save you a block for edit-warring. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 00:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

Zweigenbaum

Nina Green is discussing another policy issue raised by the article's approach. I have followed suit regarding the neutrality of the proposed article (Bishonen called my position 'belief' without specifics for that charge) and I offer these suggestions regarding reliability and wording. In general, from my reading of the rules mentioned in the Wikipedia sources, the wording must not be slanted in one direction and derogatory in the other. [(WP:WORD)] I wonder if Mr. Reedy can overcome his bias and actually do this. The reliability of the proposed article depends almost completely on using sources fairly, neither emphasizing one nor condemning the other. [(WP:RELIABLE)] It is another major factor in achieving neutrality.

Bishonen made reference to "Specialists" as the only acceptable authorities. This does not appear in the guidelines I read. They call for peer-reviewed, fact-checked, academically credentialed and other reliable sources. It is the Specialists so-called that by and large maintain the traditional view contrary to ordinary logic and available fact. The Oxfordians simply introduce reliable materials uncomfortable to that view.

Mr. Reedy, (I should be more respectful in addressing your major effort though I differ with the results) you have already been informed of most of these Policy and Guideline issues. Since you and Bishonen seem to feel that there has been a lack of specifics, perhaps you will take an interest in the following:

1) Mizelmouse and others have raised the issue that the article uses non-neutral language, such as that non-Stratfordians "claim" and "assert" and "declare", rather than the more neutral "state". Add to that that Stratfordians "hold" and "consider" rather than "say" or "believe". This is a clear violation of WP:WORDS.

First I will request that you address this one specific Guideline and then we'll move on to another. Start with the first line and move through the article. For example:

Line 1 - change "argument" to "debate";

Paragraph 2, final line - change "argue" to "believe", and "arguing" to "proposing".

Paragraph 3 - change "Mainstream Shakespeare scholars hold" to : "Many mainstream Shakespeare scholars believe" (this change address both WP:WORDS and WP:RELIABLE , specifically -

"Academic consensus: 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. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."

Paragraph 4 - change "Despite the scholastic consensus" to "Despite the traditional view" - same WP:RELIABLE and "Academic consensus" issue as above.

Paragraph 4 - the final line is a mess, and there are multiple issue involved. As written, it appears to be more about the "supporters" than the theory itself, which is odd and does not contribute to explication of the subject matter. It may express your view of Oxfordians but that is not the purpose of the article, correct me if I have this wrong. The subject of the article is the theory itself, is it not? If you are attempting to show the current state of the debate, then this final line should instead say something like "In recent years, two universities began offering courses related to the issue, and a Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre has opened, an online list of doubters includes over 1800 signatories, and a major feature film Anonymous has been announced with the authorship question as a key element.' (At this point I have to mention that the present article is hopelessly out of date. Altrocchi, Whittemore, and Roe have made recent significant contributions to knowledge in the subject matter, not even mentioning dozens of articles in the Society and Fellowship journals. Part of the source of conflict is that Mr. Reedy has not availed himself of the numerous high-quality peer-reviewed works that comprise the Oxfordian position on Shakespeare authorship. That may involve a good deal of at first distasteful effort, then shocking surprise, but it is the responsible editor's duty if he means to write a balanced article.)

WP:LEAD states that the lead is to summarize the article. Specifically "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences."

A day's work would be getting the lead correct, with regard to WP:AVOID, complete with specific points and policy quotes. If I were to make these edits, are you going to revert them in toto on the pretext that they are pure nonsense or ludicrous, as you characterized my reasons for posting notice there is a neutrality issue? When a company lawyer before Chief Justice Warren made a complicated excuse for denying justice to the appellant, Warren responded, "But were you fair?" Show us that you WANT to be fair, and a major element of the communication gap will be reduced. Zweigenbaum (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum It is incumbent upon me to respond to the various charges and statements made by Bishonen, located before my previous post. Yes I see I treated the various remarks above like a Hydra with one name, Bishonen. Mr. Paul Barlow made the assertion that specialists only are sufficient as reference material (and what about Walt Whitman, poor unlettered unspecialist) and Mr. Johnuniq who opined that "Many people believe many things but it takes more than belief is needed to justify tagging an article". How true that is, and unfortunately everything I wrote in explanation for the need to utilize that neutrality dispute tagging has been diminished to the level of "that's just your belief". If you want to call it belief, all right, or call it what you will, numerous reasons were presented as per policy. That my remarks were ignored gave cause to the reverter to do his revert, and therein lies a clever misuse of rule. If you fall silent at a challenge, there is no discussion regarding the challenge, and you can argue the status quo ante is justified by "dormancy". Bishonen's main point appears to be that I cherry-picked the guidelines from the neutrality policy because I wished to use that device as a slap in the face to the article writer. This is a good bit of imputing motives. I need only remind the correspondent that there is a neutrality dispute and not having that notice gives the false impression of agreement among the parties and reliability of the article. To date there is no agreement, none, on even the most minor edits, which leads me to the inevitable conclusion the article is under dispute, and further that the original writer of the article will stonewall until the grave beckons. I invite one and all to consider the changes in the previous Zweigenbaum post regarding WORD and RELIABLE issues. Are loaded words and phrases out of bounds or aren't they? Are texts other than those favorable to the moving party non-existent, regardless of the years and conscientious scholarship that went into them? There is no more obvious way to test the good faith of the disputants than this simple improvement.

Regarding the general tenor of exchange, it may not be in the Wikipedia guidelines but I believe it is relevant: "My mind it scuffs at pettiness that plays so rough/Kick my feet inside handcuffs, say Okay I've had enough/What else can you SHOW ME." --Bob Dylan, 1965 76.102.211.42 (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you insist on using my title, it's Dr Paul Barlow, not Mr. However, I neer said that only Shakespeare specialists can be used as sources. There are complex rules about what sources can be used to say what in an artice such as this (see WP:FRINGE). What I said is that academic consensus is determined by specialists. If you want to know what the consensus view of some aspect of the life of Keats is you ask Keats specialists, not any old Eng Lit teacher. If you want to know what what the consensus view of some aspect of the history of Ancient Rome is, you ask specialists in ancient Rome, not any historian. This is obvious to anyone. You and Nina also appear to be confusing WP:NPOV (Wikipedia policy on neutrality) with the collquial sense of the word neutral, meaning "not coming down on one side or another". Wikipedia policy means we should present the views of experts are the most authoritative. So if there a theory that says the pyramids were built by aliens (which there is) we have every right - indeed duty - to quote experts who say that's baloney. Paul B (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum And if the experts have trumpeted up a mythology based on their belief in a ruse in place from the very beginning, that has proliferated over time and become the paradigm (David Roper, 'Great Oxford'), what then, are they still "experts"? I have read the aphorism that if you seek a hidden truth, your path will always be blocked by experts. This bears on the reliability of the accepted textual authorities, on whom you appear to rely. In that sense, you are relying on those who have erred just as you have. That questioners have been subject to suppression and condemnation, based on this misapprehension of the facts, will explain why there is such a preponderance of scholars who conform to the misapprehension. They know what they should say without being told. What the Oxfordian movement offers to scholarship is a major re-interpretation of the events and attributions based on overwhelming parallelism between Oxford and the plays and poems, and none between his stage-name's allonym Shakspere and those plays and poems. There seems to be a condemnation of circumstantial evidence, although thee is no better example of selective use of circumstantial evidence than the Stratford Horatio Alger cum supernal genius story. Circumstantial evidence is estimated to be decisive in 90% of legal cases. But that should not be all evidence in a detective story like this one. Corroboration in the form of stylistic similarities, word- and name- tricks in the writings, travel writings that confirm actual visits to the foreign soil,covert tributes from contemporaries, outright personal/literary allusions by Spenser, Nashe, and Sidney--these too are evidence and are reliable as such. But before presenting evidence, first the scholar must WANT to be fair. Does Mr. Reedy give any indication he wants to be fair? If not, the article will never achieve the kind of parity Dr. Barlow believes will happen as long as "we should present the views of experts [that] are the most authoritative." I'm sure he doesn't mean those who sound the most authoritative but those who marshall the facts into a coherent depiction of events.

Which leads us back to the main point. How is this accomplished? Are loaded words and veiled deprecations out of bounds or not? Are published peer-reviewed coherent depictions of events, with detailed sources both circumstantial and textual, worthy of being respected as scholarship, or not? If you constantly set the standards as being what you are comfortable with, e.g., the Stratford narrative, and those standards are grossly wrong on the facts, you will never achieve a corrected knowledge. Whatever "academic consensus" you tout as authoritative cannot be definitive if factually deficient.

Above all, one must love and seek the truth because it is the truth and not cling to a cultural fable in its stead. Comparing someone(s)' conscientious search for the truth with someone else prating aliens built the pyramids is one more example of a mentality that has little regard for truth or the establishment of facts leading there.

Bishonen, sorry I got you mixed up with Johnniq and Paul B. You each have a different axe to grind. What do you think substantively on the topic of achieving neutrality? The accusation of cherry-picking the neutrality guidelines is beginning to seem passe, as it seems clear to all that there has been ample discussion by me and others regarding the non-neutrality of the proposed article. I called a spade a spade. If that is illegal, take action and I will respond with the record. I think there is more important work to do. --Zweigenbaum 76.102.211.42 (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We use experts because if we don't people like you come along declaring that exopwerts are all wrong and make Wikipedia a farce. You can believe the experts are all wrong if you want to. It's a free internet. But Wikipedia cannot. The fantasy that experts are all sclerotic and you need some imaginative outsider to correct them is exactly that - a fantasy. Paul B (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum People like me? Dear me, I hope I haven't scared a spider out from under a rock. I'll have to ask you what an exopwert is, speaking of farces. The best course to explaining the paucity of factuality in the present analytical paradigm is to make an analogy with another faithfully felt paradigm, that the stars and planets revolve around the earth. This was in place for thousands of years or more, lacking means of a better perspective. Once Galileo realized, "They move!" speaking of the moons of Jupiter, the Copernican revolution was on. True Galileo was under house arrest for years even after he recanted his scientific discoveries. The heliocentric theory was in the air in Oxford's own time and society, hence the words of Hamlet: "Doubt thou the stars are fire? Doubt that the sun doth move? Doubt truth to be a liar? But never doubt I love." But uncertainty passed and by and by people saw a better explanation that corresponded in every detail with reality. Got them from place to place accurately for one thing. That is the objective here, to find the truth and honor the true author of an admirable body of philosophy and literature with all contradictions and anomalies removed concerning its origin and the author's experience and artistic motivation. And so the "experts" or "priests" of one discredited concept find their way to a newer more salient point of view they didn't themselves espouse, but they know one thing for sure, how to keep a job. Call it fantasy or call it Arthur from Canarsie, that is how knowledge advances despite institutional resistance. Get it?/got it/good. On, Wikipedia. Zweigenbaum (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Core of the Argument

In addition to the neutrality issue, we're going to have to get past this roadblock before we can make much real progress on the article. This paragraph in the current version makes the argument that it is disagreement as to 'the nature of acceptable evidence' which is at the core of the argument.

Standards of evidence

At the core of the argument is the nature of acceptable evidence used to attribute works to their authors.[25] 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 candidates; literary parallels between the works and the known literary works of their candidate, and hidden codes and cryptographic allusions in Shakespeare's own works or texts written by contemporaries.[26] By contrast, academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely on the documentary evidence in the form of title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies, all of which converge to confirm William Shakespeare's authorship.[27] These criteria are the same as those used to credit works to other authors, and are accepted as the standard methodology for authorship attribution.[28]

The core of the argument actually is the perceived lack of 'fit' between the author and the works, as set out in the lede to the article:

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. To 19th-century Romantics, who believed that literature was essentially a medium for self-revelation, Shakespeare’s eminence seemed incongruous with his humble origins and obscure life, arousing suspicion that the Shakespeare attribution might be a deception.

We can't argue one thing in the lede, and something completely different later in the article. Agreed? NinaGreen (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Where does the second quote say bardolatry is the "core of the argument"? Bardolatry caused the perceived dissonance between the author as imagined from the works and the real life author (much the same could be said for many literary figures, such as Rimbaud or Rousseau). The nature of what constitutes acceptable evidence is what those sceptics fail to comprehend. Anachronistic expectations is what produces "new" arguments based on that type of evidence. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The quote doesn't say Bardolatry is the core of the argument. As you say, Bardolatry caused the issue of the perceived dissonance to arise. So the core of the dispute between the two sides is whether the perceived dissonance exists, and 'the nature of the evidence' which can legitimately be used to resolve that dispute is an important consideration, but it isn't the core of the argument itself. That's how I see it.NinaGreen (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

An instigating point is not necessarily the core of the argument. I suppose we're actually playing out the differences in perception by this very conversation. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you quote Shapiro (via Alter) in one of the footnotes to precisely that effect. See also this from Shapiro in the Alter interview:

[Alter] Are scholars still looking for more evidence that could settle the authorship controversy, or has everything been turned over repeatedly?

[Shapiro] We do find more evidence every few years that points to Shakespeare. I think it would be more valuable if scholars, rather than turning over the evidence again, looked more closely at the assumptions governing the way that they read and teach the works and try to find the life in the works. I think if you turn off that faucet and suggest that others can't engage in that fantasy either, I think that will starve the controversy of a lot of its oxygen.

Shapiro is very much of the view that the core of the dispute is the perceived dissonance, and that the more both sides continue to try to find the author in the works, the more fuel it gives to the controversy. So I'm merely echoing Shapiro's view, which you quote in the article, that the core of the dispute is whether the perceived dissonance exists. Anti-Stratfordians seek to prove their case via the perceived dissonance, while Stratfordians such as Shapiro want to turn away from the perceived dissonance, thereby 'starving the controversy of a lot of its oxygen'.

We're probably essentially saying the same thing, but I think Shapiro's statement has to be taken into consideration when discussing how the two sides differ in terms of evidence because Shapiro is saying, 'We're just not going to look at that type of evidence', while the other side is saying, 'But we have to look at it'. It's not the distinction between circumstantial evidence vs. direct evidence and that sort of thing. It's the two sides disagreeing on whether a particular type of evidence can be looked at at all. Shapiro is basically saying that a certain type of evidence is off limits because 'We tried it (via Greenblatt, Weis etc.), and it wasn't working for us'. :-)NinaGreen (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Upon my word this is astonishing. It appears that you truly don't understand what Shapiro is saying, both in the example you give from the interview and in his book.

The "perceived dissonance" is that between the sublimity of the works and the humble origins of the author. That is what started people wondering about the authorship, especially after Bardolatry elevated the author into a universal genius.

The differences in the nature of the evidence used by anti-Stratfordians and Stratfordians to attribute authorship is the "core of the argument", and it is very clear from that section what that is: anti-Strats construct a personality from the works and then find a match; Strats use the historical record, i.e. title pages, government records, and contemporary testimony. When Shapiro mixes his metaphors by turning off the faucet of biographical readings to starve the authorship theorists of their arguments, he is talking about the difference in evidence, not about Bardolatry.

You have yet to indicate that you've read the cites for that section. For convenience's sake here they are: McCrea 2005, pp. 165, 217–8.; Shapiro 2010, pp. 8, 48, 112–3, 235, 298 (8, 44, 100, 207, 264). the pages in parenthesis are those for your edition. Read those pages and notice every time the word "evidence" is mentioned; that is the section referred to by those cites. Here's an example from p. 207:

"'The Oxfordians have constructed an interpretive framework that has an infinite capacity to explain away information': 'all the evidence that fits the theory is accepted, and the rest is rejected.' When Boyle added that it was impossible 'to imagine a piece of evidence that could disprove the theory to its adherents,' Lardner asked, 'What about a letter in Oxford's hand ...congratulatiing William Shakespeare of Stratford on his achievements as a playwright?' Boyle didn't skip a beat, mimicking an Oxfordian response, '"What an unlikely communication between an earl and a common player! ... Obviously, something designed to carry on the conspiracy of concealment. The very fact that he wrote such a letter presents the strongest proof we could possibly have!"'"

and further down that same page:

"...by having judges rather than scholars with decades of expertise evaluate the evidence, amateurs and experts were put on equal footing, both subordinate to the higher authority of the court, and to legal rather than academic criteria for what counted as circumstantial evidence."

Both Shapiro and McCrea are chock full of examples of the differences in evidence and both say that is key to why anti-Strats and the academy, like east and west, will never meet. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you're avoiding one of the principal points made by Shapiro throughout his book, which is his lament that Greenblatt, Weis and others ever got into the biographical interpretation of the Shakespeare canon, and that Stratfordians must stop doing that because it gives their opponents an advantage. In other works, Shapiro is advocating stifling a particular line of inquiry and is declaring a particular type of evidence 'off-limits. Shapiro's position isn't reflected in the SAQ article, which draws a false dichotomy between the type of evidence used by the two sides, claiming that Stratfordians don't use biographical evidence when Shapiro's whole point is that Greenblatt, Weis and other Stratfordians have used biographical evidence, and it has weakened the Stratfordian position and MUST BE STOPPED. In the article you quote Shapiro from the Alter interview on this very point:

Alter 2010 quotes James Shapiro: "Once you take away the argument that the life can be found in the works, those who don't believe Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare don't have any argument left."

The way Shapiro is advocating 'taking away the argument' is by telling Stratfordians to stop using biographical evidence.

I quoted above another comment by Shapiro to the same effect from the Alter interview:

[Shapiro] We do find more evidence every few years that points to Shakespeare. I think it would be more valuable if scholars, rather than turning over the evidence again, looked more closely at the assumptions governing the way that they read and teach the works and try to find the life in the works. I think if you turn off that faucet and suggest that others can't engage in that fantasy either, I think that will starve the controversy of a lot of its oxygen.

This time Shapiro makes his point even more clearly. He's saying Stratfordians have got to stop trying to find the life in the works because it gives their opponents an advantage.

On p. 58 Shapiro says:

Only one thing could have arrested all of this biographical speculation: admitting that a surprising number of the plays we call Shakespeare's were written collaboratively. For there's no easy way to argue that a coauthored play especially one in which it's hard to untangle who wrote which part, can be read autobiographically.

Once again, Shapiro is making clear that his objective is to stop anyone, Stratfordians and Oxfordians alike, from using biographical evidence, and expressing his enormous relief that coauthorship studies have stopped both Stratfordians and Oxfordians alike from engaging in biographical speculation.

Shapiro's position is not reflected in the SAQ article. The creation of a false dichotomy in the SAQ article which states that anti-Stratfordians make use of biographical evidence while Stratfordians don't constitutes original research on your part, which Wikipedia expressly forbids. And the failure of the SAQ article to fairly present Shapiro's attempt to impose intellectual censorship on his colleagues so as to choke off the life from the authorship controversy means that the article is not neutral, again violating one of Wikipedia's policy pillars.NinaGreen (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that Shapiro's not only upset with Greenblatt and Weis for engaging in autobiographical research. He's upset with everyone from Edmund Malone on down. In the index of his book (p.332) he has this entry for Malone:

autobiographical allusions discovered in Shakespeare by [followed by a list of page numbers]

The SAQ article thus violates the Wikipedia policies of neutrality, original research and verifiability in creating a false dichotomy in which it is claimed that anti-Stratfordians use autobiographical evidence from the Shakespeare canon while Stratfordians don't.NinaGreen (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"The creation of a false dichotomy in the SAQ article which states that anti-Stratfordians make use of biographical evidence while Stratfordians don't constitutes original research on your part, which Wikipedia expressly forbids."

You are misrepresenting what the article says. It states that Strat scholars don't use biographical information gleaned from the works to attribute the works, but anti-Strats do. Have and do Strats use biographical speculation from the works to interpret them? Yes. Have they used to works to make biographical speculations? Yes, and that is what Shapiro objects to, beginning with Malone. Do Strats read a work, find a biography in it, and then use that information to attribute a work? No, they don't, but anti-Strats do. If it were a reliable way to attribute works there would only be one candidate instead of 50, 60, 70-something--however many there are. Your objections are invalid because you apparently don't understand the differences between how Strats and non-Strats use the works. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, that's mere cavilling. Shapiro devotes pages to Malone finding Shakspeare's life in the works. What is that other than attribution? If Malone or Greenblatt or Weis finds Shakespeare of Stratford's biography in the works, of course that strengthens the attribution of the Shakespeare canon to Shakespeare of Stratford. They weren't finding someone else's life in the works. They were deliberately finding Shakespeare of Stratford's life in the works, thus strengthening the attribution of the canon to him. Why else did Greenblatt write his book? You're engaging in original research here, ignoring Shapiro, and substituting your own opinion and synthesis of material to arrive at a dichotomy which is palpably false. It's a clear violation of three Wikipedia policies, neutrality, no original research, and verifiability.NinaGreen (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not cavilling at all. It's utterly central. If you have documentation saying that a historical person wrote plays, poems, directed films or whatever, then that's the person you attribute them to unless you have some very strong reason not to. Of course if you are writing a biography of that person you might use ther plays/poems/films to get some ideas about their personality, but it's a very dodgy method. If we had Chaucer's Canterbury Tales but no other information about the author how do you think we could identify his personality?: a bawdy miller fascinated by sex and farts; a pious anti-semitic prioress given to improving tales; a sexually ambivalent and amoral Pardoner? If we simply had Ridley Scott's films how do you think we could deduce anything about his life and personality from them, or even his nationality? Paul B (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, may I make a suggestion? Since Tom acts as though he owns the SAQ article and will not allow me to make any edits to make the article more neutral (and if I attempt to, he instantly reverts my edits), rather than arguing abstact points ad infinitum, and complaining pointlessly and erroneously on the Peer Review page about 'long rambling screeds of conspiracy theories', as you've just done, why don't you make some edits yourself to make the article more neutral, in line with the complaints by IronHand and Zweigenbaum, who wrote the comment at the top of this page? There's an obvious need for this to be done. Better yet, why don't you persuade Tom that you and he together should edit the article to make it more neutral. The rest of us would be happy to sit by and let that happen. You've been told by impartial bystanders (I don't know who IronHand and Zweigenbaum are, so I assume they're impartial) that it needs to be done. Why not get on with it, since neither of you will let anyone else do it?NinaGreen (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think that I am acting as if I own this article, then please initiate the proper dispute resolution process. I asked you several times to discuss major edits on the talk page before inserting them, and you replied above that "if a problem develops because of a particular edit, that edit could move to the Discussion page and be reverted until agreement is reached." I have reverted some of your edits, modified others, and left others alone, so I am not stopping you from editing the page, and I resent your accusation that I am.

Tom, you're being disingenuous. The only edits of mine you've left alone are those which tighten and improve the wording.NinaGreen (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

One problem seems to be that you can't focus on a single point for very long nor can you grasp overall principles. You seem capable of only concentrating on one minute detail at a time while ignoring other points that are brought up and obsessively discussing your objections using novel interpretations of policy. If you want to edit Wikipedia, take some time to learn how to do so in compliance with policy, and that includes using the dispute resolution process instead of endlessly badgering other editors and wasting their time that could be better spent editing articles. You post so frequently that I get edit conflict notices about half the time when I try to respond to your complaints. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you consistently take the discussion off track with analogies which merely derail the discussion. No-one has time to explore Chaucer's Canterbury Tales here, or Ridley Scott, or the blood libel, or the claim that Obama wasn't born in the U.S. and is a Muslim, or any one of the off-the-topic analogies you bring up. Please try to stay on topic.NinaGreen (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult to imagine that anyone can be this obtuse. The analogies are designed to show the irrationality of your argument. If you can't see that you will never understand why your position makes no sense. The point is you do not attribute authorship based on the type of person you think ashould have written something. It's an almost entirely useless method unless there is direct information in the literature - such as including the author's name, or details about a particular location. Of course Shakespeare regularly gives his name in the sonnets - Will - but that is dismissed by most 'authorship theorists' because it does not fit their preferences. The exception is Derbyites - because it does fit their preferences. That's the point. The approach adopted by your confreres is to choose it when you like it and ignore it when you don't. Paul B (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, if you could argue the point itself, you would. Instead you constantly resort to analogies which are so far removed from the topic under discussion that they're a complete distraction. They're not at all helpful.NinaGreen (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course the point can be argued through Shakespeare's own work and has been many many times. The purpose of the analogies was to point out that this is a general truth. You seem to find arguing about general points of method very difficult. I understand that you like concrete archival detail, but that does not make abstracting points about method irrelevant. If we had no biographical information from the authors of many creative canons we would be hard put to make meaningful judgements about their author's lives and opinions. We can easily recognise that fact by doing thought experiments of the kind I gave examples of. There is nothing at all unusual about Shakespeare in this respect. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Tom, that's mere cavilling." No, it's apparent that you can't parse my or Shapiro's meaning. Your representation of Shapiro is distorted, and that you apparently don't understand his statements is the crux of the matter. He spells out his position quite clearly in his book:

“Even if Shakespeare occasionally drew in his poems and plays on personal experiences, and I don’t doubt that he did, I don’t see how anyone can know with any confidence if or when or where he does so. Surely he was too accomplished a writer to recycle them in the often clumsy and undigested way that critics in search of autobiographical traces—advocates and skeptics of his authorship alike—would have us believe. Because of that, and because we know almost nothing about his personal experiences, those moments in his work which build upon what he may have felt remain invisible to us, and were probably only slightly more visible to those who knew him well.

“It’s wiser to accept that these experiences can no longer be recovered. We don’t know what we are looking for in any case, and even if we did, I’m not at all sure we would know how to interpret it correctly. In the end, attempts to identify personal experiences will only result in acts of projection, revealing more about the biographer than about Shakespeare himself. It’s worth recalling the experience of T. S. Eliot, who was struck by the inability of contemporary biographers to untangle the personal from the fictional: ‘I am used … to having my personal biography reconstructed from passages which I got out of books, or which I invented out of nothing because they sounded well; and to having my biography invariably ignored in what I did write from personal experience.’

“If we can’t get the autobiographical in Eliot’s poetry and drama right—though there are many still alive who knew him, as well as a trove of letters and interviews to draw upon—what hope have we of doing so with Shakespeare?” (269-70)

That is very clear to anyone who has no axe to grind. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, nothing could be clearer than Shapiro's comments in the Alter interview. He's telling the academy point blank to shut up about finding Shakespeare of Stratford's life in the Shakespeare canon because it hasn't worked for Stratfordians, so they shouldn't do it anymore because it gives anti-Stratfordians an advantage. Shapiro says point blank that that line of intellectual inquiry needs to be choked off. That's censorship, pure and simple. And for the SAQ article to ignore it in discussing the treatment of evidence by the two sides in the debate is censorship as well, not to mention the other Wikipedia policies ignoring it violates, such as neutrality.NinaGreen (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A point which needs to be represented in the SAQ article, and which is ignored in Tom and Paul's responses to my comments, is that Shapiro has deliberately and very clearly in his book and in the Alter interview taken the position that the academy should censor itself. No professor teaching Shakespeare at a university, according to Shapiro, should try to find Shakespeare of Stratford's life in the works, either when teaching his/her classes on whether researching and writing books and articles. Shapiro's deliberate recommendation to his colleagues that they choke off a particular line of intellectual inquiry is shocking, and to omit to mention it in the SAQ article would be a clear violation of the Wikipedia policy of neutrality.NinaGreen (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is Shapiro's view. It's a perfectly defensible position in some respects, but Shapiro is only referring to attempts to deduce Shakespeare's personal opinions and personal experiences on the basis of what he writes. He does not mean that no useful information can possibly be gleaned. Indeed he makes use himself of information about knowledge of grammar school set-texts that can be discerned from the plays. We all know that Shakespeare's plays have been described as Republican, Revolutionary, Royalist and even Fascist in their political content. There are so many characters expressing so many opinions about so many things! Paul B (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, great point. Shapiro himself does what he's forbidding his colleagues to do. He's convinced Shakespeare of Stratford went to a grammar school (rather than, say, having a private tutor), so he 'makes use himself of information about knowledge of grammar school set-texts that can be discerned from the plays'. I'd love to have the page reference for that tidbit. And of course it belies the statement made in the SAQ article about the types of evidence used by both sides in the debate.NinaGreen (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So to you, Nina, "use higher standards of scholarship" = "censorship". Somehow that's not surprising, given how these conversations tend to go nowhere with no indication that you understand anything except your own obsessive point. I'm going to recommend you explore all the various dispute resolution mechanisms available on Wikipedia instead of continuing to try to persuade me of your objections; I suspect I've probably already taken away whatever lessons there are to be learned from your endless soliloquies. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, in order to defend Shapiro's attempt to impose censorship on his academic colleagues you're willing to throw the great Edmund Malone, Greenblatt, Weis and dozens if not hundreds of other establishment scholars who looked for the life of Shakespeare of Stratford in the Shakespeare canon under the bus? In your view they didn't use 'sufficiently high standards of scholarship', and need to be brought to heel by you and Shapiro. It's becoming clear why the SAQ article isn't neutral. I think you're far too close to the article to see that it's not neutral, despite IronHand and others clearly pointing out to you that that's the case.NinaGreen (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Original Research

This statement by Earl Showerman on the peer review page highlights another of the problems with the SAQ article. Not only is the SAQ article not neutral, it engages in original research. Here's Showerman's comment:

This statement regarding anti-Strratfordian research is very misleading: "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 candidates; literary parallels between the works and the known literary works of their candidate, and hidden codes and cryptographic allusions in Shakespeare's own works or texts written by contemporaries." In point of fact, authorship research explores the issues of early dating ("Dating Shakespeare's Plays" - ed. Kevin Gilvary - 2010), Italian topicalities ("The Shakespeare Guide to Italy" - Richard Paul Roe - 2010), political allegory, Shakespeare and the Law, and untranslated Greek sources, a much wider scope of research than proposed by the existing article. A review of on-line articles published in the peer-reviewed authorship journals, "The Oxfordian" and "Brief Chronicles" will attest to these points. The omission of any mention of the work of Mark Anderson ("Shakespeare by Another Name" - 2005), William Farina ("De Vere as Shakespeare" - 2006), or Diana Price ("Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography" - 2001) suggests the selected references are clearly prejudicial against the authorship challenge. Earl Showerman

NinaGreen (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am quite capable of reading the PR page, which seems to have attracted lots of attention from your listserv subscribers who have never edited anything on Wikipedia before now. Either Showerman hasn't actually read the article or he has poor comprehension. Anderson was in the article but he was taken out when the history section was shrunk; his contribution only extends Looney's methodology of matching events in the plays to the life of Oxford (and I was thinking about mentioning him in conjunction with the biographical readings, but I am trying to tend to the PR comments that were actually useful before adding anything). Price is included. Nothing that has not received an academic response can be included in the article, which you would know if you had read the policies as you claim to have. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, for the record Earl Showerman is not a member of my listserv. Please stop making false allegations of this sort. And you've avoided addressing the point made by Earl Showerman which is directly relevant to the issue of whether you're synthesizing material on your own, and engaging in original research. He has pointed out that Oxfordians use more types of evidence than the SAQ article acknowledges in its false dichotomy concerning the types of evidence used by both sides. It's all about neutrality, and it's examples such as this which demonstrate clearly just how non-neutral the SAQ article is.

Moreover, you're wrong as to Wikipedia policy when you state that 'Nothing that has not received an academic response can be included in the article'. Anti-Stratfordians can be quoted as sources on themselves as, for example, Charlton Ogburn on his views concerning the Stratford grammar school records. Here's the policy:

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

NinaGreen (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Moreover, you're wrong as to Wikipedia policy when you state that 'Nothing that has not received an academic response can be included in the article'." From WP:Fringe, Unwarrented promotion of fringe theories:

"Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play." Tom Reedy (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I didn't post Earl Showerman's comments from the PR page here so you alone could read them. There are other editors of this page who need to be aware of the violation in the SAQ article of the Wikipedia policies of no original research, neutrality and verifiability. You seem to be exhibiting more and more an attitude which suggests you feel the SAQ article is your own personal site, and that nothing can be done by any editor on it without your specific permission, another contravention of Wikipedia policy. I know you've put a great deal of effort into the SAQ article, but you don't own it, and your insistence that any edit must first be cleared with you, and your instantaneous reversion, without any discussion, of all edits which have been made with which you don't agree, suggests that you feel you do own it.NinaGreen (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Crux of the Problem

We seem to be at a standstill. Tom urges that we go to dispute resolution. I feel dispute resolution is a waste of time, and will simply further exacerbate the problem. I haven't been involved, but I understand dispute resolution has already been used so often on this page that another attempt at it will merely harden positions on both sides, and perhaps even frustrate Wikipedia administrators to the point that they will ban some editors, as has happened in the past.

The crux of the problem is threefold. The article is not neutral. The article engages throughout in synthesis and original research. The article uses sources which, although in themselves reliable in terms of Wikipedia's definition of reliability, are not reliable in terms of the point Tom claims they support. This is all defended in terms of the Wikipedia policy that the majority view must be presented as the majority view. But that is not the issue, and no-one has argued against that Wikipedia policy. As per Wikipedia policy, the majority view must be clearly presented as the majority view, but that does not mean that in implementing that Wikipedia policy the article must be written in such a way as to crush and diminish the alternate view by citing as many vitriolic comments as can be found on the majority view side, and misrepresenting the alternate view as without a shred of support for either its hypothesis or methodology in academia. Yet that is precisely how the article is written.

For the past few days I've pointed out some of the specific sections in which original research, lack of neutrality and use of reliable sources in support of claims which they don't actually support are evident. I even did some editing to try to improve those specific sections to make them more neutral. I also explained why some of the reasoning (i.e. synthesis and original research by earlier editors) can't be supported by the sources. My edits were instantly reverted by Tom, and I've been stonewalled by Tom and Paul on this Discussion page and on the Peer Review Discussion page with respect to every point I've brought up. I've suggested as an alternative that Tom and Paul tackle the non-neutrality issue themselves, since they won't let anyone else do it, and nothing has resulted from that suggestion either.

So as I say, we are at a standstill. There's simply no way of moving forward. But if there's no way of moving forward, by the same token Tom is unlikely to ever get the article past the peer review process, and have it granted FA status because it violates Wikipedia policies in the ways mentioned above. So everyone loses, not the least readers of the Wikipedia article who hoped to find a clear unbiased statement of the authorship controversy in this article.NinaGreen (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, I agree you have “pointed out some of the specific sections in which original research, lack of neutrality and use of reliable sources in support of claims which they don't actually support are evident” according to your interpretations (although I have yet to see a specific, coherent list of the particular offending edits), and from that exercise it is clear that your definitions of POV, OR, and RS are substantially different than that of the Wikipedia and academic communities, which is obvious by your contention that the SAQ is not a fringe theory or that no academic consensus exists that it is.

It is also evident that you are editing on the premise that your private beliefs must be negotiated with when we edit this article. That you can marshal the support of anonymous editors who have never before appeared on Wikipedia or made one edit adds no weight to your arguments. Wikipedia is not an exercise in democracy nor are the content policies determined by public opinion.

You say you won’t use the mechanisms Wikipedia has in place to address your concerns about neutrality and OR, yet you complain that things are at a standstill. Quite frankly, your repetitious postings are getting tiresome. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I've been very patient and polite as all get out, but your stonewalling is getting tiresome. I've put forward many specific suggestions in good faith for improving the neutrality and accuracy of the SAQ article. They have nothing to do with my personal POV, and they ARE in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have background which could be helpful in improving the SAQ article, just as I had background which allowed me to improve the Edward de Vere article (in fact I rewrote the entire thing, and it's now a factual and neutral article which other editors are currently working on in order to improve it still further). You continue to reject what I have to offer in terms of improving the SAQ article, inventing one excuse for doing so after another, and constantly suggesting dispute resolution for motives which I can't fathom. If you could just let someone else do some work on the SAQ article, there would be no need for dispute resolution. Instead you continue to stonewall every attempt to improve an article which definitely needs improvement.NinaGreen (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"I've put forward many specific suggestions in good faith for improving the neutrality and accuracy of the SAQ article."

They should be easy to list, then. I'm not going to slog through thousands of words to find those gems; perhaps you'd care to list them in a coherent list sans your editorial commentary?

Tom, you don't own this page. Having already provided you with numerous examples of the inaccuracies, lack of neutrality and use of original research in the article, I'm not obligated to find them all over again myself in order to provide you with a concise list, as though the page were your own personal property and you can set the conditions under which every other editor works.

I've offered to edit the page. All I need is for you to step back and let me do the work and improve the article, and not revert every substantive edit I make. I'd be quite happy for you (and Paul) to do the editing yourselves to make the page neutral, but you've both refused to do it. Even though everyone's telling you and Paul that the page isn't neutral and doesn't reflect the current reality of the authorship controversy, you both continue to take the position that the article is perfect as it is. Why don't you just step back and let people who can fix the neutrality issue get on with it? NinaGreen (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you afraid of dispute resolution, Nina? And what "stonewalling" are you talking about? Lack of attention to what words mean is part of the problem of editing here, and to me stonewalling means "Delay or block (a request, process, or person) by refusing to answer questions or by giving evasive replies". I have been anything but evasive; you know exactly my position, and I have not refused to answer questions but have been more than forthcoming. In fact, you seem to be the one who is stonewalling, because you pick out one detail out of several points that your interlocutors put to you and ignore the rest and act as if you've responded adequately, and you spout vague charges of censorship and being blocked from the page when no such thing has happened. What is the Oxfordian definition of stonewalling?

I am extremely tired of all this time-wasting bloviation and hand-waving. Go to WP:FRINGE/N and ask the simple question, "Is the SAQ a fringe theory?" That's all you have to do. I'm sure everybody will chime in and you'll get your answer, and I think that's probably why you refuse to do it. The default category for the SAQ at the present time is that of a fringe theory, and until you get it changed that's what it will continue to be. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As someone that has been following this debate from way before NinaGreen or Zweigenbaum joined it, I have been personally attacked above ("...anonymous editors who have never before appeared on Wikipedia or made one edit..."). This is not my field of expertise (just made an edit in a completely different field if you check my history, and I am one of the few editors in Wikipedia who was never "anonymous," from the first day I joined it. I even have a discussion about this in my talk page.) I will for the first time join forces openly with the sceptics in this debate and I will subsequently revert myself Tom Reedy's summary removal of the POV tag from the SAQ main article. I really need to start catching up on Reedy and Kathman to understand a little better what is really going on here in the real world... warshy^talk 20:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

How can you have been personally attacked if you joined the team after I made the comment? I have never considered you to be a partisan editor. And you might want to read TEMPLATE:POV and see what conditions its use.

And if you want to know "what is really going on here in the real world, here's what the SAQ article looked like before I ever made an edit, almost one year ago. That's what you're defending. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

washy, as far as I can see your only comment here has been to ask for a link to the Hotson book, which I provided. So why on earth would you think you were being attacked by anyone. It makes no sense. Paul B (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

To remove the tag now, on the face of interested onlookers such as myself, after more than a whole week of intense debate as if to imply:

• Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute in an article.

that there is no ongoing dispute here, is beyond ludicrous. It is unbeliavable chutzpa, nay it is really unbeliavably underhanded tactics, as I already said. Nothing less. Let's leave all the special interests of invested scholars aside for a moment, and most of all, let's leave aside the WP policies tactics and arguments. The new debate that started a week ago here has a clear line of definition for me. This is the clear line that cannot be made disappear with the wave of a simple wikitag: Is the view of the sceptics a fringe/conspiracy theory, or is it a legitimate minority view. I think for any uninterested onlooker that is really reading all the intense argumentation that is going on here, it has been proven without a doubt that it is a legitimate minority view. It is not just a "fringe/conspiracy theory." Until this basic point is clearly reflected on the article, that tag cannot be removed. Not to my view. And I have no illusions that it is still a long, difficult, uphill battle to achive just this minor achievement. warshy^talk 22:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well, in that case, you need dispute resolution, and I suggest you post a query at WP:FRINGE/N, which I have suggested to Nina more than once. How "intense argumentation" proves it is a legitimate minority view among academics (which is the benchmark for Wikipedia, as I'm sure you know) is inexplicable to me; if anything it proves the opposite. You might be surprised to know that the sources used to reference the initial lede statement are mild compared to many others out there from academics, which range from "lunatic fringe" to apparently serious accusations of mental illness. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm stopping here, because obviously there is no end to the debate. [It was my intellingence and my common sense that were attacked, nay mocked, dismissed as idiotic by the unbelievably underhanded tactics]. For any one who has followed this debate for a reasonable amount of time it is clear what the overall tactics are: tag as fringe and dismiss. That is how this version of this article was conceived to begin with. Once you tag it as fringe, and you also get it recognized as such, you can also trample and dismiss further as "conspiracy theory" or even better, mental illness. This is how it started and it will not stop here, it is clear. I will leave it to the specialists again. I am signing out for now. warshy^talk 00:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So you won't go to dispute resolution either. Why is it that those who are complaining that the article is violating neutrality and original research policies and guidelines don't trust the Wikipedia process to get those violations remedied? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is so funny... Do you think I have time to make this my occupation for the next months of my life. Do you think I care about it enough to go to court... Do you think I want to own this article and the subject matter as you do? Who cares. Take and make it your own. Actually you don't even have to follow my advice, because it is clear that that's what you've been doing here for a long time. No. I just prefer Nina's standstill. It is good enough for me. Be well. warshy^talk 00:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not a legitimate minority view because actual Shakespeare scholarship dismisses it. There have been huge advances in stylometry in recent years. All of these confirm Shakespeare's distinctive style and disprove Oxford and other candidates. Of course it's impossible to disprove those whose works do not survive, such as Derby. What strikes me most about this "debate" is the fact that the most implausible candidate of all - Oxford - is defended fanatically, but the most plausible (apart, obviously, Will himself) - Derby - is utterly ignored by the fanatics. That suggests that this debate is not about reasoned argument; it's abut emotional need. Paul B (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

One Small Edit

OK, I've made one small substantive edit. Let's see how it goes.

This is what was there:

Anti-Stratfordian arguments share several characteristics.<refMatus 1994, p. 15 note./ref> They all attempt to disqualify William Shakespeare as the author due to perceived inadequacies in his education or biography;

This is the change I made:

Anti-Stratfordian arguments share several characteristics. They all attempt to disqualify William Shakespeare as the author due to perceived inadequacies in his education or biography;<refMatus 1994, p. 15 note./ref>

The Matus note on p. 15 doesn't support the first sentence above. The note reads:

This is an opportune point to explain the term that will be used most often for those who question the Shakespeare authorship. The proponents of Oxford have succeeded in pushing their candidate to the forefront to no small degree by refining, amplifying and adding to the research the supporters of other candidates have, over the years, developed against the "Stratford man." Therefore, rather than using ponderous general terms for the "anti-Stratfordians," the challengers will be referred to by the generic term Oxfordians, except when clearly inappropriate.

There is nothing in the Matus note which permits it to be cited for the statement that anti-Stratfordian arguments share SEVERAL characteristics. Matus mentions only one characteristic, i.e. that Oxfordians have refined the arguments against Shakespeare of Stratford made by proponents of other authorship theories). So I've moved the Matus note so that it's cited as support for the second sentence, not the first. (I don't think it adequately supports the second sentence either for reasons I could explain but will omit for the moment, but I moved it rather than delete it so as to avoid a direct revert by Tom.)

But really, what kind of citation was this anyway (before I moved it)? Matus' note is very brief, without any supporting evidence or explication of the point it's being cited for, and, even more significantly, Matus didn't write the note for the purpose for which it's cited in the SAQ article. He wrote it to explain why he calls all challengers of orthodoxy 'Oxfordians' throughout his book, rather than 'using ponderous general terms for the 'anti-Stratfordians'. When the SAQ article makes a very broad generalization such as 'Anti-Stratfordian arguments share several characteristics', and cites something like the Matus note in support, what are we looking at other than (1) non-neutrality, (2) synthesis and original research, and (3) the citation of otherwise reliable sources for points which they don't support?NinaGreen (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Matus says that he is using the term "Oxfordian" as a generic for "anti-Stratforidian" because their arguments are all alike and he doesn't like the term "anti-Stratfordian". His investigation into the various theories as put forth in his book gives him the necessary expertise to make such a judgement. Nevertheless, I agree it could be better cited, and when I get time I'll find one that uses that language explicitly. Or you could find one; such statements are ubiquitous in the literature, as I'm sure you know. I'm currently working on the punch list. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you completely missed my point. In the SAQ article Matus is cited for the statement that anti-Stratfordian hypotheses share SEVERAL characteristics. Matus says nothing of the kind.NinaGreen (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This page is not a newsgroup for discussing the authorship question

All editors please read WP:TALK and stop crowding the page with arguments for or against Shakespeare or with airing your personal views. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss specific changes in the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I confess I got carried away with the Langley/Gardiner stuff which has b-all to do with authorship questions. It was just so interesting. Paul B (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum's rudeness

This page is not a venue for scolding or trolling, either. You are very free with your personal attacks, Zweigenbaum. Try to make your points in a more collegial way, please; Wikipledia is not a battleground. Was this you talking? (It's getting pretty hopeless to tell who says what on this page. But it sounds like you.):

The judgment was asserted and followed by unacceptable and arbitrary censorship. Is it possible you are also responsible for moving the lengthy comments below to an out of the way archive location, so you would not have to deal with their import? Is this neutrality? I seriously doubt. It appears to be an action in bad faith.

Removing a POV tag is not "censorship". I suggest you take a look at Template:POV for the proper use of the POV tag (which does not include "drive-by tagging" by brand new users). And assuming bad faith on no ground is utterly against Wikipedia principle and policy. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC).

Zweigenbaum See Neutrality sections for responses to this. Zweigenbaum (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing the POV tag

When I wrote the above, I wasn't aware that you had just reinserted the POV tag. And of course you, when you reinserted it, can't have been aware of my post. But now presumably you are. Please, as I suggested, take a look at Template:POV to familiarise yourself with the proper use of the POV tag, which does not include "drive-by tagging" by brand new users. And please don't edit war to put it back! Since you're so new, you may not be aware of the policy WP:3RR. I strongly advise you to read it before you edit the article again.

I have removed the tag; it's not appropriate on this article. I hope you will read my links about it before you again explain to the rest of us what the tag is for in your opinion. Bishonen | talk 01:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

NPOV violations

List them here. Be specific and say why. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I may work on it or not as the time allows. But in the 'final' article, to my mind, the one that may not have the tag on top of it anymore, there will have to be a statement clearly saying that for a long time the sceptics view was dismissed as mere "fringe/conspiracy theory," not as serious scholarship, that also contributes to the development of knowledge of the subject matter (as even Shapiro recognizes to a certain degree in "Contested Will"). "Today" this is not the case anymore. But this day is still a long ways, I think... warshy^talk 23:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So in other words you are demanding that the article comply to your own personal belief instead of the academic consensus. Interesting. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Warshy, what you say is utterly untrue. It was closest to being mainstream around about 1900-1930. It is now totally discreditred among actual Shakespeare scholars. The internet and the growth of cheap publishing has made it more popularly known, but that's all. Paul B (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you wrote:

It is now totally discreditred among actual Shakespeare scholars

In light of your comment it seems necessary to post the entire article on the 2007 survey of those who teach Shakespeare in U.S. universities, which found that 72% of those surveyed covered the authorship controversy in their classes, while a total of 17% saw either 'good reason' or 'possibly good reason' to doubt that Shakespeare of Stratford was the principal author of the poems and plays in the canon. Neither 72% nor 17% are figures which support your claim that the hypothesis is 'now totally discredited among actual Shakespeare scholars'. The majority in the academy (82%) see no reason to doubt Shakespeare of Stratford's authorship. On the other hand, there is a substantial minority (17%) in the academy who either see 'good' or 'possibly good' reason to doubt. That's the reality of the situation. This survey is what should be cited at the beginning of the SAQ article as representative of the current view of Shakespeare scholars (i.e. the academy).

Here's the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/education/shakespeare.html?_r=2

Shakespeare Reaffirmed

By WILLIAM S. NIEDERKORN

Published: April 22, 2007

HERE’S good news for Stratfordians as they celebrate the Bard’s birth, on April 23: Professors believe in him.

Did He or Didn’t He? That Is the Question Read the complete survey results and methodology.

In an Education Life survey of American professors of Shakespeare, 82 percent said there is no good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon was the principal author of the poems and plays in the canon; 6 percent said there is good reason, while 11 percent saw possibly good reason.

What has come to be known as the “authorship question” dates back more than 150 years. Doubters allege that Shakespeare lacked the education, library and foreign travel to have produced the English language’s greatest works, and have pushed for acceptance in academe. In one small victory, next fall Brunel University, one of England’s plate-glass universities of the 1960s, will offer what is thought to be the first graduate program in Shakespeare authorship studies.

But where do American colleges and universities stand on the question?

Last month, 265 professors filled out an online survey for Education Life. The professors teach Shakespeare in the English departments of public and private four-year colleges and universities, which were selected randomly. The survey has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Sixty-one percent of respondents said they considered the authorship question a theory without convincing evidence, and 32 percent found it a waste of time and distraction in the classroom; 3 percent considered it an exciting opportunity for scholarship, and 2 percent said it has profound implications for the field.

Students, though, can expect to learn something about the issue: 72 percent of professors said they address the authorship question in their classes. Others (26 percent) wait for students to ask about it; 2 percent don’t mention it at all.

The professors were better versed in writings by advocates for the Earl of Oxford, the most prominent alternative candidate, than by Shakespeare defenders. The Oxfordians J. Thomas Looney, Charlton Ogburn and Mark Anderson had been read by 29 percent, 26 percent and 17 percent respectively; the Stratfordians Scott McCrea and Irvin Matus had been read by 11 and 10 percent.

Expressing a view that resounded in the responses, one professor wrote, “I would be thrilled if people would get half as excited about the plays as they did about wondering who wrote them.”

NinaGreen (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is astonishing. You are complaining about original research and you think this is a reliable source proving that the SAQ is an acceptable academic topic and not a fringe theory? And I specifically created this subsection to list specific NPOV violations in the article so we could all take a look at them, not to revisit your assertion that the SAQ is a minority rather than a fringe view. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Warshy, two points. First, "those who teach Shakespeare in U.S. universities" is not the same group as "Shakespeare scholars". Shakespeare scholars are those who conduct and publish peer reviewed research in relation to Shakespeare and his works. They are likely to be a minority of those who are teaching the material. The test for whether it is a fringe theory should examine the status of the theory amongst the scholarly community and in the scholarly literature. Second, teaching a theory is not necessarily relevant to the status of the theory. In classes in which philosophy of science has been a subject, I have taught simple positivist empiricism in order to use it to demonstrate certain concepts, and then in order to explain its rejection by 20th century scholars. I taught it, but I didn't accept it. The Shakespear authorship question can be a useful pedagogical device, without implying it has any actual merit. That would not however be a valid basis on which to approach the subject in an encyclopedia article. I think the status of SAQ as WP:FRINGE should not be opened to debate yet again. It is a fringe theory, and I think it is to the credit of people like Tom Reedy that they are going to great trouble to construct an article that both explains the theory's existence while trying to retain a key underlying message: this is a fringe theory accepted by almost no serious scholar. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone, you've raised a very significant point which perhaps explains why the SAQ article is not neutral. There is a world out there besides the very small group of Shakespeare 'scholars', i.e. those who conduct and publish peer reviewed research in relation to Shakespeare and his works. I don't know how many individuals are included in that very small group, and I suspect you don't know either. But let's say for the sake of argument that you're right (without conceding the distinction, because I don't think it's a valid one). Then why are individuals cited in the first footnote who are not, and never were, members of that group, or who, if they were once members of it, are either retired or deceased?

Here's the footnote:

Kathman 2003, p. 621: "...in fact, antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence. Professional Shakespeare scholars mostly pay little attention to it, much as evolutionary biologists ignore creationists and astronomers dismiss UFO sightings."; Schoenbaum 1991, p. 450: "A great many of the schismatics are (as we have seen) distinguished in fields other than literary scholarship, and their ignorance of fact and method is as dismaying as their non-specialist love of Shakespeare's plays is touching."; Nicholl 2010, p. 4 quotes Gail Kern Paster, director of the Folger Shakespeare Library: "To ask me about the authorship question ... is like asking a palaeontologist to debate a creationist's account of the fossil record."; Nelson 2004, p. 151: "I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... Among editors of Shakespeare in the major publishing houses, none that I know questions the authorship of the Shakespeare canon."; Carroll 2004, pp. 278–9: "I am an academic, a member of what is called the 'Shakespeare Establishment,' one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less, by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare—and, some say, who participate in a dark conspiracy to suppress the truth about Shakespeare.... I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him. Like others in my position, I know there is an anti-Stratfordian point of view and understand roughly the case it makes. Like St. Louis, it is out there, I know, somewhere, but it receives little of my attention."; Pendleton 1994, p. 21: "Shakespeareans sometimes take the position that to even engage the Oxfordian hypothesis is to give it a countenance it does not warrant. And, of course, any Shakespearean who reads a hundred pages on the authorship question inevitably realizes that nothing he can say will prevail with those persuaded to be persuaded otherwise."; Gibson 2005, p. 30.

This footnote establishes that your position (and I gather it's the position from which the SAQ article was written), is entirely inconsistent with the sources cited for it in the footnote, since some individuals cited in the footnote were never members of that small group, while others are retired or deceased, and can hardly be said to represent the current view of members of that small group.NinaGreen (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Since hamiltonstone is seeking to define terms, I have another pertinent question. The lede in the SAQ article states:

all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory with no hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims

Who among the sources for that statement cited in the footnote I've copied above is a 'literary historian'?

And what exactly is the definition of a literary historian in terms of the subject matter of the SAQ article?NinaGreen (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

More inconsistencies. The position taken by hamiltonstone above is this:

Shakespeare scholars are those who conduct and publish peer reviewed research in relation to Shakespeare and his works. They are likely to be a minority of those who are teaching the material.

Yet one of the sources cited in the footnote directly contradicts hamiltonstone's position (and Paul Barlow's position on the same point as well). D. Allen Carroll is quoted in the footnote as follows:

Carroll 2004, pp. 278–9: "I am an academic, a member of what is called the 'Shakespeare Establishment,' one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less, by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare . . . ."

In other words, a member of the Shakespeare establishment defines it to include the 20,000 professors in the U.S. who make their living by teaching Shakespeare, but hamiltonstone and Paul Barlow beg to differ with Carroll (while citing him as their source!), and define Shakespeare scholars as only a select group 'who are likely to be a minority of those who are teaching the material'. Could there be a better example of the lack of neutrality in the SAQ article? Or a better example of original research by editors of the SAQ article, substituting their own views for those of the very academics they quote as their sources?

There is also another example of the lack of neutrality by editors of the SAQ article, an example of selective quotation. The editors of the SAQ article suppressed the very next sentence in Carroll's article in the Tennessee Law Review from which they are quoting:

I may not be, therefore, a person fit to champion the cause on behalf of which I have such strong feelings and which seems to me so self-evident.

I'm not going to debate whether Carroll is or is not 'a person fit to champion a cause on which he has such strong feelings'. But the selective quotation of Carroll's comments by the editors of the SAQ article speaks for itself.NinaGreen (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The President of the SAA has advised that:

Mr. Reedy is in error. The SAA does not have 'an opinion' on the authorship question. Moreover, there is no ban on speaking or writing about that topic at our annual conference. Several so-called Oxfordians are members of the organization and have presented papers at that meeting.

Now that we've gotten Tom's erroneous claim about the SAA out of the way, let's get back to the interesting point raised by hamiltonstone, which is contradicted by D. Allen Carroll, who is quoted in footnote 3 in the SAQ article as follows:

Carroll 2004, pp. 278–9: "I am an academic, a member of what is called the 'Shakespeare Establishment,' one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less, by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare . . . ."

Hamiltonstone (and Paul Barlow) beg to differ with Professor Carroll (thus engaging in original research, contrary to one of Wikipedia's pillar policies). Hamiltonstone wrote:

First, "those who teach Shakespeare in U.S. universities" is not the same group as "Shakespeare scholars". Shakespeare scholars are those who conduct and publish peer reviewed research in relation to Shakespeare and his works. They are likely to be a minority of those who are teaching the material.

So whose definition of those who make up the majority view which must be fairly represented, according to Wikipedia policy, in the SAQ article is correct? Is it Carroll, who says the mainstream view (the Shakespeare establishment) is that of the 20,000 professors who make their living by teaching, reading and writing about Shakespeare, or is it hamiltonstone and Paul Barlow, who say the mainstream view is that of a very small and ill-defined subset of the 20,000? Clearly, according to Wikipedia policy, there can be only one answer to that. For Hamiltonstone and Paul Barlow to substitute their own view for the view of the mainstream scholar whom they are citing as their source (no less!), constitutes original research, which is expressly forbidden to Wikipedia editors by Wikipedia policy.

So can we now move on, accepting as the basis of the SAQ article that the mainstream view which is to be represented in the article is Carroll's 20,000?

There, now wasn't that easy? And it didn't require going through contentious dispute resolution. We merely argued the point among ourselves to its logical conclusion.NinaGreen (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, the term "professors" in the Niederkorn article refers to teachers in "public and private private four-year colleges and universities, which were selected randomly". It does not refer to specialists on Shakespeare. Almost all literature teachers and drama teachers "teach Shakespeare" in some context. That doesn't mean they know anything about detailed scholarship on the topic. Niederkorn , as you know, is well known promotor of anti-Statfordianism. The survey is worthless as evidence. Paul B (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, are you aware that you have just called a New York Times survey 'worthless as evidence' which is cited as a reliable source in the SAQ article and was cited as such when Tom submitted the SAQ article for peer review?

This is a very clear example of why the SAQ article is not neutral. When it serves your purpose to cite the survey in the SAQ as a reliable source, you cite it as such. When I refer to it as a reliable source, you state unequivocally that that same survey is 'worthless as evidence', and denigrate the survey methodology (which is original research on your part).NinaGreen (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The NYT is a relaiable source. That means it usually reports what it reports as accurately as possible. What I said is that the survey is worthless as evidence that that there is some sort of significant minority acceptance of the legitimacy of SAQ within the community of Shakespeare scholars. I did not imply that the the survey cannot be mentioned in the article. You are confused about what I was saying. Paul B (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The NYT survey is mentioned in the article along with a link in the history section. It is not in any way a reliable source about what the academic consensus is about the subject. What Nina wants to do is ignore the opinion of the Shakespeare Association of America, which has banned the SAQ as an acceptable topic for papers and conferences, and substitute the results of polling 265 Shakespeare professors--whatever they are. The poll incorporates selection bias; those who answered that the question "Which of the following best describes your opinion of the Shakespeare authorship question?" positively ("Has profound implications for the field"-2 percent, or "An exciting opportunity for scholarship"-3 percent) is within the 5 percent margin of error, and the respondents were forced to choose from vague pre-selected answers. The poll is only proof of the tendency of the anti-Stratfordian mind to jump to conclusions on too little data. If the topic is merely a minority viewpoint worthy of academic study, why is the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition circulating their Declaration of Reasonable Doubt petition with the stated goal "to legitimize the issue in academia so students, teachers and professors can feel free to pursue it"? The petition itself is evidence that it is a fringe theory and not accepted in academe. In fact, this entire conversation on this talkpage has nothing to do with improving the article, but appears to be one more tactic to reach that goal. Unfortunately for them, neither science not history is determined by a vote.

I would also add that this same conversation has been rehearsed many times on Wikipedia. Anti-Stratfordians look at the encyclopedia as a vehicle to promote their theories, and every time someone tries to improve this article to reflect the academic consensus and comply to Wikipedia policy, new and SPA editors jump in to obstruct and delay. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote:

What Nina wants to do is ignore the opinion of the Shakespeare Association of America, which has banned the SAQ as an acceptable topic for papers and conferences

On the contrary. If such a ban exists, it SHOULD be cited in the footnote quoted above. It is an excellent example of the VERY TYPE OF EVIDENCE I've been stating should be cited in that footnote since it is evidence which is representative of the current consensus of the academy. Please cite it forthwith.

What should NOT be cited in that footnote as evidence of the current consensus of the academy is the views of individuals who have never been members of the academy, or who are retired or deceased, and thus cannot represent the current consensus of the academy IF the definition of the academy is to be the restricted definition which hamiltonstone and Paul Barlow have put forward (see my reply to hamiltonstone above).NinaGreen (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

After Tom made the categorical statement above that the Shakespeare Association 'had banned the SAQ as an acceptable topic for papers and conferences', I e-mailed the SAA, and received this reply from the President this morning:

Mr. Reedy is in error. The SAA does not have 'an opinion' on the authorship question. Moreover, there is no ban on speaking or writing about that topic at our annual conference. Several so-called Oxfordians are members of the organization and have presented papers at that meeting.

There could not be much clearer evidence of the non-neutrality of the SAQ article under Tom's editorship of it, or of the original research which is and has been going on in connection with the SAQ, than the fact that Tom made this patently untrue statement on this Discussion page about the official SAA position.16:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it appears I was in error. IIRC, I got that from an interview with Shapiro in the Journal of Higher Education or another journal. I'll try to find it again, although it is moot now. I do know that Charles Boyle has spoken at the SAA conference; his experience can be found here. I've alos talked with other Oxfordians who said their presentations were cancelled because of their authorship beliefs. I'm sure you're familiar with the incident. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you've taken ownership of the SAQ article and claim to be an authority on the authorship controversy, yet you didn't know what the current SAA position on the authorship issue is, and misinformed everyone reading this page about it, and if I hadn't e-mailed the SAA (which you, of course, could have done yourself), everyone reading this page would still be completely misinformed as to the SAA position. You seem to be brushing that off as an irrelevant and minor error. It's not.

It is a minor error, Nina; it wasn't put into the article and it was my belief at the time. I thought about e-mailing them myself, but I have other things to do. I also thought about suggesting you do so, but you have demonstrated little willingness to go beyond lobbying on this talk page, so I didn't. I am happy that you took some initiative.

And as if one error isn't enough, you now state that you're SURE that I'm familiar with some incident or other involving cancellation of presentations by the SAA which I've NEVER HEARD OF, and am not in the least 'familiar with'.

Lynne Kositsky told me that she and Roger Stritmatter were prevented from presenting a paper about The Tempest at an SAA conference. I assumed you knew about it because they made their complaints known, and since you're a high-profile Oxfordian who runs an Oxfordian web site and an Oxfordian newsgroup, I thought you had at least heard about it.

A pattern of unsubstantiated allegations is beginning to develop here.NinaGreen (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Call 911, Nina. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There are many editors like myself who have effectively delegated care of this article to people like Tom Reedy: there is no ownership issue. This section invites those supporting the NPOV tag to list their concerns; be specific and say why. I see no evidence-based support for an NPOV tag. Every contentious issue (there are hundreds at Wikipedia) has a core of editors who support the scholarship view, and another core who want other material introduced (material that would unduly suggest support for an alternative view). If the NPOV tag is to stay, there must be a clear statement of what material in the article violates NPOV, and there must be reasons to explain why that material is NPOV, and there must be references to support the claims. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, in view of the patently erroneous claim Tom made about the official position of the SAA on the authorship issue (see above), is it wise of editors like you to 'have effectively delegated care of this article to people like Tom Reedy'?NinaGreen (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anybody who is quoted who isn't or wasn't a member of SAA, so I have no idea what you're going on about. The statement is referenced with reliable sources according to Wikipedia's standards, and I don't know that quoting a directive or memorandum of the SAA would qualify as a WP:PR. Whether a person is dead or retired has nothing to do with it; the academic consensus has been the same since around 1900 from all the sources I've read, and hasn't budged. Stanley Wells, Chairman of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and acknowledged the world’s leading expert on Shakespeare, calls anti-Stratfordian evidence "nonsense" and states that "There is no room for reasonable doubt that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote ... the works traditionally ascribed to him, and maybe one or two others," and said, "All theories ... rely on conspiracy theory and a lot of them are, well really, pretty crazy." Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide, published by the Oxford University Press, about as WP:RS as you can get, is where Kathman's essay is found.

But of course you know all this, yet you insist that this article cater to your personal beliefs instead of Wikipedia policy. If you want to clear, black-and-white decision that the SAQ is or is not a fringe theory, take your question to WP:FRINGE/N. I already know it is, and so does the academic community.

I am tired of posting about this. When you post your query to the fringe noticeboard, I'll reiterate my case. Until then, you'll have to be content with the 10,000 or so words I've written on this talkpage and the Oxford talkpage. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy on Ownership of Articles

Tom,

I and other editors have pointed out that the SAQ article does not meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines because it is not neutral, contains original research, and cites otherwise reliable sources for points which the sources do not support. Numerous examples have been offered, both here and on the Peer Review page, of specific problems with the article in those areas. You have refused to do anything to correct the problems yourself, and have reverted every substantive edit I've made to try to correct them. You now insist that I and other editors provide you with a concise list of the problems which have already been mentioned. You are clearly of the view that you own the page, in contravention of WP:OWN. You will not correct problems which have been identified yourself, you will not allow other editors to correct them, and you are trying to control the manner in which other editors work and to waste their time by demanding that they provide you with a concise list of problems which have already been identified on this Discussion Page and on the Peer Review page, and which you ignored when they were identified.

In addition, you have now crossed a line by calling me obsessive, and a 'fanatic'. You wrote:

This is astonishing. You are complaining about original research and you think this is a reliable source proving that the SAQ is an acceptable academic topic and not a fringe theory? And I specifically created this subsection to list specific NPOV violations in the article so we could all take a look at them, not to revisit your assertion that the SAQ is a minority rather than a fringe view. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is unacceptable.NinaGreen (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree I crossed the line of civil discourse and apologise for the fanatic comment and retract it, and also refractor my other comment. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum’s objections

I found some specific objections buried in the pile of type above and I’m bringing them down to address them point-by-point. I ask that you PLEASE don’t crap this section up with the generalised complaints that this page is full of. Either start a new section or keep to the same section.

1. non-neutral language, such as that non-Stratfordians "claim" and "assert" and "declare", rather than the more neutral "state". Add to that that Stratfordians "hold" and "consider" rather than "say" or "believe". This is a clear violation of WP:WORDS.

Listed below are the instances of those words you say are non-neutral.

CLAIM

All of these uses are consistent with the definitions of "claim" as a noun and a verb:

Claim, noun: an assertion of something as a fact; an unproven assertion.

Claim, verb: to assert or maintain as a fact; to assert in the face of possible contradiction

Nevertheless, according to WP:WORDS, “To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.” I have added my comments to the examples below.

Proponents argue 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 claim is apparent in the works.

I have no objections to changing that to “say”.

No attendance records of the period survive, so if Shakespeare attended the school it could not have been documented, nor did anyone who taught or attended the school ever claim to have been his teacher or classmate.

I see nothing wrong with that use, nor do I see any neutrality issues.

Anti-Stratfordians claim that if the name on the plays and poems and literary references, "William Shakespeare", is assumed to be a pseudonym, then nothing in the documentary record left behind by William Shakespeare of Stratford explicitly names him as an author.

I have no objections to changing that to “say”.

In 1923 Archie Webster published "Was Marlowe the Man?" in The National Review, claiming that Marlowe wrote the works of Shakespeare and that the Sonnets were an autobiographical account of his survival and banishment.

I think this is a fair term to use in this instance and I don’t see any neutrality problems; perhaps you could point them out or tell me what would be more accurate.

Copious archival research had failed to turn up the expected confirmation of Oxford or anyone else as the true author, and publishers lost interest in repetitious books containing the same claims, based on what anti-Stratfordians asserted to be overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

I think this is a fair term to use in this instance and I don’t see any neutrality problems; perhaps you could point them out or tell me what would be more accurate.

The Ogburns found many parallels between Oxford's life and the works, claiming that the "play Hamlet is straight biography."

I think this is the right word in this instance, and I don’t see any neutrality problems; perhaps you could point them out or tell me what word would be more accurate.

Another theory for Oxford's use of the pen-name is the so-called "Prince Tudor" theory first advanced by Percy Allen in 1933 and promulgated by Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn Sr in their 1,300-page This Star of England, which claims that Oxford became Queen Elizabeth's lover and dedicated the Sonnets to their son, Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton.

I have no objections to using “says” in this case.

This theory has deeply divided Oxfordians, and even more so its variation, "Prince Tudor Part II", which claims that not only was Southampton the illegitimate son of Oxford and Queen Elizabeth, but Oxford himself was the Queen's son by Thomas Seymour.

Nor do I have any objections to changing this to “says”.

ASSERT:

Reasons for the assertion that "Shakespeare" is a pseudonym vary, . . .

I would be interested in what would substitute for the word in this case, “claim”?

Copious archival research had failed to turn up the expected confirmation of Oxford or anyone else as the true author, and publishers lost interest in repetitious books containing the same claims, based on what anti-Stratfordians asserted to be overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

"said"? "claimed"?

DECLARE:

Simonton, who declared his Oxfordian sympathies in the article and had expected the results to support Oxford’s authorship, concluded that "that expectation was proven wrong."

There is nothing objectionable to this usage.

HOLD:

Mainstream Shakespeare scholars hold that biographical interpretations of literature are unreliable in attributing authorship

I have modified the subset of Shakespeare scholars to address this, and added more refs.

CONSIDER: this word is used more for anti-Strats than Strats.

all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory with no hard evidence

I see nothing wrong with this use. The word “believe” implies faith, the word “consider” implies based on reasoning, which it is.

The Shakespeare canon is universally considered to be of the highest artistic and literary quality.

If you want to change this to "believed", I have no objections.

American cryptologists William and Elizebeth Friedman won the Folger Shakespeare Library Literary Prize of $1000 in 1955 for a definitive study that is considered to have disproven the long-standing claims that the works of Shakespeare contain hidden ciphers that disclose Bacon's or any other candidate's secret authorship.

The use of the word here is to insert some scholarly caution in lieu of saying "a definitive study that disproved the long-standing claims".

Freelance writer Charlton Ogburn, Jr., elected president of the society in 1976, promptly began a campaign to bypass the academic establishment, which he considered to be an "entrenched authority" that aimed to "outlaw and silence dissent in a supposedly free society," a situation that he termed "an intellectual Watergate".

I see no valid reason to change this, but feel free.

Ogburn, Jr., considered that academics were best challenged by recourse to law …

Same here.

But Looney considered the most critical part of the case to be the close affinity he found between the poetry of Oxford and that of Shakespeare in the use of motifs and subjects, phrasing, and rhetorical devices.

Would you change this to “believe”? Fine with me.

His (Marlowe’s) candidacy was revived in 1955 and has gained popularity so that he is considered the nearest rival to Oxford."

I see no neutrality issues here, but "thought to be" would be fine.

2. change "argument" to "debate"

The definition of "argument" is closer to the actual case than "debate", which implies a more formal process. From Merriam-Webster

ARGUMENT: (first definition is obsolete: an outward sign) 2. a: a reason given in proof or rebuttal; b: discourse intended to persuade. 3. a: the act or process of arguing: argumentation; b: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion; c: quarrel, disagreement

DEBATE: a contention by words or arguments: as a: the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure; b: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.

There are many anti-Stratfordian arguments, but few debates. There have been four or five debates that I know of between anti-Strats and Strats, bit to say the part is the whole is misleading and not true. Most academics won’t even talk to anti-Strats about authorship, much less debate them.

3. Paragraph 2, final line - change "argue" to "believe", and "arguing" to "proposing".

The first is reasonable and fine with me, the second does not square with the accepted definition of the word “propose”.

4. Paragraph 3 - change "Mainstream Shakespeare scholars hold" to : "Many mainstream Shakespeare scholars believe" (this change address both WP:WORDS and WP:RELIABLE , specifically – ". . . any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."

I have addressed this by changing the subset of Shakespear scholars referred to in order to comply more closely with the citations.

5. Paragraph 4 - change "Despite the scholastic consensus" to "Despite the traditional view" - same WP:RELIABLE and "Academic consensus" issue as above.

This has been addressed with the reference I added this morning from Stephen Greenblatt: “The idea that William Shakespeare's authorship of his plays and poems is a matter of conjecture and the idea that the ‘authorship controversy’ be taught in the classroom are the exact equivalent of current arguments that ‘intelligent design’ be taught alongside evolution. In both cases an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on a serious assessment of hard evidence, is challenged by passionately held fantasies whose adherents demand equal time."

6. Paragraph 4 - the final line is a mess, and there are multiple issue involved. As written, it appears to be more about the "supporters" than the theory itself, which is odd and does not contribute to explication of the subject matter.

The final graf is a general statement about the proponents and their activities, which certainly contributes to the “explication of the subject matter”. The theories do not exist in a vacuum.

It may express your view of Oxfordians but that is not the purpose of the article, correct me if I have this wrong. The subject of the article is the theory itself, is it not? If you are attempting to show the current state of the debate, then this final line should instead say something like "In recent years, two universities began offering courses related to the issue, and a Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre has opened, an online list of doubters includes over 1800 signatories, and a major feature film Anonymous has been announced with the authorship question as a key element.' (At this point I have to mention that the present article is hopelessly out of date. Altrocchi, Whittemore, and Roe have made recent significant contributions to knowledge in the subject matter, not even mentioning dozens of articles in the Society and Fellowship journals. Part of the source of conflict is that Mr. Reedy has not availed himself of the numerous high-quality peer-reviewed works that comprise the Oxfordian position on Shakespeare authorship. That may involve a good deal of at first distasteful effort, then shocking surprise, but it is the responsible editor's duty if he means to write a balanced article.)

This is a general article written in summary style, and is not meant to be a detailed point-by-point explication of the several theories, of which you seem to think the Oxfordian one is the only one that should be covered. There’s an entire article to which those can be added. The history section covers much of what you complain about is missing.

7. WP:LEAD states that the lead is to summarize the article. Specifically "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences."

This lede does a good job of that, and there does not have to be a strict point-by-point correspondence as long as the material is covered in a coherent manner. The first graf defines the topic, summarises the arguments it is based upon, and gives the academic view. The second summarises the origin and history and names the major claimants, and the third summarises the main points brought up by academics against the theory. The final graf summarises the present-day activities of anti-Stratfordians. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have made those changes discussed above in this section. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum

Good, now we're getting somewhere. I would recommend for your first entry: "Proponents of the Oxfordian contention have presented data and reasoning to say that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford is the more appropriate author in terms of classical education, life experience in the aristocracy and abroad, and rank at the highest level of English society, whereas the man born Gulielmus Shakspere of Stratford could barely sign his name on his will, and he had no known association with either nobles or royalty, both prominent features of the works of Shakespeare."

Instead of: "Proponents argue 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 claim is apparent in the works."

Your saying "lacked...familiarity with the royal court that >>they claim is apparent in the works"<< is a disparagement and historically inaccurate, since such as Bismarck, Whitman, Chaplin, and Trevor-Roper have stated the same lacks, and you do not accuse them of claiming it. You simply ignore that they are documented as having done so and deprecate the element you consider a fringe group. It is indisputable that the setting of numerous works was court-life and royalty. I also have no objection to the use of say in that paragraph, except that in my suggested version the tone is noticably less partisan,e.g., "they say."

The sentence about the education of your protagonist might be better stated as: "The young Stratfordian is not known to have been educated at the local grammar school. There are no records in any case. Any claims one way or the other are conjectural. Oxfordians point to 'Titus Andronicus', Act IV, wherein a student named William is ridiculed for not understanding his Latin grammar, whose first sentence is 'Edwardus is my propre name.' Edwardus was Edward de Vere's proper Latin name. They posit that if Shakspere did attend grammar school, he would have been able to adequately sign his name on his will."

instead of what you have:

No attendance records of the period survive, so if Shakespeare attended the school it could not have been documented, nor did anyone who taught or attended the school ever claim to have been his teacher or classmate.

This removes the temptation to use a claim word with reference to a teacher or pupil in a totally conjectural case. Your statement that no records survive so that if he did attend the school it wasn't documented, is a non sequitur. There were records. They were burned. Before that they were documents. They are not extant. It is a poor sentence if what you mean is we don't know what the burned documents contained.

Your next example, about the pen name Shakespeare:

"Anti-Stratfordians claim that if the name on the plays and poems and literary references, "William Shakespeare", is assumed to be a pseudonym, then nothing in the documentary record left behind by William Shakespeare of Stratford explicitly names him as an author."

has the verb claim followed by a hypothesis. Why not just say: "Non-Stratfordians/or Oxfordians more specifically, hypothesize that William Shakespeare was a pen name/stage name, based on its frequent printing with a hyphen, a tell-tale indication of pseudonymity. Their conclusion is that Shakspere of Stratford had nothing in his documentary record that might tie him to the allonymous stage-name. The title pages with Shakespeare on them are not themselves proof of his particular involvement. The doubt forces the question of the authorship to be answered elsewhere or in a more definitive manner, according to Oxfordians."

Regarding the Marlowe follower, I have not read his book, but I think it uncharitable to say he claimed that Marlowe wrote the works, if he presented reasons for his view, though weak to our thinking. Propose would be a neutral form of description. It does not weaken your case to be fair.

"The Ogburns found many parallels between Oxford's life and the works, claiming that the "play Hamlet is straight biography."

Since the Ogburns put about 110 pages in whole or part into backing this claim, it wasn't just a claim, it was a thesis, in my view of great power and scope. The problem with using the word claim is that it is a flag-term, communicating I don't believe this for one second, would you? A fairer means of expressing the point might be:

"The Ogburns found many parallels between Oxford's life and the works, in particular in the masterpiece 'Hamlet', which they considered a 'straight biography' of Oxford's traumatic early years."

The next sentence:

"Copious archival research had failed to turn up the expected confirmation of Oxford or anyone else as the true author, and publishers lost interest in repetitious books containing the same claims, based on what anti-Stratfordians asserted to be overwhelming circumstantial evidence."

has no backing for anything it states. If archival research had turned in anything at all confirming the Stradfordian idea, we wouldn't be wasting our time here. Eva Turner Clark did copious archival research into the court plays and found that numerous plays in the 1570's and '80's at court had the same plots, characters, and similar titles to what later became "Shakespearean" plays. This and other "circumstantial" arguments of similarity too close to discount contained in 'Shakespeare by Another Name', 'Alias Shakespeare', 'The Monument', 'Great Oxford', 'Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom', 'Shakespeare's Guide to Italy', and 'Oxfordian Vistas' have all been published, regardless of the publishers you might know as finding them repetitious. If you mean to say that the Oxfordian contention has not swept academia like a firestorm, perhaps the way to say it is:

"A recent thrust of scholarly interest, mainly by lawyers, judges, and non-academics, has produced frequent arguments supporting the Oxfordian contention. But to date this has not changed the general disposition of either academics, who know little of the authorship history since they were trained to teach the texts, or the general reader, since Shakespeare has become a cultural icon, almost a secular saint, representing English-American values. Thus neither constituency is susceptible to swift re-thinking away from deeply ingrained beliefs."

In general your paragraph is too loose in its reasoning and condemning in its evaluations, without persuasive power of data to redeem these weaknesses. Also I recommend you drop the anti-Stratfordian cliche. A positive identification for the Oxfordian persuasion is probably closer to neutral than that. Derby, Rutland, and the rest offer little or nothing in the way of a comprehensive explanation regarding the authorship controversy. Characterizing all together is a way of minimizing the threat of research done by Oxfordian proponents.

Your next example:

"Another theory for Oxford's use of the pen-name is the so-called "Prince Tudor" theory first advanced by Percy Allen in 1933 and promulgated by Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn Sr in their 1,300-page This Star of England, which claims that Oxford became Queen Elizabeth's lover and dedicated the Sonnets to their son, Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton."

can benefit from the following additional wording in the interests of neutrality:

"Another motivation for Oxford's putative use of the pen-name Shakespeare, other than the general ban on aristocrats publishing in their life-times, was the politically explosive circumstance recently labelled the "Prince Tudor" theory. It was first advanced by Percy Allen in 1933 and later promulgated by Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn, Sr. in their 1,300 page tome 'This Star of England' and then in numerous subsequent studies. The theory is that the youthful Oxford became Queen Elizabeth's lover, hence later as a literary magus dedicating 'Venus and Adonis', 'Lucrece',and 'The Sonnets' to their son and England's rightful Tudor Prince, who was raised Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton."

The next contribution is:

"This theory has deeply divided Oxfordians, and even more so its variation, "Prince Tudor Part II", which claims that not only was Southampton the illegitimate son of Oxford and Queen Elizabeth, but Oxford himself was the Queen's son by Thomas Seymour."

Again, as in 'Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom', more than a simple claim is involved here. The whole book with considerable scholarship elucidates the real possibility that the theory was fact. Therefore, to be brief, the terms might be:

"...Prince Tudor theory, Part II, which simply stated is that not only was Southampton Oxford's and Elizabeth's bastard, he was Oxford's brother, because Oxford himself was the Queen's son, for according to this theory at age fourteen Elizabeth was raped by Thomas Seymour, then Lord Protector of the Realm, and the child was placed with the House of Oxford."

Your frequent use of the word claim advertises skepticism, and becomes a barrier to the objectivity of the summary work. Above all claim is an inadequate usually disapproving description. It is dishonest to insist you must be brief, if that brevity is always to short the neutrality/parity requirement of the article. The reader will read a few more lines to gain the truth.

Next, "Reasons for the assertion that "Shakespeare" is a pseudonym vary, . . ."

This is a contradiction in terms since if you present reasons it is not an assertion. It is a proposal, thesis, or argument. Moreover, this is a tee-up sentence that says nothing, except that you are about to say something that does say something. If you are interested in what would substitute for the word claim, I recommend dropping the whole sentence and saying something declarative to begin with. Absence is better than ugliness.

"Copious archival research had failed to turn up the expected confirmation of Oxford or anyone else as the true author, and publishers lost interest in repetitious books containing the same claims, based on what anti-Stratfordians asserted to be overwhelming circumstantial evidence."

This is a repetition of a previous example, and I refer you back to my comments above. You are under the impression that you can change one word and buy off the opposition, whereas the essential unfairness of your approach makes that a vain result.

"Simonton, who declared his Oxfordian sympathies in the article and had expected the results to support Oxford’s authorship, concluded that "that expectation was proven wrong."

If Simonton actually did make such a declaration, quote it and your statement has some veracity. You have a way of slanting what people are supposed to have said. Quoting eliminates the possibility that they did not. You're short of credibility already. And who in hell is Simonton to fall on his sword, when he knows virtually nothing about the Shakespeare play chronology that he uses for a standard of Shakespearean stylisms? That he assumes an accepted chronology indicates his ignorance of the issue, and invalidates his conclusions, but since he said something you could turn to advantage, that does not count in the reckoning. The choice of sources is somewhat biased. Cairncross said more in one paragraph about the Shakespeare chronology than Simonton has in a lifetime, and Cairncross paid for it with his career.

Your statement, "Mainstream Shakespeare scholars hold that biographical interpretations of literature are unreliable in attributing authorship."

has only one problem, believing it. The entire critical study of literature has successfully established that biography and art align very closely, as does biography and political achievement, biography and military achievement,etc. It has been only very recently that Shapiro propagandized the bifurcation of a life and its artistic work in order to cut off the weakest aspect of the Stratfordian hypothesis, a tattered one at this point. He even took himself to task for trying to make reasonable sense out of Shakspere and now tries to discard the entire methodology rather than face that nothing fits between his subject and the works attributed to him. Therefore, I suggest this modification:

"Those mainstream Shakespeare scholars who have followed the lead of James Shapiro in holding to the concept that biographical interpretations of literature are unreliable in attributing authorship have to this point provided no persuasive studies that artistic creation and biographical character and motivation are unconnected."

If you have any such studies, cite them; otherwise it stands as a non sequitur. if you have no evidence, don't make the statement.

"all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory with no hard evidence"

Similarly if you are going to make this broad dictum, then add the clause, as 1,2,3 have shown,... Or else to be fair you must add,"The English establishment is deeply invested in the Stratford narrative of a commoner rising from nowhere and by individual character writing universal works on subjects and with detail known only to the ruling class. Thus it will not easily re-appraise the traditional view and generally expresses hostility toward the contrary scholars by insisting that the alternative movement is marginal and the supporters few. Despite no university funding, the Oxfordian movement is a thriving cottage industry of book production.

"The Shakespeare canon is universally considered to be of the highest artistic and literary quality."

People who are reading about the Shakespeare authorship controversy don't need to be instructed about the literary value of the works. They want to know how so colossal an error could have occurred or if it is all a lot of hot air. But it's a harmless sentence if you want to use it.

"American cryptologists William and Elizebeth Friedman won the Folger Shakespeare Library Literary Prize of $1000 in 1955 for a definitive study that is considered to have disproven the long-standing claims that the works of Shakespeare contain hidden ciphers that disclose Bacon's or any other candidate's secret authorship."

To be precise, the proper term is 'widely thought to have disproven'. By the terms of a study the Folger Shakespeare Library would endorse, the Oxfordian ciphers were not to be examined. None was. The Cardano Grille was not listed in the index. The Peacham and Meres puzzles were not discussed. The First Folio introductory verse and the Southampton dedications were ignored. Therefore, to be fair, you should add the sentences, "The bulk of the study discredited the Baconian hypothesis and ciphers. No other possible writer received attention at that time."

"Freelance writer Charlton Ogburn, Jr., elected president of the society in 1976, promptly began a campaign to bypass the academic establishment, which he considered to be an "entrenched authority" that aimed to "outlaw and silence dissent in a supposedly free society," a situation that he termed "an intellectual Watergate".

"Professional writer, intelligence officer, and son of the elder Ogburns', who wrote 'This Star of England', Charlton Ogburn, Jr...."

What in you must minimize the achievement and character of this heroic figure in American intellectual circles? Harvard didn't.

"Ogburn, Jr., considered that academics were best challenged by recourse to law …"

This is harmless, but where did you get this, inside his head or from something he said?

"But Looney considered the most critical part of the case to be the close affinity he found between the poetry of Oxford and that of Shakespeare in the use of motifs and subjects, phrasing, and rhetorical devices."

Looney's own language exceeds this colorless verb by thousands. "No one will deny that each line above is Shakespearean; the former is hardly entitled to be called even a paraphrase, so nearly a copy is it; personally I find it utterly impossible to read this poem of De Vere's without an overwhelming sense of there being but one mind behind the two utterances."

Have you ever felt that kind of joy in discovering the works of a heretofore hidden personality in the writing of supposedly another person entirely? Someone reputed to be a supernal genius?

"But Looney [Loh'nee] was astonished at the close affinity he found between the language of Oxford...." might be more apt. It doesn't cost you anything.

Your next offering: "His (Marlowe’s) candidacy was revived in 1955 and has gained popularity so that he is considered the nearest rival to Oxford."

Considered by whom? Is this a fringe theory that you are padding a reputation about that doesn't exist objectively and that I haven't heard referenced for fifty years or more? How many studies? At what conferences?

'There are many anti-Stratfordian arguments, but few debates. There have been four or five debates that I know of between anti-Strats and Strats, bit to say the part is the whole is misleading and not true. Most academics won’t even talk to anti-Strats about authorship, much less debate them."

WHO SAID THIS? If it is you, to what purpose? There are no debates because the "mainstream" scholars don't know enough about the historical issues to stand up and talk on equal terms. Of course they won't seek to debate when likely to lose. Which calls the bluff of 'every scrap of evidence confirms Shakspere's authorship'.

5. Paragraph 4: In the longer statement you have excerpted, shown below, which originally appeared in the New Yorker Greenblatt compared the Shakespeare authorship debaters to Holocaust deniers. At that point he passed beyond rational exchange into disgusting polemic. And Greenblatt is a Jew. As a Jew who lost 82 relatives in Europe during that horror I am ashamed of his cheapness as an intellectual. I would withdraw this statement as an academic reference. It is not factual and the speaker has no moral authority:

“The idea that William Shakespeare's authorship of his plays and poems is a matter of conjecture and the idea that the ‘authorship controversy’ be taught in the classroom are the exact equivalent of current arguments that ‘intelligent design’ be taught alongside evolution. In both cases an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on a serious assessment of hard evidence, is challenged by passionately held fantasies whose adherents demand equal time." --Stephen Greenblatt

6. Paragraph 4: This is the summary. You state that this is not a point by point discussion. That is an evasion. You must be accurate in everything you state. If that takes more sentences in the summary write more. If you get your summary wrong, it is because you have gotten the facts leading to it wrong. I would recommend that you give up this article as it stands now. You don't appear to have the scope and distance to write a true sentence on the topic. Perhaps someone in your cohort can. The bibliographical references are an atrocity of one-sidedness. I'm sorry, because evidently a lot of work went into the effort. Zweigenbaum (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Man, I hate that you went to all that trouble. You obviously think this is the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship article or The Shakespeare Fellowship. Sorry to disappoint. I will adopt a few of your wordings, though, which is one reason I think it valuable to get input from others, no matter how extreme their partisanship. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I just read a bit of this rambling screed. It's clear, Zweigenbaum, that you have no idea what NPOV is. If you reallty think this sentence is accptable "Non-Stratfordians/or Oxfordians more specifically, hypothesize that William Shakespeare was a pen name/stage name, based on its frequent printing with a hyphen, a tell-tale indication of pseudonymity." It's difficult to understand why the clumsy and ugly slahes are considered desirable and why the simple "anti-Statfordians" has to be replaced by "Non-Stratfordians/or Oxfordians". Also, the assertion that a hyphen is a "tell-tale indication of pseudonymity" is pure nonsense. It can, of course, be presented as an anti-Statfordian argument, but not as fact. It is rejected by orthodox scholars as without foundation. Paul B (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Hey what's up Doc? Yes, I "reallty think this sentence is accptable", as neither I nor others oppose Stratford, poor innocent burg, and labelling the Oxfordian point of view as anti-Stratfordian is like saying it is anti-FlatEarthian. I haven't seen anybody who maintains a shrine to Derby or Mary Sidney chime in against Stratford. But the label is hardly the main point. The facts don't support the point of view relying on the present narrative, and a balanced statement includes points from both sides of a discussion, or else it is a "screed" as you characterize my edits and comments. If you don't like the "clumsy and ugly slahes", re-word them and let's deal. And the hyphen in Shake-Speare (The Sonnets) like the hyphen in "Tom Tell-Truth" can indeed be cited as fact of pseudonymity because both are in the historical and literary record without correspondence to any individual using that nomenclature. If "rejected by orthodox scholars as without foundation", kindly cite and we'll see what objective evidence for the charge "lack of foundation" got presented and why.

To Tom Reedy: inserting verb changes here and there do not a neutral point of view make. Like the other participants acquainted with the Oxfordian perspective, I am aiming for fairness, and fairness requires an adequate presentation of the interpretations involved in the discussion. You are at a severe disadvantage if you resist even exposing your mind to the opposing interpretation. Contrary to charge, I do not think this is the "Oxfordian theory to Shakespeare authorship", but a publically geared discussion about the truth of the matter. I will seek that latter purpose, despite the whines and spits that consider it a consummation devoutly not to be wished. Which brings us to the neutrality tag once again having been removed, even though the on-going dispute is evident. Why are you afraid of readers seeing upfront that the issue is not resolved in Wikipedia? That simply reflects the fact of the matter in reality. Correct me if I'm wrong. Catch you in the next round. Zweigenbaum (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have made further changes based on your suggestions, some of which were on point and helped make the article more neutral. As to Simonton, I'm surprised that a person so conversant with Oxfordian theories hasn't heard about him, but then again he's a scholar and not an amateur, so maybe it's not all that surprising.

Re: your comments about the biographical fallacy, you misunderstand Shapiro's point. Gleaning biographical details and attempting to identify an author from them has no academic support. Yes, critics do speculate about what events in literary works are autobiographical, and for other authors about whom more is known it is often interesting and provides an avenue for criticism, but no scholar would attempt to identify an author based on such speculations. I'm sure if you write plays and poems one could instantly identify you as the author based on all sorts of biographical clues they found in the work, but sadly we don't know enough about Shakespeare's biography to do that, and the problem is not unique with most writers of his period. We know very little about Thomas Middleton, Francis Beaumont, and John Webster, for example.

Stephen Greenblatt is recognised as a Shakespeare expert; you are not. I believe we'll go along with the prevailing view for this article.

And no, this is not a "a publically (sic) geared discussion about the truth of the matter"; this is a talkpage about editing the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum [Zweigenbaum]] I am quite aware of Simonton, the work and the person, who was so unfamiliar with the Oxford/Shakspere subject matter, he had to ask some basic informational questions, even though he may be a "scholar" in his niche, genius and how it happens. He is over his head trying to posit a theory based on a play chronology about which there is on-going disagreement. In an exchange with him, I bested him every time. Greenblatt is recognized as a Shakespeare expert, and as the great scholar Alastair Fowler pointed out he is marvelously free of elementary English history and a lot else. Greenblatt is about to give a Morgan Library presentation on the only portrait of Shakespeare made in his lifetime, but it has already been discredited in England as that, instead recognized by Duncan-Jones and others as Sir Thomas Overbury. Good one Stephen. He is a plagiarist too, but never mind isolated detail. Shapiro takes him to task for fictionalizing, not because that is dishonest, but because Shapiro thinks it encourages the biographical treatment of 'Shakespeare', whereas the biography and writing understood as Oxford’s fit together so well, the thesis won't be ignored for long. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, James, that'll do it. Shapiro thinks that by fiat and repetition he can stop scholars or anyone else from seeing those obvious parallels and enormous numbers of correspondences. Didn’t we use to call his approach propaganda? But he is earning his pay as the visible aspect of the Shakespeare establishment line.

To comment here about something you flipped off as a parting comment, "Greenblatt is recognized as a Shakespeare expert; you are not", so you believe you'll stay with the "prevailing view". Of course Greenblatt is recognized as a scholar, but is he reliable if he has it wrong on both facts and methods? Clearly he is of your persuasion making him an acceptable reference to you. You eliminate the opposing view I have articulated on grounds I am not an academic? But there are many published and respected works that say what I have. Those are also ignored, indicating an endemic bias against them. Thus it is not about Zweigenbaum the presently dismissable scholar. It is about the threat I represent, one that will not retreat no matter how much you slant the selection of scholarship. No intellectual cowards here I trust? Name a play or poem and we'll see which approach produces more technical and substantive understanding of it.

Citing my use of "publically" [sic] gets you nowhere, because the Wikipedia article is publically geared, my understanding of Wikipedia if not yours, as information read by those in the cultural public who wish to know. It isn't a good thing to play obtuse. This editing page has no other goal but neutrality of approach and clarity of exposition. Your narrow perspective is hampering you from seeing the main point: responsible editors try in every way to be faithful to the truth and its children, the verifiable facts, so that those public readers will benefit in a brief space of time. I don't think you're up to it. The silly attempts to squelch my objections are evidence towards that fact. William S. Niederkorn is not an Oxfordian; neither is he a follower of the prevailing narrative and its proponents, because the latter is so weak and they so behind in research and so deluded that they believe a ruse is the truth if people told them so. But he can present facts and arguments in a disinterested way, relying on logic and again a basic sense of journalistic fairness. To your group of thinkers, he is anathema. Not everything anyone writes on this topic has to be partisan, yet this article as written stinks of it. Sorry I am getting annoyed but this has gone pretty far into a sneering attack on me, what you think I know and don't, etc. instead of the article itself, which satisfies no standards of thoroughness or fairness.

Your single salient point above is that for example my prose and poetry is instantly recognizable in terms of my life, but you err when you say, ("sadly"), we don't know enough about Shakspere to show his personal and artistic parallels. (Remember, you just said gleaning biographical details is NOT a means of identifying an author and here you are implying someone's work and life could correspond--if only we knew more about Shakspere! Faulty logic there. Call biographical correspondence 'speculation' if you insist on bad-mouthing the construction of a theory; but if inductive biographical inquiry makes sense and does not present contradictions, it illuminates the work.) Contrary to your assertion that not enough is known, Shakspere's life and documented record tell us plenty: he was a property owner, investor, broker, money-lender, and speculator. So that being quite documented, eighteen aristocratic plays and two epic poems between 1593 and 1604 are a complete departure. No basis for both money-trade and literary career together in the biography. Francis Beaumont, whose biography you mention as like Shakspere not sufficiently known, is by contrast and contrary to your assertion not a literary blank. We know he was born in Stratford-upon-Avon, that he was recognized in his youth and got a scholarship to university education, and after a literary career and upon his death, he was copiously mourned in London and Stratford by peers and citizens alike. He died a month before Shakspere. What happened to Shakspere's prodigiously greater literary fame and honor, the hysterical hosannahs rising all over England? Only one literary remembrance a year in Stratford, so sorry Will?

It is a critical contradiction in your argument. Your error is simple: you are looking in the wrong life. One of your other examples is quite interesting, John Webster, of an upwardly mobile middle-class family, who reputably made good in literature. How came it that his plays all feature fully dimensional female leads with the exact sources shown in Mary Sidney Pembroke's writing? That 'The White Devil' is so allegorical of the Howard-Overbury assassination incident of which the Pembrokes were interested parties? And Webster happened to be her coach-maker's son, educated in Latin and literate in English. Hmmm. Check Stephanie Hopkins Hughes in The Oxfordian/6. See how very much is known about Webster, the proxy, of whom you say little is known. Your argument is taking on water and thimbles are so minute.

This should be enough for now. That you picked up a few phrasings from me, the better writer, is no indication of your accepting or comprehending what it is to be fair on the subject matter. You may feel it is worthwhile to hold the line for the establishment. But using this medium for it may not be the way to go for you. Editing is not "my way or the highway but here I'll flip you a dime." It is being conscientiously fair. That will take more work. Happy holidays. Zweigenbaum (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Neutrality issues

Having looked over the talk page and that at peer review, and having been rebuked for not supplying specifics (although I and others have), here is list of Neutrality issues that remained unresolved:

1) Instances of WP:WORDS that have not been addressed;

2) Multiple claims of "scholarly" or "academic" consensus when none exists, and where references do not support the claim, with disregard of [11].

By "multiple" you mean three, as there is one claim of scholarly consensus about the attribution in the lede (see below), one of chronology, and one of dating. The word "consensus" is defined as "General agreement among the members of a given group or community", not unanimity, and that is accurate in the case of attribution, chronology, and dating, the said group being academic Shakespeareans.

3) Claim in lead that "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory with no hard evidence" when none of the references support "all but a few",

Nelson 2004, p. 149-51: "… virtually all anti-Stratfordians are outsiders to the profession of English Literature. I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare nor more than a handful of non-member professors of English in North America, nor a single professor of English in all of Great Britain or the European Continent. Among editors of Shakespeare in the major publishing houses, none that I know questions the authorship of the Shakespeare canon …"

"literary historians"

Nelson 2004, p. 149-51:: "I attribute the paucity of doubters among professional literary historians to a culture in which mistakes of fact or argument bring shame on the perpetrator. Literary historians, like scientists, tend to share a common understanding of what kind of evidence counts, and what does not."

nor the "fringe theory" label.

Kathman 2003, p. 621: "...in fact, antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence."

4) WP:RELIABLE issues involving inaccurate sourcing, WP:OR and WP:SYN, especially with regard to "fringe"

Kathman, David (2003), "The Question of Authorship", in Wells, Stanley; Orlin, Lena C., Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide, Oxford University Press, pp. 620–32,

and "consensus" labels.

Nelson, Alan H. (2004), "Stratford Si! Essex No!", Tennessee Law Review (University of Tennessee) 72 (1): 149–71

5) Extended footnotes that disparage theory proponents;

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Words_to_watch: "Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source)."

For the rest, see below or ask somebody else. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

6) Extended footnotes that only represent one point of view;

7) Incomplete histories, including the absence of current U.S. Supreme Court justices opinions in the "Trials section", which is currently very misleading;

8) Citations and references represent only one viewpoint. The alternate theories are described by only one POV, and never in their own words; Cites and references to proponents views have been removed from the article.

9) Overall tone of disparagement and ad hominem attacks aimed at the minority viewpoint or those who hold it.

There are additional issues, but these are the ones that have been repeatedly mentioned by editors who have some knowledge of the debate. I wanted to get these on record anticipating claims by the orthodox contingent that the neutrality point of view problems were not stated specifically and clearly. Zweigenbaum (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

5) Extended footnotes that disparage theory proponents;

The reason for extended footnotes is that every statement in this article has been questioned repeatedly long before you got here, and for much the same reason (i. e. reality hurts). When support was demanded over and over for a particular statement, it became easier to quote the entire passage in an effort to avoid a prolonged edit war. It didn't work, of course, because neutrality is not what was really wanted. Your Nos. 2, 3, and 4 above are rebutted by those same extended footnotes, which you characterise as "disparaging" because to do so would be reason to remove them, and then with them gone there would be no support for the statements, which then could be removed. The alternate theories are described from secondary sources as per WP:FRINGE guidelines. If you want to contend that you should team up with Nina and I'll discuss it at WP:FRINGE/N; I'm done talking about it here.

It's also apparent that you have the same definition of ad hominem as all anti-strats, i.e. name-calling. You should really look up the term. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum No need to get huffy and defensive old pard. The extensive footnotes are fine, only one in a thousand will open the closet to find them in the dark anyway. The issue here is their one-sided nature. If your authorities have been getting it warped and wrong for generations you will obviously have a plentiful corpus of statements on the wrong side of the analysis. Where are the other studies that question the academic tradition--which has done so poorly to reach a coherent arrangement of the facts? I don't know what has gone on before, but I have no strategy to get footnotes removed. Keep them until the end of time. But show the other perspective fairly and capably, not begrudgingly and myopically. I realize you are constitutionally opposed to explicating a point of view you detest, so that would be an achievement. But the responsible editor achieves it. If you can't do it, another editor may have to. Or restore the status quo ante, whatever it was. Finally, on ad hominem reasoning, I believe I understand it from the law. If you have the facts, pound the facts. If you have the law, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table and rail at the guy who does. You may be good at it, but as the song goes, "The same thing that makes you strong will kill you in the end." Well, that's footnotes and ad hominem, what about the rest of the rather voluminous good-faith review I made of your article? --Zweigenbaum Zweigenbaum (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

'Where are the other studies that question the academic tradition--which has done so poorly to reach a coherent arrangement of the facts?'

That's your problem, not ours. If generations of assiduous students from a family flunk the same exam consistently over 160 years, perhaps their cribsheets need rewriting. Perhaps they should try mastering the techniques of the literary-historical method rather than grinding away with the same tried-and-false bricoleur, do-it-yourself in-house guides to gaming the system. It is widely admitted that you have no evidence, only a 'theory' which is a polished euphemistic way of admitting that, as you yourself put it, sans facts and sans law (method), you chaps must perforce 'pound the wiki table and rail at the guy who does,' who, here, happens to be Mr Reedy. Almost nothing in these extensive and extenuating threads, as far as I can manage to read the drivel of challenging 'academics', warrants notice, except perhaps for administrators concerned with efficient editing and textually relevant argument towards article-building, as opposed to tendentiously disruptive meanderings from the conspiratorial whinge-fringe. Nishidani (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum, if you can furnish any such studies we would be glad to take a look at them. As far as I know, every study to determine authorship has eliminated Oxford or any other claimant. We include several of those, Ward Elliott's clinic and Simonton's studies, both of whom were sympathetic to Oxford as the author going in, only one of which kept his faith in the teeth of the conclusions he reached.

As to the rest of your voluminous review, I have incorporated a lot of your observations; those in which I found no merit I passed by, and I take it my explanations for those above in this section were sufficient for you. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum

Easy there. Studies presenting data and reasoning that discredit the academic view that Shakspere of Stratford was the author of the works: Alias Shakespeare, Shakespeare by Another Name, Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom, Shakespeare Who Was He?, Shakespeare Revealed in Oxford's Letters, and Shakespeare's Guide to Italy (forthcoming in 2011). When you get through those, get back to me. Zweigenbaum (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum

Back to work. No I do not take as sufficient that you made a few stylistic changes you lifted from my objections and so claim co-operative editing. Your rude abrupt expressions both to Nina Green and to me--probably to smrtprt as well in the past--are indicative of a drive to steam-roll this entire site into an extreme version of the conventional theory, which is exactly what is in question. This is not neutrality. Your changes, whatever they are, will likely show up to be cosmetic rather than one of balanced perspective. In order that I can see just what you are claiming as improved through co-operation with me, list the exact changes you made, just as I made specific changes and listed them. You won't get off advertising yourself as co-operative with proving it. I'm sorry, you don't have that kind of credibility.

Regarding my supposed misreading of Shapiro and everything he is trying to do to squelch the progress of biographical inquiry in this field, I recommend an alternative and properly credentialed commentator. It is obvious you regard my remarks as inferior because I am not credentialed as a conventional thinker and scholar. Consult the following article and try to follow that reasoning pattern: http://brooklynrail.org/2010/04/books/absolute-will. You will find hopeless contradictions and dishonesties of the author you extol and whose theories you take as fact.

Until then please do not assume you have put one over on me or anyone else because I write well and you can see that much. Thee has got to be a better way to present a capable article. Have a good day. Zweigenbaum (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is The Mainstream View Which Must Be Represented In The SAQ Article Carroll's 20,000?

I'm re-posting this in a new section because it concerns agreement on the very foundation of the editing of the SAQ article. Once there's agreement on this point, we can move forward, and in fact since Carroll's view by definition, according to Wikipedia policy, has to prevail over original research by hamiltonstone and Paul Barlow, there can't be any dispute as to the fact that Carroll's view must prevail.

Here's what I wrote above:

The President of the SAA has advised that:

Mr. Reedy is in error. The SAA does not have 'an opinion' on the authorship question. Moreover, there is no ban on speaking or writing about that topic at our annual conference. Several so-called Oxfordians are members of the organization and have presented papers at that meeting.

Now that we've gotten Tom's erroneous claim about the SAA out of the way, let's get back to the interesting point raised by hamiltonstone, which is contradicted by D. Allen Carroll, who is quoted in footnote 3 in the SAQ article as follows:

Carroll 2004, pp. 278–9: "I am an academic, a member of what is called the 'Shakespeare Establishment,' one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less, by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare . . . ."

Hamiltonstone (and Paul Barlow) beg to differ with Professor Carroll (thus engaging in original research, contrary to one of Wikipedia's pillar policies). Hamiltonstone wrote:

First, "those who teach Shakespeare in U.S. universities" is not the same group as "Shakespeare scholars". Shakespeare scholars are those who conduct and publish peer reviewed research in relation to Shakespeare and his works. They are likely to be a minority of those who are teaching the material.

So whose definition of those who make up the majority view which must be fairly represented, according to Wikipedia policy, in the SAQ article is correct? Is it Carroll, who says the mainstream view (the Shakespeare establishment) is that of the 20,000 professors who make their living by teaching, reading and writing about Shakespeare, or is it hamiltonstone and Paul Barlow, who say the mainstream view is that of a very small and ill-defined subset of the 20,000? Clearly, according to Wikipedia policy, there can be only one answer to that. For Hamiltonstone and Paul Barlow to substitute their own view for the view of the mainstream scholar whom they are citing as their source (no less!), constitutes original research, which is expressly forbidden to Wikipedia editors by Wikipedia policy.

So can we now move on, accepting as the basis of the SAQ article that the mainstream view which is to be represented in the article is Carroll's 20,000?

There, now wasn't that easy? And it didn't require going through contentious dispute resolution. We merely argued the point among ourselves to its logical conclusion.NinaGreen (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is the Caroll who says "I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him"?? And you are saying that because Carroll mentions 20,000 unspecified Shakespeare scholars then that he obviously refers to the unspecified and unnumbered teachers in the NYT survey, and that therefore we can use someone who says that "I have never met anyone" in a relevant academic job "who entertained the slightest doubt" to justify a claim that there is a sigfnificant percentage of doubt. This is WP:SYN beyond any Syn in the history of Synning. O tempora OMG. As Bob Dylan said, "I happen to be a Swede myself". Paul B (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You're engaging in original research, Paul. The SAQ article cites Carroll for the very thing you're arguing with him about.NinaGreen (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha! This is pretty funny. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I hope Wikipedia administrators are watching your performance of late on this page - calling fellow editors 'fanatics', making false allegations about the position of the Shakespeare Authorship Association, instructing people to 'Call 911', indulging in Hahahas. It's getting pretty bizarre.NinaGreen (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. They understand when editors express despair when confronted by irrationality and utter disregard of policy as epitomised by your claim that I am engaging in original research while conducting an spectacular performance of WP:SYN. Carroll is not commenting on WP policy is he? His numbers have no relevance to us with regard to how we determine academic consensus. That's determined by WP:RS. If you wish to debate who is conducting original research take this to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard‎. Paul B (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with hahahas? Lighten up. It's funny that you don't understand what Paul's point was and called it OR and then said he was arguing with Carroll, especially after all the OR you tried to ram through on the Edward de Vere article because you didn't like what the published sources said. You may not be able to appreciate the irony but that doesn't mean anybody else can't. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom and Paul's skewed idea of what's funny aside, the neutrality and original research issues remain. Wikipedia policy states that an article on an alternative view must fairly represent the majority view as the majority view. That Wikipedia policy by definition mandates that the majority must be clearly defined, so that its view can be accurately represented. The majority is defined by Carroll, who states that the Shakespeare establishment consists of 20,000 professors at U.S. universities who teach, write about and research Shakespeare. Tom and Paul refuse to accept Carroll's definition of the majority. They wish to confine the definition of the majority to an ill-defined and very small group of individuals cherry-picked by themselves, including individuals like David Kathman who does not teach Shakespeare at a university. The entire SAQ article is written from this perspective. Naturally Tom and Paul do not want this issue clearly debated on this Discussion page because it exposes the fact that they have engaged in original research in defining their own 'majority' whose views the SAQ article must represent (just as they've engaged in original research in defining the term 'literary historian' to suit their own purposes). And having engaged in original research in defining the 'majority' whose views the SAQ article must represent, and in the process engaging in original research in arguing against the very source they themselves have cited (Carroll), Tom and Paul have written the entire SAQ article from that biased and non-neutral point of view. Hence the determination with which Tom and Paul seek to disparage with Hahahas any discussion of the real problem which lies at the root of the non-neutrality of the SAQ article.NinaGreen (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in Wikipedia rules that states that we have to take as gospel every phrase or passing remark in a reliable source, especially when those are not even presented as assertions of fact; Carroll himself says "perhaps" . However, WP:SYN is about taking one idea from one source, combining it with another from another source and then coming up with a new argument based on the conflation of the two. That is what you are doing. Neither Tom nor I are arguing against Carroll. You are. You are ignoring the plain meaning of what he says to twist it to make a point to suit your POV. You take Carroll's vague reference to "perhaps" 20,000 individuals and argue that this somehow validates a wholly unrelated questionaire. It was this utterly perverse logic at which Tom laughed. By this argument Stanley Wells could be disqualified as a Shakespeare expert because he is not American, since Carroll only refers to Americans! Or at least he seems to. He refers to "our land", which is a somewhat vague phrase. Your whole argument is pure Syn. As for the phrase "literary historian", it means what it says: someone who is a historian of literature. Style guidelines mean we should write concisely. There would be no point giving the exact job titles of each individual, producing hugely unweildy prose. You know this. You have not answered the question of why you think the phrase is inappropriate or what would be a more appropriate phrase. I can therefore only conclude that your sole aim is to obstruct. Paul B (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Who Are The Literary Historians?

I didn't get an answer to my question, so I'll start a separate section in the hope of getting one. In a section above on this Discussion page I wrote:

Since hamiltonstone is seeking to define terms, I have another pertinent question. The lede in the SAQ article states:

all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory with no hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims

Who among the sources cited in footnote 3 for that statement in the lede paragraph is a 'literary historian'?

If none of the sources cited in footnote 3 is a 'literary historian', shouldn't the words 'literary historian' be deleted from the lede?

NinaGreen (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

D. Allen Carroll for one; Harold Love for another. Sam Schoenbaum certainly, as he uncovered previously unrecorded manuscripts and biographical records pertaining not only to Shakespeare but also to Samuel Taylor Coleridge and William Wordsworth and was the director of the Center for Renaissance and Baroque Studies at the University of Maryland. Alan Nelson certainly qualifies as literary historian, as evidenced by his webpage and his works. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source in which each of these individuals -- Carroll, Love, Schoenbaum or Nelson -- is referred to as a literary historian. Otherwise, this is merely another example of original research by a Wikipedia editor.NinaGreen (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

They - certainly most of them - are historians of literature. Therefore they are literary historians. We don't need a source for every exact phrase that is used in the article. You repeat the phrase "original research" like a mantra to no purpose other than to create gridlock. This is pure wikilawyering. As far as I can see your edits here are no longer engaging in useful debate, just in endless obfuscation a la Smatprt. Paul B (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, the statement in the lede is a broad generalization about the views of literary historians, and as such it definitely does require a source. I suspect the reason you and Tom are stonewalling with respect to citing a reliable source for the statement in the lede to the SAQ article for your generalization concerning the views of literary historians is that you are unable to find a reliable source which identifies any of the individuals you've named as a literary historian. Making up your own definitions as to what in your view qualifies these individuals as literary historians when you cannot cite a single reliable source which identifies them as such does indeed constitute original research, which is forbidden to Wikipedia editors.NinaGreen (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a reliable source stating the blindingly obvious. The NOR policy is clear that it is not restricting the use of ordinary descriptive terms in English. Why do you think they are not literary historians? If they are not, then what are they? Be productive. Is there some more accurate way to describe these scholars? What exactly do you want, some scholarly source that use the exact phrase "literary historian" for each and every one of these people? That is creating useless work to no purpose. Take it to the WP:NOR board if you think this is a real issue. Otherwise you are just being disruptive. Paul B (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you have a Ph.D. in Victorian Art History, and doubtless have access to excellent library facilities. If it's so 'blindingly obvious', what's stopping you from providing the names of a half dozen or so of the literary historians who have addressed the authorship issue and who are referred to as literary historians in reliable sources? Should be easy to back up both the statement in the lede paragraph of the article, and Alan Nelson's statement which Tom has recently cited as a 'reliable source', even though Alan himself doesn't bother to back it up. Or maybe it isn't so easy to back it up, and that's why you prefer to talk around the subject rather than produce the reliable sources which would end the debate. I'm sure if I asked you to provide reliable sources citing the names of art historians who have addressed a particular issue involving art of the Tudor period, and who are referred to as art historians in reliable sources, you could do so with ease. Why is it so difficult to do so for the alleged literary historians who have allegedly addressed the authorship issue?NinaGreen (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nelson is a reliable source according to Wikipedia's rules. You know that. Why do you keep challenging what is undeniable? The reason it is difficult to find these people being referred to as "literary historians" is simple. Scholars do not use phrases like that to refer to eachother ecaept rarely and by chance. It's not how scholarly referencing works. There is no such official title, like a military rank. It would be nigh-on impossible to find the exact phrase "literary historian" being used for each individual, and it would mean almost nothing. I notice you have not suggested an alternative. So your whole aim seems to be obstruction. Paul B (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? Even other anti-Strats disagree with you. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment above is obscure. Are you advising readers of this Discussion page that this is a reliable source and that you intend to cite it as such in the SAQ article?NinaGreen (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm advising you that I'm tired of your bullshit accusations of dishonesty and bad faith. If you think this article has original research or violates WP:POV, go to the appropriate noticeboards and make your case. Looking over your talk board edits it appears to me that you are looking for any type of advantage you can muster up rather than trying to improve the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

My goodness, now profanity has to be added to the list of bizarre behaviour, not to mention more unfounded allegations, that I'm accusing you of 'dishonesty' and 'bad faith'. Anything to avoid dealing with the point at issue, right? The point at issue being that you have made a generalization concerning the views of 'literary historians' in the lede paragraph of the SAQ article which you apparently cannot support with the citation of a reliable source, and which you should therefore delete from the SAQ article.NinaGreen (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the lede paragraph of the SAQ article just now, and the 'literary historians' are no longer there. Tom has deleted them. Well done!NinaGreen (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

My use of profanity was not to swear "at" you; it aptly sums up your accusations of dishonesty and bad faith, which you turned on yourself, not I, along with yet more. Your verbal tactics and slippery way of phrasing seem vaguely familiar, for some strange reason.

There's another of your unsupported allegations. Hardly a day goes by without you making some unsupported allegation or other, either against me or against the Shakespeare Association of America. 'Vaguely familiar'? In what way? Please specify. And I want to make it very clear that I have never accused you of either dishonesty or bad faith. You are highly partisan, having been one of the foremost advocates against the authorship controversy outside academia for more than a decade. Your name pops up everywhere. Partisan? Yes. That doesn't equate to dishonesty or bad faith. But partisanship has a way of blinding people.NinaGreen (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the phrase for now, but have no fear, it will be back. I don't have the book containing the cite to hand, but I will in a few days when I find the time to retrieve it. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the lede paragraph of the SAQ article just now, and the 'literary historians' are restored. Tom has provided a reliable cite. Well done! Tom Reedy (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I obviously spoke too soon. However the expanded Nelson citation fails to do the job. Here's the relevant portion of the expanded citation from Nelson which Tom has added:

I attribute the paucity of doubters among professional literary historians to a culture in which mistakes of fact or argument bring shame on the perpetrator. Literary historians, like scientists, tend to share a common understanding of what kind of evidence counts, and what does not.

Nelson doesn't cite a single literary historian as a source for his generalizations. He merely makes the unsupported and implied claim that literary historians have addressed the authorship controversy. Having then implied that literary historians have addressed the authorship controversy (without naming a single literary historian who has done so), Nelson then draws, from absence of evidence, the unwarranted conclusion that the 'paucity of doubters' among a group which he hasn't established has even addressed the issue, proves something. This is precisely the kind of partisan cherry-picking of evidence to which I drew attention today on another section of this discussion page. Nelson implies that an issue has been addressed by a group without in any way establishing that any identifiable member of that group has so much as considered the issue, and then draws a conclusion from the absence of any evidence on the point whatsoever. I seem to recall someone mentioning the drawing conclusions from absence of evidence earlier. Can someone refresh my memory on that point?NinaGreen (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nelson's statement is WP:RS for this article or any. If it doesn't meet your personal standards, see WP:RS/N. We've already spent too much time explaining to you what a reliable source is and how they are used, both here and on the Edward de Vere talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, it says a lot about your partisanship that you are relying on Nelson to establish something when any reader of Nelson's statement can clearly see that Nelson proves nothing, and that he is drawing a false generalization from absence of evidence. How do we know that Nelson is drawing a false generalization from absence of evidence? From the fact that so far no editor of this page, including you, has been able to name a single identifiable individual who has been cited in a reliable source as a literary historian who has actually addressed the authorship issue. If you had been able to cite such a reliable source, you would have, and so would other editors of this page. Because you cannot, you cite Nelson drawing a false generalization from absence of evidence, and then take refuge behind Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Interesting.NinaGreen (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The person you are disparaging, Alan Nelson, is Professor Emeritus in the Department of English at the University of California, Berkeley specialising in paleography, bibliography, and the reconstruction of the literary life and times of medieval and Renaissance England from documentary sources. He has written 7 books and more than 30 articles published in peer-reviewed journals. How many have you written? You believe in a crank theory that Oxford wrote Shakespeare based on no evidence whatsoever except your imagination. Your bizarre logic is evident in that you attribute to this conversation on a talk page your judgement that Nelson drew a false generalisation in 2004. But of course with Oxfordians, I suppose anything is possible.

For some strange reason, not only Wikipedia, but the world at large, considers Alan Nelson a more reliable judge of literary history than you. I think I'll stick with their opinion instead of yours. I'm just funny that way. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine that would be the same Alan Nelson whose translation of the Latin on Anne Cecil's tomb at Westminster says she had 'several sons', contrary to everyone else who has ever translated the Latin on the monument and contrary to everyone else who has ever written about Oxford's life (and who has admitted his translation error on the Errata page of his website). And that would be the same Alan Nelson whose many factual errors in Monstrous Adversary are explicated in detail on the Discussion page to the Edward de Vere article, although many more could have been added.

If you can prove Alan Nelson's generalization about literary historians is true, why don't you or some other editor of this page go ahead and prove it. I'd be happy to retract my statement if you can prove that Alan's generalization is accurate. And really, it should be a snap to do it. All you have to do is identify all the literary historians (named as such in reliable sources) who have addressed the authorship issue. Why is it such a problem for you to name even one, and to have to cite Alan Nelson arguing second-hand from absence of evidence? Absence of evidence is one thing if you're Sherlock Holmes arguing about the dog that didn't bark. It's quite another when you could name people, and don't, preferring to argue in a vacuum.

Your reference to the authorship controversy as a 'crank theory' demonstrates in spades the extreme partisanship which should disqualify you from editing this article. You're working on a page which Wikipedia has sanctioned in order to provide fair and balanced coverage of an alternative theory, and you call it a 'crank theory', and refuse to let anyone edit the article but yourself. And you rely for the statement that it's a 'fringe theory' on your close associate, David Kathman, who not only does not have a degree in English literature but doesn't work in academia. Very strange. I can hardly imagine this is what Wikipedia policy envisages.NinaGreen (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

NinaGreen (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Your energies could be spent more productively in other ways beside raillery, one being the addition of Oxford's Geneva Bible to the Oxfordian section. It is thoroughly covered in reliable sources such as Shapiro and Nelson. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, your energies could be better spent more productively in being polite, as per Wikipedia policy. I've been frankly astonished at your rudeness to me on this Discussion page. Now it's 'raillery' I'm accused of when I have merely stated the fact that your obvious bias in calling the authorship controversy a 'crank theory' clearly disqualifies you from editing an article which Wikipedia intends to be fair and balanced.

Just out of curiosity, what do you want me to add to the Oxfordian section concerning the Geneva Bible? Do you know my views on that Geneva Bible?NinaGreen (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that unfortunately there has been an evolution in my tone over the past month and a half since I have been trying to work with you, although I try (try being the operative word) to stay on this side of the boundary. Curious, that; must be my vitamins aren't working. As to the Geneva Bible material, no, I don't know what your opinion is, but that's irrelevant. The point is to present the material in a neutral manner using Wikipedia summary style. Since we're not including rebuttals in the individual candidate sections, two or three sentences should do it. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, my view is that there is no reason to include the Geneva Bible material in the SAQ article. The Geneva Bible material is already included in the article on the Oxfordian hypothesis. Why do you feel it's necessary to include it in the SAQ article as well? And incidentally, this idea that you can hand out work assignments to other editors is another example of your attitude that you own the SAQ article. If you feel it's necessary to include something on the Geneva Bible material in the SAQ article, by all means get on with it. Don't be telling me to do it.NinaGreen (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would be worth mentioning since it is in the lede of the Oxfordian article as an important rationale. As to my "handing out work", I was merely suggesting you do something useful instead of your usual cavilling. And Template:Citation needed suggests that "If you have the time and ability to find an authoritative reference, please do so. Then add the citation yourself, or correct the article text. After all, the ultimate goal is not to merely identify problems, but to fix them." You should meditate on that last sentence. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, in case you haven't noticed, I've completely revised the Edward de Vere article in the past couple of weeks, so I hardly need you suggesting that I 'do something useful', or handing out things for me to do. Once again your rudeness is shocking.

You wrote:

I thought it would be worth mentioning since it is in the lede of the Oxfordian article as an important rationale.

I didn't put it there, and I don't consider it an important rationale, and never have. If you think it's an important rationale, you're the obvious person to deal with it.NinaGreen (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford (or Harvard) comma

The Oxford or Harvard comma, the practice of inserting a comma before the conjunction in a series, is standard for the Oxford University Press style manual but not for British newspapers. The article as it is now written uses it, mainly because I had to go through the text of a history book I was co-writing about a year ago and insert commas that I left out because I was writing AP style but the publisher wanted the Chicago style. Since I conformed the page spans to the Oxford style, I think we should leave the commas in. Does anybody have any opinion on that point? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. There must be something suspect about an 'Oxford' comma. :-)NinaGreen (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, as long as usage in the article is consistent and Sinéad O'Connor is your mother.[12] Bishonen | talk 22:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Curly quotes and ellipsis

WP:Manual of Style says straight quotes should be used (WP:MOSQUOTE), and three periods should be used instead of an ellipsis (WP:ELLIPSIS). However I don't want to blunder around in this excellent article if there is some local custom, so I'm asking whether there would be any problem if I were to apply the MOS rules (e.g. "Shakespeare’s" would become "Shakespeare's" with a straight apostrophe). Johnuniq (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect those instances of deviation are caused by importing text from a word processing program instead of composing on-screen. My screen can't see the difference until I go into edit mode, but we need to comply with house style. Any help would be much appreciated.

I also notice you changed "labouriously" to the American spelling. My understanding of WP style is that articles about British subjects are to use British spelling, although I can't quote the policy. What a Spanish topic is written in Spanish is a mystery, but I suspect WP policy is a holdover from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which uses British spelling even though it was published in Chicago. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sensitive to WP:ENGVAR, however, I think "labouriously" is wrong in any variation? I agree with the principles of ENGVAR, but also like it for the excellent educational service it provides for those who have not yet grasped that the world is full of wonderfully different people, as demonstrated by this talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Stratfordian Arguments Share Several Characteristics

I've added a 'citation needed' tag to the first sentence in this section:

Anti-Stratfordian arguments share several characteristics.[citation needed] They all attempt to disqualify William Shakespeare as the author due to perceived inadequacies in his education or biography;[21] they all offer supporting arguments for a more acceptable substitute candidate; and they all postulate some type of conspiracy to protect the author's true identity, a conspiracy that also explains why no documentary evidence exists for any other candidate and why the historical records confirm Shakespeare's authorship.[22]

The sources cited don't adequately support the statement that 'all' Shakespeare authorship theories share these characteristics. Here's the footnote:

Love 2002, p. 198; Wadsworth 1958, p. 6: "Paradoxically, the sceptics invariably substitute for the easily explained lack of evidence concerning William Shakespeare, the more troublesome picture of a vast conspiracy of silence about the 'real author', with a total lack of historical evidence for the existence of this 'real author' explained on the grounds of a secret pact, kept inviolate by a numerous and varied group of collaborators."; Shapiro 2010, p. 255 (225): "Some suppose that only Shakespeare and the real author were in the know. At the other extreme are those who believe that it was an open secret, so widely shared that it wasn't worth mentioning."

There are more than 50 authorship candidates according to the SAQ article. A significant number of them had never even been proposed when Wadsworth wrote his book in 1958, so by definition his statement can't cover them. Tom's usual refuge in such a case would be to cite Wikipedia policy, which states that the truth of what's stated in a reliable source doesn't matter so long as the source is a reliable source. But surely there's something in Wikipedia policy which prevents a biased editor (by his own admission, the authorship controversy is a 'crank theory') from citing an obviously seriously out-of-date source on a particular point and then hiding behind the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. What is the Wikipedia policy on citing sources on points on which they are clearly out of date?

Shapiro is also cited as a source for a point on which he says nothing, as is clear from the quotation from Shapiro in the footnote.NinaGreen (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the appropriate policy on cites from WP:V, which I suggest you "take refuge" in as well:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. But in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.

So I take it you're challenging this statement?

Anti-Stratfordian arguments share several characteristics. They all attempt to disqualify William Shakespeare as the author due to perceived inadequacies in his education or biography; they all offer supporting arguments for a more acceptable substitute candidate; and they all postulate some type of conspiracy to protect the author's true identity, a conspiracy that also explains why no documentary evidence exists for any other candidate and why the historical records confirm Shakespeare's authorship.

Would you mind explaining which element you think is wrong or misleading, or are you just engaging in obstructive behaviour again? (Not that I can't find the cites; it's just that it's the holidays and I'm planning to ignore cut back on Wikipedia for a few days.) Tom Reedy (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, more rudeness on your part. Whenever I raise a valid objection concerning the lack of neutrality in the article, you categorize it as 'obstructive behaviour' or some such disparaging nonsense. I've raised a valid point above, and you've avoided it by taking refuge (as I predicted above you would) in the Wikipedia policy of verifiability. But given the practical good sense of Wikipedia policy generally, I feel certain that somewhere in Wikipedia policy there is something against an admittedly biased editor (the authorship controversy is a 'crank theory') citing an otherwise reliable source when the source is obviously out of date on the point for which the editor is citing it. Perhaps some other editor of this page can help out, and locate that Wikipedia policy.

Just to make the point absolutely clear since Tom appears to be deliberately failing to understand it, Wadsworth is cited as the principal source for the categorical statement that ALL authorship theories share the same characteristics, yet Wadsworth wrote in 1958 before a significant number of the 50 plus authorship candidates had even been proposed, so how can Wadsworth know whether or not those later authorship theories ALL share those characteristics when they didn't even exist in 1958? Obviously a much more recent source is mandated for a categorical statement in the SAQ article that ALL authorship theories share the same characteristics.NinaGreen (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

NinaGreen (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY

Happy Birthday to me! One year ago today I made my first edit to this page. Here's what the article looked like just before the adventure began: This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smatprt (talk | contribs) at 20:52, 22 December 2009. And here's an interesting comparison between the page as it was and how it is now: Current revision diff. It's not and never will be perfect, but the article has come a long way. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Tom, and thanks for all the hard work! Now we just need to get a few more people to read it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Article protected

All right, that's enough edit warring about the POV tag; I have protected the article for the holidays (=one week). This is the season for fighting with our families, not our co-editors. Zweigenbaum, as the principal edit warrior, you're lucky not to be blocked. I notice that you apparently had no interest in defending your belligerent editing on ANI, either, which was discouraging. The standard admin comment when protecting a page is an admonishment to the editors to work out their differences on Talk. I don't say that in this case, in view of the miserable state of this talkpage: the WP:TLDR arguing, the personal attacks, the repetitiousness, even on a few hands the trolling. You will no doubt do as you wish in any case, but my advice FWIW is to let the whole mess alone for a week. Imagine it, day after day without Shakespeare, Oxford, the mutual recriminations... nice, huh? Then you can come back rested, possibly even with a new perspective. Merry holidays. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

Thank you Bish, much needed. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all editors and administrators working on or watching this page! Bishonen, could you clarify your role as a Wikipedia administrator for me? I've raised a number of specific issues on this page concerning Tom's avowed bias ('a crank theory'), his ownership of the article (of which what better evidence could there be than his 'Happy Birthday to Me' section on this Talk page?), the lack of neutrality in the article, the use of synthesis and original research, the citation of reliable sources for points which the sources don't support, citation of out of date sources for generalizations about the current state of an issue, etc. None of these points has been specifically addressed on this Talk page, although they have been talked around, stonewalled, and eventually just left without a response. Can a Wikipedia administrator require that specific issues be addressed when they have been legitimately raised, such as an editor's avowed bias, ownership of an article, etc.?NinaGreen (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as content is concerned, an admin is merely another editor. They'll be a trusted and usually experienced editor, which is a better reason to listen to their advice than the adminship per se. Tom and Paul are experienced contributors too, and you could learn a lot from them, if you were willing. To take your question from another angle: no, an admin can't do that, but mediation or an article RFC can. I can only agree with Tom's often repeated advice to you to use the dispute resolution process.[13]

Frankly, even if it were up to me to make the demands you propose, I wouldn't be doing it at this time; both because I see them as unwarranted, and because my purpose with protecting SAQ wasn't to encourage continued quarrelling on this talkpage, but to lower the overall heat. I hope that anybody who needs a Christmas break from Shakespeare and Oxford takes one from Talk, too; some of the editors are beginning to sound a little frazzled. Personally, I'm taking the whole caboodle off my watchlist (so further pokes at me will be a waste of time) as of.. three.. two.. one.. NOW! Bishonen | talk 20:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

Bishonen, it would be helpful if you would spell out exactly what you think I could learn from Tom and Paul since that's at least the second time you've made the comment.

Re mediation. Perhaps at some stage it will be the route to go, but until the basic issue is identified, mediation strikes me as merely another way of ratcheting up the level of conflict. I'm new to this page, and although I've heard from time to time that there were serious disputes, I've never understood why things were so heated over here. But as I've learned more about the SAQ article in the past few weeks, it's become apparent to me that although the SAQ article is part of Wikiproject Alternative Views, it doesn't at all conform to the Wikipedia policy statement which governs Wikiproject Alternative Views, a link to which is found at the top of this Discussion page. The SAQ article doesn't look like any other article I've ever seen on Wikipedia in that it is filled with very lengthy vitriolic footnotes slamming the alternative theory. The root of the neutrality issue thus seems to be this: as part of Wikiproject Alternative Views, the SAQ article must present the majority view as the majority view, and must present the alternative view in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, the SAQ article tries to PROVE the majority view, and DESTROY the alternative view. That's the problem, pure and simple. Ergo, nothing will ever tone down the heat on this page until editors of this page revise their views to conform to the Wikipedia policy as set out in Wikiproject Alternative Views. Tom Reedy can PROVE that the majority view is the right one and attempt to DESTROY the alternative view on the website he works on with David Kathman, but he can't do that on Wikipedia. Similarly, I can't attempt to PROVE the Oxfordian hypothesis or attempt in any way to DESTROY the majority view in the SAQ article because that doesn't conform to the Wikipedia policy statement either. I have no intention of attempting either of those things, and never have had any such intention. I merely want to improve the article so that it conforms to the Wikipedia policy statement set out in Wikiproject Alternative Views. At present the POV of the article doesn't conform to that policy. It is written from the POV of PROVING the majority position, not merely PRESENTING it as the majority position. There's a vast difference between the two. And it is also written from the POV of DESTROYING the alternative view, rather than presenting it in a fair and balanced way. That's why there's a neutrality dispute. I personally feel confident that if editors and administrators of this page could conform to the Wikipedia policy set out in Wikiproject Alternative Views, we could get the job done. Something to think about during the week-long hiatus.NinaGreen (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, I think this article would really benefit from you saying this sort of thing as part of a mediation request. Wrad (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrad, if editors can't agree, I'll probably resort to mediation in the end. However my hope is that editors will mutually agree that the POV dispute is really about whether the SAQ article conforms to the policy statement set out in Wikiproject Alternative Views, and that we can use that policy as a basis for mutually agreed upon revisions to the article to conform to the policy.

Incidentally, I clicked on the Discussion link for Wikiproject Alternative Views just now, and found a very interesting and very long section which begins:

WP:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources

It seems to me this whole project can be shut down by the reliable source policy on "Extremist and fringe sources". It says "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic, or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals." In my experience, a source in the minority is barred completely because editors will revert it saying the source is "extremist or fringe". I have tried to cite a tenured professor who was hired to research for the US Senate and was unable to do so on the grounds the source was "fringe". The policy does not appear to allow any counter-arguments. If it is "fringe" (or, more accurately, subject to the possibility of being deemed "fringe" by other Wiki users) it is out! I suggest working to change that reliable source policy before going down this road of trying to ensure that "alternative" views get a hearing.Bdell555 (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is exactly what has happened with the SAQ article. Tom Reedy has used the reliable source policy to essentially shut down balanced development of the article, and not on the basis that the alternative view is 'widely acknowledged' as 'fringe', but solely on the basis that one individual whose degree is not in the specialist area and who does not teach or work in the specialist area has termed it 'fringe' -- David Kathman.NinaGreen (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I said I won't respond to your complaints anymore until you take them to dispute resolution, I will spend a few hours today composing a point-by-point explanation of your message above (the one with all the CAPITAL LETTERS). You might want to spend a few minutes pointing out exactly how this article violates the "policy statement set out in Wikiproject Alternative Views", and by that I mean furnish specific examples quoting the SAQ article. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem with sources is that the Shakespeare project has it's own (very strict) "reliable source" culture. Tom is pretty much following project trends when it comes to that. On other articles, we have tried to stick to only scholarly, peer-reviewed sources unless it is absolutely impossible. Even more than that, we have to stick mainly to sources expressing the current, mainstream view because there is simply so much out there that scholars have written. We can't have it all. This article, however, is a bit different from the ones I'm talking about. The question is, do we want to change the Shakespeare project's standards for this article? Wrad (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrad, I'm not suggesting that we 'change the Shakespeare project's standards for this article', that is, I'm not suggesting that any Wikipedia standard be changed for this article alone. Bdell555, whom I quoted above from the Talk page for the Wikiproject Alternative Views, has pointed out a conflict between Wikipedia's reliable source policy and the Wikiproject Alternative Views policy. I'll repeat it here for clarity:

It seems to me this whole project can be shut down by the reliable source policy on "Extremist and fringe sources". It says "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic, or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals."

This is a general problem, with ramifications for the entire Wikiproject Alternative Views, and somewhere along the way it will doubtless be resolved.

My point is a more specific one, although it relates to Bdell555's general point. My point is that only one individual is cited for the claim that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, and that is David Kathman, one of the most active partisans on the Stratfordian side, a close associate of Tom Reedy, and someone whose degree is not in the specialist area (his degree is in linguistics), and who does not work in the specialist area (David Kathman works as a stock analyst). How has it come about that someone who is not part of the academic community has become the spokesman for the academic community in the Wikipedia article to the extent that his statement that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory has become the opening statement in the lede to the article, and has therefore determined everything which can be said in the article and every source which can be cited in the article? There is clearly something wrong here. And it is wrong for at least two very specific reasons in addition to the fact that someone who is not a member of academia is being presented in the Wikipedia article as the primary spokesman for academia. The first reason is Bdell555's statement above that Wikipedia policy is that before something can be declared a fringe theory in a Wikipedia article it must be 'widely acknowledged by reliable sources' that it is a fringe theory. A single statement by David Kathman that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory does not constitute 'wide acknowledgement by reliable sources'. Secondly, Shapiro (2010) clearly contradicts David Kathman. On p. 4 Shapiro writes:

Over time, and for all sorts of reasons, leading artists and intellectuals from all walks of life joined the ranks of the skeptics. I can think of little else that unites Henry James and Malcolm X, Sigmund Freud and Charlie Chaplin, Helen Keller and Orson Welles, or Mark Twain and Sir Derek Jacobi.

Shapiro might also have mentioned U.S. Supreme Court justices in this sentence, which he does later in his book.

This statement puts the authorship controversy in perspective historically, and demonstrates that it is anything but a fringe theory unless Wikipedia, on the sole authority of David Kathman, is going to take the position that Freud, James, Twain et al and U.S. Supreme Court justices are 'fringe theorists', or that 'leading artists and intellectuals from all walks of life' are fringe theorists.

David Kathman's statement should be deleted from the lede paragraph of the article. It represents Kathman's view, and Tom Reedy's view, but it does not represent the view of the 'leading artists and intellectuals from all walks of life' mentioned by Shapiro. Shapiro's view is obviously that the authorship controversy is a centuries-old alternative view. That puts it squarely within the context of Wikiproject Alternative Views, which means that the majority position must be clearly presented as the majority view of those in academia and in the public at large, and that the alternative view must be presented in a fair and balanced manner.NinaGreen (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, Carroll clearly states that it is a fringe theory. Of course he does not use the actual word "fringe", but we do not require that. Fringe is a term of art within Wikipedia. The crtieria are outlined in Wikipedia:Fringe theories. At no point does it say we need an RS using the exact word "fringe". Indeed, many fringe theories are so far beyond the mainstream that they are not discussed at all within scholarly literature. Wikipedia still considers them to be fringe according to the relevant criteria. In this case we have several reliable sources which state that the theory is not taken seriously within academia. That is more than we require to say it is fringe within our usage. If you do not accept that, take it up on the NOR board or another appropriate forum. Paul B (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you're right. Carroll does NOT use the actual word 'fringe'. Only David Kathman uses that word, and David Kathman cannot represent the consensus of academia for all the reasons which have been so many times cited on this Talk page. For you to read into Carroll's words that he MEANS 'fringe' is synthesis and original research on your part, and I can just as easily read into Shapiro's book, from his comments about Supreme Court justices having given the authorship controversy 'legitimacy' (see quotation elsewhere on this page), that Shapiro's view is that the authorship controversy is not a fringe theory, but rather a theory which has legitimacy, which would equally be synthesis and original research on my part. Why should you and Tom Reedy get away with synthesis and original research in the SAQ article, and I not be able to get away with it? Merely to ask the question is to answer it. You and Tom Reedy get away with synthesis and original research in the SAQ article because Tom Reedy controls the article, and no-one gets to edit it without Tom's blessing. But Wikipedia policy is that no-one should get away with synthesis and original research in a Wikipedia article. So Tom should either recuse himself from editing because he is biased and in violation of Wikipedia policy, or he should change his editing style to conform to Wikipedia policy.

Re your comment that'"fringe is a term of art within Wikipedia", I'm well aware of that, and that's the reason you and Tom are so desperate to hang onto David Kathman's use of the phrase 'fringe theory'. Once you delete David Kathman's use of the phrase from the lede paragraph of the article, you will have to confront the fact that although Carroll says one thing, Shapiro and the New York Times survey say quite another, and the task of Wikipedia editors according to Wikipedia policy is to present both views from academia in a fair and balanced way. But you and Tom don't want to do that. You want to hang onto David Kathman's term 'fringe theory', found nowhere else in the academic literature, because you want the SAQ article to reflect the biased view of the authorship theory which you, Tom Reedy and David Kathman hold, and which you want to present as the consensus of the academic establishment in that specialist field even though none of the three of you work in academia in that specialist field, and of the three of you, only Tom holds an advanced academic degree in that specialist field. Bias, pure and simple.

You wrote:

In this case we have several reliable sources which state that the theory is not taken seriously within academia. That is more than we require to say it is fringe within our usage.

You have now raised an entirely different point, which is this. If you delete David Kathman's statement that it is a 'fringe theory', and the corresponding citation by Kathman, can you and Tom Reedy then determine on your own on the basis of 'several reliable sources' that the authorship controversy falls within the Wikipedia term of art known as a 'fringe theory'. No, you cannot, because the task of Wikipedia editors is to present the consensus of academia in a fair and balanced way, and although Carroll says one thing, Shapiro and the New York Times survey say another, and for you to present Carroll's view as the academic consensus (particularly when he himself has said that he is perhaps not the best representative of the academic consensus; see quote elsewhere on this page!) while ignoring the much more balanced view of the academic consensus represented by Shapiro and the New York Times survey is bias on your part.NinaGreen (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The article clearly states that it has attracted some prominent public figures, and if you wish we can include Shapiro's quote as a reference, but listing the names in the article is not in keeping with summary style, unless you think we should list the names of those celebrities who think that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, which is ridiculous. I have all sorts of quotes saying it is a fringe theory; however, they all precede the word "fringe" with the word "lunatic". If you insist I add those I will acquiesce, but I thought it was too harsh, myself. As for Kathman speaking for the academic community, he clearly does so, and since his article is in the Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide, published by the Oxford University Press and edited by no less an authority than Stanley Wells, I doubt you'll get much traction appealing its inclusion at any Wikipedia noticeboard, but as has been reiterated ad infinitum, you are certainly welcome to try.

I suggest you read the entire page of the WikiProject Alternative Views you have been quoting, especially the Policies and guidelines section, which states, "Proper implementation of the project's goals hinges on a good understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines as applying to minority views or hypotheses, a point addressed in detail at Wikipedia:Fringe theories." To say that the SAQ is not a fringe theory while insisting it comply with the policies and guidelines of WP:FRINGE (which it does anyway) is ludicrous, to say the least, although I will say it is consistent with other anti-Stratfordian arguments in its lack of logic.

And will you please learn to add only one more colon to indent? They're not like exclamation marks where adding more means more emphasis. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote:

I have all sorts of quotes saying it is a fringe theory; however, they all precede the word "fringe" with the word "lunatic".

Bring them on. I'd like to see them. If they're recent, and reflect academic consensus, maybe we can agree on the substitution of one of them for your cherry-picked source of your associate David Kathman.

You also wrote:

"Proper implementation of the project's goals hinges on a good understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines as applying to minority views or hypotheses, a point addressed in detail at Wikipedia:Fringe theories." To say that the SAQ is not a fringe theory while insisting it comply with the policies and guidelines of WP:FRINGE (which it does anyway) is ludicrous, to say the least, although I will say it is consistent with other anti-Stratfordian arguments in its lack of logic.

It's your logic which is faulty. Did you not see the phrase 'minority views' in the Wikipedia policy you just quoted? The coverage in a Wikipedia article of a MINORITY VIEW under Wikiproject Alternative Views may be governed in some respects by Wikipedia's policy regarding fringe theories, but Wikipedia still terms it a MINORITY VIEW, and you and Paul have misinterpreted that as licence to engage in your own synthesis and original research, and designate the authorship controversy a fringe theory.

And speaking of illogic, you wrote:

As for Kathman speaking for the academic community, he clearly does so, and since his article is in the Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide, published by the Oxford University Press and edited by no less an authority than Stanley Wells, I doubt you'll get much traction appealing its inclusion at any Wikipedia noticeboard

The claim that because David Kathman was allowed to include an article on the authorship controversy in a book edited by Stanley Wells means that every word and phrase written by David Kathman in that article represents the consensus of academia is illogic carried to a new extreme.NinaGreen (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

NinaGreen (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Zweigenbaum

in response to Bishonen's charge above that I did not defend my last correction of (your?) improper reversion of the neutrality template, please look at the "Modifying Argument to Hypothesis or Proposal" section and you will see my reasoning. It amounts to the following. If we can't agree on a grammatical substitution for the "Shakespeare authorship question is the argument" fiasco in the very first sentence, we have a neutrality issue. No need to be 'disappointed' Bishonen; simply realize that this peer review exchange is a shambles if the Stratfordian contingent harbors no bona fide intention of taking a neutral approach to the article. It is patently obvious that the neutrality tag is appropriate, given the convincing demonstration of Reedy's unfair descriptions, arrogant defenses, and slanted sourcing regarding the conflicting theory, problems outlined by Nina Green. An impartial observer would so rule. I applied the neutrality dispute tag simultaneously with my comments on December 23 and nothing since then that has originated with the Stratfordian group indicates it was inappropriate. That you reverted it contrary to rule is part and parcel of the injustice at hand. Of course you (generically) will not make strides towards a properly neutral attitude, as that gives legitimacy to a theory about which you are experiencing denial; nor will you admit that an issue exists concerning neutrality violations. Hence the necessity for a third party decision. Where's that Schweigenbalm when you need him, Nishidani? Not hanging out with Shakspere the poetic Ubermensch mit Schlag auf dem Kopfen? I hope. Take care over the holidays. ---Zweigenbaum Zweigenbaum (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Nina's complaints about the article

Nina's message in bold italics, my response follows.

Re mediation. Perhaps at some stage it will be the route to go, but until the basic issue is identified,

I thought you had the basic issue already identified: (from below) “The root of the neutrality issue thus seems to be this … That's the problem, pure and simple.” (from above) “Tom and Paul have written the entire SAQ article from that biased and non-neutral point of view …” “Not only is the SAQ article not neutral, it engages in original research.” And so on.

mediation strikes me as merely another way of ratcheting up the level of conflict. I'm new to this page, and although I've heard from time to time that there were serious disputes, I've never understood why things were so heated over here.

Yes, you are relatively new to the page, having appeared here during the middle of a request for peer review and making the exact same arguments that another editor rehearsed before he was topic-banned, and using remarkably similar reasoning and apparently with a remarkable talent in finding all the old arguments and dispute resolution discussions.

I am really tired of you making that allegation. My arguments are entirely my own, and my analysis of what is wrong with the SAQ page is entirely my own. It pleases you to think otherwise and to try to persuade other editors and administrators on this page to think otherwise, but you are utterly and completely wrong. Are you perhaps being a bit sexist in implying that a female might not be able to come up with the critique of the SAQ article I've put forward? I'm not one to use that sort of argument (in fact I can't recall having used it before in my life), but you are beginning to sound sexist in continually implying that I'm unable to think for myself.NinaGreen (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

But as I've learned more about the SAQ article in the past few weeks, it's become apparent to me that although the SAQ article is part of Wikiproject Alternative Views, it doesn't at all conform to the Wikipedia policy statement which governs Wikiproject Alternative Views, a link to which is found at the top of this Discussion page.

First, the Wikipedia Alternative Views project is not a policy. Second, the project’s page itself says that its goals “should all be done while following our basic content principles. It should not be an excuse to correct supposed suppression from the mainstream orthodoxy, to engage in original research, or to use sources that aren't verifiable and reliable. We are not here to correct real-world coverage. We are here to report real-world coverage. We are not here to counterbalance real-world sources. We are here to balance according to real-world sources.” (Bolded phrases are particularly apt to your complaints.)

Nothing in this article contradicts the scope and goals outlined on that page. That you think the page is not neutral and contains original research does not make it so. Except for the statement that Shakespeare academics regard the SAQ as a fringe belief, you have yet to give any concrete examples of your charges of non-neutrality.

The SAQ article doesn't look like any other article I've ever seen on Wikipedia in that it is filled with very lengthy vitriolic footnotes slamming the alternative theory.

As I have stated more than once, the quotations in the footnotes are there because they back up statements that were challenged and their sources demanded. They quote sources explicitly, and those quotations are not in the article nor are they presented as anything but the opinions of academics. Their opinions are not stated as facts in the article, except for the fact that the academy holds those opinions.

The root of the neutrality issue thus seems to be this: as part of Wikiproject Alternative Views, the SAQ article must present the majority view as the majority view, and must present the alternative view in a fair and balanced manner.

The language used to describe each side is neutral and as free as possible of any sarcasm, cant, or disparagement, which is one reason why I have asked for and accepted suggestions on how to make the language more neutral. That academics disparage all alternative authorship theories is a fact, and it is stated as baldly as possible. The alternative view is an overview of the anti-Stratfordian case, and is not nor is it meant to be an exhaustive rehearsal of any particular anti-Stratfordian theory.

Instead, the SAQ article tries to PROVE the majority view, and DESTROY the alternative view.

No, the article gives the anti-Stratfordian case in summary form using language that is as palin, unvarnished, and neutral as possible, and does not even include any rebuttals, neither in the general anti-Stratfordian case nor in the individual candidate summaries. The summary of the Stratfordian case is written in plain, neutral language, and does not overstate any of its arguments nor use any sly or misleading language.

That you perceive that the article is trying to prove the Stratfordian view and destroy the anti-Stratfordian view is because of the strength of the orthodox case and the weakness of the alternative arguments against it. Those relative strengths are intrinsic to each side, not a result of non-neutrality or original research. There is a reason, after all, why the SAQ remains a fringe theory, and why the orthodox scenario has remained in place after 150 years of anti-Stratfordian assaults.

That's the problem, pure and simple. Ergo, nothing will ever tone down the heat on this page until editors of this page revise their views to conform to the Wikipedia policy as set out in Wikiproject Alternative Views.

There is no heat from this side; it is all from yours. And the article does conform to Wikipedia policy; it’s just that you don’t like the policy, nor is your interpretation of those policies accurate. I have more than once suggested you use the dispute resolution mechanisms Wikipedia provides to determine whose interpretation is closest to consensus among Wikipedia editors and admins, but you seem to be reluctant to discover that.

Tom Reedy can PROVE that the majority view is the right one and attempt to DESTROY the alternative view on the website he works on with David Kathman, but he can't do that on Wikipedia.

I’m not trying to prove anything, nor do I need to, having already done so on the page that you reference, but I do have to prove that my sources say what I attribute to them, and that is what you have been complaining about since you got here. And this article is not solely authored by me, nor do I claim to “own” it, as you have accused me several times. Anybody can edit the article, but anybody who does so is subject to the same collaborative give-and-take as any other editor, as well as any administrative sanctions their edits might instigate.

Similarly, I can't attempt to PROVE the Oxfordian hypothesis or attempt in any way to DESTROY the majority view in the SAQ article because that doesn't conform to the Wikipedia policy statement either.

The article as it stands contains neutral summaries of the orthodox and alternative views on Shakespeare’s authorship. It is not my fault that all the documentary evidence is on one side and all the strained speculation is on the other(s). Wikipedia articles should describe the real world coverage of a topic and reflect real-world balance, and this article does so on both counts. You have yet to offer a specific example of how this article violates neutrality or weight, except for your fixation on Dave Kathman’s description of the SAQ as a fringe belief. That statement is attributed and worded neutrally, and furthermore it accurately describes the academic consensus of the topic. Your beef is with the academy, not with me or Wikipedia.

I have no intention of attempting either of those things, and never have had any such intention. I merely want to improve the article so that it conforms to the Wikipedia policy statement set out in Wikiproject Alternative Views. At present the POV of the article doesn't conform to that policy. It is written from the POV of PROVING the majority position, not merely PRESENTING it as the majority position. There's a vast difference between the two. And it is also written from the POV of DESTROYING the alternative view, rather than presenting it in a fair and balanced way. That's why there's a neutrality dispute.

So how many times do you have to repeat it before it comes true? More than you’ve done so, I can tell you that. Why not list specific examples of how the article violates neutrality and demonstrate why they do so? So far all we’ve had is Kathman’s description.

I personally feel confident that if editors and administrators of this page could conform to the Wikipedia policy set out in Wikiproject Alternative Views, we could get the job done. Something to think about during the week-long hiatus.

Allow me to make a suggestion. Go to this sandbox page and write what you think is the perfect, neutrally-worded, reliably-sourced, non-original-researched page you want. Change any and every thing you want, and then we’ll all have a better idea of what you have in mind. I doubt you’ve got the patience to do so, but if the improvement of the article is indeed your goal, that would be one way to demonstrate that.

Tom Reedy has used the reliable source policy to essentially shut down balanced development of the article, and not on the basis that the alternative view is 'widely acknowledged' as 'fringe', but solely on the basis that one individual whose degree is not in the specialist area and who does not teach or work in the specialist area has termed it 'fringe' -- David Kathman.

WP:RS states that Academic consensus: "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."

The statement is "... 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."

The citation given (one of several) reads: "...in fact, antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence. Professional Shakespeare scholars mostly pay little attention to it, much as evolutionary biologists ignore creationists and astronomers dismiss UFO sightings." The statement appears in Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide, Oxford University Press, pp. 620–32, a publication that meets WP:RS, which states "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable." As far as I can discern, your complaint that the statement is original research is based on the fact that Kathman writes "antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence" instead of "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief", which in my opinion is a distinction without a difference. If you feel differently, I suggest you go to WP:OR/N and make your case.

For some reason this morning I thought your comments had more substance to them and would take a few hours to answer, but on closer examination it appears that your only mantra is neutrality. I await your list of specific examples of violations of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Scholars of the stature of Arthur Quiller-Couch and Samuel Schoenbaum, who were very particular about language, have dismissed the various alternative theories as a form of 'lunacy' or 'madness'. This judgement, which could be documented and underscored from several other quality mainstream sources, has been withheld from the SAQ page as both a gesture of civility and to best reflect wikipedia policies on neutrality, though it is eminently sourceable. Given this tacit perception in mainstream sources, the SAQ issue is not 'alternative' but 'fringe'. Insistent reiteration of a grievance by true believers does not qualify as an argument, though it seems to be the only tactic left in the strategy manual of the de Vereans. Further generic complaining, and, especially, further baiting of practiced and trusted longterm editors to exhaustion with insinuations about their attitude in the face of the patience and attention they have shown in repeating points already exhaustively explained in the archives, is not only pointless but probably actionable. We are not here to push personal beliefs and fudge the sources, but to write neutrally. It is perfectly compatible with the objective of neutrality to reflect the fact that this 'theory' (or, rather, 'argument', for theories of value are not circular while this kind of reasoning is, and arguments go one forever, like wiki threads, whereas 'theories' rise and fall on the strength of verifiable data) has no standing, historically or today, as a 'minority' opinion, or 'alternative theory' in academia or among Shakespearean or Elizabethan-Jacobean era specialists. Nishidani (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, you wrote:

Scholars of the stature of Arthur Quiller-Couch and Samuel Schoenbaum, who were very particular about language, have dismissed the various alternative theories as a form of 'lunacy' or 'madness'. This judgement, which could be documented and underscored from several other quality mainstream sources, has been withheld from the SAQ page as both a gesture of civility and to best reflect wikipedia policies on neutrality, though it is eminently sourceable.

Your comments give rise to another problem with the SAQ article, its failure to distinguish between sources which present the views of critics of the authorship controversy at various historical points in time, and the current view of the authorship controversy among academics and the public at large. Quiller-Couch wrote about Shakespeare in the 1930s and died in 1944. Is the real reason his comments are not included in the article because they are too harsh, and have been 'withheld' as a 'gesture of civility and to reflect Wikipedia policies of neutrality', or because they reflect an opinion of one critic in the 1930s and thus may be seriously out of date in terms of portraying the current view of the SAQ? Obviously the latter. There is no room for either 'withholding' reliable sources or 'gestures of civility' in the Wikipedia policy of neutrality. The Wikipedia policy of neutrality mandates that all relevant information be presented in a neutral manner, and that a historical opinion be presented as such, not as representative of the current state of the controversy. There is a historical section to the article, and if Quiller-Couch's comments are relevant to that section, you should present them there, and most definitely should not withhold them, but for obvious reasons they should not be presented in the lede to the article as an indication of the current state of the authorship controversy.

As for your comments concerning Schoenbaum, Shapiro's comments suggest you are being disingenuous in claiming that you and Tom Reedy have withheld them from the SAQ article as a 'gesture of civility' or in accordance with the Wikipedia policy of neutrality. Shapiro's states on p. 208 that Schoenbaum himself toned down his earlier comments when he revised Shakespeare's Lives in 1991. On p. 202, Shapiro writes:

And in 1970, the leading Shakespeare biographer, Samuel Schoenbaum, his patience sorely tested by having to slog through so many books that questioned Shakespeare's authorship, administered what must have seemed a death stroke in his Shakespeare's Lives. The "sheer volume of heretical publication appalls," Schoenbaum writes, its "voluminousness . . . matched only by its intrinsic worthlessness." It was "lunatic rubbish," the product of "mania."

On pp. 207-8 Shapiro writes:

The moot court proved to be a turning point in the decades-long struggle to promote Oxford's cause. More than anything else, the Supreme Court justices had provided legitimacy; the Oxfordians were no longer the "deviants' vilified by Schoenbaum (and one immediate effect of the moot court was that this harsh language was considerably toned down when Schoenbaum revised his Shakespeare's Lives in 1991). If Supreme Court justices could take the Oxfordians seriously and deem them the only serious rivals to Shakespeare, so could others.

Shapiro's review of this historical development indicates clearly that views of the authorship controversy have changed over time, and that you and Tom Reedy did not 'withhold' Schoenbaum's earlier comments from the SAQ article as a 'gesture of civility' or in accordance with the Wikipedia policy of neutrality, but because Schoenbaum himself toned them down. Schoenbaum's revision of his earlier views belongs in the historical section of the article, not as a source in the lede paragraph of the article. Schoenbaum died in 1996, and even his toned-down comments cannot be fairly claimed to represent current views on the authorship controversy.NinaGreen (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, grammatically, what you write is nonsense. 'Shapiro's review of this historical development indicates clearly that .... you and Tom Reedy did not 'withhold' Schoenbaum's earlier comments from the SAQ article as a 'gesture of civility'.

Repetition is not an argument. Excessive posting of repetitious points fully answered does not impress, and your grammar shows that this harping is causing you to make incoherent statements.

Focusing on Shapiro is pointless. Much of what Shapiro has to say has been said before, a century ago. There has been almost no substantial change in the content of material churned out by conspiracy theorists over the last century. Read Brian Vickers, here. He's one of the foremost literary specialists of the Elizabethan period, whose perspective is that what you deny to be a fringe theory is not a theory at all, but a delusion, and the word 'delusion' is used precisely, in its technical sense, of the state that results from being prey to a system of belief which distorts one's perception of the real state of affairs, esp. here of the current state of scholarship. I could bring up dozens of quotes by academic authorities which use variations on 'lunacy' 'madness,' 'delusion', 'folly' to describe the SAQ controversy, from the deep past to the present day, and no amount of beating the Tom Tom to single out Reedy as some malign manipulator of the record will change that, or the fact that the article we have is the result of intensive collaborative work and wikipedia's process of neutral peer review by independent technicians with expertise in what is required of articles. Compare our article with what Vickers says, and you will see that, rather than being 'biased', it is even-handed.Nishidani (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, if you think that the academic consensus is that the SAQ is merely a minority opinion, you need to find a reliable source that states that. Shapiro does not. WP:RS states that Academic consensus: "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." I have provided that source to the effect that it is considered a fringe belief by academic Shakespeareans. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you state:

I have provided that source to the effect that it is considered a fringe belief by academic Shakespeareans.

No, you have not. You have cited only David Kathman for the specific phrase 'fringe theory', and besides being an extremely partisan close associate of yours (which should immediately call into question your bias in citing David Kathman and David Kathman alone for the phrase 'fringe theory'), David Kathman has a degree in linguistics and works as a stock analyst. However much you may want to make him the SOLE representative of academic consensus on this point, David Kathman is not in any way qualified to represent academia on this point. Once we get that straightened out, and David Kathman's phrase 'fringe theory' is removed from the lede paragraph, we'll be well on our way to writing a neutral article. It's your biased citation of Kathman as the representative of academia on this point which is the chief roadblock to a neutral SAQ article.NinaGreen (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Just go to dispute resolution and quit wasting everybody's time. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you are the one who is wasting everyone's time. This does not require dispute resolution. You have cherry-picked a very partisan source, a source with whom you are closely associated in partisanship in the authorship controversy on a non-peer-reviewed website which you cite several times in the article, a source who does not have a degree in the specialist field, a source who does not work in academia -- David Kathman. And having cherry-picked this source for a phrase which cannot be found anywhere in the academic literature other than an avowal by David Kathman, you have inserted it in a biased manner in the lede to the article, thereby hoping to control, through the use of the phrase 'fringe theory', every statement which is made in the article and every source which is cited in the article. You know full well that there is not a single statement in Shapiro's book, which is the latest academic word on the authorship controversy, which even comes close to the phrase 'fringe theory', yet you have cherry-picked a biased source because it's your personal view of the authorship controversy that it's a fringe theory. How could it NOT be your view when you're associated with David Kathman on his website and when you have called it a 'crank theory' yourself on this Talk page? You should recuse yourself from editing the SAQ article until you can bring yourself to eliminate this sort of bias on your part.NinaGreen (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You have edited this talk page twenty times in the last 24 hours. Are you aware that this is not a forum where endless discussion is tolerated? Per WP:TPG all discussion here should be focused on efforts to improve the article, so you need to make specific suggestions and not just express your thoughts. Re "fringe": Above, Paul B (timestamp 17:52, 27 December 2010 UTC), carefully explained what "fringe" means here; please digest that information before continuing to talk about "fringe" because you seem to have failed to understand WP:FRINGE. Also, your comments re Tom Reedy are too strident: this is not the place to allege that a particular editor has violated policies such as no original research. If you have a claim, give a precise example of text in the article and explain the problem. If you want assistance, go to the no original research noticeboard. However, you must stop your attacks on other editors (see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA). Finally, your claims that Tom Reedy controls this article are completely without foundation as I have previously explained. Most experienced editors would avoid getting involved in an article like this because there are hundreds of places where people try to push their POV on Wikipedia, and people have to ration their time. Experienced editors can see at a glance that this article is in good shape, and can quickly recognize that the walls-of-text on the talk page involve misunderstandings of Wikipedia's procedures; that's why you see only a few editors commenting here (the others can see that their involvement is not required). Johnuniq (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, there is only one reason why this discussion goes on endlessly, and that reason is that a biased editor (by his own admission he thinks the authorship controversy is a 'crank theory'), Tom Reedy, has taken ownership of this page, partly because, as you yourself admitted earlier and have admitted again now, you and others have turned over editing of this page to him. After actively assisting Tom to acquire ownership of the page, you now want to shut down any challenge to Tom's ownership of the page.

You wrote:

you need to make specific suggestions and not just express your thoughts

I am most emphatically not merely 'expressing my thoughts'. I have made all kinds of specific suggestions, and as I mentioned to Bishonen above, they have all been talked around, stonewalled, and eventually just left lying without a response. The most recent specific suggestion is that David Kathman's statement that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, and the citation of David Kathman as a source for it, need to be removed from the lede paragraph of the article. I've explained all the cogent reasons according to Wikipedia policy why this needs to be done, and those reasons are being totally ignored by Tom Reedy, Paul Barlow, and now by you.

You wrote:

Re "fringe": Above, Paul B (timestamp 17:52, 27 December 2010 UTC), carefully explained what "fringe" means here; please digest that information before continuing to talk about "fringe" because you seem to have failed to understand

Read my recent replies to Paul Barlow and Tom Reedy. It is not I who does not understand Wikipedia's policy re fringe theories. It is Paul and Tom and you. Wikipedia editors cannot ON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE call something a fringe theory which Wikipedia policy itself terms a MINORITY VIEW and an ALTERNATIVE THEORY, and Wikipedia editors cannot call something a fringe theory which Shapiro states in a book published in 2010 was given 'legitimacy' by U.S. Supreme Court Justices and has attracted adherents among 'leading artists and adherents from all walks of life', and which a New York Times Survey says 17% of English professors in the U.S. consider might have something to it. You might PREFER to call it a fringe theory in the face of Shapiro and the New York Times survey, but you would be engaging in original research and ignoring the Wikipedia policy of neutrality in doing so.NinaGreen (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, you write "For you to read into Carroll's words that he MEANS 'fringe' is synthesis and original research on your part". This is an outright falsehood. I'm inclined to call it an outright lie. WRP:FRINGE is clear that we do not need the actual word Fringe in a source. I will very soon raise your behaviour in an approproiate forum, since I can no logner assume any good faith. Paul B (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your replies are not ex cathedra. Tom is not biased in speaking of a crank theory. That is what scholarship has determined. If you wish to change the determination of fringe to minority or alternative views, argue the case in the appropriate forum here. The consensus of editors is that the scholarship adduced shows this is a fringe argument, and no amount of niggling Tom Reedy, or singling him out, will change that consensus. You have to challenge it elsewhere not here. Nishidani (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, you've made my point. It is most certainly not the case that my replies are 'ex cathedra'. Nor are yours, or Tom's, or Paul's, or David Kathman's. None of us is in academia in the specialist area. Therefore what we all face, and must report neutrally in the SAQ article, is the fact that academia neither terms it a 'crank theory' nor a 'fringe theory', and in fact Shapiro's entire book and the New York Times survey indicate that academia considers it something other than a 'crank theory' or a 'fringe theory'. Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and your claim that a 'consensus' reached among a number of admittedly partisan and wholly biased editors of this page that it is a 'fringe theory' allows Wikipedia policies concerning original research and neutrality to be openly flouted is just plain wrong and misguided. If editors aren't willing to follow Wikipedia policy, they should recuse themselves from editing. A Wikipedia article is not any small biased group's particular fiefdom.NinaGreen (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Again you fail to understand the most elementary points, and try to turn the obvious reply to your advantage by saying it confirms what you believe. You singled out Reedy and made a lot of serious charges against him, and kept up a repetitive nagging barrage to that effect. One administrator, and several other practiced wikipedians, Hamiltonstone, Wrad, myself, Reedy, Barlow, Jonuniq, etc., in their various comments appear to think that the balance of these absurdly ouroboric arguments lies with the positions Reedy has steadily clarified. He has been receptive to several points. On the other hand, there is no evidence that you or Schweigenbalm show any understanding of what he, and most of us, are saying. The editorial consensus here is as I said earlier.

About not being 'in academia'. Some of us are, or have been, and are published in respectable university presses, after intensive peer review. You haven't been.

Before Reedy came to this article it was a 'small biased group's particular fiefdom', ruled by Smatprt, with assistance, whenever needed, from almost a dozen de Verean true believers, who invariably popped in to outvote any outsider. The page was unreadable, unscholarly, bore no resemblance to what wiki protocols require of articles, and had stagnated for several years to the despair of many good editors who abandoned it out of frustration. Reedy has established his bona fides by taking 8 months out of his life and leisure to fix it into a shape that approximates to what the encyclopedia requires of articles, and his contribution is, I think, widely acknowledged in the wikipedia community that has glanced at, over or into this article and related matters. Compare my version with Reedy's, or Wrad's perspective, or Hamiltonstone's comments, and you will see that we have decidedly different perspectives.

It may be coincidence, but nearly everything you say has been rebutted in the archives. Read them. Nishidani (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, you wrote:

Before Reedy came to this article it was a 'small biased group's particular fiefdom', ruled by Smatprt, with assistance, whenever needed, from almost a dozen de Verean true believers, who invariably popped in to outvote any outsider.

Thanks for the history lesson, but it's irrelevant because the situation is now completely reversed. Now the SAQ article is a 'small biased group's particular fiefdom' ruled by Tom Reedy, 'with assistance, whenever needed, from almost a dozen anti-Oxfordian true believers and partisans, who invariably pop in to outvote any outsider'. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Look at what's happened in the section immediately below this one where Tom Reedy in desperation has cited an author who writes books on SOCCER as someone who should be cited in the SAQ article as representing the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment on the authorship controversy. With that citation the points being put forward by Tom Reedy in order to maintain his own personal belief, in the face of Shapiro's book and the New York Times survey, that the authorship controversy is a 'fringe theory' have entered the realm of the truly ludicrous.NinaGreen (talk)

And I would conclude, take to heart David Chandler's summary point about one of the problems in the Oxfordian attitude, printed in an anti-Stratfordian on-line journal:

"while Oxfordians have sometimes attacked the academy for ignoring them, the fact is, on the whole, that 'mainstream' Shakespeare scholarship has shown more interest in Oxfordianism than Oxfordians have shown in 'mainstream' Shakespearean scholarship." Chandler, David (Spring 2001), "Historicizing Difference: Anti-Stratfordians and the Academy", in Elizabethan Review.

I.e., if this needs to be construed, academia has listened,often intently, to the conspiracy rumour-mill. But those who, in Milton's words, sit 'grinding at the mill' of antiestablishmentarian arguments all day, appear unable to reciprocate the courtesy, which consists in listening closely to what scholarship says, rather than half-hearing it through the dissonant noise of wheels and quern, and then thinking one has grasped the gist of what is, however, a message distorted by poor reception.Nishidani (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum

Excuse me Nashidani, who is this Schweigenbalm you referred to above? I feel like I should know him. But Schweigenbalm means silent medicine, and Zweigenbaum means strong tree. You may have an identification problem you haven't worked out rationally. Freud could be helpful on mistakes like that. I'm Zweigenbaum.

Say that I'm posturing (the charge is back there in the verbal debris) or say that I'm Albert Hall, you are obligated to prove your allegations that these instances of "lunatic fringe" remarks are credible and considered, rather than being just what they appear to be, simple invective, the inherent nature of such language. That trained scholars indulged themselves in it is shame in itself. That you all rely upon it as bearing the gravity of "Authority" is perhaps childish? Your remarks (Nashidani) to Nina Green are to use a neutral-leaning euphemism intemperate. I assumed ad hominem aggressions went out with playground recess. I understand but cannot approve that in an adult. It appears the issue is headed for arbitration before a third party, since the traditionalist cohort has problems actually encountering the hard work of reading someone else's insight and scholarship, and your responses have devolved into spit and sputter.

Though skeptical, I have read the academic as well as alternative studies and after having done so (over the course of five years) agree with Ramon Jimenez, a published classical scholar who wrote, "The accumulation of evidence for Oxford,...is the most comprehensive and detailed solution to the 'problem'. It is hard to believe that it will not eventually result in the acceptance of Edward de Vere as the genuine Shakespeare.

"When this occurs, all the biographies of the Stratford man, and at least one of Oxford ['Monstrous Adversary'] will become comical literary curiosities." (The Oxfordian/9)

For the sake of further perspective, I quote a summation by David L. Roper, a published English scholar:

"When confronted by perfectly valid reasons for considering an alternative..., the need to save face governs intellectual honesty, and refuge is sought in censorship, ridicule, and a blatant disregard for conflicting evidence.

"In [Stradfordians'] own personal realities, the Stratfordian thesis contains everything they wish for, and they protect their creation against disbelievers with the only armaments available--invective and ridicule.

"[Quoting Alan Nelson,] 'I agree that antagonism to the ...debate from within the profession is so great that it would be as difficult for a professed Oxfordian to be hired in the first place, much less gain tenure, as for a professed Creationist to be hired to gain tenure in a graduate-level Department of Biology.' Truth, it would seem, is sometimes barred from the universities when it threatens to replace the dominant paradigm." --Roper, 'Proving Shakespeare' (2010)

Or Tolstoy: "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life."

Or Saint Ignatius of Loyola: "We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides." In this case, if the hierarchy of doctrine so decides.

Do these comments on any orthodoxy's blind subjectivity describe familiar elements behind the present impasse? Appealing to your sense of rectitude and fairness in re-evaluating the present proposed article, Tom Reedy, let's get back on topic by listing the changes you made based on my suggestions, with the objective being results rather than put-downs. --Zweigenbaum ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweigenbaum (talk • contribs) 16:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Lunatic fringe" quotations from Shakespearean academics and critics, all from reliable sources

Michael Billington, the Guardian's theatre critic: “James Shapiro's Contested Will concentrates on the lunatic fringe of Shakespeare authorship theories – a fascinating topic, to be sure, if you admire snobbery, philistinism and ignorance.” (2010)

Sarah Wadsworth, academic, critic: “Delia Bacon, whose theory that Francis Bacon and others secretly authored Shakespeare's plays consigned her to the lunatic fringe” (2009)

Peter Milward, priest, academic, critic: “But what they are really asking is not, 'Who is Shakespeare?' in the present, but, 'Who was Shakespeare?' in the past. So most scholars relegate these questioners to "the lunatic fringe," and they will have nothing more to do with them.” (2008)

Will Sharpe, editor: “[Stanley] Wells, over the past five decades, has become one of the most distinguished Shakespeareans to have walked the earth, and has been called upon to weigh in against the lunatic fringe of Shakespeare commentators more times, I’m sure, than he’d care to remember.” (2007)

Lisa Hopkins, academic, critic: “Freud in his later years espoused the lunatic fringe view that the works of Shakespeare were in fact written by Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.” (2005)

K.K. Ruthven, academic, critic: “Most Stratfordians regard the authorship controversy as a pseudo-problem invented by the lunatic fringe of Shakespeare studies.” (2005)

Anthony Fowles, writer: “Every few years I find myself revisiting Literature's all time, Number One mystery: who wrote 'Shakespeare'? I don't do this with any passionate axe to grind. Indeed, for years I resolutely avoided all the lunatic fringe theories circling the wagon train of orthodox Shakespearean studies.” (2001)

Robert Maslen, academic, critic: “… some scholars have attributed parts of Shakespeare's early plays to Marlowe (and on scholarship's lunatic fringe, contributors to the authorship controversy have attributed the late ones to him too: see Marlovian theory” (2001)

Tom Dulack, academic and playwright: “… the ancient lunatic fringe of conspiracy crazies who persist in their fanatical belief that Shakespeare was not the author of the play to begin with.” (2001)

Charles Garfield Nauert, academic, critic: “… his [Shakespeare’s] ability to attract great gentlemen as patrons of his theatrical company (and as the true authors of his poems and plays, if one believes a lunatic fringe of self-styled experts)” (1995)

William Ingram, academic, critic: “…she [Anne Whatley], like the authorship claimants, becomes a kind of shibboleth for the identification of members of the lunatic fringe.” (1992)

William C. Carroll, academic, critic: “the play [LLL] has always been the darling of the Shakespearean lunatic fringe.” (1976)

Patrick Cruttwell, academic, critic: “Goodness knows I have never felt the smallest temptation to join the lunatic fringe of Shakespearean criticism which proclaims that he wasn't Shakespeare.” (1975)

Kenneth Muir, academic, critic: “Professor Schoenbaum has cast his net widely. He includes amateur antiquarians, professional scholars, forgers, Baconians, Derbyites and the rest of the lunatic fringe, even some writers of fiction.” (1971)

These comments are mild compared to some, nor are these exhaustive. Which ones should we use in place of Kathman? (We'll of course have to change the wording of the article text to read "lunatic fringe" instead of "fringe belief".) Tom Reedy (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, Tom, let's start whittling them down. First of all, let's eliminate from consideration any source that's more than a decade old since the lede paragraph is supposed to represent the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment as it exists today. Next, let's eliminate from consideration any source who isn't a member of the Shakespeare establishment according to Carroll's definition cited by you in footnote 3 of the lede paragraph:

the Shakespeare Establishment,' one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less, by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare

Who does that leave us with? I can't tell because you've used the vague term 'academic' as an identifier for virtually all of them, and I can't tell from that term what their field of academic specialty is. If they're to represent the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment as defined by Carroll, their field of academic specialty, i.e. the field in which they have a Ph.D., has to be the literature of the Elizabethan and early Jacobean period. When you let us know who's left, we'll have our short list.NinaGreen (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

My goodness, Tom, I just googled Anthony Fowles, whom you indicate you would like to quote, as you indicate above, as representing the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment on the authorship controversy. This is what turned up:

http://www.llamagraphics.com/Meadow/Essays/Shakespeare.html

Llamagraphics supposes that Anthony Fowles is possibly Shakespeare, and at the very least a regular contributor to the Meadow. He is a reknowned author of books about soccer written with Garry Nelson, including Left Foot Forward.

Your inclusion of Anthony Fowles as a suggested reliable source for the SAQ article suggests the absurdity to which your bias has driven you.NinaGreen (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Some holiday rest, how do you manage to relax so well? Sorry Tom Reedy, your "lunatic fringe" quotations, like the term itself, are scholastically meaningless except as evidence of a threatened priesthood's reflexive polemicizing, for each and every use lacks reasons for the term, no matter if Jesus Christ had said it. Impressive list of schlock though. If only they had turned that energy into scholarly inquiry. You can't responsibly evaluate the studies of the contending Oxfordian scholarship unless you read its work. Such is the bias in the field and obviously the bias of the Wikipedia article writer and supporters. Nothing like inert belief to perpetuate willful ignorance. Happy New Year. Zweigenbaum (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum. Posturing is not an argument. Nina, I can myself add to the list - as I said earlier - courtesy has left us withholding a lot of information that makes this ideological mania look far more queer than our text lets on - and I could make it easier for you with links, but you apparently think Tom and I have to work over this vacation while you harangue us with lazy equivocations just to 'whittle down' everything to the Oxfordian default promotional image. Still, in the Christmas spirit, explain to us why Peter Milward, writing in 2008, doesn't fit.Nishidani (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, you wrote:

Nina, I can myself add to the list - as I said earlier - courtesy has left us withholding a lot of information that makes this ideological mania look far more queer than our text lets on

Fiddlesticks. As I said before (and you're forcing me to repeat myself), it's not courtesy at all. The real reason you haven't cited these 'sources' in the article is that they cannot by any stretch of Wikipedia policy be made to represent the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment as defined by Carroll in the passage quoted by you and Tom Reedy in footnote 3 of the SAQ article. Name even one of the 'sources' cited above by Tom Reedy who has a Ph.D. in the literature of the Elizabethan and early Jacobean period and for whom the quotation cited by Tom is recent enough that it can be said to accurately represent the current consensus of the Shakespeare establishment (as defined by Carroll, whose definition you yourselves quote), and whose quotation carries sufficient weight to wipe out the contradictory evidence in Shapiro's book and the New York Times survey on the current consensus in the Shakespeare establishment (as defined by Carroll).

Incidentally, you said above that some of the editors on this page themselves have Ph.Ds in the literature of the Elizabethan and early Jacobean period and have published in peer-reviewed journals dealing with the literature of those periods. Who are they? You don't have to 'out' them. Just refer to them by their Wikipedia aliases. If you're going to claim specialist qualifications for editors of this page, you need to at least identify which editors have those specialist qualifications so that their opinions can be given the requisite weight.NinaGreen (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, you are engaged in systematic misreading of everything both your interlocutors, and the text, and, I might add, the sources used for the text, states. I'll give you just two examples.

Example 1. (a) Tom provides you with a large list of academics who dismiss this argument as lunatic fringe.

(b) You reply:'Great, Tom, let's eliminate from consideration any source that's more than a decade old since the lede paragraph is supposed to represent the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment as it exists today. Next, let's eliminate from consideration any source who isn't a member of the Shakespeare establishment according to Carroll's definition.'

(c)I respond, naming Peter Milward as fitting your criteria. He is a Shakespearean scholar, has a chair in Renaissance studies, and has trained many Japanese scholars in this area. I provide a link to his wiki biography. The quote is from 2008. He has the requisite background Carroll speaks of.

(d)Your reply? Your reply is to ignore the evidence of Milward, and to repeat the question.

'Name even one of the 'sources' cited above by Tom Reedy who has a Ph.D. in the literature of the Elizabethan and early Jacobean period and for whom the quotation cited by Tom is recent enough that it can be said to accurately represent the current consensus of the Shakespeare establishment (as defined by Carroll, whose definition you yourselves quote)'

Verdict. You ask questions. When answered with precision, you continue repeating the question, ignoring the answer, and complain then of stonewalling. Worse still, you who lack any academic qualifications at all in this, keep challenging the credentials of scholars who do have them in that field.Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Example 2(a)You stated:'None of us is in academia in the specialist area.'

(b)I remark: 'About not being 'in academia'. Some of us are, or have been, and are published in respectable university presses, after intensive peer review. You haven't been.'

Note I ignore the point, which is irrelevant, about 'the specialist area'.

(c)You reply.'you said above that some of the editors on this page themselves have Ph.Ds in the literature of the Elizabethan and early Jacobean period and have published in peer-reviewed journals dealing with the literature of those periods.'

That is how your mind appears to work. Disattention, misrepresentation, and then challenging editors to explain what they never said. If you are so disconcerted about bias in wikipedia, and poor sourcing for statements, I suggest you just move over to Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship which is in a hopeless state of disrepair, needs drastic editing and may be a good proving ground, undisturbed, for showing that you know what wiki policy requires. It's all in an area you understand, de Verean studies, and is untroubled by the area you show scarce familiarity with, i.e. historical and literary scholarship. Nishidani (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully expected Nina's reaction to be exactly what it is, because that's the way anti-Stratfordians argue: ask for a particular piece of evidence and when it's presented dismiss it by moving the goalposts and demanding that it comply with even more strictures in order to disqualify it, so you really can't blame her for arguing like an anti-Stratfordian, Nick, because that's her stock in trade. Her reaction to your statement about our agreement to tone down the language of the article was also predictable, because she refuses to read the appropriate Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which states that "restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations." Instead she searches through Wikipedia for phrases she can cherry-pick to use for her objections. Again, this is a standard anti-Stratfordian debating tactic, and it is no surprise that she uses them here also, since it's a habit of mind, as evidenced by this entire page. Yet another example is her picking out one critic from the list and disqualify him because he wrote a book about soccer (although he has written several books of literary criticism, which she would have learnt had she continued her scholarly quest on Google) while simultaneously claiming that I "would like to quote" him. In any other editor that would be evidence of blatant dishonesty, but for anti-Stratfordians you must make allowances because their minds really do work that way. That's why they can claim that there's no evidence for William Shakespeare as a writer while simultaneously claiming there is overwhelming evidence for their favourite candidate, keeping a straight face while doing so and demanding that their assertions be taken seriously by the academic establishment. Since Paul, you, and I have acted in good faith and tried to answer her objections with evidence that would have satisfied any other person long ago, after much consideration I think the best thing to do is to just ignore her from now on and let others deal with her. If she makes any good points that are usable we can silently note them when (and if) the article opens up for editing again. Life is too short to continually repeat oneself. I regret that this discussion has become about an editor's behaviour instead of the content of the article, but since I seem to be her main topic of discussion I felt I should be able to speak my mind about this. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Yesterday she posted 21 times to this talk page. Will she beat that record today? She's got a good start. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It really is amazing how Tom Reedy and Nishidani can get off topic and post reams of prose which have nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is whittling down Tom's 'lunatic fringe' quotes to those which can legitimately be considered to represent the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment. So far, after threats by both Tom Reedy and Nishidani of being able to produce countless numbers of such quotes, and with Tom having produced a list of quotes which includes someone who writes about SOCCER and whose comments were posted on a blog, we have one name put forward, that of the Jesuit Peter Milward. Is that it? Can Tom Reedy and Nishidani stay on topic long enough to clarify that point for the rest of us? Is Peter Milward the only name they are putting forward as representing the Shakespeare establishment in terms of the use of the phrase 'lunatic fringe'?NinaGreen (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No. 11. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Nashidani, who is this Schweigenbalm you refer to above? I feel like I should know him. But Schweigenbalm means silent medicine and Zweigenbaum means strong tree. You may have an identification problem not yet brought to rational examination. Freud was good on problems like that. I'm Zweigenbaum.

Call it posturing or call it Albert Hall, you are obligated to prove your allegations that these instances of "lunatic fringe" remarks are credible and considered, rather than what they appear to be, simple invective, which is the inherent nature of such language. That trained scholars indulged themselves in it is shame in itself. That you all resort to it as bearing the gravity of "Authority" is perhaps childish? Your remarks (Nashidani) to Nina Green are to use a neutral-leaning euphemism intemperate. I assumed ad hominem aggressions went out with playground recess. I understand but cannot approve. It appears the issue is headed for arbitration before a third party, since the traditionalist cohort has problems actually encountering the hard work of reading someone else's insight and scholarship.

Though skeptical, I have read the academic as well as alternative studies and after having done so agree with Ramon Jimenez, a classical scholar who wrote, "The accumulation of evidence for Oxford,...is the most comprehensive and detailed solution to the 'problem'. It is hard to believe that it will not eventually result in the acceptance of Edward de Vere as the genuine Shakespeare.

"When this occurs, all the biographies of the Stratford man, and at least one of Oxford ['Monstrous Adversary'] will become comical literary curiosities." (The Oxfordian/9)

For the sake of further perspective, I quote a summation by David L. Roper, an English scholar:

"When confronted by perfectly valid reasons for considering an alternative..., the need to save face governs intellectual honesty, and refuge is sought in censorship, ridicule, and a blatant disregard for conflicting evidence.

"In [Stradfordians'] own personal realities, the Stratfordian thesis contains everything they wish for, and they protect their creation against disbelievers with the only armaments available--invective and ridicule.

"[Quoting Alan Nelson,] 'I agree that antagonism to the ...debate from within the profession is so great that it would be as difficult for a professed Oxfordian to be hired in the first place, much less gain tenure, as for a professed Creationist to be hired to gain tenure in a graduate-level Department of Biology.' Truth, it would seem, is sometimes barred from the universities when it threatens to replace the dominant paradigm." --Roper, 'Proving Shakespeare' (2010)

Or Tolstoy: "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life."

Or Saint Ignatius of Loyola: ""We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides." In this case, the hierarchy of doctrine.

Do these descriptions of any orthodoxy's blind subjectivity resemble elements behind the present impasse? Appealing to your sense of rectitude and fairness in re-evaluating the present proposed article, maybe by Tom Reedy showing us the changes he made after reading my suggestions. It's productive to discuss specifics. --Zweigenbaum ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweigenbaum (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Presenting The Majority View In Accordance With Wikipedia Policy

Tom has called the authorship controversy a 'crank theory' and Nishidani has called it 'this ideological mania'. With that kind of bias on the part of two prominent editors of the SAQ article, it's small wonder that the lede paragraph strays from Wikipedia policy, and frames the issue in biased terms. The lede paragraph reads:

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. Although the idea has attracted much public interest, 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.

Wikipedia policy states that the majority view must be presented as the majority view, and that the minority view must be presented in a fair and balanced manner. It goes without saying that the majority view must be defined as the view held by the Shakespeare establishment. It also goes without saying that the view of the Shakespeare establishment presented in the lede paragraph must be the current view held by the Shakespeare establishment (historical versions of it belong in the historical section of the SAQ article), so any sources cited in support in the lede paragraph must be less than a decade old.

Where is the presentation of the majority view in the lede paragraph? It's not there. The view of the Shakespeare establishment is that the true author of the Shakespeare canon is William Shakespeare of Stratford. That's it, pure and simple. And that is what should appear in the lede paragraph according to Wikipedia policy. Instead, the majority view is presented in terms of what the majority allegedly thinks of the minority view. Instead of presenting the majority view in terms of who the Shakespeare establishment thinks wrote the plays, the majority view is presented in terms of what Tom Reedy, David Kathman, Nishidani, Paul Barlow et al claim the Shakespeare establishment thinks of the minority view. But so far, Tom et al have not been able to substantiate their biased claim. They have threatened to produce countless numbers of statements from members of the Shakespeare establishment which support the way they have framed the issue in the lede paragraph, but they have been unable to cite members of the Shakespeare establishment as sources. Thus, the lede paragraph needs to be entirely rewritten so that it contains, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, a clear statement of the majority view, which is that the Shakespeare establishment thinks William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays. Their unsubstantiated claim concerning what the Shakespeare establishment allegedly thinks of the minority view needs to be entirely eliminated from the lede paragraph.NinaGreen (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Example 3 'but they have been unable to cite members of the Shakespeare establishment as sources.'

For the third time now, Nina. You asked us to whittle the list down, and produce a ranking Shakespearean scholar writing in the last decade on record as regarding your position as 'fringe'. I did so, with Peter Milward.

most scholars relegate these questioners to the lunatic fringe, and they will have nothing more to do with them.' (2008)' Peter Milward.

Now, with the evidence you requested produced, you repeat the accusation of 'inability to cite' and quietly sweep the evidence from Milward under the carpet. It's called shifting the goalposts, or stonewalling, or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no point in continuing this conversation, since you refuse to collaborate intelligibly, stonewall or pretend not to notice when evidence you asked for is given, and twist policy in the face of several editors who have exercised considerable patience in trying to set your misapprehensions straight. Take it elsewhere. Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, no goalposts are being moved, and no-one is being swept under the carpet, although there's definitely some stonewalling going on on your and Tom's part. As you mention above, I asked that you and Tom whittle the list down so that it didn't include sources more than a decade old and sources who aren't members of the Shakespeare establishment. Tom has stonewalled, and hasn't done anything. You've come up with Peter Milward, but haven't indicated whether that's the sole name left on the list as far as you're concerned. And so far neither of you has even identified the work by Milward which you're citing, nor produced the context of the citation so that it can be confirmed that Milward is endorsing that view and speaking for the Shakespeare establishment. I'm guessing that the quotation is perhaps from the chapter entitled "Catholic Shakespeare" in Milward's unpublished (and unfinished?) online autobiography, Genesis of an Octogenarian, but I have no way of confirming that, or of seeing the quotation in context, because the "Catholic Shakespeare" chapter can't be read online. There's a link to it through the Wikipedia article on Peter Milward, but the "Catholic Shakespeare" chapter appears in white type, and I can't find the quotation Tom has cited.NinaGreen (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And nobody's going to give it to you either, you'll just have to find it for yourself, because those quotes were furnished merely to demonstrate that the depiction of the academic consensus about the SAQ was accurate and extremely mild compared to what is available to use from reliable sources. Indeed, plenty of academics have compared it to a mental illness, but as Nishidani informed you, in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines for WP:FRINGE we agreed to be less harsh in our description than most academics are. And there is no stonewalling; you're just not calling the shots about how I choose to spend my time. I figure that answering the same question four or five times should be enough. Where I come from we don't call that stonewalling. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, the point is that I don't need to find it. None of the quotes you've supplied indicates that 'the academic consensus about the SAQ was accurate and extremely mild compared to what is available to use from reliable sources'. Your quotes indicate exactly the opposite. Many of them are extremely out of date. Many of them are from people who are not academics at all. Many of them are from academics who are specialists in completely unrelated fields, and who cannot represent the current consensus of the Shakespeare establishment. Some of them, when read in context, are actually critical of the way in which the Shakespeare establishment chokes off discussion of the authorship controversy (you haven't pointed that out, but it's true). The only quote Nishidani singled out as possibly proving your point, the one from the Jesuit Peter Milward, now turns out to be from an unpublished (and unfinished?) autobiography in which the relevant quotation cannot be found because some of the chapters, including the chapter "Catholic Shakespeare" in which it is likely to be found, are not currently online in a readable form. I also suspect that in context the quotation from Milward does not support your contention, which is why I think every editor of this page should read it for himself if he can find it. But I don't think anyone can find it. The end result is that you've disproved your contention in spades by citing all these examples of the use of the phrase 'lunatic fringe' which don't support your point in the slightest, because not a single one of them represents the current consensus of the Shakespeare establishment on the authorship issue.NinaGreen (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" See if you can find that one. I doubt it, after reading over your above message. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Review of talkpage interactions, and article editing

Following a request at my talkpage I have been looking over this page, and also the edit history of the article. My first impressions is that the clean break I had hoped would result in the RfC relating to Smatprt (talk · contribs) and Nishidani (talk · contribs) and Tom Reedy (talk · contribs) preferred variant of the article content has failed to materialise.
There are still clear misunderstanding of the meanings of Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and its application to Wikipedia:Fringe, and seeming systematic Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing in an apparent effort to Wikipedia:Exhaust editors who hold views contrary to those advocating the adoption of a particular point of view as the NPOV position.

The WP:NPOV regarding the SAQ is that William of Stratford is the author of those works commonly attributed to Shakespeare - this is the consensus of not only the literary experts, but also that of the general literature world. There is some acknowledgement that there are some who question that consensus, including a very few well regarded opinionators on the subject, but that mostly these theories on who might otherwise been the author are disregarded or dismissed by mainstream academia. This results in a dearth of specific rebuttal (as against the proliferation of sources advocating a preferred candidate for the authorship, and those finding fault in the accredition for the Merchant of Avon). The lack of a wide ranging rebuttal or counter argument for those advocating a different individual as the "true Bard" does not give Oxfordian, Baconite, etc, advocates an enhanced standing but rather the opposite - as does the almost complete silence by world authorities on the premise that Atlantis really exists,and as a way station for UFO's; the mainstream does not respond because they see no reason to.

Another issue, not unrelated, is the constant demand for cites or sources for generalisations (I wonder how many people have placed cite tags in the preceding paragraph, and how many are now removing them...) regarding the NPOV/Consensus. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" dictates that where there are theories that are either fringe or simply are the opposite of the majority or consensus viewpoint that they need to be well sourced - but commonly accepted theories or statements do not. Requiring a cite for every mention that William of Stratford is the true author is mendacious editing, and if it continues after a polite warning is grounds for sanction against persistent offenders.
Yet another apparent issue is the sheer volume of text that is generated, often by those who are attempting to change the article POV. Repeating a question because a previous answer was found not to be sufficient is poor form, repeating a question as an addendum to other questions that are being repeated might constitute tendentious editing. Repeating another editors question when (re)asking your own is simply disruptive. That sort of behaviour needs to stop. If the questions asked do not get the response the asker hopes for, and does not advance the change in consensus desired, then the problem lays with the question not addressing the status quo. Either drop the question, or reformulate it (shorter would be better, too) - and try to indicate that you understand the answers given; it is not necessary for either party to agree, but it is to acknowledge that a response has been made. Lastly, in among these blocks of texts are allegations upon the motivations and bias' of other editors, of actions made (or not made) by respondents. This needs to cease. Baiting comments, here or anywhere else, should be regarded as vandalism and treated accordingly. Accusations, without evidence, of contributors acting in any regard except for the betterment of the project will be treated as Wikipedia:No personal attacks violations, and again should be dealt with accordingly. The presumption of Wikipedia:Assume good faith does not permit a never ending cycle of challenge and reconfirmation - there comes a point when it should be noted that concerns have been noted and, where possible, addressed and the matter closed.

I had hoped that with the closure of the RfC involving Smatprt, Nishdani and Tom Reedy that that line had been drawn. The NPOV regarding Shakespeare and his authorship is that William of Stratford upon Avon is held as the writer. The premise of the Shakespeare Authorship Question is that there continues to be a fringe opinion that another individual is the author, that this is advanced both on suggested inadequacies for William of Stratford's assignment and potential better candidates for the title - but that mainstream and scholarly consensus rejects these theories. Under that understanding, it is possible to examine the claims against the Stratfordian consensus and those for the different alternatives within the article. Per NPOV it is not permissible to give the impression that any proposed alternative author has any standing in the wider world, or that the claim for William of Stratford is in any way compromised.

I really hope that people can get on with improving the article under that basis. If they cannot, then I will consider using the remedies available to ensure that those people are no longer able to disrupt these pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard, thanks for your comments. I agree completely with what you have said above concerning the majority position, i.e. that the consensus in the Shakespeare establishment is that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare canon. If you read my comments in the section I added just above this one, that was precisely my point as well. In accordance with Wikipedia policy in Wikiproject Alternative Views, the majority position must be clearly presented as the majority position. But that is not what the lede paragraph does. Instead of stating the majority position as you have stated it, the lede paragraph presents the majority position in terms of what the majority allegedly thinks of the minority position. If the majority position were presented clearly, according to Wikipedia policy, as what the majority actually thinks of the issue itself, not in terms of what the majority thinks of the minority view, that would go a very long way towards clearing up the confused thinking which runs throughout the entire article.NinaGreen (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Nina, I just realised you have many times referred to "Wikipedia policy in WikiProject Alternative views", and quoting that project's self-description as "policy". Pity nobody enlightened you about that (or did they perhaps try?)*(see note below); I suppose it just seemed too far-fetched to register with people, as it was for me. Now, with the clue in my hand, I can see this notion of policy in relation to WikiProject Alternative views all over your posts above, for instance here, where you reverently quote a big chunk out of the project's statement and refer to it as what "Wikipedia itself" says. The distinction between policy and project (and between both of them and "Wikipedia itself") is a mile wide. I would note that carefully if I were you. WikiProjects, their self-introductions, and their choice of articles to put their template on, have no authority of any kind outside the WikiProject itself. None. Anybody can start a WikiProject, regardless of their qualifications and standing, and incorporate any article as being "within the scope" of them. What WikiProjects do is grade articles, according to more or less credible criteria (not a particularly useful activity IMO, but your mileage may vary). Some projects, mostly the big ones, have a good reputation; most projects do not. And they sure don't have any authority. There is nothing there that you can use to thwack Tom and others with, as you have attempted so many times to do with WikiProject Alternative views.

You're a new user, so of course I don't blame you for not being aware of the distinction between a project and a policy. But I find it hair-raising that you set yourself up as an authority on it, and on policy altogether. How can you suppose it remotely likely that you either know or understand policy better than people who have been editing here for years, digesting and practising the policies, learning to understand the spirit of them? That from the moment you arrived on this page, you have been ordained to lecture Tom, Paul, and Nishidani on Wikipedia policy? It's absurd on the face of it. Bishonen | talk 18:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC).

• Actually, just for the record, Tom did try, without success, to inform Nina of this crucial distinction, in his long reply on the 27th:'the Wikipedia Alternative Views project is not a policy.'Nishidani (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Bishonen, perhaps it was the word 'policy' in the statement which appeared when I clicked on Wikiproject Alternative Views' which mislead me:

Wikipedia's policy is to write articles from a neutral point of view describing not just the dominant view, but significant alternative views as well, fairly, proportionately, and without bias.

In any event, it makes no difference to the point I've made in the section above this one, or to my complete agreement with LessHeard that the majority view must be clearly presented as the majority view, which means that the current consensus of the Shakespeare establishment must be clearly presented in the lede paragraph. As LessHeard clearly stated, the current consensus of the Shakespeare establishment is (and always has been) that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays. That's what needs to be in the lede paragraph instead of the current statement, which pretends to put forward what the Shakespeare establishment currently and historically thinks of the minority view.

And I'm most emphatically not 'lecturing' anyone on policy (although I've been lectured and criticized and harped at on policy by virtually every administrator and editor of this page since I came on board as an editor, with no praise from anyone for the fact that I almost single-handedly edited the entire Edward de Vere article to the point that it could easily be put forward for peer review to be accorded FA status). I'm merely pointing out (and apologies for having to repeat myself, but you're forcing me to do it) that the lede paragraph does not present the majority view in terms of what the Shakespeare establishment actually thinks (as LessHeard said, that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare canon). Instead, it presents the majority view in terms of what editors on this page allege the Shakespeare establishment currently thinks of the alternative view. The allegation has not been substantiated, and cannot be substantiated in the face of Shapiro's Contested Will, the New York Times survey, Shapiro's statement in the LA Times interview that the authorship controversy has 'gone mainstream', the graduate program in authorship studies at Brunel University, the statement by Professor Russ McDonald, President of the Shakespeare Association of America, ('The SAA does not have 'an opinion' on the authorship question. Moreover, there is no ban on speaking or writing about that topic at our annual conference. Several so-called Oxfordians are members of the organization and have presented papers at that meeting') etc. That's the long and the short of it. Now all that remains is for someone to take the initiative and rewrite the lede paragraph to eliminate the confused thinking which permeates it, and which because of it extends to the rest of the article.NinaGreen (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You may get a better understanding of how WP:FRINGE is applied by looking at Objections to evolution which discusses the scientific acceptance of evolution vs. the objectors. As you can see, the creationists get a pretty raw deal in that article, although their views are described. That is the standard treatment on Wikipedia for hundreds of topics like 9/11 conspiracy theories and Moon landing conspiracy theories and Bigfoot. If you still think there is a problem with the lead in this article, you should propose a change so something concrete can be discussed. As previously suggested, you could write a draft in this sandbox. Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, thanks for the comments, and for the suggestion that I write something up. How about this for the first paragraph, leading directly into the first sentence of the second paragraph:

The consensus of the Shakespeare establishment and the public at large is that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the author of the works traditionally attributed to him. However during the past 150 years a number of alternative authorship candidates have been put forward, and it is contended by some that Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon 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 take public credit.

Scholars suggest that the controversy has its origins in Bardolatry, the adulation of Shakespeare in the 18th century as the greatest writer of all time etc.

NinaGreen (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The last two sentences of the first paragraph need to stay as they are in order to provide context, otherwise I think it's good. Without those two sentences, the article risks sounding something like "Most people think x, but there's this new, brilliant theory that's quickly gaining ground that thinks y!" I think the mainstream view should have the final say in the first paragraph. Wrad (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrad, thanks for the suggestions. You wrote:

The last two sentences of the first paragraph need to stay as they are in order to provide context, otherwise I think it's good.

The last sentence in the current version of the SAQ article reads:

Although the idea has attracted much public interest, 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.

The SAQ article can't say that 'all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a 'fringe belief' when Professor Russ McDonald, President of the Shakespeare Association of America, one of the largest organizations of Shakespeare scholars in the world, says that the SAA has 'no opinion' on the authorship controversy. Nor can the SAQ article say that Shakespeare scholars do nothing but rebut or disparage the authorship controversy when the President of the SAA says Oxfordians are members of the SAA and have presented papers at SAA meetings. The last sentence has to go.

You also wrote:

Without those two sentences, the article risks sounding something like "Most people think x, but there's this new, brilliant theory that's quickly gaining ground that thinks y!" I think the mainstream view should have the final say in the first paragraph.

How about this version? I've put the first sentence from the current online version back in, and reinforced the majority view again at the end, and for good measure, added the word 'true' in front of 'author'.

The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him. During the past 150 years a number of alternative authorship candidates have been put forward. Proponents of these candidates contend that Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon 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 take public credit. However the consensus view in the Shakespeare establishment and among the public at large is that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the true author of the works traditionally attributed to him.

The paragraph doesn't need any citations. No-one's going to challenge 'motherhood' statements of that nature.NinaGreen (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm reproducing the first three paragraphs of WP:LEDE here for comparison purposes:

The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede[1]) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, must be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

I've carefully reviewed my draft above to see whether it fully complies with WP:LEDE. I think it does, with one exception. It doesn't explain why the subject is 'interesting or notable'. The word 'notable' appears twice, and 'notability' once in the first three paragraphs of WP:LEDE. It thus seems that there should be something in my draft which would reflect Shapiro's comments on p. 4 of Contested Will:

Over time, and for all sorts of reasons, leading artists and intellectuals from all walks of life joined the ranks of the skeptics. I can think of little else that unites Henry James and Malcolm X, Sigmund Freud and Charlie Chaplin, Helen Keller and Orson Welles, or Mark Twain and Sir Derek Jacobi.

How about this version, which now incorporates a statement as to 'why the subject is interesting or notable'?

The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him. During the past 150 years a number of alternative authorship candidates have been put forward. Proponents of these candidates contend that Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon 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 take public credit. Over time the controversy has attracted support from leading artists and intellectuals from all walks of life. [CITATION: SHAPIRO, P.4] However the consensus view in the Shakespeare establishment and among the public at large remains that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the true author of the works traditionally attributed to him.

NinaGreen (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I should have added that I would leave it at that, and delete the remaining three paragraphs of the current version of the lede in the SAQ article. The suggested paragraph above covers all the points which WP:LEDE requires be covered in a lede, and the remaining three paragraphs of the current lede all properly belong in the body of the article. The second paragraph of the current version belongs in the historical section, and the third and fourth paragraphs are comprised in the lede and already covered in extenso in the body of the article.NinaGreen (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The SAQ article can't say that 'all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a 'fringe belief' when Professor Russ McDonald, President of the Shakespeare Association of America, one of the largest organizations of Shakespeare scholars in the world, says that the SAA has 'no opinion' on the authorship controversy. Nor can the SAQ article say that Shakespeare scholars do nothing but rebut or disparage the authorship controversy when the President of the SAA says Oxfordians are members of the SAA and have presented papers at SAA meetings. The last sentence has to go.

You still haven't digested WP:RS. The lede can say whatever reliable sources tell us about the reception of the SAQ among Shakespeare scholars, regardless of your leap of logic from what McDonald told you. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:LEDE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEIGHT. Also Strunk and White: "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell." Tom Reedy (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Agree with Nina Green's formulation of the majority/minority issue. Zweigenbaum (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The correct terminology is academic/fringe. the SAQ is not a minority position, like Shakespeare's supposed Catholicism. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Academic and majority in this field amount to the same constituency. Minority and fringe are not identical terms, the first representational and the second derogatory toward its object. I consider this Green formulation an advance in neutral presentation of the issue, whatever the arcana utilized by the editors in favor of the traditional view. Zweigenbaum (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course you would think that the idea that Oxford was the son and lover of Queen Elizabeth was a "minority" view, just like the idea that Oxford wrote most of Elizabethan literature as Nina believes. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead proposal

Above (23:33, 29 December 2010 UTC), NinaGreen proposed that the first paragraph of the lead, and the start of the second, be replaced with:

The consensus of the Shakespeare establishment and the public at large is that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the author of the works traditionally attributed to him. However during the past 150 years a number of alternative authorship candidates have been put forward, and it is contended by some that Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon 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 take public credit.

Scholars suggest that the controversy has its origins in Bardolatry, the adulation of Shakespeare in the 18th century as the greatest writer of all time ...

Style here is that the first sentence should define the topic, so the current lead starts properly, while the proposal would be too vague for someone wondering what the SAQ is. The proposal puts an emphasis on the past 150 years that I think is misleading. It is often true, and widely believed, that developments in the past 150 years have moved many fields (particularly science) from a primitive basis to proven and useful knowledge. Accordingly, the proposed wording may suggest that modern understanding (i.e. the correct view) is that Shakespeare was "merely a front". A more due reference to time might be [Bate 1998]: No one in Shakespeare's lifetime or the first two hundred years after his death expressed the slightest doubt about his authorship. The proposal changes the second paragraph from "Scholars contend..." to "Scholars suggest...". That's quite a big change which goes to the heart of the issue: do those who are known to be scholars in this field contend or merely suggest? My understanding is that "contend" is the more accurate term. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you know the answer to that, Johnuniq. Scholars don't beat around the bush and write mushy, vague "suggestions" when it comes to the SAQ. And for God's sake! "it is contended by some"??? Reading that is like chewing tinfoil. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead took almost a year of intensive negotiation to get to the formulation we now have. Every single word and then phrasing and sentence was subject to extensive review, as one can see in the archives. It must be conceded that wikipedia does not privilege a conservative notion of textual stability, but it is also true that articles and esp. the leads, especially sensitive ones with a history of intensive dispute, that have finally achieved through intensive negotiation some degree of stability, are only retouched if good grounds for altering a word or a phrasing have been argued over, and agreed to, on the talk page.

You suggest in just the first line:-

'The consensus of the Shakespeare establishment and the public at large is that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the author of the works traditionally attributed to him. However . .'

The word 'establishment' is one you repeatedly use in these threads, and it is loaded. Webster-Merriam gives the sense you aim at introducing:

a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) b often capitalized : a controlling group <the literary establishment>

What your suggestion does is intimate, by a very tacit subliminal prompt, that there is a controlling group who rule over Shakespearean studies much as an elite caste in politics does. This 'Shakespearean establishment' is much like any political establishment, in that it monopolizes discourse, exercising a kind of discursive power that represses dissenting opinions, much as a 'literary establishment' does not represent the views of all those engaged in literature, but rather an entrenched coterie of those who have made it, who act as the arbiters of taste and make life difficult for aspiring, creative minds who are on the rise and do not share their values, opinions, beliefs, or endorse their aesthetic or even political positions.

Then you introduce the 'public at large', introducing a second level of discursive arbiters, on a par with the former, and the impression seeded in the readers' mind is that a complex issue of historical interpretation has two relevant tribunals, (a) the Shakespearean academic establishment and (b) public opinion.

Though you initially concede that they share, in this case, a consensual view, the showcasing of a 'public' court of opinion as being on a par with academic opinion looks like a rhetorical wedge that, if inserted, will then be used to destabilize the academic opinion. Why do I infer this?

On the 16th of December at 15:58, you wrote:

Ifanything will eventually overwhelm the Stratfordian position on the authorship, it's (sic) acceptance by the general public of the Prince Tudor theory when Roland Emmerich's film Anonymous is released next year.

(And don't forget the New Yorks Times poll of "Shakespeare professors"!) Tom Reedy (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I.e. while the 'Shakespearean establishment' plies the worry beads over the intricate hermeneutics of 16th century textual issues, and concludes Shakespeare is Shakespeare, all this may (hopefully) be overwhelmed by the impact on the public mind of a piece of Hollywood fantasy, which ignores everything 3 centuries of intensive scholarship has established. Once the public is won over to the de Verean fringe view, the Shakespearean establishment's hegemonic grip on the interpretation of things will flounder, academic will be shipwrecked on the shoals of Hollywoodian hype and spectacular effects. A sleazily incestuous 'who-screwed-who' version of Elizabethan history will screw or backscuttle the bookish twits who actually read the archives.

It is a bit like writing the lead on creationism and giving public opinion equal status with science, and then, since the polls say the American public embraces Creationism, that the 'scientific establishment' is losing its power to dictate the agenda. It is fairly well documented in the academic literature that the attempt by the fringe theorists to get a foothold on Shakespearean studies faltered, and since 1980 the dominant effort has been redirected to turning public opinion. I could say more, but will refrain, since our supervisors have, with some justification, complained of the inconclusiveness of these threads. Nishidani (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick trip into the talkpage archives would turn up several interminable discussions with the same title as this section. Things got so bad that the administrators assigned the warring factions to work on a sandbox version out of the mainspace to relieve those searching for information on Wikipedia (which should be our intended audience) from having to wade through the mire and contentious edit warring. When that proved unworkable, two sandbox versions were created to give each side a chance to produce a neutral version that met Wikipedia standards. The version that now exists took the place of the old version, and was undergoing peer review in an effort to achieve FA status, probably the first such effort made by an article concerning a fringe theory. Now the move is to begin again in the Sisyphean task of trying to placate a group of editors whose idea of neutrality is to pretend that anti-Stratfordism has equal weight with the reality version of Shakespeare's authorship? This is nothing more than the continence of the same edit war with the same tactics of attrition waged by another clone of the editor who was topic-banned after four years of Wikibullying good editors off the page in the name of "neutrality", which meant that Oxfordism had the same status as Stratfordism--anything else was bias, just as Nina has been harping on these past few weeks. the sheer tediousness of the arguments causes experienced administrators to throw up their hands and quit the field, which works to the advantage of the fringe warriors because their strategies only work with relatively new admins, or at least admins who have no experience with them and therefore tend to think that some kind of rational discussion can work things out.

You want to know how to write a lede? It's very simple with the merest of acquaintance with WP:LEDE: the first sentence should define the topic. The second should say why it's notable and in the case of a fringe topic, give the academic consensus about the topic. the next graf (the nut graf) should offer a bit of history about the subject and give more detail. the third, in the case of a fringe topic, should give a more detailed sketch of the academic response and why they hold it. The last should give the present-day status of the topic. All together the lede should be able to stand alone as an abstract of the entire article, IOW if all you read was the lede section, you would have a general idea of what the topic is about, its history, and the current status, including what the experts think about it. By good luck and coincidence, the present lede does all those things with the right amount of weight and does so in a succinct style with no excess verbiage. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Going back for a moment to reviewing talkpage interactions

Nishidani points out above that "Actually, just for the record, Tom did try, without success, to inform Nina of this crucial distinction [between WikiProject and policy], in his long reply on the 27th:'the Wikipedia Alternative Views project is not a policy.'"[14]

Yes. I'm sorry to say lack of success in informing Nina is what I have come to expect; it's one of the big problems on this page, and wastes everybody's time. Her talkpage editing all goes in one direction: lots of output, little or no intake. The editors of this page have been following the important wikipedia principle of generosity in teaching newcomers; but it doesn't seem to, how shall I put it... to take. Nina ignores it or wikilawyers to prove she knows better, whenever anybody addresses her. I mean, whenever, as she puts it, she's "lectured and criticized and harped at on policy by virtually every administrator and editor of this page since I came on board as an editor, with no praise from anyone for the fact that I almost single-handedly edited the entire Edward de Vere article".[15] Also for the record, Tom did praise her work on the de Vere article: "Thanks for all you've done; it's good to have someone work on it who has a deep background."[16] Also, on her user talk, he praised her work on the Shakespeare authorship question. I don't know why those posts don't count as "praise from anyone", Nina? Have you ever said anything half as civil to Tom about his work? Bishonen | talk 17:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

Nothing more indicates a basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies than the end of that statement: "... I almost single-handedly edited the entire Edward de Vere article to the point that it could easily be put forward for peer review to be accorded FA status)." The article is far from being FA quality, although it is a good compendium of raw material from which a good article could be refined with lots of work. At more than 100 kbs, it is probably the longest such biographical article on Wikipedia. It's even longer than the William Shakespeare article and the Elizabeth I of England article, and it has very few images. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk about moving the goalposts! From the Talk page for the Edward de Vere article:

OK [Tom]. And by the way, I like the fact that you added the image. It adds some life to the page.NinaGreen (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I also like the additions Buckraeumer made to the box at the upper right.NinaGreen (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This article needs more images to break up the monotonous stack of grey type. Nina, do you have a good picture of Anne Cecil's tomb effigy? I found one on the internet here but it is not very good. Ideally it would be a closeup of the head. With all the millions and millions of Oxfordians out there surely one of them has taken a good photograph of it. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I agree completely, and I really like the Whitehall image you added. I don't have a good picture of Anne Cecil's tomb effigy, but I'll ask if one of the millions has one. :-) There should be a good image of Anne Vavasour out there on the internet as well.NinaGreen (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of images of Queen Elizabeth here, including the Armada portrait [1] NinaGreen (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We could also add other images - examples of Oxford's handwriting; portraits of his children, for example. Paul B (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I put in the Phoenix portrait (it's very high resolution if you click first on the picture and then once again) and the Vavasour for the moment. Here is the Wikimedia Commons page for Elizabeth. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is Vavasour blue? I'm wondering if it isn't a bad file like the old Oxford portrait, which was yellow until I replaced it.

Also are there any pics of the child, Sir Edward Vere? This is one of those topics to which Oxfordians have contributed to scholarship, and there should be a page about him or at least a section, since he was a notable soldier.

There is also a black and white picture of Oxford holding the sword of state while acting in his hereditary role of Great Chamberlain. That should be in the article also. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford's Great Garden Property

Tom, thanks for adding the url for the Purnell book. I note your comment about original research, and am open to suggestions as to what might remove that concern.NinaGreen (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it right now. We'll need to call in other reviewers to give us other perspectives when that time comes, but that's way in the future for now. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, could you explain what you mean by 'call in other reviewers? This appears to be a Wikipedia policy about which I know nothing. I need to be filled in.NinaGreen (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:PR Tom Reedy (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In brief, Tom brings up the subject of putting the Edward de Vere article up for peer review to achieve FA status, and now he says it's not at all qualified. (And notice my expressions of praise and appreciation for Tom, Bishonen, to answer your question).NinaGreen (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I single-handedly created the Anne Whateley page, the Abel Lefranc page and the Joseph C. Hart page. I also greatly expanded and rewrote the previously stubby James Wilmot page (as mentioned by Shapiro!) and the William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby page, which was in a reet rubbish state. No one has ever praised me!! Boo hoooooo. Where are those grateful Derbyites? Paul B (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bishonen, is this what Wikipedia administrators do - constantly berate an individual editor and encourage other editors and administrators to do the same? Perhaps you could point me to the Wikipedia policy which covers that.NinaGreen (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)