Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

"First alluded to in the early 18th century"

Need I point out that this claim is part of the anti-Stratfordian theory? There were no explicit questions raised until 1848, with the publication of Hart's The Romance of Yachting. Every other so-called "allusion" to it is an anti-Stratfordian interpretation of an obvious joke or allegory, and not a matter of history. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom this is really stretching your point. "An obvious joke or allegory." Example, please? And what does that phrase even mean? Do you intend to say that because something is a joke or an allegory, it doesn't ispo facto, "obviously," constitute commentary on the authorship question? Or is that it that all the examples you can think of "obviously" do not constitute such a commentary? If the former, I suggest you review 16th century conventions of public discourse. Very often matters of great consequence were, "obviously," discussed in print only through means of jokes or allegories. This means that they require interpretation. If the later, the burden of proof is on you to produce examples which are "obvious" to all concerned. Is it your position that only explicit and unambiguous evidence be permitted in this discussion? If so, you are really throwing the baby out with the bathwater.--BenJonson (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read the texts. The burden is upon you to demonstrate that they are actual commentaries on Shakespeare's authorship. And why would I need to "review 16th century conventions of public discourse" when the two texts were published in the 18th century? More Oxfordian scholarship, no doubt. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, your assumption is in error. I have read, and continue to read, many texts that implicate a discourse of authorship debate starting in the 1590s. The extent of this discussion is still poorly understood even in the general public's mind, let alone within the rather insular world of English literary studies, where there is a more or less blanket agreement not to discuss anything that threatens to upset the applecart. As for the issue of chronology, its possible that I misunderstood what you intended as a specific reference only the Romance of Yachting, etc., for a more general claim. In that case there is no need for you to refer to the realities of Elizabethan times. But if you are saying that the author of the Romance of Yachting was not serious in his remarks about Shakespeare, I think you are quite wrong about that. I also wish, Tom, that you would stop your snide comments like "more Oxfordian scholarship, no doubt." As you know, I have published extensively in both Oxfordian and orthodox journals on matters relevant to the authorship question. The count is over sixteen articles. So there's no need to continue your pretense that there is any leverage to be gained in discussion through such snide comments. You have made yourself something of an expert of sorts, one supposes, on William Strachey. But I will match you any day of the week on depth and breadth of general knowledge on authorship and related topics, and I think that my record of publication, which includes major articles on several plays and poems of Shakespeare, and enough articles on the Tempest to complete a book, is so far beyond yours that it is only natural that you must have recourse to insults to try to level the playing field. I'm sorry that's so. I respect your commitment to the shared process of discovery. I do not respect the extent to which that commitment is so often impeded by your partisan faith that orthodoxy=truth. The history of ideas suggests that this is a questionable point of departure for real investigation of real problems.--BenJonson (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom was referring to the three pre-Wilmot 18th century texts commonly trotted out by Oxfordians, as you would know if you'd read the debate: An Essay Against Too Much Reading; the Learned Pig; Life of Common Sense. BTW, why do you have to endlessly parade your alleged achievements while claiming to be anonymous - and objecting when other editors use your real name? You can't have it both ways. Either you're an anonymous nobody who cannot claim unspecified publications, or you're somebody specific. Paul B (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Barlow: My real name is Dr. Roger Alan Stritmatter. I was born in 1958. I hold a Masters Degree in Anthropology from the New School for Social Research and a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Massachusetts.

I will not repeat what I have already said about my publications, except to add that they include articles in journals in disciplines in four or five academic disciplines, including psychoanalysis, anthropology, law, literature, and literary history. You can verify this information on the internet. Are you now satisfied?

Not that its really any of your business that I chose to contribute to Wikipedia under a handle. It enables me to do things like remove unwarranted references to myself in various articles, which on occasion I have done. Tom and most other editors here know perfectly well my identity. But I am not surprised that you felt that it was so important you needed to make an issue out of it.

Nor can I fathom how anyone who has actually been paying attention to this conversation would need to ask a question, which is a little like "when did you stop beating your wife?" such as why do you "endlessly parade your alleged achievements?" If you will kindly review the record you will see that I have done no such damn thing.

I have mentioned the achievements, today alone in this talk section, of over half a dozen individuals (Sir George Greenwood, Dr. Felicia Londre, Dr. Jack Shuttlework, Dr. Ren Draya, Dr. Michael Delahoyde, Dr. William Leahy among them) -- all of whom have a voice and a stake in this discussion but none of whom any of you guys who profess to be such experts seem to have ever heard of or know anything about.

I mentioned my own accomplishments, and those of these individuals, only in response to the perverse and wholly fallacious insinuations of user Nishidani, that no "scholars" believe that there is something rotten in the orthodox view of Shakespeare (and Tom's perhaps unintended snide remarks). Nishidani, ironically, apparently did not have a clue who he was talking to, or for that matter what he was talking about. He wanted to believe that no scholars take this subject seriously. He's wrong. Satisfied? If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. --BenJonson (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know perfectly well who you are, and have done for years. So can you you now stop referring to your own publications in the third person as you have so often done. "Endlessly" was just hyperbole for "at length", but it also implied "repeatedly". There are no major scholars who think as you do, only very very marginal ones. And yes, we know all about them, thank you. BTW, since you seem to like bandying about titles, you should call me Dr Barlow, not Mr Barlow. Paul B (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, prof or BenJonson! What a, in Prof.Leahy’s words, a ‘triumphal procession’. 7 names, snorting in Donne's 'seaven sleepers' den', denoting the dazzling luminaries, a Pleiade of stars, in the English academic firmament over a century, including a retired soldier who taught marines to speak English. No I haven’t heard of 'Jack Shuttleworth, PhD chairman of the Department of English at the U.S. Air Force Academy for many years before his retirement.’ I guess I’m an ignoramus for that, and I spent a restless night tossing (not in the slang sense) in my bed in remorse for the yawning gap in my intellectual Bildung caused by this exposure of my nescience concerning Ogburnian theories in Pentagonic circles. As the grunts cried 'havoc' and unleashed the dogs of war, with a crackling artillery barrage over Falluja, no doubt many thought of deVere's impressive farting before Queen Bess.

To get, as you say, ‘real’ (ugh!) I wrote:

(1)‘virtually all serious professional scholarship on Shakespeare says with regard to it?Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(2)I then edited the page using the precise words of the RS introduced by User:Smatprt, namely Niederkorn, which says ‘the vast majority’ of Shakespearean specialists do not accept this wild theories. I.e. my nuanced words reflected the precise phrasing of a text deVereans wish on the page.

Now in the normal world of scholarship, my remark and my edit would lead any professionally literate mind to rightly infer that, as an editor, I subscribe to the view that you can count the number of dissenters from the mainstream interpretation on the fingers of one hand. This is what ‘virtually all’, and ‘the vast majority’ imply in English.

No. You create, as is the convention in the fringe, a caricature, what people call a ‘strawman argument’, making out that my remarks deny a possibility which I explicitly allowed for. I.e. in ostensible rebuttal of my perversity you replied:-

(a)‘ like your assertion that no scholars support this "fringe theory," anyone should take you seriously?

(b) ‘the perverse and wholly fallacious insinuations of user Nishidani, that no "scholars" believe that there is something rotten in the orthodox view of Shakespeare.’

I’ve absolutely no problem in accepting that a handful of scholars over the span of a century have embraced the snob theories. After all Einstein wrote a letter expressing interest in Immanuel Velikovsky's work, but astronomers don’t think, for that, the edifice of celestial physics, by virtue of that solitary endorsement, is under threat. If you can’t understand my simple remarks on an elementary point of semantics, it gives me no confidence in your ability to construe a classic author like Shakespeare. Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already adjusted the article to point to mid 19th century. A footnote mentions an orthodox RS that shares the anti-Stratfordian theory. This stuff is for the history section.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the article should be adjusted to include reference to William Plumer Fowler's 1827 book, De Vere: Or the Man of Independence. But I will wait to press this case until after an article that I have currently under review is actually published in a peer reviewed journal. Tom might want to read up on it, in the meantime,as it is a good instance of 19th century allegory. If there is no wiki article entry, I will start one. Also, Tom, regarding Herman Melville, I'll make sure that if and when the article is accepted, you have some advance notice so that you can read it and learn something about the whole history of Melville's engagement with the authorship question, which was very extensive. --BenJonson (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have no objections if the book does indeed suggest that Oxford wrote Shakespeare. Could you point to a specific place in that book that supports the idea? It is set in the mid-1700s, and the De Vere written about is not the earl, but calls himself Mr. De Vere, a descendant. In fact, he mentions that Oxford was not a very good poet. There is a Wikipedia entry on the author. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't, as you and I and Roger all know. But in true Da Vinci Code manner, Roger will insist that the novel is filled with coded references to the Authorship Question which were completely unnoticed by contemporaries and remained invisible until Roger typed "de Vere" into Google books, found the text and began to discover secret signs in every word. Paul B (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Copying this info here as well. The 18th century "first" reference is not Willmont or Common Sense. It's Goulding, and it is cited to two mainstream RS. McMichael, George, and Edgar M. Glenn. Shakespeare and His Rivals: A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy (1962), 56; and The Great Controversy", Friedman, pgs 1-4, Cambridge University Press. Here is the direct quote from the original source to which the references refer: "Shakespear has frightened three parts of the World from attempting to write; and he was no Scholar, no Grammarian, no Historian, and in all probability could not write English. Although his Plays were historical, as I have heard, the History part was given him in concise and short, by one of these Chuckles that could give him nothing else." This is the "first" reference to the issue according to two mainstream reliable sources. Whether one agrees with them or not is immaterial. Trying to move the beginnings of the issue to the 19th century just would not be accurate.Smatprt (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If you actually take the trouble to read the book (which almost certainly was not written by Goulding, btw), you will see that it is a satire in which the author claims that too much reading creates all sorts of problems. He jokingly speaks of Shakespeare employing an historian to provide his scenarios, which he then built upon with flights of poetic fancy. That's what "the History part was given him in concise and short" means. And why would he be given this precis unless he was the one writing it up as a play? The passage makes no sense otherwise. The phrase "could not write English" refers to the fact that his language does not conform to 18th century scholarly ideals of proper grammar and diction, a familiar argument at the time, and fairly obvious if you read the context. It's clear that he in no way denies that Shakespeare wrote the plays, since his satirical point is to say that many young men of his own day could write as well if they were not intimidated by his reputation: "Why may not another be better than him? There are ten thousand better Scholars, for he was none; and I am assured there are an hundred Shakespears in England at this time; but this way of talking frightens them. I don't tell you they are at the University; their beautiful thoughts are being driven out by being stuf with History." This is the standard 17-18 century view that Shakespeare was an untutored poetic genius whose creative fancy overcame his lack of scholarship. It's essentially no different from Milton's contrast between the "learned" Jonson and the "native" Shakespeare, but given a comic-satirical spin. The fact that RS's refer to the book does not mean that they endorse the claim that it asserts that Shakespeare did not write the plays, and it certainly does not mean it can be presented here as undisputed fact.Paul B (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read it, and I agree with most of what you say. But, Paul, isn't that beside the point? The question that need sourcing is "when did the authorship issue begin", and we have two reliable sources that say it started with Golding (yes -probably not his real name, but that is not the issue). The sources say the issue started then and that is exactly what we are trying to source. We can all interpret the original source however we want but that is pointless. It's what the reliable sources say, isn't it? Be fair, isn't that what you have argued in the past?Smatprt (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that if an RS says something then it can be presented as undisputed fact. If that were so we could assert as fact that Oxfordianism is wrong, since several RS's say so. RS's can also contradict each-other, of course. That's why we only present as fact what is undisputed - which is that authorship debate started in the mid 19th century. We can then say that some writers argue that earlier texts can be interpreted to imply a debate. What's wrong with that? In any case you have not provided evidence that either of your RS's say that authorship debate began with this publication, indeed Tom has provided evidence below that one says no such thing. Paul B (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

To quote page 56 of McMichael/Glenn "It seems that the first man to question Shakespeare's sole authorship of the plays was a certain 'Captain Golding'. In a small book called An Essay Against Too Much Reading, published in 1728, he hinted at one of the anti-Stratfordian arguments." This is the beginning of the chapter "Signs of Doubt and Their History", which is a chronological history of the controversy. It then goes on to 1769 (Common Sense), and then 1785 (Wilmont). McMichael/Glenn document the entire controversy in this chapter. Smatprt (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It refers to sole authorship, and in any case, as I say, that's one person's view. Other sources say that the opposite, as Tom has shown, hence the reason for saying what I just suggested. Paul B (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's discuss

Here's the version of the lead (not lede; I need to stop using journalistic jargon and adopt Wikipedia conventions) I put up yesterday, with the exception of one change to accomodate Smatprt's objection, the deletion of "nonprofessional". I've stripped out the references for clarity, but they all can be accessed and read here.

As I commented in the edit, everything important is in this lead. What I left out, such as what supporters are called, other details and accusations of dishonesty, are unnecessary for the introduction and more adequately addressed in the article anyway.

If need be, let's discuss it sentence-by-sentence, beginning at the top and working our way down. I want to make it clear that we need to agree at the beginning that all objections need to be based on accuracy of the statements, verifiability, and neutrality according to Wikipedia policy. Otherwise we're all just spinning our wheels here and we might as well petition to delete the article. I also want to make it clear that I intend to post the results after a sufficient amount of time has passed for a discussion, so don't sandbag during the discussion and then try to revert after the fact unless you want to be the subject of a complaint.

The Shakespeare authorship question is the controversy that dates back to the mid-19th century over whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers. The theory of alternate Shakespeare authorship has almost no academic support, though it has gained a small but thriving following, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics. Those who question the traditional attribution, known as "anti-Stratfordians", believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.

Anti-Stratfordians say that the sketchy biography of the actor, playhouse sharer and investor baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford lacks concrete documentary evidence that he was the author and question how a commoner from a small 16th-century country town could have gained the life experience and the aristocratic attitude that they perceive in Shakespeare’s works. They say there is no evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford received the extensive education necessary to gain the wide learning or master the extensive vocabulary they claim is exhibited by the plays and poems and say that the personal attributes inferred from the poems and plays do not fit the known biographical facts of his life. Sceptics look for correspondences between the content of the plays and poems and the known education, life experiences, and reputation of the alternative candidate they support. Of the more than 50 candidates proposed, major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, the current frontrunner, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories.

The vast majority of academics specializing in Shakespearean studies, called "Stratfordians" by sceptics, pay little attention to the topic and consider it a fringe theory. They dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories of alternate authorship as fanciful because of their failure to comply with orthodox methods of research and their lack of direct supporting historical evidence, and say they smack of snobbery or elitism. They argue that anti-Stratfordians discard the most direct testimony in favor of their own theories, overstate Shakespeare's erudition, and anachronistically misread the times he lived in, thereby rendering their method of identifying the author from the works circular, unscholarly and unreliable. They point to the testimony of his fellow actors and fellow playwright Ben Jonson in the First Folio and the inscription on Shakespeare's grave monument in Stratford as incontrovertible evidence for the authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford. Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records—the type of evidence used by literary historians that Stratfordians note is lacking for any other alternative candidate—are also cited to support the mainstream view.

Now before we get started discussing each individual sentence, does anybody think that more information needs to be in the lead? Is it all covered? We'll discuss particular sentences and means of expression later, but for right now we need to know if the information adequately does the job as outlined at WP:LEAD. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

First, here is the version that we were discussing. It is the only version endorsed by the uninvolved editors that have commented here so it would be wrong to simply dismiss it out of hand. It is by far the most compact and cuts over 170 words from the present version. Much of that by deleting questioning of each others standards and honesty from both sides. Tom's very partisan cutting only deleted anti-strat material (in several places), but, amazingly, left intact the snobbery accusations that have nothing to do with the issue. I suggest we use this as a starting point.Smatprt (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The Shakespeare authorship question refers to ongoing debate about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers.[1] First alluded to in the early 18th century, the issue has gained wide public attention, though little support from the academic community. Alternate candidates include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support,[4] statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories.[5] Of the numerous candidates proposed,[6] both Oxford and Bacon have won major followings and notable supporters.[7] Those who identify the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, or Christopher Marlowe as the main author of Shakespeare's plays are commonly referred to as Oxfordians, Baconians, or Marlovians respectively.

• Authorship doubters such as Charlton Ogburn and Diana Price believe that, for centuries, Shakespeare biographers have suspended orthodox methods and criteria to weave inadmissible evidence into their histories of the Stratford man. Most skekptics, known as "anti-Stratfordians", believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name, used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.[8] They assert that the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford was more likely a front man (9), believing that the personal characteristics inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man[10] and that he lacked the extensive education necessary to write Shakespeare’s works. They question how he could have gained the life experience and adopted the aristocratic attitude portrayed in the works. Alternate authorship researchers focus on the relationship between the content of the plays and poems and a candidate’s known education, life experiences, and recorded history.[11]

• Most mainstream Shakespeare academics, often referred to as "Stratfordians", pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories. They say most anti-Stratfordian works fail to comply with orthodox methods of research and lack supporting historical evidence. Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject. Stratfordians note that the authorship of Shakespeare of Stratford is supported with two main planks of evidence: testimony by his fellow actors and fellow playwright Ben Jonson in the First Folio, and the inscription on Shakespeare's grave monument in Stratford.[10] Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view.[12] Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[13]'Smatprt (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

After reading the examples of other theories and how they are discussed by the mainstream, I added back in "They say most anti-Stratfordian works fail to comply with orthodox methods of research and lack supporting historical evidence.". This is consistent with how those other examples show this being handled, without resorting to name calling and "overly harsh" criticism. I also added in the line which summarizes Price 's statements about previous biographers. Now both sides have made their points about methods without getting nasty about it. Smatprt (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no discussion going on and it was deadlocked. As to the "overly harsh" criticism, as I said, we can argue about the language, etc., later. We need to establish some type of methodical system to get this done. We need to deal with each issue in order instead of you using one objection in one section to stop any changes. If you want to compare each sentence between the two version and we discuss the differences and come to an agreement, I'll go along with that. But first we need to know if everybody is in agreement about the information contained. Is there any more that needs to be put in?

And please quit with the accusations of partisan bias. We all know which side everybody is on, but I'm trying to work on a properly-referenced, accurate depiction of the authorship question as it is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. If you don't want to do that, fine, but your tactics are very tiresome and frankly I'm just tired of your incessant whining. And I suggest you do a word count before accusing me of tilting the focus. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The versions we were discussing, User:Smatprt were two. The lead as it is, and your proposed shorter version. I suggested cutting the last two paras (3rd. version, split vote), and Tom then gave his version (4).

The bolded version ignores everything argued against it over the past few days. Unacceptable. It is as if the only version you wish to propose as a substitute is your own templated one, with constant chops and changes that ignore serious criticisms made of parts of its content in the meantime. I see no consensus building here but simply a refusal by yourself to budge from a structure that has serious problems.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And exactly what do you mean by "It is the only version endorsed by the uninvolved editors that have commented here"? Why would any uninvolved editors endorse anything, and if they did, who cares? And for that matter, please show us these "endorsements". Tom Reedy (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom and Smatprt, I like the idea of starting at the top and going one sentence at at time. Here are your two first sentences, first Tom's, then Smatprt's:

"The Shakespeare authorship question is the controversy that dates back to the mid-19th century over whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers."

"The Shakespeare authorship question refers to ongoing debate about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers."

The main difference between them is that Tom's includes "dates back to the mid-19th century". I don't see why it's important to include this in the first sentence. It can be dealt with in the history section. So I propose the following, based on Smatprt's version, but with "the controversy" substituted for "ongoing debate", shown in brackets:

"The Shakespeare authorship question refers to [ongoing debate] the controversy about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers."

How's that? Schoenbaum (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be in the first sentence, but it should be somewhere in the lead. I put it in the first sentence because the second got too crowded. So if we leave it out from the first sentence it needs to be in the second. I used "controversy" because it covers it all, and it wasn't actually a debate until some time after the first alternative theory was published, in 1846, IIRC. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, you need to revert your change to the lead. You've go no consensus to change the balance of the lead and you did not discuss it. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, what on earth are you talking about? How can anyone change the balance without adding or deleting a word? I switched graphs 2 and 3, as proposed by Nishidani and supported by you. Nishidani even quoted the appropriate policy. Did you not read the reordered version, or was your statement just a knee-jerk reaction to what you thought I did, as opposed to what I actually did? Not one work was deleted or reverted. This is in contrast to recent edits make by Nishidani that did, in fact, remove material without consensus. Smatprt (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Show me the discussion where Nishidani proposed and I supported you combining graphs and switching the order in this version.

And it you don't know how precedence and weighting affects balance, you need a caretaker. But of course you don't; you're just being disingenuous in the classic Smatprt passive-aggressive pattern. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, here is Nishidani's edit. See his Edit Summary (Repositing para 2. The lead should expound the doubter position, and then conclude with the standard mainstream position, and not switch from one to another) where he sums up policy reason:[[1]]

And here is your support of it "I also like the way Nishidani rearranged the introduction where the anti-Strat material came before any of the Strat stance. I think that would read much better" from this edit here: [[2]]Smatprt (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

So you go back to an edit from six days ago from Nishidani's first round of edits, all of which you objected to and reverted, and claim that is the discussion in which we agreed you could change this particular edit? If you want to revert to that same edit, I have no objections at all. But you can't take commentary from one edit and say it applies to another. That is worse than disingenuous; that's dishonest, and unfortunately that has become your hallmark among all the editors who have tried to work with you. You need to learn better ways of editing if you want to continue editing this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you are acting like 6 days ago was last year. Or that just because both of you said something 6 days ago - "well, that's ancient history and I don't feel that way anymore"! Can you step back just for a brief moment and look at your own behavior once in a while? You are just not correct here:

• I didn't object to "all" of the edits. And I stated so in the talk page after I reverted everything (which I did simply because of the sheer volume of edits without even a "hello" on the talk page). I then discussed my action at talk and after hearing from Nishdani, I went in and restored most of the non-lead edits, one of which I recast and one that I moved to a more appropriate location.

• And I said "I switched graphs 2 and 3, as proposed by Nishidani and supported by you", not that you "agreed" that I could make any "particular edit" out of the bunch. I was encouraged to go back and restore the edits I didn't have a problem with, which I did. Frankly, I overlooked this one. So what?

• You said "you can't take commentary from one edit and say it applies to another" - What are you talking about?? - the commentary was about the switching of the graphs. You said "I also like the way Nishidani rearranged the introduction where the anti-Strat material came before any of the Strat stance". How can you now claim that I have made a controversial edit? Have you completely lost it?Smatprt (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

These are your latest examples of my chronic dishonesty?? And, by the way, I'm not sure its a good idea to get into the whole dishonesty argument, given the number of times you have switched positions, this being another example. Do you really think you have the market on truth? Man, for the last 6 days, you have been all over the place. What the hell happened to you? Are you really sinking down to my supposed lower depths? Smatprt (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

'remove material without consensus'. You've been doing that since I've edited here. Pot-and-black kettle assertions.(b) 'consensus' is not a synonym for 'permission' granted by yourself. (c) I saw you editing the lead, and followed your example, assuming the liberty you take can be adopted with collegial equanimity.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Schoenbaum. That's (almost) fine, except 'controversy' and 'the' should be 'a', and with one adjustment heading the second sentence, i.e.,

"The Shakespeare authorship question refers to a debate about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers.". First raised(recorded) in the mid-nineteenth century . . .(the doubt, scepticism)'

 :::The crucial a for the is necessary for the simple reason that the fringe thinks it a controversy, whereas mainstream scholarship does not, a nuance the, perhaps tactically, obscures.Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

However, since the controversy is specified, the use of "the" is perfectly appropriate and sounds better to the ear. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tom on this, nothing to do with tactical, simply because as he says, it sound better to the ear. I would agree to either "debate" or "controversy". I'm also fine with going thru the versions line by line as Schoenbaum has initiated. Smatprt (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Tom on both points, and for the reasons he gives. So unless someone still has issues with it, I propose that we accept the following as the first sentence and move on:

"The Shakespeare authorship question refers to the controversy about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers."

I think you are both wrong, and frankly, on this, tin-eared. 'The controversy' refers to a fringe culture of amateurs mainly, who vigorously work on their theories, which, as we all agree, are almost ignored by mainstream scholarship. Therefore, one has to avoid language that would imply there is a 'controversy' or 'debate' between the two. As far as my reading over four decades allows me to surmise, for the mainstream there is no controversy, and no debate. 'A' controversy is quite different from 'the controversy' in terms of semantic nuance, 'a' being restrictive. 'Controversy' and 'debate' themselves are problematical, for it assumes two sides actively engaged in a quarrel over some shared body of knowledge. One side can controvert, but if the other side just ignores much of this pamphleteering, in house-debate and research, and most of the book length hypotheses, then it is not participating in, or even recognizing a controversy. Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Would someone else like to take a stab at the second sentence? Schoenbaum (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no consensus on the first.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "debate" was agreed to by the mainstream editors of the William Shakespeare article. To quibble about it now is just silly and makes it appear that Nishidani is so extremely partisan that he can't even acknowledge the state of the debate. Wells has recognized it and written about it, Matus has, Bates has, Schoenbaum has - to deny otherwise is just putting up needless roadblocks. Let's wrap up sentence one and move on to number two. Smatprt (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong about the usage at the William Shakespeare article; the word doesn't appear. I think "controversy" is a better description than debate. The debate didn't begin until the 20th century. The mainstream reaction until then was largely one of puzzlement and investigation until then, or if there was any debate, it wasn't all that publicised. I don't why you would have a problem with it. And two sides aren't necessarily required to bring up a controversial subject, nor is the subject totally ignored by academics. Let's stop trying to make points in the lead and try to dispassionately describe the topic.

And let's lose as much excess verbiage as we can, please, without being ungrammatical:"The Shakespeare authorship question is the controversy about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers."

As I wrote earlier, the controversy is sharply defined in the sentence and so "the" is appropriate. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying, Nishidani, is that only the mainstream academic view counts, and if they choose to say there's no "controversy," then there is none, regardless of any other consideration. That is a highly authoritarian position, and reveals an attitude of extreme snobbery and elitism. Any neutral, objective editor would reject it. Hope and Holston's The Shakespeare Controversy (sic), reviews the controversy's history in detail. The NY Times found the controversy sufficiently important to survey Shakespeare professors, and 6% said there's "good reason" for doubt, and 11% "possibly good reason." Scholars in other disciplines, and also the mainstream media, take it seriously. The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt names 20 prominent "past doubters" who said it was a valid controversy. Over 1,700 people have signed it, including over 300 academics, the largest number of whom were in "English Literature." Five Supreme Court Justices have expressed doubt. Yet you want to say that one party to the dispute -- mainstream academics -- should have the authority to say whether there is a "controversy" at all, despite their obvious conflict of interest. Your attempt to define it out of existence lacks anything resembling neutral POV, and you are outnumbered here 3:1. So unless your lone dissent gives you veto power, I think there is now a consensus. Schoenbaum (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying, Nishidani, is that only the mainstream academic view counts, and if they choose to say there's no "controversy," then there is none, regardless of any other consideration.’

There you go again, to quote Ronald Reagan. Wikipedia optimally counsels using the best resources and results of modern research, with quality imprints, coming from University-level experts in a given discipline. You impute to me something I never said, and don’t think. It’s typical of you guys to pretend to engage in dialogue, and then, distort your interlocutor’s words, fashioning out a slant that is not supported by the interlocutor himself, only then to engage in a ‘dialogue’ between your own view, and that which you spuriously attribute to the other person. Interlocutors are merely starting points to return to the drone of a monologue intérieur whose contents are in recitative, and lack all dialectical development.

I don’t subscribe to the view you impute to me, for the simple reason that there is no ‘mainstream’ academic ‘view’. Any discipline will, over a vast range of issues, have a range of views or interpretations, but these views are provisory hypotheses, struggling to ‘save the phenomena’, that is account rationally and methodically for the available data, without going beyond that data. Even if a consensus of major probability takes hold, (each generation has it’s tendential consensus about the question of Homer’s identity), the existence of that consensus does not mean that the ‘establishment’ thereby closes its eyes to all other tenable, alternative hypotheses. It merely means that in the current state of research, peers prefer one interpretation over several others, as best accounting for the known evidence.

This is no place to give you a recap freshman’s course on what mainstream scholarship is about. It is not about securing a perspective immune to criticism, as your words imply. Since you and the clique pushing this wacko theory's slant in here don't seem to have much of a grasp on what the phrase 'mainstream scholarship' means, I'll have to elucidate.

It is not a matter of backing an academic 'view', therefore. Primarily, those who practice 'mainstream scholarship' are required to master a 'method'. Once you have mastered the method, and learnt about simple matters, such as the extreme dangers of reading from a work of fiction into the otherwise unrecorded life of its author, you are free to draw whatever conclusions you believe the available evidence may warrant, but on condition you do not allow inferences from a fiction to controvert the established documentary record of the real life. You come to appreciate that, especially regarding distant historical landscapes, where facts are few and far between, one may form interpretative hypotheses, but they remain, and ever will be hypotheses, perhaps even just so stories, barring rare discoveries that may confirm them, from the sands of Egypt, such as the Oxyrhynchus papiri, or the Mawangdui manuscripts of the Tao Te Ching, inclusive of a wide range of new ancient textual material, or Aurel Stein's discoveries in the Mogao Caves, or Pyotr Kozlov 's unearthing of Tangut manuscripts at Khara-Khoto, or Martin Litchfield West's analysis of the Derveni papyrus. Scholars adjust their curiosity to the facts, and the tradition of commentary on them by peers. They do not, if they wish to be remembered and read, invent scenarios from a paranoid reading of documents, parsed and perused, often without any understanding of the historical conventions, through the spectacles of the hermeneutics of suspicion.

Only with extreme rarity can one invent, and, under scrupulous peer review that may last for centuries, be accorded the palm for an intuition otherwise unsupported by documentary testimony. Scaliger once emended a defective Greek text (Euripides’s Hercules Furens, line 149) by coining a word (κοινεών) to fit it which was, however, unattested in the surviving corpus of Greek literature, which is vast. Later generations have lauded his genius, and accepted the imaginary Greek as probably what Euripides really wrote, though there is no evidence for it. Nietzsche himself once made a suggestion along similar lines. Unless my memory errs, the conjectured word, otherwise unattested, turned up in the rubbish dump at Oxyrhynchus, confirming the genius of his linguistic divining powers. Nothing like this is detectable in the trivial hackwork of the schoolteacher from Gateshead, or the vast hallucinations of the author of Merrill’s Marauders.

Scholarship is a method, not a content. Any hypothesis is possible and reviewed, if it employs non-circular reasoning, shows a mastery of textual-hermeneutic methods, and is congruent with the known facts, as opposed to hunches cooked up by a paranoid suspicions of a vast cover-up. If the result of method tells us there is nothing in the records that would lend support to the hackwork amateur’s dilly-dallying daydreams of an alternative story, then one ignores the chat in the wings about Bacon and de Vere, esp. when any humdrum versifier today could trot out sonnets better than any written by the historical de Vere, but no poet of distinction can graze Shakespeare’s best.

This is all obvious, and a tedious waste of time, since it will fall on deaf ears. But, well, I grit my teeth in obeisance to policy, WP:AGF, etc. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nishidani, for your gracious agreement to the proposed wording of the first sentence. I believe we've now reached a consensus, at least among the four of us, on the following: LP1S1 (i.e, "Lead, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1"): "The Shakespeare authorship question refers to the controversy about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers." Wonderful, progress! Shall we move on to LP1S2 and LP1S3 below? Schoenbaum (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

289 words, not counting notes.

The Shakespeare authorship question refers to a debate over whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers. The query arose in the mid-19th century and has recently won a small but thriving following, though almost no academic endorsement. "Anti-stratfordians" believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pseudonym used by the author to hide the writer's real identity. Major nominees include Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, William Stanley, the 6th Earl of Derby and Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, the most popular alternative candidate.

Sceptics claim orthodox scholars have a vested interest in the traditional view, and think the man baptised as "Shakspere" lacked the education to create the body of work attributed to him. They argue the personal qualities they infer from the works, and attribute to the author don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man. They also argue that it is hard to understand how an Elizabethan commoner could familiarize himself with the foreign languages, court life, politics, mythology, law, and contemporary science evinced in the plays.

The vast majority of academic specialists, called "Stratfordians" by sceptics, generally ignore or dismiss these alternative proposals as fringe theories, arguing they fail to comply with standard research methodology, lack contemporary evidence to support them and are elitist. They hold that sceptics underestimate the quality of learning available at provincial grammar schools and that they discard the most direct testimony regarding William Shakespeare in order to favour their own theories.

In 2007, actors Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance unveiled a 'Declaration of Reasonable Doubt', signed by over 1,300 people, to spur research into the question.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Despite this, interest in the debate is growing, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and some academics." I've got a problem with this. I was going to bring it up while methodically discussing each sentence but apparently that is not going to happen.

Where does the data for this statement originate? I know of no survey done among independent scholars, theatre professionals or academics that indicates growing interest in the question. As far as I know, the NYTimes survey was the first of its kind, and no comparative data exists. Just because the most vocal adherents are independent scholars, theatre professionals and some academics, does not mean that interest in the debate is growing among those groups. Is every person who's read a book on it an "independent scholar?" I'll wager interst is growing faster among theatre amateurs than professionals. And exactly how many academics are we talking about among those who bothered to answer an e-mail survey? Tom Reedy (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of evidence that "interest is growing", but there is clearly an increasing attempt by Oxfordians to claim respectability for their case by creating conferences, publishing etc. In this respect there is more literature being created. Also 'mainstream' academics do show interest to the extent that sociology of interpretation is incresingly an aspect of scholarship, so the authorship controversies take their place as an aspect of the historical reception and interpretation of Shakespeare. Paul B (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well you're both right of course, interest is growing because of the internet and networking by publicitarians, but the allusion there was to the Jacobi show, which, as above, I wished to synthesize in a line for the last line of the lead, and then send that whole paragraph on 2007 to the bottom of the page, where it properly belongs.Have adjusted to my original proposal for the last line, which I've now found. That is documented. I elided '250 academics', which is deceptive, since most of them have no competence in the field, and with the figure there the lead would be insinuating these names constitute the minority of academics in mainstream scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually think this version is a bit too specific in some places and that some information is not in its proper place. I'm busy cutting trees today that were downed by the snowstorm, but sometime this evening or tomorrow I'll chime in with some suggestions. And the declaration was a flop. 1,300 people signed it the first year and they've added 400 in the two years since. I suppose you could call that "growing," but as far as a percentage of the three groups named I doubt it even approaches 1 per cent. The mortality rate is probably higher than that. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, feel free simply to edit my proposal (without of coure abandoning your own). If on the date of declaration it was only 1300 undersigned, then I will have to adjust, for that date, then.Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom and Nishidani, we agreed to take it one sentence at a time, starting from the top. You both contributed, then abandoned the effort without consensus, raising multiple issues out of order. Tom says, "I was going to bring it up while methodically discussing each sentence but apparently that is not going to happen," but he gives no reason for saying that. Smatprt and I both responded to his and Nishidani's last comments to the first sentence above, but neither has responded. I have no problem if you want to move on to the next sentence, one sentence at a time, but we'll have a hard time reaching a consensus if you're going to insist on ignoring our agreements on process.

Moving on to the second sentence, Nishidani (above) proposes the following:

"The query arose in the mid-19th century and has recently won a small but thriving following, though almost no academic endorsement."

I have a problem with "query." Tom, Smatprt and I agreed to "controversy," above, so that's what it should be called here. I also think we should add "modern" in front of "controversy." I have a problem with "recently won a small but thriving following." That makes it sound like the controversy did not have even a "small" following until recently, which isn't true. I also disagree with "almost no academic endorsement." That was true initially, but now it would be more correct to say "little" academic endorsement. So I propose the following:

"The modern controversy arose in the mid-19th century and has continued with little interruption to the present day. It now has a small but thriving following, but little academic endorsement."

How's that? Schoenbaum (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Forget that 'modern'. It assumes the unproven and hypothetical view, based on circular textual inferences, that there was a debate when no historical documents refer to one. Sources your side introduced say 'vast majority' re academia. It is euphemistic to spin this into 'little academic endorsement'.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The theory of alternate Shakespeare authorship dates back to the mid-19th century. It has almost no academic support, but it has gained a small but vocal advocacy. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree to drop "modern." Tom, your first sentence above is okay with me. I still find "almost no academic support" too strong, with a total of 17% of Shakespeare professors saying it has some legitimacy per the NY Times survey. I still prefer "little" academic support. Saying "it has gained a small but vocal advocacy" is unacceptable to me. That trivializes the number, prominence and quality of scholarship of many doubters. What's wrong with "but has gained a small but thriving following"? Schoenbaum (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The theory of alternate Shakespeare authorship dates back to the mid-19th century. It has little academic support, but has gained a small but thriving following. Schoenbaum (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Answer me these questions: How many academics have written books that support the authorship cause? Now how many have written books that support the traditional attribution?

Do you know what that means? It means "almost no academic support." Answering a survey does not translate into support, academic or otherwise. It's an opinion sampler, nothing else.

Now let's assume that all 300 academics who signed the declaration were English professors or instructors. Do you know how many English teachers or professors are in the United States alone? The other day Nishidani said there were 7,000, IIRC. I think that's low, counting the non-PhD instructors who do a lot of the grunt teaching, but let's use that number. Do the math, and you'll see that 4.3 per cent of English professors (and that's assuming they all are English professors) signed the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt.

Do you know what that means? It means "almost no academic support."

And 17 per cent of those polled did not say it had some legitimacy. 6 per cent said yes; 11 percent said "possibly". "Possibly" is not "yes"; "possibly" is "possibly"; it means conceivably or imaginable.

Do you know what 6 per cent means in a poll with a margin of error of 5 per cent? It means "almost no academic support."

And please tell me how small but vocal advocacy differs from small but thriving following in meaning, or how the former trivializes the number (how do you trivial 6 per cent?), prominence, or quality of the (not so many) doubters. I'll tell you one way they differ: your phrase is awkward, with a verb turned into an adjective by the use of -ing that modifies a gerund, a verb turned into a noun by the use of -ing. In addition, one is not a "follower" of anti-Stratfordism; one is an advocate of it. Look them up in a dictionary.

My phrase, on the other hand, is pure poetry. It sings! (Not that I'm immodest about it.)

We're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia article on the Shakespeare authorship question, not debating it. Will you and Smatprt please get over the fact that it is what it is, not what you wish it to be in some shining future. and yes, this article is supposed to reflect the scholarly consensus. If anyone has trouble defining what that is, he or she doesn't need to be editing this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, it obviously depends on the meaning of "academic support." The number of books published by Strat vs. non-Strat academics is not a good measure because the issue is stigmatized in academia. Also, the major publishers have a vested interest in the status quo. So not only do dissenters have little to gain for their efforts, they risk their academic careers. It isn't a level playing field in academia. That's why a better measure of the true support of academics is a confidential survey by a reputable firm under the auspices of an organization like the NY times. It's an objective measure by measurement specialists, unlike your biased alternative. Re: the 300+ academic signatories to the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, the number is infinitely greater than the number of signatories to the Stratfordian declaration of the reasons why there is "no room for doubt" about the identity of the author because orthodox scholars have never written such a declaration, put it before the public, and asked those who agree with it to sign it. They would rather continue bilking the public with an endless stream of so-called "biographies," like Will in the World, which are pure fiction. So until you write a counter-declaration and get at least 300+ orthodox Shakespeare scholars to sign it, my response to your claim that there is "almost no academic support" for the authorship question is "put up or shut up." It's easy to just assume, without evidence, that all Shakespeare scholars who haven't signed our declaration agree with you, but prove it. Let's see how many Shakespeare scholars are willing to sign your declaration, if you can even write one. Schoenbaum (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever read a better example of the speciousness and special pleading of anti-Stratfordian reasoning. It's too bad you can't enjoy the irony. "infinitely greater", eh? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal accusations aside, it looks like we'll be at sentence number two for a little while unless we all give a little! This is the current line:

• "Recorded debate on the issue goes back to the mid-19th century[2] and, in recent decades, the subject has gained a thriving following, though little academic support."

Back when we were still talking about the 18th century, I had previously suggested:

• First alluded to in the early 18th century, the issue has gained wide public attention, though little support from the academic community.

Taking into account the latest versions by Tom and Schoenbaum, as well as the earlier version, I have some comments and suggestions. First, "Thriving" sounds a bit like an ant colony and "vocal advocacy" (beautiful as it is) sounds too much like the squeaky wheel syndrome. Looking at the comments about the different kinds of supporters the issue does have, and the various walks of life they represent, it struck me that its the diversity of the supporters that is what is notable. From noted writers and artists to supreme court justices strikes me as a pretty diverse crowd. I would therfore like to suggest the term "diverse following". I do feel we should mention the extensive media (public) attention which is well documented and notable as well. And we can cut "Shakespeare" from the line, as the first line tells us that quite clearly. I would also offer a compromise to "very little" to break the stalemate between Tom and Schoenbaum so the sentence would read:

The theory of alternate authorship dates back to the mid-19th century. It has very little academic support, but has gained wide public attention and a diverse following of proponents.

What do we all think of that?Smatprt (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Well said, Smatprt. It's both true and relevant that the issue "has gained wide public attention and a diverse following" despite having relatively little academic support. I support this version. Schoenbaum (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. There's no indication of the size of the following, and coming right after "wide public attention" gives an impression of wide acceptance among the population at large. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, the extent of the following and public interest can in fact be gauged by any number of measures, including, for example, the large body of discussion which has taken place on these wikipedia forums, or the number of articles in various types of journals, popular an academic, which have appeared on the subject. I disagree that the wording proposed "gives an impression of wide acceptance among the public at large." It means just what it says; that the public is intrigued by the issue. --BenJonson (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's easy to address: The theory of alternate authorship dates back to the mid-19th century. It has very little academic support, but has gained wide public attention and a small, diverse following of proponents. Schoenbaum (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Enthusiasts or supporters would be a better term, since only a small percentage of the group actively promotes the cause. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom's version is fine by me. As to your suggestion above, (a) 'Very little' = 'virtually no' (RS say this). (b) 'Wide public attention' is a fantasy, no independent RS support it (c) there's no need for 'a small, diverse following of proponents'. Outside the magic circle, and I've asked around quite a bit over the decade, no one seems to know much if anything about Looney, Ogburn and co. But then again, very few seem to know much about Shakespeare, or what is entailed by the exercise of scholarly method. Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tom about dropping "proponents." If "'very little' = 'virtually no'" means they're equivalent as far as you're concerned Nishidani, then you should have no objection to the former, and I strongly prefer it because I think it's more correct. I agree that "wide publish attention" is overstatement, but "increased public attention in recent decades" would be accurate. Hope and Holston's The Shakespeare Controversy documents the increase in attention since 1984. So I propose: The theory of alternate authorship dates back to the mid-19th century and, in recent decades, has gained increased public attention and a diverse following, but very little academic support. Schoenbaum (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I used = as a translating =, not as an equivalence =. 'Very little' is quite distinct, semantically, from 'virtually no' which is my way of paraphrasing the WP:RS referring to the 'vast majority' (Niederkorn). Hope that clears things up.

Schoenbaum and BJ, could you please least endeavour to suggest article text that conforms to polished English (I've given up on the other chap). I.e, 'alternate authorship'. All that phrase does is inform literate readers that its drafter can't distinguish the quite distinct meanings of 'alternate' and 'alternative'. 'Alternate authorship', fa Chrissake, means 'one author succeeding another in the composition of Shakespeare's works', meaning, for you guys, that de Vere was succeeded by Bacon, was succeeded by Marlowe, and Doiby, etc. Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nishidani, that does clear things up. I'm willing to accept Wm. Niederkorn's "vast majority," but not your paraphrase, "virtually no," which I think overstates it. Re: "The theory of alternate Shakespeare authorship," that was Tom's suggestion, which I accepted; but I agree it's incorrect, so I propose the following: Open debate of the issue dates to the mid-19th century and, in recent decades, it has gained increased public attention and a diverse following; but the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars dismiss it. Schoenbaum (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes - Thanks Nishi for point that out - and thanks to Schoenbaum for pointing out the the horrible writing that Nishi complains of actually originated with Tom! Rather funny turn, don't you think?? In any case, I would agree to the latest wording as proposed by Schoenbaum. By the way, Nishi - who is Doiby???Smatprt (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Once there's agreement on the second sentence, hopefully there will be less debate over the third. I propose the following: Those who question the traditional attribution believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name used by the true author, or authors, to keep the writer's identity secret. I've dropped "known as 'anti-Stratfordians'" from this sentence because I think it belongs further down in the lead. Schoenbaum (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this solves all problems:

The theory of alternative Shakespeare authorship dates back to the mid-19th century. The vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars dismiss it, but it has attracted extensive public attention and a diverse non-specialist following. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Non-specialist" doesn't really work, as some followers are indeed specialists. It's not needed anyhow since we've gone with "the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars" (specialists). I think Schoenbaums last alternative still works best. It's a bit shorter and is a tad more accurate, as you have demonstrated that it's "debate" that dates to the 19th century. The theory itself, dates to the 18th (according to the references supplied). Also, we don't need "theory of alternate Shakespeare authorship", as it's repetitive of line 1. And in this version, "diverse following" is directly followed by "vast majority..." so the "non-specialists" addition is not needed.

• Open debate of the issue dates to the mid-19th century and, in recent decades, it has gained increased public attention and a diverse following; but the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars dismiss it.

However, if Tom insists on the dismissal first, we could go with:

• Dismissed by the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars, the issue, which dates to the 18th century, has gained increased public attention and a diverse following.

That one is shortest, compacted to a single sentence, and gets away from when "debate" started. The references say it dates back to the 18th century, so I'm not sure why we just don't say that and get away from when "public debate" started. If we do that we could also shorten Schoenbaums and go with:

• The issue dates to the 18th century and, in recent decades, has gained increased public attention and a diverse following; but the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars dismiss it.

I could do with either one, and the more I think about it, the more I support saying 18th century and losing the whole "public debate" issue. It's more accurate and reflects what the mainstream references on the William Shakespeare page actually says. Smatprt (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if the academic consensus comes first or last, as long as it complies with WP:FRINGE (“Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community," and "The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field.”) and WP:UNDUE (“In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.”)

Stating that the idea goes back to the 18th century is not correct, though, so we have to stick with the 19th century debate origin. (I think it is unknowable when the idea first began, anyway.) Both John Rollett and Dan Wright have given good evidence that the Wilmot material is a 20th century forgery, and proof will soon be published, as you know, so we shouldn’t have it wrong just because sources that say so are still out there. According to WP:IRS, “some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field.”

Also the word “increased” is vague, without context, and implies upward movement (however slight) that is not quantified in any reliable source that I know of. “Extensive” I think describes it adequately without implying anything further than that.

I do agree with your other comments about unnecessary verbiage. But I insist there be some indication of the relative size of the following, as I said above in regards to WP:FRINGE. And somehow “diverse” doesn’t really seem like the right word; it has come to mean multi-ethnic. How about another type of descriptor, such as “energetic” or “committed?” So trying again:

• The theory dates back to the mid-19th century. The vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars dismiss it, yet it has attracted extensive public attention and a small but committed following.

• The vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars dismiss the theory, which dates back to the mid-19th century. Even so, it has attracted extensive public attention and a small but committed following.

• The theory dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted extensive public attention and a small but committed following, although it is dismissed by the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.

What I don’t like about the last one is the passive tense. 12.69.177.21 (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, don't jump the gun on this process. If you want to count "An Essay against Too Much Reading" as a pioneer anti-Stratfordian work, I suggest you read this. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read it. Odd that Matus ignores this quote about Shakespeare: "in all probability, could not write English". That's a direct statement. More importantly for this discussion, Matus makes it look like the reference is Oxfordian. It's not. I am citing 2 mainstream RS and (besides) it reflects what is actually in the article:

• The first direct statements of doubt about Shakespeare of Stratford's authorship were made in the 18th century, when unorthodox views of Shakespeare were expressed in satirical and allegorical works. In An Essay Against Too Much Reading (1728) by a "Captain" Golding, Shakespeare is described as merely a collaborator who "in all probability cou'd not write English".[59] In The Life and Adventures of Common Sense (1769) by Herbert Lawrence, Shakespeare is portrayed as a "shifty theatrical character ... and incorrigible thief".[60] In The Story of the Learned Pig (1786) by an anonymous author described as "an officer of the Royal Navy", Shakespeare is merely a front for the real author, a chap called Pimping Billy.

As we have both reminded each other, it's not whether we agree with the sources. In fact the 1728 reference comes from 2 mainstream RS: McMichael & Glenn, pg 56, and "The Great Controversy", Friedman, pgs 1-4, Cambridge University Press. So here are 2 mainstream sources that say the first direct statements date to the 18th century. We simply can't ignore them. We need to use 18th century (but I agree - not the word "debate") Smatprt (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"small" does not work for me - how is that defined? In relation to what? We could be specific and say "thousands of", since the declaration is over 1700 and that is only one group. Regarding "committed" or "energetic", neither is really a cause for notability. For that reason, I still like diverse - which I can't see being taken as multi-racial in this context. It's the diversity of the proponents that is often commented on, isn't it? I do support your use of "extensive", though. That's one more word, at least :)

So here's a shot:

• The theory dates back to the 18th century. It has attracted extensive public attention and thousands of diverse proponents, although it is dismissed by the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars. Smatprt (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the theory most certainly does not date back to the 18th century, unless your definition of theory has upended the accepted English definition. A few comments in allegorical and humorous chap books does not a theory make.

You write: "Odd that Matus ignores this quote about Shakespeare: 'in all probability, could not write English'. That's a direct statement."

What's really odd is that you ignore the rest of the passage and its context, which Matus furnishes:

But men of very good understanding are frightened after reading so many beautiful things so well done. Shakespear has frightened three parts of the World from attempting to write; and he was no Scholar, no Grammarian, no Historian, and in all probability could not write English. Although his Plays were historical, as I have heard, the History part was given him in concise and short, by one of these Chuckles that could give him nothing else. Then Shake| spear, like the swift hawk that wings his way in pursuit of his game, takes his flight, and soars so much higher, that his vast lengths, with such variety, turns, and delightful changes, ravish all Spectators with admiration and amazing wonder.

It doesn't seem to me he says Shakespeare didn't write his plays. And another passage from the same book:

I will give you a short Account of Mr. Shakespear’s Proceeding; and that I had from one of his intimate Acquaintance. His being imperfect in some things was owing to his not being a Scholar, which obliged him to have one of those chuckle-pated Historians for his particular Associate, that could scarce speak a word but upon that subject; and he maintained him or he might have starved upon his History. And when he wanted any thing in his [the historian’s] Way, as his Plays were all Historical, he sent to him, and took down the heads what was for his purpose in Characters, which were thirty times as quick as running to the Books to read for it. Then with his natural flowing Wit, he worked it into all shapes and forms, as his beautiful thoughts directed. The other put it into Grammar; and instead of Reading, he stuck close to writing and study without Book. How do you think Reading could have assisted him in such great thoughts? It would only have lost time. When he found his thoughts grow on him so fast, he could have writ forever, had he lived so long.

Nor does that passage say Shakespeare didn't write his works, nor is Shakespeare "described as merely a collaborator", as the article states. Nor do the Friedmans reference call him such; in fact, they say it is a "probable reference back to Jonson's remarks about Shakespeare's scholarship, Heminge and Condell's testimony to his facility, and Shakespeare's own comment on the poetic imagination," and that "The trouble is that it is difficult to decide whether Goulding is in earnest; some scholars have declared the Essay to be an exercise in early eighteenth-century deflationary anti-heroics," so using them as a reference for your statement is wrenching their commentary out of context and is unacceptable, since WP:RS states that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article."

I don't have McMichael & Glenn to hand; I'd appreciate a direct quote.

In The Life and Adventures of Common Sense (1769) by Herbert Lawrence, yes, Shakespeare is portrayed as a "shifty theatrical character ... and incorrigible thief", but nowhere is it stated or even implied that he didn't write the plays and poems. In fact, it specifically states that he did so. And The Story of the Learned Pig is a work of fantasy, and "Pimping Billy" is only one of the several incarnations of the soul of a pig, so I suppose you would say that the work could be used as a serious reference to the theory of reincarnation, since you want to use it as a serious reference to this article. Is that correct? And is your interpretation of Wikipedia WP:RS is that the accuracy of the source is irrelevant as long as it is published in an WP:RS publication, despite other sources to the contrary?

Tom - I provided the direct quote above.

As far as "diverse", I don't care if you use it; I was just hunting for a better description. You and I both know what it means, but to the average person on the street it has come to mean ethnic diversity. But as I wrote earlier in this conversation, I insist that there be some type of description of the relative size of the anti-Stratfordian community, in accordance with WP:FRINGE, "The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field.” What would you suggest in place of "small?" Because I don't know of any other word that describes it without bringing in disparaging connotations. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why not just say "thousands"? I simply don't know how to qualify "small", "growing", "an increasing number", etc. And we could always qualify the 18th century reference:

• The first direct statements of doubt about the standard attribution were made in the 18th century, when unorthodox views were expressed in satirical and allegorical works. Since that time the issue has attracted extensive public attention and thousands of diverse proponents, although it is dismissed by the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.

or:

• The first direct statements of doubt about the standard attribution were made in the 18th century, when unorthodox views were expressed in satirical and allegorical works. Since that time the issue has attracted extensive public attention and an increasing number of diverse proponents, although it is dismissed by the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars. Smatprt(talk) 13:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You are not listening. You need to provide a reference from a reliable source acceptable to Wikipedia (IOW, not sources that promote anti-Stratfordianism) that explicitly agrees with the statement. Apparently you don't really understand WP:RS or how to use the sources, because you are taking them out of context and synthesizing sources for your statement.

You also fail to address any of my points above, i.e. random jokes and allegories don't constitute a theory and that outdated or wrong scholarly material can't be used, no matter how scholarly the source. You also keep returning back to versions that have already been rejected as unacceptable, such as the inclusion of "increasing" and "proponents." That indicates to me that you are not editing in good faith, which you need to mend immediately. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Almost nothing in either version is acceptable. You are fobbing off as established facts in mainstream RS, what are idle opinions by the usual mob in some fringe RS.Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of your sources are compilations of documents that simply include documents that have been used by commentators. That does not mean that they endorse any particluar interpretation of them. Your text interprets this as an endorsement of fact that there were "direct statements of doubt". You know this to be untrue. This is both inaccurate and a downright mirepresentation. Paul B (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the 18th vs. 19th century issue. Two documented sources mention possible doubts expressed in the 18th century. I agree that the lead should be consistent with the article, which mentions them. On the other hand, there was no open, continuous debate, and no "controversy," until the mid-19th century. Since the first sentence refers to it as a "controversy," the second sentence should refer to when the controversy began (I proposed "modern" controversy; Tom objected). That means referring to "open debate" beginning in the "mid-19th century," while still mentioning 18th century doubts in the history section. I hope this an acceptable compromise. I think this should be first because it gives historical perspective before describing the present state. If there's no basis for estimating the number of doubters, we should say something to that effect, while mentioning notable supporters. I agree that "diverse" is ambiguous and associated with racial and cultural diversity. Better to mention the notables. Saying that the "vast majority of academics" dismiss the issue meets the WP fringe requirement without otherwise characterizing doubters, either in number or qualifications. So my proposal, slightly revised from my last, is as follows:

Open debate of the issue dates back to the mid-19th century. In recent decades it has gained increased public attention and an unknown number of supporters, including prominent ones; but the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars dismiss it. Schoenbaum (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Unknown number of supporters" sounds quite odd. I wouldn't support that. Let's keep working...Smatprt (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Over 1,700 have signed the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, and there are surely many more who haven't yet read and signed it. That supports an estimate of "a few thousand." So that yields, "Open debate of the issue dates back to the mid-19th century. In recent decades it has gained increased public attention and perhaps a few thousand open supporters, including some prominent ones; but the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars dismiss it. Schoenbaum (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentration again. People who say that doubt is reasonable are not necessaarily people who support the theory that someone else wrote Shakespeare's plays, as is asserted in the phrase "few thousand open supporters". Is honesty so very difficult here. Why not just say that som many people have said that doubt isr reasonable? In itself it's just a generic assertion that debate is legitimate. Paul B (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No. This is getting beyond ridiculous. Since it appears we're never going to agree on the reference to the supporters, which wasn't in the original version anyway, let's just cut it.

Every word of this sentence is backed up by a WP:RS reference:

The theory dates back to the mid-19th century. The vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars dismiss it, but it has attracted extensive public attention.

Whether theory or debate, there is no doubt that the 18th C. references don't qualify (and even in the history section as it stands now), and as hints they can be mentioned in the history section.

As Smatprt reminded us earlier today, whether you like it or not is beside the point as long as it's based on reliable, up-to-date and accurate sources and accurately reflects the scholarly consensus of the topic. So let's close this one out and move on to the next sentence. At this rate it will be five years before we get done, if then.

You can stop misquoting me. I never used the language you are attributing to me.

You wrote "it's not whether we agree with the sources." My expansion is explicitly based on your comment, and I added the Wikipedia policy qualifications because I assume you want to comply with them.

But you can quote me on this - I do not agree to your latest rewrite and you do not have anything near a consensus for it. So we keep going....Smatprt (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there ever will be a consensus. One thing for sure, your usual tactic of wearing out your opponent is not going to work.

And let's archive this page while we're at it. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As you well know, we are supposed to state what the minority view is first, and when the topic first arose is certainly part of the minority view.

Could you restate that so it makes sense? Are you saying that since the minority claims that some early comments in allegorical and satirical books constitute "debate" or a "theory" that this article should state that as fact?

Or do you doubt that as well?

I doubt that very much. I suggest you read WP:FRINGE, which applies to this article, and pay special attention to such statements as "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." and "Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context, which context for this case is impossible to include in the lead.

In any case, here is what that would look like, along with some further tweaks to the rest of the sentence:

Skeptics believe that the first indirect statements of doubt were expressed through satirical and allegorical works in the 18th century. Since that time the issue has attracted extensive public attention and many notable supporters, although it is dismissed by the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.

So "small" is unacceptable to you because of its vagueness but "many" is perfectly fine. Again, I hate to question your good faith, but it doesn't seem to me that you really want to move forward on this, because you keep returning to language that has already been rejected.

And we're not writing about "indirect statements" in the lead, or at least we're not supposed to be. You can't jump abruptly from "indirect statements" to "extensive public attention"; it's nonsensical. We're supposed to be writing an article based on the documented history of the Shakespeare authorship question, not a promotional tract that uses innuendos and vague suppositions. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point about stating the minority viewpoint first. Smatprt's latest version is acceptable to me. Otherwise, if we still need to compromise, we do have documented facts about authorship doubters, so something could be said about them. If you want to stick strictly to facts, here's a version that does so: Open debate of the issue dates back to the mid-19th century. In recent decades it has gained increased public attention. Over 1,700 people have registered their doubt about the author's identity, including over 300 academics and a number of notables; but the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars dismiss the issue. Schoenbaum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC).

open debate is unacceptable, as said above. The adjective' is a trojan horse to sneak in an innuendo that disguises an unproven hypothesis entertained by non-academic fringe writers. It presumes there was a 'debate' hidden from public purview. There were 18th. doubts and debates about Shakespeare of Stratford's authorship of some things, scenes and acts, which didn't however imply that he was the author of the works (Two Gentlemen of Verona is a case in point). This is all fudged.

(2) the 1700 notable and nondescript (for Shakespearean studies) people detail should go in the last line of the lead, if it is to be included. Such detail, showcased on line 2, is frowned on, esp. at the outset of a lead.

(3) notable makes one laugh. Really you guys, we know that you aficionados of this fringe theory are all entranced by the seductions of an elite, whose amateurish opinions trounce science, but notable in English usage is distinctly dated, and smacks of the ancien regime in its death throes, of the well-heeled gentry (gentry that like dogs 'heeled' to the beck and call of their 'betters') or of 19th. orientalist literature on India, China and Japan, which customarily referred to pandits, rajas, provincial magnates in Han or Ching China, and Japanese samurai as 'notables'. It's accepted in historical writing about past societies, but not, to my eye and ear, customary for contemporary people in the limelight, since it implies to modern readers that those not under the strobe lights are not 'notable'. To call a group of modern names in the theatre, 'notables' is a pathetic anachronism.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are reading rather too much into the word. "Notable" and "non-notable" are terms in the lexicon of wiki-jargon, which is why they appear in many articles. We tend to absorb and regurgitate the jargon. Paul B (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Paul, unlike some folks in other quarters, I think it healthy among people who on a general question agree on what constitutes method and the state-of-the-art of any scholarly discipline, to vigorously disagree on details. It's true that 'notable' and 'non-notable' recur in wikitalk, but in the adjectival sense, not as substantives referring to a class of people. This article is about a 'notable' fringe theory: but to talk of its public supporters as 'notables' uses language the OED, now that I've checked, identifies with 18th century usage (Southey, Scott, Gladstone) or, in a secondary sense with the Ancient Regime, equally in 18th century historical writing, though one example cites it for England (Macaulay) speaking of the 17th century. It's not niggling. Shakespeare was careful about this kind of precision of language, unlike de Vere, and articles on him should strive to respect quality of style. Nishidani (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant that you are reading a snobbery into the choice of the word which may not be there. I would be happier with "well-known individuals" or "public figures". "Notables" does sound slightly silly. Paul B (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. 'Public figures from all walks of life' is what is meant, but that is not succinct, and rather colloquial, even if it is precisely what is meant here.Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Tom, if we use "skeptics believe" then it should not be "indirect" - it should be "direct" - but it could also be cut. And we could simply say "thousands" since 1,700 falls within that word's definition. Since you agreed to diverse, that could be restored in place of "notable". "Since that time was vague and cold be misconstrued, but "more recently" is accurate and brings it up to date, leaving:

Skeptics believe that the first statements of doubt were expressed through satirical and allegorical works in the 18th century. More recently, the issue has attracted extensive public attention and thousands of diverse supporters, although it is dismissed by the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.Smatprt (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Skeptics believe that the first statements of doubt were expressed through satirical and allegorical works in the 18th century.

As rephrased (endlessly) this is a recent inframural issue in de Verean 'studies', unless I am mistaken. It is therefore detail for the maintext and not the lead. Squirrilling it in there is inappropriate. The versions yonks back were on this relatively uncontroversial. (b) there is absolutely no support for 'extensive public attention' in any normal acceptance of that phrase (i.e. it is not a 'public' issue like WMDs or Michael Jackson's possible murder: it is a fringe rumour, with a lot of net hype, but negligible impact on broad public opinion) (c)'thousands' again, like the Declaration gambit,in the context of a Western public of some 500-700 million peoples is rather cute, but pathetic special pleading. The more this is revised, the worse it gets. All I see is a case for going back to the original proposals for the second sentence.Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We cannot reasonably say "sceptics believe", as if it were an article of faith. Individual "sceptics" believe different things, and may accept or reject any particular argument (just as Price rejects the arguments about the monument). Indeed these particular claims are all quite recent. The majority of significant writers on this topic never refer to these texts, nor did they play any role in the development of Baconian, Oxfordian and other theories. It would be more accurate to say that some writers have made these claims, and, at the appropriate place, to describe how and when they came to be made. Paul B (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. 'sceptics believe' indeed sounds like an oxymoron to anyone with an ear for English prose style, and your point's well-taken. As you make clear, there is a deep problem here in the practice of making a movement of collective opinion what are in fact many highly individual, or sectarian theories. I suggested before, and on the tails of Paul's comment here, suggest again, that, outside the lead certainly, all specific opinions from the fringe school be referred intext to their authors. The problem with the lead is that it is being written as though we were discussing deVere. Baconians and cipher fiends of various descriptions, who must be covered, do not generally engage in these historical polemic. The lead must reflect the whole world of dissent, and not the specific ideological positions of the de Verean cohort.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not support dating the start of the modern "controversy" to the 18th century in the lead. Nishidani, if you don't like "open debate," putting too much detail in the lead, "notables," etc, fine, but please offer constructive alternatives rather than just taking potshots at what the rest of us propose. Otherwise it appears that all you have in mind to do here is impede progress. I've tried to take your issues into account in the following version: The controversy dates back to the mid-19th century. Since then many prominent people have expressed doubts about the traditional attribution. In recent decades the issue has gained increased public attention, but the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars dismiss it. Schoenbaum (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

potshots at what the rest of us propose

Who is 'us'?

My objection to 'open' is not a matter of likes and dislikes. It is a reasoned objection, and please take note of the distinction. It has nothing to do with detail, but with history, and the way a lead describing history can be distorted by careless use of language.

This place abounds in unconstructive alternatives. I am deconstructing some of them. But if you're interested, my own take on your suggestion would rewrite it thus:-

The controversy dates back to the mid-19th century. Since then, from time to time, prominent people from all walks of life have expressed doubts about the traditional attribution. In recent decades, the issue has gained increased public attention, though the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars dismiss it.

Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now we're getting somewhere. I think we're not far apart. I don't see the need for "from time to time." As opposed to what? All of them speaking out at once at some point during the last 150 years? It adds nothing, so let's drop it. Re: "from all walks of life," that's overstated. "From a variety of backgrounds" is accurate. Incorporating those changes yields the following:

The controversy dates back to the mid-19th century. Since then prominent people from a variety of backgrounds have expressed doubts about the traditional attribution. In recent decades, the issue has gained increased public attention, though the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars dismiss it.

Schoenbaum (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It might help readers if we were to give them a few representative examples of the "variety of backgrounds" of the prominent people we're talking about. The main ones would be "writers, actors and lawyers," I believe. We specify a lack of support from orthodox Shakespeare scholars, so it seems appropriate to specify typical backgrounds of prominent doubters. That would yield the following:

The controversy dates back to the mid-19th century. Since then prominent people from various backgrounds, especially writers, actors and lawyers, have expressed doubts about the traditional attribution. In recent decades, the issue has gained increased public attention, though the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars dismiss it.

Comments anyone? Just trying to move the process along. Schoenbaum (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

While I like the addition, I just think it's getting too long. Part of the goal here is to make the lead more compact. Since that group is listed in the section about the declaration, just below, I just don't think we need it here as well. I think the closest we have is what you and Nishidani seem to have worked out, although I agree that the "time to time" and "all walks of life" are not needed. Smatprt (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

On the 18th/19th century debate, I can see the closest consensus we have is not to use it in the lead, and leaving it to the history section where it is now. I will join that consensus so we can move on.Smatprt (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC

There is no consensus on leaving that out so don't try to act as if there were. The theory/question/controversy started in 1848. That is a documented fact. There is no controversy over that except from people who try to push it back in an attempt to make it appear that even Shakespeare's contemporaries knew about the conspiracy. It is an important part of the lead and should stay in. There is relatively small group of believers in the theory/question/controversy. That is a fact, attested to by your own poll, which puts it at 6 per cent. ("Maybes" aren't believers.) Nobody is contesting that except for those who want to make it appear as if the group were larger. The vast majority of Shakespeare academics/professionals agree that the theory/question/controversy is nonsense. That is a fact. Nobody is questioning that, and in fact your own sources say so.

So what is so hard about admitting to reality and putting those facts on the page? You can even have "thriving" back, since it follows the wording of the source.

The theory dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted public attention and a small but thriving following, but it is dismissed by the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, Tom. I wasn't clear. What I meant about "leaving it out" was the 18th century bit - leave it out of the lead and just keep it in the history section. I was extremely unclear and I apologize. I'm joining the consensus to use "19th" - and that is what I meant. "Small" isn't going to fly - that was already dismissed as you know. Neither is "theory" since we don't know when the first time the "theory" was developed by someone, only when "public debate" or "controversy" (which implies public) actually started. So the rest of the sentence is still up for grabs. You have taken a step backward from where Nishidani and Schoenbaum were headed. Maybe the two of us should leave it to the two of them and cool down?Smatprt (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's not refer to "writers, actors and lawyers" to keep it short. Schoenbaum (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, the first sentence refers to it as a "controversy," not a "theory," so I think we should use that language in the second sentence. That's what Smatprt, Nishidani and I did; but you changed it without explanation. Unless you can offer a good reason for the change, I'd like to stick with "controversy" here. Otherwise, I can accept most of your latest version above, except it's insufficient to say only that it has "attracted public attention and a small but thriving following," without mentioning that the "following" includes prominent public figures. If we're going to mention the views of a group described as "the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars," it's insufficient to describe doubters merely as a "small but thriving following." In fact, we don't know the size of the "following" because there has been no survey of the general public to determine the level of awareness, interest and support. We know the number of activists is small, so I'm willing to accept the use of "small" on that basis; but only if we also mention that this "small following" includes some prominent public figures. Since that's something we do know for sure, it should be mentioned here. Nishidani found this acceptable in the version he proposed, and I think you should accept it too. So I propose the following:

The controversy dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted public attention and a small but thriving following, including some prominent public figures; but it is dismissed by the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.

How's that? Schoenbaum (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think if you go back you'll see I questioned 'controversy'. One cannot use controversy twice in the first two sentences,(besides other considerations, it's bad prose style). A theory is advanced, and then a controversy may, or may not, arise. A controversy does not arise spontaneously, it follows closely upon a 'theory' or 'hypothesis' or doubt. Thirdly, 1848, then 1856, 1857 (note how many Americans underwrote this stuff), a newspaper kerfuffle for a while, then every now and then people popped up with new angles, like Donnelly in the 1880s, making a splash like Basho's frog (mizu no oto), and the waters calmed. That is why I take exception to any attempt to set a mid-19th century date, and then follow it up immediately 'public attention'. It's only a nuance, Schoenbaum - generally, something like the sentence you propose is acceptable. But nuances are important, and the nuance I want to avoid is that there was some incremental rise from 1948 to 1990s. I think that nuance could be eliminated by simply adding 'Recently/in recent decades'. I've been reading Shakespeareana since the early 1960s, and only came across Looney and Ogburn in the 1990s (apart from reading allusions to the theory in works on Freud, or in Harold Bloom's famous psychoanalytic reduction of Freud's misprision, in the 1970s).Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani - here is the source you are quoting: "The traditional theory that Shakespeare was Shakespeare has the passive to active acceptance of the vast majority of English professors and scholars". Please show us, oh Master of all things english, where it says the vast majority dismiss the theory.Smatprt (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The controversy dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted public attention and a small but thriving following, including some prominent public figures. However, the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars accept the traditional identification.

That is how the one source we have used is to be paraphrased here, restricting ourselves to that alone. Anything else you need help with?Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, I can agree with some of the above. I'll try to translate your views into specific wording, since once again you've left that to others. If you don't like using "controversy" twice in the first two sentences, I suggest we go back to calling it a "debate" in the first, and say that it's "controversial" in the second. I like your suggestion of using "in recent decades," which I used before, but Tom dropped. I also agree with Smatprt, however, that it's overstatement to say that the issue is disimissed by the "vast majority" of academics, based on the actual quote. I can agree to "great majority," based on the NY Times survey. I don't like saying "small" thriving following, because we really don't have any numbers. That leaves us with the following for the first two sentences:

The Shakespeare authorship question is the debate about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers. Controversial since the mid-19th century, in recent decades it has attracted increased public attention and a thriving following, including prominenent public figures; but it is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.

How's that? Schoenbaum (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No. We've already agreed on sentence one. "Controversy" includes whatever debate there is. And as Nishidani points out, theory precedes controversy. And up above you said you were fine with The theory of alternate Shakespeare authorship dates back to the mid-19th century. It has little academic support, but has gained a small but thriving following. Now you say you don't like it and insist that some mention of prominent believers. And now Smatprt, who originally was OK with the vast majority of scholars dismissing the theory, is now splitting hairs. What gives? It appears to me that neither one of you are editing in good faith. There has been 9,000+ words written on this one sentence because you two think this article is supposed to be a debate and are jockeying for advantage, and Smatprt is not in any hurry to have this article tilted away from being an Oxfordism promotional piece. Go back and look at the original page as it was created on 31 Dec. 2005, and you'll see that the current page is not much of an improvement. The main difference is that the current page pushes Oxfordism instead of being WP:NPV.

This is the sentence I will go along with:

The theory dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted public attention and a small but thriving following, including some prominent public figures; but it is dismissed by the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.

If Smatprt doesn't like "some", I suggest "a few" would be more accurate. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, I am content with letting you two try to finesses these first two sentences. Now that you have reached this stage, I would suggest you look at the guideline at WP:Words to Avoid: WP:AVOID. I believe some of the words you are discussing are mentioned there. Also, please review WP:WEASEL which address some of your remaining issues as well (like how do you define "some", "many", etc. ) Good luck! Smatprt (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

'Some' and 'many' are standard words in English, and are required often because much of this text is vitiated by a synthesis of diverse claims by sects or schools which otherwise disagree over numerous details, and this synthesis classifies many views attributable to one school (de Vereans) as the views of the fictive, all-embracing ghost-category (Gilbert Ryle The Concept of Mind, 1949, if you can't figure that one out) authorship doubters, which I repeat, is cleft-thumbed English. As I have said several times, specific views must be cited to those who propose them, and not bundled up as 'authorship doubters'.Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Do a word check on 'many' and if you really believe what you are saying, put 'who' everywhere in the text, and not just in one or two passages you dislike. I.e.

Many anti-Stratfordians, including Charles Wisner Barrell, Roger Stritmatter and Diana Price, believe the first indirect statements suspecting the authorship of Shakespeare's works come from the Elizabethans themselves

Both can play that game, Smatprt, but it is rather jejune to do so, since the point at issue is to nuance the text so that it reports individual perspectives, once the general 'anti-Stratfordian' and 'mainstream' distinction is made.Nishidani (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, I believe we have an agreement to take it one sentence at a time from the top, and we're still on the first two sentences. Unless you can explain how your latest comments relate to them, I'd like to ask you, once again, to focus your attention on the topic at hand and either agree to my latest proposal (above) for the wording of those two sentences, or propose a specific alternative. If you want to discuss the history of authorship doubts, please do it under that section, not here. Thanks. Schoenbaum (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Pseudonymous or secret authorship in Renaissance England

I added new material to bring this section up to date and made some edits for clarity. It is important that this page reflect both a sound history of the authorship issue and also the insights which are being generated by contemporary scholarship. These changes include ommitting the name "Martin Mar-Prelate" from the list of hyphenated pseudonyms. To my knowledge, the name was never hyphenated. If someone has good evidence to the contrary, we can add the name back in. But for now, its out. More importantly, I added reference to Oxford's probable authorship of the Pasquill pamphlets. For those interested in a direct link to the new wiki entry which documents this, you can find it here: Pasquill Cavaliero.--BenJonson (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This material is not relevant to this particular article, and is more suitable to the Oxfordian article, although I think it's probably already been inserted there without checking.

Also the refs are not RS. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Its interesting that you only noticed this now, Tom. The section has been part of the article for some time, albiet not very well worded and missing critical factual details, such as the fact that the Oxfordians have alleged a solution to the "Pasquill" question. As the anti-Stratfordian case is substantially based on the view that the use of the alleged pseudonym would be an instance of the evasion of censorship. As someone who is not an anti-Stratfordian, and therefore cannot be expected to understand the nature of the case, it is not surprising that you would object. You remind me that I need to add a link to Professor Winifred Frazer's recent Brief Chronicles article, which more fully explains the connection. Once I add the link, perhaps you could read the article and we could discuss your objection further. I have already added a link to the new Pasquill entry to the Oxford page. However, let's be clear about this: as far as I am concerned, a section on this page which discusses the prominent role of pseudonymous publication in the early modern period is simply not negotiable. --BenJonson (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the section a long time ago, Roger, but for some reason have been forced to spend an inordinate amount of time on the introductory material. In fact, I've got notes for re-writes on most of the sections in this article. the one I have for that section begins "During the life of William Shakespeare and for more than 200 years after his death, no one seriously suggested that anybody other than Shakespeare wrote the works nor indicated that the name was a pseudonym. Despite this, anti-Stratfordians interpret . . . ." But all this in good time. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Tom, you won't be able to begin a section that way. Explain the article theory first, than present the more "accepted ideas". And saying that a section on the role of pseudonymous publication in the Elizabethan age, in an article about an Elizabethan writer who may have published under a pseudonym, should be deleted or is irrelevant is just silly. I sincerely doubt you will be able to form a consensus to delete that section.Smatprt (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again you demonstrate your lack of basic reading comprehension. Very well, you boys have fun while you can. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Threaten all you want.--BenJonson (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of the hyphenated Mar-prelate.[[3]]Smatprt (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It might be a clue to one, but that's a 19th century title page. We need an Elizabethan example. For now I'll let your reversion stand, but I think we're on thin ice without a better example. See my point? coda: I was able to check a modern facsimile of the original title page of "Pap with a Hatchett (probably by John Lyly), and it is very different from the one given in that reprint and does not even include the name "Marprelate," let alone in hyphenated form. I think we should redelete this and leave it off unless something better is found to justify it. --BenJonson (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you check this one then? [[4]]? thanks. Smatprt (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

O, Stephen, now we're getting warm. This is a modern facsimile, but it looks to be pedantically reproducing the original text, which is what we need. I would say that to be entirely sure, someone needs to go to the EEBO text and verify that the hyphens are in the original. But I think you've got a good witness to the point. Note, though, that the examples (at least those I saw), are "Mar-Martin," not Martin Mar-prelate."

A few other comments on this section. As promised, as I added the citation to the very fine article by the late Professor Frazer. I also checked and verified the basis for the Elizabethan tradition of Terence as a front. Nishidani could not be more wrong. Roger Ascham, in the explanatory quote that I added to the section, clearly articulates the belief, attributing it to Cicero, that at least some works under Terence' name were written by aristocrats. Please let us all note and agree to stipulate that whether or not this is true or can be proven is totally irrelevant. The point is that it was believed by so prominent a figure as Roger Ascham, the most important classical scholar and educator of his generation. I also refined some other language in the section to make the materials fit more appropriately within the present article, in response to Tom's concerns. --BenJonson (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The text you guys were editing said Terence was seen by a plurality of Elizabethan scholars to be a frontman. I corrected the two errors. One of you guys bungled. In Ascham there is a distinction between a foreigner's Latin (Terence's in four of his plays) and a native Roman noble's. Ascham nowhere supports the view that Terence was not a playwright but a merely funnel for 'aristocratic' playwrights. Terence himself laughs at the rumour. Modern scholarship has a good explanation for this. Poets and writers at that time, as in Elizabethan times, were often locked up, exiled, and punished by the authorities. All the patrons whose influence is associated with Terence had magistratal functions. He was protecting his rear by cultivating friends. But, of course, this is 'orthodox' scholarship, and you people, with 'virtually no', sorry, 'small Latin and lesse Greek', know better. Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani -- what the text once said is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether you are going to join us in making it better, or continue your harassment with these kinds of inappropriate comments, which seek to make the present editors responsible for wording that was supplied by others and to throw dust over the fact that your categorical pronunciamentos of yesterday have been proven wrong in the space of a couple of days. I'm sorry that you don't feel that you are getting your way here, but life is tough. Ascham is a very good witness to the fact that Elizabethans associated the idea of disguised authorship with the name Terence. That is all that is required. We have no way of assessing how widely this view was held. The rest is you creating straw men and then splitting their hairs. Let me once again suggest that you may wish to actually familiarize yourself with the topic in question. I recommend Ogburn or Anderson as good places to begin, although if you want to learn about Oxford,aside from the case for his authorship of the plays, B.M. Ward is still an excellent read. I would take you much more seriously if you could demonstrate a knowledge of even one of these works which transcended hearsay.--BenJonson (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but nothing published by Brief Chronicles is WP:RS. Read [[WP:PARITY|this], especially the sentence, "Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable. Examples: The Creation Science Quarterly, Homeopathy, Journal of Frontier Science . . . and many others." If you insist on its use, we can take it to WP:RSN for an opinion.

Tom, aren't you the guy who a couple of days ago were arguing that Dave Kathman and Terry Ross's private website, which once contained abundant material supporting the superstar shooting star Donald Foster, should be considered an acceptable source? Your lack of consistency is pathetic--BenJonson (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, you need a ref for this edit or you need to delete it: "At least two of the proposed candidates for authorship, the Earls of Oxford and Derby, were known to be playwrights but have no extant work under their own name. Moreover, Oxford has been identified in some studies as the real author of three clearly pseudonymous publications which appeared in 1589-90 under the colorful nom de plum of 'Pasquill Cavaliero.'" The one you originally cited is not acceptable. If you wish we can take that for an opinion also, but I think you know what the objections are and how it will fare. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I'm surprised that you don't know these references, but I would be happy to supply them. They are both common knowledge for anyone who has studied the authorship question, and while you may be pedantically correct that the should be added, their absence in the context of the many other edits required by the page, is hardly a matter for major concern. Why don't you supply them yourself; since you know so much about the history of the topic, it should be like taking candy from a baby for you. The citation that is provided is to two publications by Elizabeth Appleton, the second published by an academic press. It is not a citation intended to justify the fact that Oxford and Derby were known to be playwrights, as you should be able to see from its location, but to the theory that Oxford is the author of the Pasquill pamphlets, which was Appleton's argument. If you don't like her theory, your recourse is to write and publish a rebutall, and if it meets the appropriate scholarly standards, the page can link to it, to indicate the matter is not settled. Until you or someone else does that, the matter is in fact more or less settled, at the stage indicated by the new entry on "Pasquill" -- which notes that existing authorities like EEBO still cling to the Nashe attribution but that Roland McKerrow himself did not accept it. That being the case, at this point in time the only case for authorship of the pamphlets which consists of anything more than mere blind acceptance of tradition, is Appleton's.--BenJonson (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You know damn well what I was referring to when I called for cites. Elizabeth Appleton has a phony PhD and her book was published by the Mellen Press, the bottom-feeding press of last resort used when nobody else will publish your book. She is not RS for anything, as you well know. Either supply a good ref or cut it. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom I've supplied two references, one for Oxford and the other for Derby, indicating that they were known as playwrights. These are not to be taken as comprehensive, as they are not. For instance, I did not supplement Meres with William Webbe, who also notes Oxford's reputation as a comic dramatist as early as 1586. When I get some more time, I'll add this as well -- the present refs should alleviate your concern. As mentioned, I'm a bit surprised that someone who professes to have the knowledge you claim of this subject is not aware that these are common knowledge among scholars of the authorship question. But I do agree with you that the article is better with the cites, so I spent some time looking them up and carefully providing them. --BenJonson (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Tom is incorrect and doubt if he has checked the Brief Chronicles editorial review board here [[5]]. Hardly the same as the examples listed at WP:PARITY (note the correct way to link, Tom)where one used "blogs" as the peer review. BC is one of those "few" that actually has "meaningful peer review". And after all the criticism heaped on me for opposing the Kathman website for my attempts to stifle knowledge, it's surprising to see just how much hypocrisy is coming from the mainstream side.Smatprt (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think three of you are abusing 'peer review'. All I have seen is a dozen odd de Verean names, some attached to universities, or graduates of them, sitting on boards for internet sites or newsletters of their own 'anti-stratfordian' cut and then reviewing each other. This is not what is understood in English or WP:RS as peer review. It's fringers reviewing their own marginalia. Tom is correct therefore. This article must distinguish between RS for a fringe viewpoint, which are fringe websites and pamphlets and books, and RS for critical scholarly peer review and sources on Shakespeare. The distinction is being blurred by sleight-of-hand and the slow tenacious drift of the momentous drivelling in here.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, actually, you are abusing our patience with your gratuitously condescending and insulting claptrap. Its time for you to start specifying what your own qualifications are. Have you published in this field? If not, how dare you pass judgment on the distinguished scholars who comprise the editorial board of *Brief Chronicles* by calling them "fringers reviewing their own marginalia"? Actually, very few journals in the humanities practice to the standard used at BC, of double-blind peer review. But please tell us something about yourself. Paul asked who the hell I was, and I told him. How about you? Where do you *stand*, guy? Unfold yourself. This is 2010, not 1995. Do you have a clue? Apparently not. What is your publication record? What anti-Stratfordian books have you read? Have you ever heard of Professor David Richardson? Is he a "fringie"? For my part, I have participated regularly, both as a reviewer and reviewed, in a range of academic publications (about eight or ten in all). I can assure you that the standards of review that are used at Brief Chronicles equal those found at any academic journal and are in fact considerably more balanced than those currently prevailing at a number of publications. The only difference is that the reviewers, all established academicians, have at least got a clue about the actual dynamics and history of the authorship question. You persist in arguing through labels that are wholly irrelevant. There is no sleight of hand, just as there is no "fringe viewpoint." There is fight between established belief and a well articulated, coherent and credible alternative. It is clear where you stand in that debate, and that's fine. You don't have to like the alternative. You damn well DO have to respect it if you want to have any impact on editing this page. --BenJonson (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

'our patience', the pluralis maiestatis, again. The judgements I pass, as a wikipedian, are those I formed on my reading widely in this area, and which I found confirmed by the best scholars in the field, who say people who embrace this crackpot nonsense 'give the Baconians a run for madness' (the real Schoenbaum), some tall order. Who am I? None of your, or wikipedia's business, and you break protocols to insist I reveal my identity to justify my edits here. Your personal indiscretion only invites unfortunate ripostes, of the kind, 'I haven't lectured at Coppin State University where you teach, but I have done so, by invitation, at Oxford', the real place, not the fictional world of de Verean 'Oxfordians' who appropriate the historic name to fudge up the impression to a gullible and not too attentive public that somehow they are connected to one of the highest centres of learning in the world. So enough of this bragging. For, 'I'll cite no further than the initiate know', to quote Gerard Manley Hopkins, bearing in mind Montaigne's advice:

Car de servir de spectacle aux grands et faire è l'envy parade de son esprit et de son caquet, je trouve que c'est un mestier tres-messeant à un homme d'honneur' ( Albert Thibaudet (ed.), Montaigne: Essais, Pléiade, Paris 1937 p.894)

As to Professor David Richardson, what's he got to do with the price of fish? Not one page of Looney or Ogburn, or Price would withstand more than 5 minutes of critical analysis in any reputable school of humanities, in terms of methodological coherence and rigour. I'm not impressed with English departments these days, crammed stiff as they are with people who no longer, as was once the case, have a thorough secondary education grounding in Latin and Greek, nor acquire at least reading fluency in German, French, Italian and Spanish, when they venture into premodern textual studies. So pal, don't come the raw prawn with me. This self-promotion is a bluff, as is the whole fringe theory shebang it represents. It is not conducive to intelligent dialogue if one approaches it with resentment and offended honour, which is a bad thing to carry into a technical discussion. Neither I nor anyone else has to 'respect' the subject of a page to 'have an impact' as editor. Were that so, we would have no WP:NPOV pages on Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Ignatius Donnelly, Torquemada, Berlusconi, George W. Bush, Ayn Rand, Hirohito or Ariel Sharon or any other of tens of thousands of historical figures. We would only have fanpages, on a par with the present travesty you are collectively composing. Nishidani (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a final note on Brief Chronicles - you will be interested to note that the publication has been selected for indexing by two international bibliographies in the humanities of which you are all familiar - The MLA International Bibliography and The World Shakespeare Bibliography. I imagine you are also familiar with their standards. Smatprt (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But, Smatprt, are you authorized to say that? Don't bother Nishidani with facts. The fact that the contents of the journal are accepted by the World Shakespeare Bibliography is irrelevant. We're talking about Wikipedia here. Our standards are professional ones....[slaps forhead] "Ay Carumba." --BenJonson (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, I have posted an opinion request here. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I made further edits to this section, mostly for clarity and brevity. Nishidani is correct about at least one thing, although wrong about most: the article as presently written is stylistically handicapped in a way that does no good to anyone. We will not correct this overnight, but I made a few more edits in this particular section toward that end, which cut out of a lot of extraneous deadwood which had accumulated. I also added a reference to Detobel and Ligon's article on Meres. I'm not really sure that it belongs here; Stephen, what do you think? Thanks for your clarification on this point.

I also put in a link to for the name "Martin-Marprelate," which we should do to link this discussion to the Marprelate page. However, because of the hyphen it doesn't work. We need to figure out a strategy for dealing with this. Since we still don't have an authenticated hyphenated form of the name (only a hyphenated alternative, which actually refers not to Martin himself but to one of his opponents), we should keep our options open. --BenJonson (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed this one - it's in the first graph of ther reference linked:

Wherein the rash and vndiscreete hea-

dines of the foolish youth, is sharp-

ly mette with, and the boy hath his

lesson taught him, I warrant you, by

his reuerend and elder brother,

Martin Senior, sonne and heire vnto

the renowmed Martin Mar-prelate

the Great.

Hopefully this solves it. Smatprt (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I did indeed. If this is verified, then what we need to do is make the version "Martin Mar-Prelate" resolve to the "Martin Marprelate" page. Do you know how to make this happen? Thanks for setting me straight.--BenJonson (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead image - advert like

The lead image almost seems like an advert to me, and gives undue prominence to a single book. I'd rather a picture of Shakespeare or a collage of the revisionists proposed authors. Verbal chat 17:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. One of Mr Shakespeare's portraits, well captioned, or the collage, tastfully rendered. It really does seem like an article that a well designed graphic would illustrate nicely. Also, most people do not think there is a controversy at all.Ktlynch (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Klyntch--

Please nominate an authentic 16th century portrait of "Shakespeare." There are none on which there is any authoritative agreement. Unless you know otherwise and can produce witness and proof, then your suggestion is meaningless. We know that "most people" do not think there is a controversy. Do you generally form your opinions based on what "most people" think? Is that what you are recommending as a policy for wikipedia? Please learn something about the subject. --BenJonson (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A collage of Looney and Ogburn, at least, with perhaps Mark Twain, and Sigmund Freud (two extremists and two men of literary distinction) is what is needed, certainly as Verbal says, to avoid the impression of advertising one particular book among the several hundred in this competitive niche market. The only problem is, we have no wiki mugshots of the former two.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Verbals idea of a collage of the proposed authors seems interesting. And Nishidani's idea about using various proponents is worth investigating - but in that case I would think they should be somewhat recognizable. Not sure that would be the case with Looney or Ogburn. In any case, whatever we come up with should represent the issue somehow. The current image was chosen for the graphic pen and ink well (not to advertise anyone's book) just so you know the back story. Smatprt (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There are decent photos of all these individuals, and I agree with Smaprt that the suggestion has merit. --BenJonson (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose using the same image at Irv Matus's website: http://willyshakes.com/. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a gallery for everyone to upload potential lead image choices:

Here are some other images to consider - click on them to see larger image.

How about putting the Droeshout in the middle with a question mark at each corner where it meets each candidate? Also all of them need to be looking toward the center. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of that too - let me give it a go. Graphic design is not my thing, but I can hopefully come up with enough of something that a true graphic artist could finish it off. Smatprt (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Droeshout with a question mark is a good idea, Tom.--BenJonson (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok - here is a start. I can add the question marks later or ask someone to have a go at it. I'll play around with it later. Right track? Smatprt (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Collage of candidates.

• File:ShakespeareQuestion.jpg
• 

. .

.

.

.

.

.

Smatprt (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest the middle image, as neutral and appropriate to the topic; but whatever image is used, it needs to be proportionate to the page. Someone keeps making the current lede image (the book cover) extremely large, which is very distracting and tends to overwhelm the words, which are the most important element on the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's because the current image is exactly what it appears to be: spam. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it time to beat the dead horse again? To repeat for new readers, several months back, OldMoonraker and I went about searching for a lead image. I had actually posted the middle picture for a couple of days but OldMoonraker didn't really like it. I then found the current one and both of us agreed that is was the best graphic image that we could find. I don't think either of us had the book, nor knew (at the time) who it favored. And we din't go looking - it was all about finding a good image. Jeesh. Smatprt (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, make the center portrait bigger, the same size as the others or maybe a bit smaller, swap Marlowe and Bacon so they're looking toward the center, and reverse Derby so he's looking in also. Once that's done, go ahead and put it up on the page and see how everybody likes it. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC) You also might want to zoom in on Derby to make his head closer to the same size as the others. I'm pretty sure I saw a better repro of that pic somewhere, but for right now it'll do. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the unsuitable image per discussion above, feel free to replace it with one of the unopposed candidates. Verbal chat 14:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you are in such a hurry, I put up the collage that I was working on. It's not quite finished, but it will do for now. Smatprt (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul - we just had an (edit conflict) - it appears we were both putting up images at the same time. I had posted the ? image a while back but Tom thought it was "creepy". I never really liked it as a lead image but at the time was trying to not leave the article without an image. So I started the gallery and Tom and I had been working on the collage idea. I've been sidetracked over at the Noticeboard so I have not have time to fo any cleanup yet. Maybe I can get to that today. Smatprt (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really that bothered about which image we use. I don't think it was appropriate for Verbal to just delete the existing one and leave a void. It was perfectly sevicable. I can live with creepiness. Paul B (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The current one transmits more information and is much more pleasing to the eye. I think my suggestions above about the placement of the portraits would improve it some, but it's not all that important. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The new image is good. Its a miracle. We all agree on something. :)--BenJonson (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

History of authorship doubts

I have restored my edit to the first paragraph that Smatprt reverted. I said on Feb. 21 that I was going to edit that section and even gave the first line here. After an orgy of undiscussed edits by BenJonson and Smatprt over the weekend, I don't think it is Smatprt's place to tell me that I have to get every word approved by the same process that has slowed the lead revision to a standstill. The edits I made are all referenced and accurate, and get rid of the frothy, newsletter style of reporting every up-to-the-minute anti-Stratforidan minutia that has no place in an encyclopedia entry. Nor am I aware of any "guideline" that says we have to present the minority view first followed by the academic consensus.Tom Reedy (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot understand how you can not be aware of the very guideline you keep talking about: WP:FRINGE. To assist you further here is the link to section 3, Evaluating Claims: [[6]]. You need to look at the whole section, as it touches on many of the areas I keep mentioning. Presently, it is this sentence you have asked about:

• " 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."

And how exactly is my edit a violation of that? Is not the anti-Stratfordian idea clearly described in the article before the history section? Are you saying that each separate detail of anti-Stratfordism is a fringe belief unto itself?

No, and you are making up your own definition. Each section should start with the minority viewpoint, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas.

This quotation does not mean that a section within an article must begin with the particular fringe idea detailed, and then be followed by a "Stratfordians respond . . ." This is quite evident from reading the entire section from which you quoted:

No it is not. Smatprt (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence. Claims that are uncontroversial and uncontested within reliable sources should be presented as simple statements of fact — e.g. "An electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton." Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context — e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality — e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." — but 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 [not every section in an article! TR] 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. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose."

In my edit, I presented an uncontroversial and uncontested claim as a simple statement of fact: "During the life of William Shakespeare and for more than 200 years after his death, no one seriously suggested that anybody other than Shakespeare wrote the works nor indicated that the name was a pseudonym," which is sourced with three different reliable sources. I followed that with a neutral and accurate description of the anti-Stratfordian interpretations of hints being present in contemporary allusions to Shakespeare. I did not include any type of rebuttal or response, and in fact my first statement is not a rebuttal to what follows.

Yes, every section. Or, Tom, point out to me where it says "not every section" as you claim above. Smatprt (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

These are worth quoting, as well:

• "Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research — denialist histories, for example — should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic."

"Clearly" is definitely where you fail in execution.

Your contention is that by cutting a majority of examples you make the history more clear? That's laughable. Smatprt (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, my point is that your writing is not very good. You should probably take a composition course at your local junior college. As for the rest of your responses, I won't bother, because it appears to me that you actually believe your confused ad hoc replies--or at least I can't tell the difference between when you do and when you are cynically feigning belief in order to promote your obsession. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context — e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind."

Are you serious? Please don't tell me that you believe that this article begins with Halbronn's view. (The section does, but it is not in a WP:FRINGE article espousing Halbronn's belief as true.)

Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality — e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." — but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. " Smatprt (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I also changed the format from the he-said-she-said debate style to a style more in line with an encyclopedia article. I stated the facts, and then neutrally outlined the anti-Stratforidian assertions with a sufficient example. We don't need to pile on every little detail; this is not an exercise in persuasion, but a dispassionate description of the topic. More edits to the section are being written, and they will be written in a neutral manner with references that comply with Wikipedia requirements. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Which gives you no right to delete material, existing or added, by other editors. Or to choose from the anti-Strat arguments, which stay and which go. How is that an example of the Good Faith you keep espousing? Smatprt (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Read this: "Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. . . . The same holds true for conjectures and theories in other academic disciplines."

This is not an article about the mainstream subject. This is an article about a minority subject. You keep mixing the two. Smatprt (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies aren't suspended for fringe subjects. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And this: "Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable."

What you deleted was not self-published, so your example goes out the window.Smatprt (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe those two statements from WP:FRINGE give not only me, but anyone else, the right to remove material that violates them. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, you have a serious WP:OWN problem. You write of another editor that he has 'no right to delete material, existing or added, by other editors', while that is what you consistently do in a manic fashion with everyone else's work you disagree with. Consensus is requires when mainstream scholarship is introduced, but no consensus is required with the tendentious POVing trash you throw insistently into the article. You're an WP:SPA, and show no interest in the goals of wikipedia other than running about to edit a fringe whacko ideological slant into serious pages. I suggest you lay back a while, take a break and reflect on what you want to do here. Most edits of yours I have observed here will, by the natural logic of events, and by reference to WP:NPOV rules, be challenged and eventually elided by committed general editors, no matter how much time you dedicate to showcasing this stuff. Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishi you clearly don't even look at the edits. There is one major difference in the edits to this section that Tom and I made. I tightened up the paragraph without deleting the referenced examples added by various editors over the history of this article. I did not delete one example (and you lie when you say I did). Tom deleted the majority of examples in their entirety, leaving one overly detailed example in its place. Next time, examine the edit before you criticize it, lest you end up looking foolish.Smatprt (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a problem with reading English. I made a general observation using just the last of many instances. I was told on joining not to edit the lead until consensus was reached. I stopped doing so, and you kept editing it, for example (WP:OWN), and my edit this morning aimed to restore one line to a semblance of the form it had before edit-creep made it the mess it is. So your answer is empty of content, since you are not addressing the point, and indeed weren't obliged to. It was just a preliminary warning, to stick to the same restrictions you ask others to observe.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, your edit was deceiving and you know it. Saying "no one seriously questioned....", when I have supplied you two references from mainstream RS that says otherwise, is simply ignoring any source that you disagree with, and only quoting sources that further you agenda here. It's you saying there is a consensus again, when obviously there isn't. Smatprt (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(a)'your editing was deceiving' = was 'deceptive' (b)'you agenda' = your agenda' (c) 'consensus'means a majority, it does not mean unanimity. Check a dictionary. There can be a consensus of mainstream sources on an issue, and one or two mainstream sources that disagree with that consensus. The existence of that disagreement does not mean a general consensus does not prevail in a given field. But, ah, explain this to schoolchildren. Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever consensus may emerge, you simply cannot allow lousy lines to stick round like a bad smell in the lead: I.e. after saying that the debate or theory arose in the id 19th century one had:-

Since that time, the issue has attracted increased public attention and a thriving following, but is dismissed by the majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.<

A moment's reflection would tell any normal person that is limp summation of what occurred over 1 and a half centuries, that it is vitiated by tactical POV priming, with its tacit suggestion that since 1848 public attention has been increasing incrementally (were that so, millions around the world would now be openly nodding as doubts were raised from time to time in the media). Thirdly, the source says 'vast majority' and to elide that from the text, which is written by a pro de Verean, is pure bad faith. I've therefore replaced it with a minimal reconstrual which sticks to what the facts are (public interest, in so far as it existed, waxed and waned according to zone and time, and did not incrementally increase etc.) and the source states.Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, please note that the language you're complaining about is no longer on the table. I just proposed new wording accepting most of Tom's latest version (see above under section titled "289 wrods"). I suggest you focus your attention on that rather than dredging up wording that's no longer in play. Thanks. Schoenbaum (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)