Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

Peer review

Please consider adding your opinion to the peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1. This is intended as a way to improve article quality, and you will not be pressed to judge the correctness of the various theories about the authorship. Opinions on the quality of referencing would of course be welcome. I left a notice at WP:AN#Shakespeare authorship question, and perhaps there are some other ways of publicizing this peer review that would not be considered spamming. As you can see from the project banner above, the Shakespeare WikiProject judges this article to be of High importance. Thanks to User:Smatprt for opening the review request. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

While we are there we should all look at this regarding undue weight: [[1]] which states

• "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."

I think we have done quite well in identifying which side believes what. Extremely well, in fact. But we should remember that this article is specifically about a minority viewpoint so it should not be overwhelmed by the mainstream views, which have their own extensive articles at William Shakespeare, Shakespeare's life, Shakespeare's style, Shakespeare's reputation, Chronology of Shakespeare's plays, Shakespeare's funerary monument and many, many others where the traditional case is made and the authorship issue gets hardly a mention at all. Smatprt (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We should also look at WP:FRINGE, because this topic is a fringe theory, although I don't believe it follows the Wikipedia guidelines for such. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia distinguish between "fringe" theories and "minority" theories, i.e, theories that have enough supporting evidence and followings that they shouldn't be labeled with the pejorative term "fringe"? Schoenbaum (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Read this. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, no Wiki does not make that distinction. They use the term very "broadly" to include anything that disagrees with a mainstream view including "hypothesis, conjecture and speculation". So as a result, they don't view it as the pejorative term that the general public often associates with the phrase. In discussing minority or alternative viewpoints, editors are referred to the various policies on "Fringe", which acts as a kind of catchall. Smatprt (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding source material that can be used, please note the following policy: "While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources. " So we shouldn't quote Sobran to say, for example, how brilliant or important he thinks Ogburn is, in discussing "notabliity" or "prominence" we need to quote independent sources. But the policy supports using theory proponents to describe "what they believe". All of which makes perfect sense. Smatprt (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But it's OK to quote an anti-Stratfordian editor about how brilliant he thinks a piece is that he edited and published that was written by another anti-Stratfordian? Tom Reedy (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom - he does not say anything even approaching "how brilliant" the article is. He summaries the piece by saying "the continued support of Strachey as Shakespeare's source is, at the very least, highly questionable". That's it. And note that he uses "at the very least" and "questionable" - and does not day it's a done deal or a "fact". In other words, he couches it in scholarly terms and leaves the matter open. And to repeat - he in no way is being quoted as saying the piece is "brilliant", "fabulous" "ground-breaking" or anything else along those lines.Smatprt (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Tom Reedy has brought Stritmatter and Kositsky into the discussion again, I will offer him a foretaste of the comment of one independent editor of a major Oxford University Press publication, to their forthcoming response to Alden Vaughan's 2008 SQ article on the Strachey, which also includes a critique of Tom's own RES article. This quote is offered as among friends and colleagues. My intent is not to make a point that has any particular immediate relevance to the editing of the wiki authorship page, but to allow wiki editors a glance of what is going on unspoken behind the scenes:

"Your piece is a real tour de force, as it goes without saying....You piece together your case with great intelligence and scrupulousness, and it is a piece of genuine scholarship." The editor declined to publish the article because it is very long, and the content was a bit off topic for his publication. However, the quotation does underscore that, as Tom well knows, the traditional boundaries between "orthodox" and "fringe" theories are at this time extremely fluid. This editorial team shouldn't forget that. And after the article is actually published (not in the venue of the quoted editor, which actually strengthens the significance and credibility of the quote, imho) we can reveal further details. --BenJonson (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead

I've had a glance at the lead, which seems tremendously long and rather detailed. It seems to more or less conform to WP:LEAD in practice but not (IMNSHO) its spirit, and I wonder what a reader who doesn't yet know anything about the subject would think (that's who we're writing for, isn't it?). A small example: the term "anti-Stratfordian" (also "anti-stratfordian") is used there, way before the definition section that explains what this means. No doubt every word in the lead has been argued over ad nauseam, but is there any possibility that it could be cut down somewhat? --GuillaumeTell 11:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

How about you suggest specifics and we can discuss them to avoid a long, tedious edit war (by whatever name)? I think the specifics in the third graf are the worst offenders, but I'm not about to touch it for obvious reasons.

I really don't know what else to use in place of anti-Stratfordian. In the first instance, I suppose "such theories" would work. In the second instance, "They say most methods used to eliminate William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author fail to meet orthodox (or academic) standards . . . ." could work, I guess, or "most methods used to supplant Williaam Shakespeare with some other author . . . ." but both seem a bit wordy. Maybe it would be simpler to add a short explanation to the first graf, "Those who question the attribution, called anti-Stratfordians, believe that . . . ." Tom Reedy (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the lead is a bit long, though not too bad considering the length of the article itself. I think it "more or less" conforms, but I still lean toward the "less" side. It lacks as a true "summary" of the article. We should look at the table of contents and make sure follows the contents summary and touches on the major points. I think para 1 does a good job for what it summarizes - the short definition of the issue, and the major candidates that are mentioned at the conclusion to the article. Summarizing the history a bit more would be my only comment there. I agree that para 3 could be trimmed down and/or recast to better summarize the main arguing points. However I also feel that an inordinate about of time (3 separate edits) is spent telling the reader how unorthodox the methods of authorship doubters are. Not only have these statements generated considerable controversy and lack any true consensus, but they are seriously repetitive.Smatprt (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned, in developing the lead, we should refer to the table of contents to make sure we cover the main sections: The more I look at the subject headings and the lead, the more I think we need to do a better job summarizing the article:

• 1 Overview

1.1 Authorship doubters 1.2 Mainstream view 1.3 Criticism of mainstream view

• 2 History of authorship doubts

2.1 Pseudonymous or secret authorship in Renaissance England 2.2 "Shake-Speare" as a pseudonym

• 3 Debate points used by anti-Stratfordians

3.1 Doubts about Shakespeare of Stratford 3.1.1 Literary paper trails 3.1.2 Shakespeare's education 3.1.3 Shakespeare's life experience 3.1.4 Shakespeare's literacy 3.1.4.1 "Shakspere" vs. "Shakespeare" 3.1.5 Shakespeare's will 3.1.6 Shakespeare's funerary monument 3.2 Comments by contemporaries 3.3 Publications 3.3.1 The First Folio 3.3.2 Geographical knowledge in the plays 3.3.3 The poems as evidence 3.4 Date of playwright's death

• 4 Candidates and their champions

4.1 Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford 4.2 Sir Francis Bacon 4.3 Christopher Marlowe 4.4 William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby 4.5 Group theory 4.6 Other candidates

Should we simply use this as a format for the lead? I don't necessarily think we need to follow this prcise order. For example, I think that para 1 is pretty good and seems to cover the beginning and end of this list very compactly. Maybe a bit more of the history would be helpful, but i think para 1 is close. I'll start working on the debate point section, which is now overwhelmed by the "education" argument and not much else.Smatprt (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I'm just playing around, but here is a first attempt at at least reorganizing the material, cutting some unneeded detail (like to 29,000 word vocab bit), cutting some duplication from the strat stuff I mentioned. Noting that in these type of articles, the alternate theory is supposed to be explained, then the more "accepted view" laid out, I am rearranging the para order. I believe I was responsible for the current order and I now see it is the opposite of what the policy is. This is just a suggested starting point, by the way - I hope everyone can assume good faith and take it for what it is - an effort in the right direction:

"The Shakespeare authorship question is the ongoing debate, first recorded in the early 18th century, about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually written by another writer or group of writers.[1] Those who question the 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.[2] Of the more than 50 candidates that have been proposed,[3] some claimants have achieved major followings and notable supporters. Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, 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.[4] 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 assert that the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford did not have the background necessary to create the works in question, and that the personal attributes inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man.[10] Anti-stratfordians believe that Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the extensive education that is evident in the works, and question how he could become so highly expert in foreign languages, courtly pastimes, politics, and the latest contemporary discoveries in science and medicine. Authorship doubters believe that, for centuries, Shakespeare biographers have suspended orthodox methods and criteria to weave inadmissible evidence into their histories of the Stratford man and claim that some mainstream scholars have ignored the subject in order to protect the economic gains that the Shakespeare publishing world has provided them.[9]

Most Shakespeare academics, known as "Stratfordians", note that the authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford is supported with two main pillars 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.[7] Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view.[8] Mainstream scholars say that authorship doubters discard the most direct testimony in favor of their own theories,[12] overstate Shakespeare's erudition,[13] and anachronistically mistake the times he lived in.[14] They say most anti-Stratfordian scholarship fails to meet orthodox standards and lacks supporting historical evidence.[5] As a result they reject all alternative authorship arguments.

Despite the somewhat esoteric subject matter, and the often acrimonious debate on both sides of the issue, interest in the authorship question continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[15]

I think this version is worse and less organized than we have now. The lede should summarize the case in general terms, not make specific arguments. The only par that really needs work on the lede as it stands is the third graf. Instead of making specific arguments general principles should be stated. The two general principles of anti-Stratfordism are

(1) Shakespeare could not have written the works because he lacked the background commensurate with the material in the plays, and

(2) Someone else did because his (education) (biography) (social status) equipped him with the necessary (learning) (experience) (attitude) that is exhibited in the plays.

Actually, graf 1 could be the first sentence standing alone. Later on we might want to put a history of the movement sentence in.

Graf 2 could start with the second sentence, and then add some of the information now in graf 3. Graf 2 is fine the way it is, but the first sentence of graf 4 could be added and it should be graf 3. Graf 4 could be the Shakespeare claimants along with the third sentence of graf 1. I'll put them all together and post them later.

No matter what we do, we need to agree that no one changes it until a consensus is reached on the talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a quick edit that incorporates most of the information now in the lede but is 80 words less. I deleted any vague sentences.

The Shakespeare authorship question is the ongoing debate about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually written by another writer or group of writers.[1] The question was first recorded in the early 18th century and has gained wide public attention since the mid-19th century.

Those who question the 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.[2] They assert that the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford did not have the background necessary to create the body of work attributed to him, and that the personal attributes inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man.[3] Anti-Stratfordians note the lack of concrete evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford acquired the extensive education necessary to write Shakespeare’s works and question whether a commoner from a small 16th-century country town could have gained the life experience and adopted the aristocratic attitude they claim is evident in them. Those who support an alternate candidate as the true author focus on the correspondences between the content of the plays and poems and that candidate’s known education, life experiences, and reputation.[4]

Most mainstream Shakespeare academics, referred to as "Stratfordians" by those engaged in the debate, pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories. They say most anti-Stratfordian scholarship fails to meet orthodox standards and lacks supporting historical evidence.[5] Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject.[6] They say that authorship doubters discard the most direct testimony in favor of their own theories,[7] overstate Shakespeare's erudition,[8] and anachronistically mistake the times he lived in,[9] and say that their method of identifying another author from the works is unscholarly and unreliable. The authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford is supported with two main pillars 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—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.[11]

Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[12] Of the more than 50 candidates that have been proposed,[13] some claimants have achieved major followings and notable supporters. Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, 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.[4] 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.

Tom Reedy (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I agree with you on losing the Shak vs Shake section. It slows the page down without contributing much in the way of an argument, although I know for some people the spelling is a major point. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I see the value of your rewrite of the anti-strat graf and am willing to try and work with it a bit. But you are hanging on to all the attacks on anti-strat researchers while cutting similar negative beliefs about the mainstream ones. We need to address the fact that several editors feel these edits are controversial. I know you don't agree with the sentiment being expressed, but here is the relevant policy from the very page you want this article to conform to: [[2]]:"(last bit of example showing how to dismiss an alternate viewpoint)…most other specialists in the field reject this view."...then "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 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." This one policy is what is being completely disregarded. I'm pointing this out to you so you can understand why your insistence that this material be included is against policy. It was written because of the very reaction you are getting here from authorship proponents. You are attacking the researchers instead of "referring the reader to more accepted ideas". Smatprt (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So here is a shot, taking the above policy into account: I did move the leading candidates back up to the first graf. We are supposed to describe the key point about the issue first, before we move on to "more accepted ideas". The leading contenders are obviously a major focus of the article and is certainly one of the first things readers are going to want to know. this version cuts almost 140 words from the present one:

• "The Shakespeare authorship question is the ongoing debate about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually written by another writer or group of writers.[1] The question was first recorded in the early 18th century and has gained wide public attention since the mid-19th century. Of the more than 50 candidates that have been proposed,[13] several claimants have achieved major followings and notable supporters. Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, 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.[4] 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.

Those who question the 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.[2] They assert that the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford did not have the background necessary to create the body of work attributed to him, and that the personal attributes inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man.[3] Anti-Stratfordians note the lack of concrete evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford acquired the extensive education necessary to write Shakespeare’s works, and question whether a commoner from a small 16th-century country town could have gained the life experience and adopted the aristocratic attitude they claim is evident in them. Those who support an alternate candidate as the true author focus on the correspondences between the content of the plays and poems and that candidate’s known education, life experiences, and reputation.[4]

Most mainstream Shakespeare academics, often referred to as "Stratfordians", pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories. Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject, noting that the authorship of Shakespeare of Stratford is supported with two main pillars 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.[11]

Despite the somewhat esoteric subject matter, and the often acrimonious debate on both sides of the issue, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[12]

And here is trimming some more stuff that can be explained (if need be) in the article: It takes it down about 155 words:

• "The Shakespeare authorship question is the ongoing debate about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually written by another writer or group of writers.[1] First recorded in the early 18th century, the issue has gained wide public attention. Of the more than 50 candidates that have been proposed,[13] several claimants have achieved major followings and notable supporters. Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, 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.[4] 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.

Most authorship doubters, 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.[2] They assert that the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford was more likely a front man, believing he did not have the background necessary to create the body of work attributed to him, and that the personal characteristics inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man.[3] Anti-Stratfordians believe Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the extensive education necessary to write Shakespeare’s works, and question how he could have gained the life experience and adopted the aristocratic attitude they claim is evident in them. 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.[4]

Most mainstream Shakespeare academics, often referred to as "Stratfordians", pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories. Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject, noting that the authorship of Shakespeare of Stratford is supported with two main pillars 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.[11]

Despite the somewhat esoteric subject matter, and the often acrimonious debate on both sides of the issue, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[12]

I cut all the characterizations of researchers on both sides of the question and focuses on the history and major debate points. Don't you think this is an approach worth pursuing? Smatprt (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A final trimming along these lines: It takes it down about 170 words:

• "The Shakespeare authorship question is the ongoing debate about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually written by another writer or group of writers.[1] First recorded in the early 18th century, the issue has gained wide public attention, and of the more than 50 candidates that have been proposed,[13] several claimants have achieved major followings and notable supporters. Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, 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.[4] 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.

Most authorship doubters, 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.[2] They assert that the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford was more likely a front man, believing he did not have the background necessary to create the body of work attributed to him, and that the personal characteristics inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man.[3] Anti-Stratfordians believe Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the extensive education necessary to write Shakespeare’s works, and question how he could have gained the life experience and adopted the aristocratic attitude they claim is evident in them. 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.[4]

Most mainstream Shakespeare academics, often referred to as "Stratfordians", pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories. Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject, noting that the authorship of Shakespeare of Stratford is supported with two main pillars 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.[11] Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[12]

That's about as compact as I could make it and summarizes the main points of the article. It does not get into specifics on either side, does not disparage either side and reads pretty well. I look forward to input. Smatprt (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't be in a race to have the briefest lede possible. A look at other articles concerning Shakespeare reveals that their ledes are usually longer and more detailed than this one. We need enough detail to explain what the article is about, and the point of this discussion is not to make it as compact as possible.

I would agree with that. But the devil is in the detail, as they say!Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving the candidates back up is fine.

There's no 'race' to have the shortest lead possible. There are serious objections to reduplicating paras 1 and 2 in 3 and 4, with weighting in favour of the fringe theory. It's a problem of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. The lead should absolutely not repeat itself. All of your versions give great detail to the fringe theories, and are only succinct with the orthodox perspective. Any word count will confirm this violation of drafting protocols.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're ignoring that the main problem Strats have with anti-Strats is their methodology, and I don't see how you can accurately picture the topic without it, because to Strats that explains where anti-Strats go wrong, and all of the refutations in the body of the article illustrate the differences in approaching literary attribution. According the WP:undue weight, "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." That entire policy is highly relevant here, including WP:VALID and giving "equal validity". (And BTW, attacking their methodology is not the same as attacking the people using that methodology, so please stop using that.)

Well it sure sounds like they are being attacked. It gives that impression - is that fair to say, perhaps? In any case, I guess I've just never been impressed with all the name-calling, the "snob" stuff, etc. and it seems that often the attacks on ones "standards" and "methods" are an extension of those attacks. It's like the strats are won't meet some issues dead on with a reasonable explanation to the key points outlined in the table of contents - education (especially the real tough skills like translating of and proficiency in foreign languages), the ability to lampoon Burghley as Polonius (mainstream consensus) and see Richard II used in an attempted upheaval and totally get away with it, the whole period between 1604 and 1616 when the Sonnets get published and plays like MacBeth are all screwed up by Middleton's additions or Pericles is "finished", and all the while Shakespeare is doing what? If you guys would just answer the questions instead of attacking the "methods" and bringing out the "cranks" and "snobs" and my favorite of course "heretics", I mean burn us at the stake for having questions, is that what that one is all about? But I digress...! Let me get back to asnwering your questions.Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That the snobbery charge is all over the orthodox scholarly literature is easily attested. You may not be 'impressed', but to voice your disagreement on personal grounds of belief to what WP:RS is neither here nor there. The page reflects what sources say, not what we editors believe. Again 'attack' is inappropriate: the fringe literature is nothing but screeds in attack mode. The scholarly literature merely, as noted by others, 'attacks' the incompetent methododology Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to put this back in: "Authorship doubters believe that, for centuries, Shakespeare biographers have suspended orthodox methods and criteria to weave inadmissible evidence into their histories of the Stratford man and claim that some mainstream scholars have ignored the subject in order to protect the economic gains that the Shakespeare publishing world has provided them," that's fine with me, but I cut it because I thought they were vague and/or peripheral to your main argument and not covered in the main text, not because I was trying to gain a head start in the lead ot that I thought it was attacking anyone.

Just wanted to comment that the first line comes from the Price section, so it is in the main text, and you will recall saying the Price's section would need to be accounted for in the lead. The second line actually came from you - i just moved it from a strat graph to an anti-strat graph and recast the sentence to drive home the point more. And I still think we should both cut the great bulk (if not all) of the attacks on methods and standards - it's making the lead into a battleground. Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where either side is overly harsh. This may come as a surprise, but this is probably the most polite description of the authorship question that I've ever read. You don't quote the Ogburns or anyone else on what a rustic yokel Shakspur was, and I don't quote the harshest conclusions about anti-Strats of Schoenbaum and Wells, so I don't agree with you that the treatment violates the policy you quoted in that manner of being excessive or overly harsh. In fact, WP:Fringe states that "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 I think it is remarkably restrained in its presentation of its assessment by the academic community.

As far as other editors being critical, it appears to me that Schoenbaum was satisfied with my defense of the wording (one word, actually).

No, I think we have all mentioned this stuff - even Mr. Pope - not a great "editor" by any means, but he still has a viewpoint regardless of his editing skills. He made quite the impassioned plea addressing these same issues. Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I do believe that the entire article violates that policy in being a use of point-counterpoint style refutations, but at this point in time I don't think we can move away from that.

yes, this is a debate after all. But do note that it says to "avoid" point-counterpoint. It does not say never to use it. This may be one of those cases where it's too complicated a subject not to need the point-counterpoint style in place.Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The points in the lede explaining each side have a rough parity:

• "William Shakespeare" was a pen name to keep the writer's identity secret
• "Shakspere" of Stratford did not have the background
• personal attributes don't fit biography
• lack of concrete evidence of extensive education necessary
• question whether a commoner from country town could have gained the life experience

not quite - not "could he?" but from what we know about his life, the experience he did have just doesn't sit right.Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• question whether commoner could have adopted the aristocratic

it's not because he was a "commoner", it's about what we know about him (lawsuits, moneylending, grain-hoarding) vs the attitude expressed in the plays. And I know you bring up the biographical fallacy argument, but that argument is not exclusive. Yes, it happens (the fallacy) sometimes, maybe often, but that does not mean it necessarily happens every time. Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

vs.

• testimony in the First Folio
• inscription on Shakespeare's Stratford monument
• Title pages
• testimony by other contemporary poets and historians
• official records
• that type of evidence is lacking for any other alternative candidate

aside from some minor quibbles regarding "commoner" the only one I see that doesn't ring true is "that type of evidence is lacking for any other alternative candidate". Both Schoenbaum and I have argued against this because they have been used as evidence. I know you don't agree and that "interpretive" is problematic, but they are used by both sides. And both sides "interpret" - I have used Groat's Worth as an example of this before. The Title page of the Sonnets are certainly used by anti-strats. Admittedly, Price's candidate is merely defined as "a nobleman", but she definitely uses official records and has come out against Stratford and for some anonymous royal. That's still an alternative candidate to Stratford, isn't it? Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, with your sentence added in as above, both sides have a section pointing out where they believe the other side goes wrong.

In the end, I feel sure we're going to need some neutral observer to referee when we get dead locked, and not anybody with a one-week editing history. Tom Reedy (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right, but at least we are talking and making a little progress. Sorry it took 2 days to get back to these questions. I closed a huge show on the 14th, which was a two show day, and yesterday and today have been alot about catching up. In the meantime I had to try and keep up with all the WTF changes in the last 48 hours.Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to propose the following three changes to Tom's last version above (I do like keeping it short):

• Delete "of the more than 50 candidates that have been proposed,[13]" It's too much detail and not essential to understanding what the article is about.

• In para 2, after "Alternate authorship researchers focus on," I would insert, "anomalies that they see as inconsistent with the mainstream view, and especially on apparent inconsistencies in", and delete "in the relationship". This sentence would then read: "Alternate authorship researchers focus on anomalies that they see as inconsistent with the mainstream view, and especially on apparent inconsistencies between the content of the plays and poems and a candidate’s known education, life experiences, and recorded history.[4]" Otherwise the sentence suggests the one example given is the only type of evidence anti-Strats use, which isn't true.

• In para 4, delete "two main pillars of evidence:" Calling them "pillars of evidence" isn't neutral language. It's editorializing about their strength, which doesn't belong in the lede.

Schoenbaum (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I posted the last version above (the one that cut it down 170 words, posted at 9:07 on Feb 14). Can you clarify if that is the version to which you are referring? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well he did say "Tom's last version above," so I assumed he meant mine. (But re-reading it I think he meant yours. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

As to Schoenbaum's suggestions: I don't know how all this is going to play out, since the WTF edits of this morning. But if we're still talking about this, I can go along with the original "numerous" instead of "more than 50." As per the second suggestion, an apt citation is needed, and "perceived" should be used in front of "anomolies" and in place of "apparent". "Two main pillars" is rhetoric related to support, not editorial language. But if you can come up with something else, I won't fight it as long as it's accurate.

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. Once we get through this step then we can talk about his other changes to the lede.

And Smatprt you need to respond to my comments above Schoenbaum's. I get tired of being told to comment on the talk page and then having my comments ignored. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just did!Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on replacing 'more than 50' with 'numerous'. Reliable sources give precise numbers over the decades. By 1958, 21 claimants had been proposed (William D. Rubinstein Shadow pasts: history's mysteries, Pearson Education, 2007 p.77). By 2005, the number was 56 (Scott McCrea, The Case for Shakespeare: the end of the authorship question, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005 p.14). Precision should always be preferred to vagueness and ((b) when the exact figure has been calculated, or is known and cited, to ignore it in favour of an editor's generic choice or strategic preference for an indefinite figure looks like a manipulation, where editorial judgements overrides RS.Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The latest (Feb. 14) lede looks much better. Would "major planks" work instead of "pillars"? LAL (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry Smatprt, I meant your last version -- the one that "cut it down 170 words." Re: "more than 50" vs. "numerous," I prefer the latter. The supposed "precision" of giving a number is meaningless when there's no precision about the criteria used to decide which are serious candidates. Many are not. Re: putting "perceived" in place of "apparent" in front of "anomalies." I propose simply replacing "anomalies" with "evidence." Then it becomes, "Alternate authorship researchers focus on evidence that they see as inconsistent with the mainstream view, and especially on apparent inconsistencies between the content of the plays and poems and a candidate’s known education, life experiences, and recorded history.[4]" Then "perceived" is unnecessary because it's clear from "they see as inconsistent." There's also no need to get specific about the other evidence because it's just a general statement about other evidence, with the one example given. I just don't want any implication that doubters use only one type of evidence, because it's not true. Re: two main "pillers" of evidence, "planks" is acceptable to me. Schoenbaum (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

'The supposed "precision" of giving a number is meaningless when there's no precision about the criteria used to decide which are serious candidates.'

There is no supposed precision, but a datum given by an RS. Your second error is to employ an editorial judgement that challenges the content given by an RS. In this, you are patently challenging RS on subjective personal grounds, intruding your own views of an article's subject's sources and their validity, which is not one of a wikipedian editor's rights. The point therefore is self-invalidated.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In passing, where is LAL's record, other than a remark by Richard of NZ, dated the 25th Sept 2007 which doesn't show up on User:Richard001's page history as ever having been made? Just curious.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Kathman wrap-up

Tom, you asked what I felt the consensus at this point is. Let me answer as best I can.

• While its true that no true "consensus" has been achieved it certainly appears that the majority feeling is that the Kathman site is useable, but with some caveats attached:

• Most editors (here and in general) would always prefer, whenever possible, to see sources that are of higher quality (what ever that means) and have greater accountability than a self-published website.

• Several editors (Dlabot, Crum375) also noted that clear attribution (in-text) should be used. For me, a key to this consensus it the use of in-text attribution as it will assure readers that certain statements are the opinion of Kathman and not a statement of undisputed fact, or that one researcher is speaking for the "academic consensus" - a claim that would be classified as extraordinary, and would require RS of the highest quality (not just the fact that certain Stratfordians recommend him).

• One (Crum375) also mentioned that in any case, "how" to use the site should be discussed by the article editors.

Now that we have a pretty good picture on how these editors feel, I think we can continue working on the article and decide how and when to use the website back on the article talk page. I acknowledge the feeling of the majority there and will provide greater leeway for the Kathman site as we move forward. Though I would have preferred a different outcome, I want to thank the editors there for providing input. Smatprt (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Authorship doubters

I forgot to give an edit summary for why I have removed this meaningless phrase. No one doubts that the corpus of works ascribed to Shakespeare have an author, or authors. Therefore, one cannot coin a weird expression like 'authorship doubters' to refer to those who subscribe to the view that Shakespeare of Stratford was not the author, but de Vere, or Bacon, or whoever, was. Unless of course you take the Harold Bloomian joke about Shakespeare being God literally.Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The term "authorship doubters" refers to those who doubt the traditional attribution of the works to William Shakespeare of Stratford without necessarily favoring a specific alternative candidate. The term is in common use, and has a well-understood meaning. The "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt," for example, uses it consistently throughout, and has been signed by over 1,700 people, including over 300 academics. They apparently had no problem with it. I think this change should be reverted. Schoenbaum (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually searched it and discovered it is recent, and in-house jargon. One does not use the 'cant' of a sect (the other Schoenbaum's term, not mine) to describe that movement objectively. If one uses such 'infra-nos' neologisms, which the larger public does not know about, it must be glossed and sourced to a definition, usually. Wiki asks that we write in clear comprehensible English, avoiding such groupish terminology where possible. This is about Shakespeare, who was the most verbally sensitive writer in our language, and therefore it is particularly important to bear that in mind, and use words carefully. 'Authorship doubters' to a newby, or someone unfamiliar with this sect's views, or an accomplished German or Russian born English speaker, would be construed as I construe it, as expressing the weird idea that certain people entertain doubts that Shakespeare's works were 'authored', and would pause to mull over the apparent non-sequitur. [User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should write in clear, comprehensible English, and "Shakespeare authorship doubter" is more clear, accurate and intuitively understandable than the jargonish "anti-Stratfordian" -- a term coined by Stratfordians to describe their opponents, which is widely accepted but shouldn't be because of its misleading connotation of opposition to the town of Stratford and dislike of its native son. Authorship doubters are not necessarily "anti" anything, any more than doubters of the existence of an all-powerful God are necessarily anti-religion, although believers, threatened by their non-belief, often see them as such. The term "Shakespeare authorship doubter" is as easily defined for the uninitiated as "anti-Stratfordian." The title of this article is "Shakespeare authorship controversy." The topic arises from the fact that credible people have long doubted the traditional attribution of the works. That's an accurate statement, using non-jargonish English. It makes sense to describe such people as Shakespeare authorship doubters, or skeptics. It avoids the implication of active opposition. Many doubters have a live-and-let-live attitude, and in that sense are not "anti-"Stratfordians. So I propose that the term simply be defined as I've defined it above, and regarded as a suitable alternative to the misleading term "anti-Stratfordian." As a Stratfordian partisan, I can understand why you want to dictate the terminology we use to describe ourselves, but this article is about the minority view, not the mainstream view. The minority should have a right to define itself in its own terms, as long as they're within Wikipedia policies. Language is not static. It evolves over time, as any Shakespeare scholar should know. The term "Shakespeare authorship doubter" is well-established, and doubters shouldn't have to defend it. 96.251.82.13 (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In standard English prose you cannot use an expression like 'Shakespeare authorship doubter' at the head of every other sentence. It sounds like a mantra, and produces a dull thud in the reader's head like a hammer. Once one makes clear in a lead that this is the subject of the page, one uses (a) either personal author attributions in stating pèositions within the unorthodox fold (the best solution), or variation, such as 'doubter' 'sceptic' etc. I suggest one go through the text count the number of times 'Shakespeare authorship doubter', or 'authorship doubter' is used, an make a Google Books check on both these phrases as well to supply us with evidence as to whether or not these terms are widely used. Nishidani (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nidishani, Please spare us the lectures about what the language can or cannot do. I happen to agree with you that the clarity of the article can be much improved. But only yesterday (metaphorically speaking) there were in these discussions a number of proponents of conventional views of authorship who couldn't be bothered to us a spell checker and coined phrases like "pèositions within the unorthodox field" in posts advocating clarity of expression. The question is not whether the disputed terms are widely used -- a logical fallacy of impressive dimensions, which implies that popularity of expression is synonymous with clarity. The question is whether they are apt to the purpose of describing the phenomenon they purport to elucidate. I would not infer that the terminology of the page cannot be improved upon. But I'm getting that de ja vu feeling all over again, like "here we go, another person who pops in out of nowhere, who appears to know very little about the subject in question but parades a knowledge which in substance he does not have, and proposes to make himself the arbiter of what's appropriate and what's not by asking us to "check google books." Please. --BenJonson (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"As a Stratfordian partisan, I can understand why you want to dictate the terminology we use to describe ourselves, but this article is about the minority view, not the mainstream view."

Is hair-trigger touchiness and knee-jerk defensiveness a requirement for anti-Strats? Or does it just seem that way?

"The minority should have a right to define itself in its own terms, as long as they're within Wikipedia policies."

Not on Wikipedia they shouldn't. An encyclopedia describes topics as they are; it doesn't introduce new terms or concepts.

"Language is not static. It evolves over time, as any Shakespeare scholar should know."

Not in encyclopedias, it doesn't. But of course, the anti-Strats who edit on Wikipedia have a different idea of Wikipedia's purpose. They seem to believe it's a promotional tool. This particular article, as bad as it is, is a model of unbiased reporting compared to the Oxfordian theory article, where I wouldn't be surprised to see a print-out membership application any day now.

"The term 'Shakespeare authorship doubter' is well-established, and doubters shouldn't have to defend it."

This article is the first place I've ever seen it used, and I've been arguing authorship for more than a decade now. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"The minority should have a right to define itself in its own terms, as long as they're within Wikipedia policies."

If this view is what some editors believe is a right to be exercised over this article, then we are in strife. No wikipedia article, on principle, can be written by partisans, because that would violate the fundamental pillar of the encyclopedia, WP:NPOV. Nishidani

(talk) 14:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If no Wikipedia entry can be edited by partisans, Nishidani, you should recuse yourself. Your partisanship is very evident. The real question is not whether there is a partisan bias among participants, but whether editors can place their own opinions in the context of the larger intellectual debate. You are typical of those who imagine that the debate is not real, and therefore up to this point in time your contributions seem less aimed at improving the quality of the presentation than they are in skewing the entry to reflect this prejudice. As I've said a number of times before, the views of the orthodox tradition are very thoroughly and ably represented in a number of other Wikipedia entries. The purpose of this one is to fairly and comprehensively represent the minority opinion in its various permutations. Its the same principle which allows Supreme Court justices like John Paul Stevens to author minority opinions even when they do not side with the majority. Stevens, by the way, knows much more about the authorship question than you do, from what I can tell.--BenJonson (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"The purpose of this one is to fairly and comprehensively represent the minority opinion in its various permutations." You are in effect saying that this article is to promote anti-Stratfordism. Sorry, but that is not the purpose of this article or any other on Wikipedia. The guidelines stress that any article on a fringe theory or minority point of view should make it very clear that they are such, and the reasons why. And it appears to me that Nidishani is very well versed on this topic. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, please do not take my remarks out of context and redefine them according to your own prejudicial lexicon. An important element of my comment was the concession that other wiki articles already represent the orthodox view.

You are in effect arguing that because your "side" is "right" (you are very sure of this, because so many powerful and influential academics have directly or indirectly assured you that it must be so), those who are the "wrong" side should not be allowed to speak for themselves. Please review again my analogy. Do you find it flawed?

Do you support a theory of the judiciary in which only those judges voting in the majority are allowed to leave remarks on the record? If so, please explain yourself. If you think the analogy is flawed, please argue your point.

But you can no longer make the argument on the basis that some of the partisans in the debate belong to the "Supreme court" (or any court for that matter) and others don't. As you know, and have admitted, the boundaries between "us" and "them" are beginning to disintegrate.

You are wrong to infer that my comment constitutes a vote to represent those minority opinions in isolation from the opinions of the majority. That is your projection, and it is not an accurate interpretation either of what I said or my intent in saying what I did say. Any credible minority opinion MUST refer also the convictions of the majority. The article in its present form does that. Can the lead and other parts be improved? Absolutely. I hope we improve them.

Finally, however, althought appreciate the fact that you left your snide Tom Reedy out of your reply in this instance, you are still indulging in a partisan debate that starts off with the assumption of bad intent on my part. That is an unfortunate indication that you still have a way to go in understanding the implications of where you stand. You can appeal to wiki "standards" till the cows come home -- it doesn't help you.--BenJonson (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

The recent wholesale block revert of my edits, as I reviewed the text this morning, is unacceptable, since it smacks of WP:OWN violation. I am more than happy to discuss any edit I make, and justify it.

There is a huge amount of poor work, and slapdash method throughout this page, and so far I have closed an eye to much of it. What I did was a light clean-up of several areas where texts were miscited, phrasing was misleading, up-to-date scholarship ignored, or simply bad writing was evidenced. One does not negotiate how to phrase the intended idea behind 'authorship doubters'. One emends it to comprehensible English, for example.

I was looking at this this morning, for example:

Many anti-Stratfordians have suggested that "Greene's Groatsworth of Wit" could imply Shakespeare of Stratford was being given credit for the work of other writers, and that Davies' mention of "our English Terence" is a mixed reference given that many contemporary Elizabethan scholars knew of Terence as, in reality, an actor who was a front man for one or more Roman aristocratic playwrights.

This conflates two distinct points arching over almost two decades, Robert Greene 's Groatsworth of Wit (1592), and John Davies's 1610 poem from his 'Scourge of Folly'. Neither Greene nor Davies are linked. Poor editing. Do I need consensus to edit that? No. Should I be reverted if I edit it, because I haven't obtained permission (consensus)? More seriously,

(a)the non-RS source for the statement about Terence, Mark Anderson, a journalist who writes desultorily for the Boston Globe and Rolling Stone, which therefore means he is on a par as an authority with Schoenbaum, Homan, Wells and co., I suppose, makes the remark on p.xxxi, not p.xxx, as far as Google Books allows me to see.

(b) He is not 'many anti-Stratfordians' but one kibitzer. The line should read 'Mark Anderson, not 'Many anti-Stratfordians.

(c)mixed reference should be 'possibly ambiguous reference'.

(d)We read the following extraordinary assertion. 'Terence as, in reality, an actor who was a front man for one or more Roman aristocratic playwrights', though it may paraphrase what Mark Anderson believes, happens to be untrue.

(e)Since it is untrue, it still may be an untruth believed, by 'many contemporary Elizabethan scholars'). But Mark Anderson, not an RS for Elizabethan scholars and their beliefs, cannot be cited for this view. You need an external source from mainstream scholarship.

(f) Mainstream scholarship won't provide you with that required reference for the simple reason that

(g) Elizabethan scholars were fluent Latinists, and familiar with Terence, and his biographers, such as Suetonius, and drew their information from those classical sources. In these sources, there is no mention of Terence being 'in reality, an actor who was a front man for one or more Roman aristocratic playwrights'.

(h)The remark garbles the following two passages from classical literature:

(h.1)

nam quod isti dicunt malivoli, homines nobilis

hunc adiutare adsidueque una scribere:

quod illi maledictum vehemens esse existumant,

eam laudem hic ducit maxumam, quom illis placet,

qui vobis univorsis et populo placent,

quorum opera in bello, in otio, in negotio

suo quisque tempore usust sine superbis. Terence, Adelphoe, lines 15-21

(h.2)

'Non obscura fama est adiutum Terentium in scriptis a Laelio et Scipione eamque ipse auxit numquam nisi leviter refutare conatus, . .Videtur autem levius (se) defendisse, quia sciebat et Laelio et Scipioni non ingratam esse hanc opinionem, quae tum magis et usque ad posteriora tempora valuit.' Suetonius, de Poetis ed. Augusto Rostagni, Loescher, Rome 1956 p.35

I.e., Terence refers to malignant rumours spread by Luscius Lanuvinus and others that his work was polished by members of the nobility. He appreciates the fact that the nobility honour him with their friendship. In Suetonius, it is noted that Terence never took serious efforts to deny the rumour that his authorship was helped by Laelius and Scipio Africanus. Donatus in his biography adds Furius. No evidence exists that Terence was a frontman.

Any Elizabethan scholar familiar with these texts would not fabricate a wild notion that Terence was just an actor, playing the frontman for aristocratic playwrights. That sentence is a retroactive fiction reconstruing the evidence above in a misprision which allows the author to mug up a perfect fit between Terence and Shakespeare, Laelius and deVere. Sheer incompetence. Okay, the sources for these oddball notions are all RS for the fringe theorie being examined. They are not to be used as sources for the Elizabethan period, as the drift of the language used to compose this text often makes out. So 'anti-Stratfordians' opn each occasion has to be specified, i.e. who is saying what, given that there are 56 different people to whom the 'authorship doubters' ascribe Shakespeare's works, and most of them disagree among themselves. So far it is like describing the intricate history of early Church heresies to one comprehensive 'Anti-Roman' viewpoint, when you simply have hundreds of distinct groups opposed to the growing orthodoxy of the Church of Rome, and to each other. Wiki pages cannot be composed according to the eccentric protocols of Ogburnian-deVerean mythology. Period.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely that the existing wording here was very sloppy and required emendation. There is no justification for claiming as a fact that Terence was a front. However, this is also not really the point and your rebuttal is unfairly prejudicial to the notion that Elizabethans may well have supposed that Terence was a front. Your classical sources do not address this point. And you make up for the difference with the usual tired ad hominems. There are doubtless errors in Ogburn's book, but phrases like "the eccentric protocols of the Ogburnian deVerean mythology" do not advance the discussion and suggest a ready willingness to follow the usual orthodox methodology of "guilt by association." Mr. Ogburn is not responsible for the poor wording of passages of this Wikipedia article, however convenient you might find it to pretend that he is.--BenJonson (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this tricky page. Well explained and competent edits. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The edits discussed here are well reasoned and I have no problem seeing them restored. But many of the changes to the lead did not follow policy on leads nor on fringe articles. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, not introduce detailed evidence. that is what the article is for. Also, adding in stuff like "cranks and lunatics" would fall under the category of "unduly harsh" criticism, as explained at wp:fringe. According to policy, the minority theory should be explained clearly, followed by a summary of the "more accepted ideas". I don't think "more accepted ideas" means you lambast the researcher and their methods. If we can all just stick to the debate itself instead of trying to tear down the researchers themselves, we would be far more successful in creating an article that actually follows wiki policies and benefits the reader. Smatprt (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You are making here as to Ed Johnson generic remarks about policy breaches. You have failed, while reverting, to explain why you, and so far no one else, considered my complex series of edits all in breach of these rules. I've been editing for 4 years here. The remark about 'cranks and heretics' (not lunatics, which is your choice of word) sums up in the lead what the foremost Shakespearean scholar of the day thought of these theories, and allows us to understand why most of this work is ignored by professional Shakespearean scholars. It sums up succinctly, in four epithets, by the once ranking scholar, why the authorship question is ignored, and precisely for this reason is appropriate to the lead. This whole article is dealing with WP:fringe theories, and in defending its many non RS sources, you appear to challenge some of the finest scholarship's summary assessments of the fringe theory as unfair.

I would appreciate it if you enumerate your objections in an orderly precise fashion, and be highly specific, and not generic. We work on wiki articles not to just 'stick to the debate', meaning endless discussion, but to write articles that are readable, up-to-date, objective accounts of the state of the art. This article fails on all counts, and one cannot rifle the wiki rulebook endlessly to hold to ransom obvious corrections in citation, phrasing, and presentation. Look at the historical introduction. A shambles. Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok - first, I have no problem with minor fixes and going with inline attributions (many used to be there, in fact). But you can see that we are in the middle of discussions about the lead, so making major changes there should, at the very least, follow those discussions, after an attempt at consensus building. Does that make sense? Smatprt (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, let's drop the past. I made 27 sequential revisions of the text over one period today. Of those I thought one challengeable on technical grounds. Most of the rest were intended to remove poor phrasing ('authorship doubters'): finesse generic remarks 'anti-Stratfordians' with specific authors, i.e. John Anderson: to add WP:RS of the highest order for the orthodox perspective such as Schoenbaum and Park Homan: to add a book reference from a doubter's perspective (B. James and and W.Rubenstein's The truth will out): to correct the 29,000 word vocabulary patch, which is just Marvin Spevack's highest estimation (he counts 'cry, cries, cried' as three words), by noting Manfred Scheler's more conservative figure of 17,500.18,000 words, which is roughly Milton's range: to use the impeccable Cambridge History of the English Language source: to adjust the sloppy confusion over Edward's reference, not to Venus and Adonis, as the text had it, but to 'Adon' (Edmunds is parodying both Marlowe and Shakespeare, whoever either or both were for him, and certainly not saying the poet of Venus and Adonis wore 'purple garb'), etc.etc. Though most of this was commonsensical and off-the-top of the head, I did quite a bit of checking around. I fully expected challenges, but not total muddle.

Since your mass revert, which I can understand as a reasonable fear by someone who hasn't seen me on this page, we have had successive to-and-fro mass or partial reverts, so that I can no longer recognize the page, and do not want to waste several hours nitting and picking to piece back the bits and pieces strewn over the history page. I note that a highly experienced editor, User:Ssilvers has reverted now to more or less the old version, restoring bad phrasing and all since it was consensual, and we have therefore, from a wikipedian with 55,000 edits to his credit, the 'stable version before edit-warring occurred', which means he sees my 27 careful, content-and style-related edits as the initiator of an edit-war. The result, he's just restored huge amounts of material both you and I would agree is junk, and thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

We have for example, this misleading factoid restored,

Anti-stratfordians also note the lack of any concrete evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford had the extensive education doubters claim is evident in Shakespeare's works, including an enormous vocabulary of approximately 29,000 words.

And apparently my perfectly neutral correction, which adjust this to a more refined state of the art details, has been cancelled as contributive of edit-warring, i.e.

Anti-stratfordians believe that Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the extensive education evidenced in the works, that he could not have gained the wide learning attested in the plays, nor mastered the extensive vocabulary exhibited by the texts, variously calculated, according to different criteria, as ranging between 17,500 to 29,066 words.

Worse, and you should have noticed this when simply reverting my work, both you, and other reverters, and now Ssilvers, have thrown out material that is taken from the sceptical doubter side of the equation. Such as this, which surely no 'authorship doubter' would challenge. I.e.

Other doubters, using precisely the same material, argue that the allusion shows Sir Henry Neville to be the real Shakespeare.

I'm an old man. I haven't time to waste on edit wars. I dislike hard work being wiped out indiscriminately. I'd have been quite happy to work with people ready to review my contributions edit by edit, even excorporate what they found challengeable and copy it here for discussion, which is what you should have done with the few bits in the lead you disliked instead of restarting the battle. But I'm afraid I'm not up to it, to have the careful results of several decades of reading, and 4 in retirement helping out on wiki, wiped out, patchily restored, partially elided, semi-reverted, till I can't work out what's going on. This is not about the lead, and wiki editing works on a long time-scale.

I'd appreciate one more goodwill gesture. Revert to my last edit version, then cut and paste the bits, because I don't think there are many, you take personal exception to, and paste them into a new section here. That is the way it should have been done. I haven't edit-warred at all, and the last and only second time I broke 3RR was in Otober 2007. I ask this, not because I think 'my version' should prevail, but because it was an integral series of edits that can justly be challenged in specific points, but not rendered unrecognizable as it has been by the edit-war which ensued.

Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you stick around. I agree with Old Moonraker that this page desperately needs a new vision. The edits made by Nishidani cut a Gordian knot of stalled, half-baked edits with well-supported scholarship and pointed teh article in a new direction that more closely resembles what Wikipedia policy calls for. I propose a moratorium on edits to this page by Smatprt and myself for a month. After that, we could join in the fray if we wish, but he and I are only contributing to the problem by engaging in an endless feud that guarantees an insipid encyclopedia article. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting in on restoring the non-controversial edits now. I agree the cut and paste can be tedious so I'll just tack them one at a time. I'll leave the lead as it is until the current discussion (which only began yesterday) has the chance to gain some sort of consensus. It may never happen, but at least we can give it a shot.Smatprt (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not do as he asks and revert the entire set of edits and then replace the lede with the current one? That seems to me it would be easier, and then you can identify the changes you think needs discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, my understanding is that Shakespeare only has this humongous vocabulary if you count "do," "doing," "done," "did" as separate words, and "wing," "winged" "eagle," "eagle-winged" as separate also. Is "read" one word or two? What about "murther" and "murder?" "Showest" and "show'st?" With 27,505 distinct spellings in the canon (29,066 counting proper names), it would seem that all this would have been worked out long ago, but for some reason it hasn't been. Counting only lemmas, Shakespeare's vocabulary shrinks to about 18,000, or around 16,400 leaving out proper names.

Most estimates say that the average person knows (or at least can recognize) around 100,000 words. Nobody is saying we use that many words every day, nor does anybody I know think Shakespeare used the same number of words in his everyday speech. Poetry and drama are, after all, elevated speech that calls for more than the ordinary daily vocabulary. The few people I've talked to who are knowledgable about Milton tell me that if you tally up the words from Milton's prose works (which has never been done as far as I know), his vocabulary would be larger than Shakespeare's, but I'm not an expert.

I was going to get to this eventually. Nishidani is right when he excoriates anti-Stratfordian claims. Most of them are wrenched out of context and cooked up from rumors, half-truths and outright lies. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A great scholar, a rare breed of man, and doyen of Holocaust studies, Raul Hilberg, once remarked that one should not be disconcerted by holocaust-deniers to the point of calling for repressing them, or censorship. Occasionally, their otherwise wholly unacceptable views, hyperfocused on all sorts of out of the way data and material, can bring up details, problems, that make the professional scholar think harder. There is very little in the 'Oxfordian' tradition that makes one think harder, but occasionally their obsessive researchs do turn up useful ideas or stuff. Alan Nelson, de Vere's 'orthodox' biographer, found the discovery of an annotation in a copy of William Camden’s Britannia by the Oxfordian neurologist Dr Paul Altrocchi of great value, since it qualified Shakespeare of Stratford as a great actor in the view of his wealthy neighbours, and not the one-dimensional Stratford businessman of myth. So, while I think most of this material is outlandish, that doesn't stop me from keeping an open mind. It just worries me that people read the greatest writer in English for clues to who he might have been, and not as a vademecum for understanding who they, or we are, which is the proper end of the art of reading.

As to Milton, I read four decades ago that the range of his English vocabulary was of the order of 17,000 words. Can't recall the source, only the seat in the library where I read the page. I won't edit till things cool down here, and I see real commitment to improving what is a scandalously poor page. Consensus is fine, but if it is based on wikilawyering, rather than an achieved and reciprocal awareness of what constitutes the basis for evidence, and method, it only produces a mishmash that no one is happy with.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

'restoring the non-controversial edits'. I hope you are aware that 'controversy' in standard usage implies that any group from several people to a public disagree about something. As far as I can see, you alone found what I wrote 'controversial', by which you mean, you disagreed with my edits. Disagreeing with another person does not mean that what that person wrote or said is 'controversial'. All of the anti-Stratford material is, by definition, 'controversial', dear Smatprt, since it deals in unorthodox fringe theories and interpretations. The material and sources I cited, or the summaries I gave from the world of scholarship, are not (though even there controversy abounds, but not on this theory). I mean no offence, but Shakespeare, whoever he was, was like the fellow in Thomas Hardy's Afterwards, who 'used to notice such things' in the exquisite delicacies and unintended slips of implication. We read him to learn to care for the nuances of what we say. One doesn't, here, use 'controversial' as a synonym for 'what I personally find unacceptable'.Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 14 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)

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)

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)

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)

File:ShakespeareCandidates.pdf

Collage of candidates.

• File:ShakespeareControversy.jpg
• 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)

Notes on Method

I.Since there is much evidence of poor or distorting paraphrasing, and sourcing that doesn’t back up what the text asserts, I agree with Tom’s recent edit asking for precise page numbers to cited books. Not to follow this convention is to constrain other editors to read a book just to find one attributed remark from it.

II.Irrespective of the ideological divide, there is a question of style. The page is poorly written.

The overarching error consists in the creation of a generic rubric ‘authorship doubters’ (13 times), or ‘Anti-Stratfordians’ (43) times to form the subject of many sentences that then are sourced to one individual author. The impression given is that ‘authorship doubters’ are a collective, sharing a similar perspective, outlook, method and ideology. Since there are to date 56 distinct candidates for the ‘anti-Stratfordian’ author in the hypothesis, and since a large number of these writers dispute not only with orthodox scholarship but among themselves, it is sheer deception to write in language that would have the reader assume they share similar views, or that the there are not deep rifts among anti-Stratfordians. As it stands, the false impression is contrived that there is only a 'Stratfordian'-'Anti-Stratfordian divide. In illustration, Rubinstein, who supports the candidacy of Sir Henry Neville (Brenda James, W. D. Rubinstein, The truth will out: unmasking the real Shakespeare, Pearson Education, 2005), writes that

‘The reluctance of academics in English Literature seriously to consider the possibility that anyone other than William Shakespeare actually wrote the works attributed to him is enormously compounded by the naïve nature of most anti-Stratfordian material by obvious amateur authors, which is often badly written and /or poorly researched. No one can read widely in the anti-Stratfordian corpus, either that from the past or the present, without concluding that many of the theories advanced would not survive close scrutiny’ (William D. Rubinstein, Shadow pasts: history's mysteries, Pearson Education, 2007 (see on Shakespeare ch.4 pp69-100),p.82.

I.e. here you have an anti-Stratfordian who refuses to be categorized simply as one, but wishes to cut out his own position as a distinct one, methodologically and in terms of theory. I come back to Tom's point: all positions should be referred to the authors in the citations, and not to some generic 'anti-Stratfordians'.

Unless we can agree on principles like this there is little point in editing. I have several others, but in the meantime await input on this issue.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the same should go for Stratfordian positions as well. When Tom says "all positions", I hope this applies to the whole article. Just count the "orthodox scholars" and "mainstream scholars" and you see the same problem. It's not as if there isn't major disagreement about most issues within mainstream camps as well. From dating to sources, everything seems to have adherents and detractors. Yes? Smatprt (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course giving exact page numbers is a requirement of citation that cannot be ignored.

I don't think we're going to get away from the poor writing, because it is a byproduct of poor thinking, which condition could almost define the topic.

I suggest that a new section be started, one that outlines the objections to the anti-Stratfordian methodology instead of trying to introduce them inline as you did with your edits. It should follow "Criticism of mainstream view" and point out the reasons why academics reject those arguments. I think that would be more useful than a point-by-point refutation, which is largely a waste of time, since more points are always forthcoming. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have sincere doubts that, given the history here, such a section could be written from a neutral point of view and not be "overtly harsh". But if it could be, it might solve some of the other problems. Smatprt (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an important distinction between 'overtly' and 'overly' which your remarks confuse.

You are quoting WP:fringe out of context, the statement about 'overly harsh’ (not as you write ‘overtly’ harsh) words refers to the language an editor uses in describing a fringe subject, not to what can and cannot be culled from the best RS concerning those fringe sources.

Actually, the whole tradition of anti-Stratford theorizing is full of contemptuous language, yokel, hick, illiterate, low-born. The whole tradition is based on the snobbish premise that poor people denied a university education, can rise to rank among the great authors of literature, which itself is a bizarre and cranky notion denied by numerous examples in world literature (see below)

I suggest citing both Schoenbaum for the orthodox view and Rubenstein, who opts for Sir Henry Neville, and therefore is an anti-Stratfordian, for the same opinion, put more euphemistically:

‘The reluctance of academics in English Literature seriously to consider the possibility that anyone other than William Shakespeare actually wrote the works attributed to him is enormously compounded by the naïve nature of most anti-Stratfordian material by obvious amateur authors, which is often badly written and /or poorly researched. No one can read widely in the anti-Stratfordian corpus, either that from the past or the present, without concluding that many of the theories advanced would not survive close scrutiny’ William D. Rubinstein, Shadow pasts: history's mysteries, Pearson Education, 2007 p.82

Well, this can head the new section, since the authority is impeccable. I know it was removed from the lead, but it has to go somewhere.

'The vast majority of Shakespearean scholars, referred to as "Stratfordians" by their adversaries, pay little if any attention to the topic and are dismissive of anti-Stratfordian theorizing, which Samuel Schoenbaum, the former doyen of Shakespearean biographers, once defined as the work of 'amateurs', 'eccentrics', 'cranks' and 'heretics, alert to conspiracies'.

Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose adding this as it would certainly be defined as "overtly harsh criticism", and as such would be against policy as stated previously. Aslo - and I may recall incorrectly, but isn't this taking Schoenbaum out of context. If I recall correctly, he once thought this, but then loosened up a bit. Regardless, those kinds of quotes should not be used any more than Ogburn's stuff about yokels. Constantly attacking the anti-strat researchers is not the way to make this article better. Why would you think it would?Smatprt (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(3) The History of Authorship doubts is methodologically fraudulent. This section must write the history in chronological order, from Joseph C.Hart (1848) and Delia Bacon (1856) onwards to outline the rise of doubt, down to our day, touching on the main theorizers, Looney, Ogburn and co.

Then, a second paragraph must deal with the hypothesis that doubts existed, though they are not extant or documented, in the Elizabethan period itself. Diana Price's theory, and others

As it is written, recent hypotheses are made to look like retrospective facts, backdating a modern fringe theory to make out it was in fact entertained before it was even thought of four centuries ago, which destroys all chronology, or rather upends it.Nishidani (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the history section needs work (I believe Tom had actually laid claim to it, saying he was the only one who knew the history). But I disagree about breaking the chronology. Early doubts (or those interpreted as such) should start the section - as long as it is clear that they were interpretive, then moving on to the 1800's etc. It would make no sense to start in the 1800's, move into the present, than go back to the 16th century. Smatprt (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you are completely confused. There are 'no early doubts', as even the anti-Stratfordian historians admit. There are modern hypotheses about the possible existence of early doubts, extremely flimsy, yet no doubt a part of the record. The error you are making is called hysteron proteron, or putting the cart before the horse. For Chrissake, this is high school level compositional method (or when schooling was serious, was).Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User Nishidani: "there are no 'early doubts.'" And you know this because?

"extremely flimsy." Please cite an example.

Better yet let's take, for instance, the recent article published in Brief Chronicles by Detobel and Ligon on Francis Meres. I assume you know about this publication. If not, you can find it by googling.

Please read this article, which suggests that Meres knew full well that Oxford was Shakespeare, and designed his commentary to communicate this knowledge. Please then explain if you still think that all the examples of claims of early doubts are "extremely flimsy," operationalising your terminology so that we can understand what, to you, constitutes "extremely flimsy" and realize that it does apply to the claims in question put forward by Detobel and Ligon. Please do not attack the authors of the article personally. If you do, it will be credited as an instance of your inability to abide by simple protocols of respectful debate. No, those principles are not suspended just because you have contempt for the other side. Please note that in order to accomplish this objective, you will need to read and understand the article. This is not High School level stuff. This is graduate school.

The history section does need lots of work. Its a pity we can't get Warren Hope to write it, as he is the most qualified person alive to do so. --BenJonson (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We all know that anti-Stratfordians will find "evidence" of doubt all over the place. But that is exclusively a view within the fringe theory. We cannot present that as a history of "doubt", since it is a purely "in universe" history and there is no evidence whatever of any public debate on this, just of supposed "allusions" that were never openly asserted or recognised at the time. As far as public debate goes this is reliably recorded from the mid-nineteenth century. That's when people actually say directly that someone else might have written the works. We simply record that fact and then note that later anti-Stratfordians argued that writers from earlier dates had expressed their doubts in less explicit manner. That fairly describes the situation. Paul B (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits

Since I gather the main complaints against my edits dealt with the lead, still under discussion, I have simply added there an indispensable 'citation needed' tag. The rest of the edits are to the body of the text, which is not, I presume, subject to prior consensus, judging by the edit history to date.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR violation material requiring support from secondary sources

*Describing contemporary writers, the dramatist and pamphleteer Robert Greene wrote that "others ... which for their calling and gravity being loth to have any profane pamphlets pass under their hands, get some other Batillus [a minor Augustan poet] to set his name to their verses".

*Roger Ascham in his book The Schoolmaster discusses his belief that two plays attributed to the Roman dramatist Terence were secretly written by "worthy Scipio, and wise Lælius", because the language is too elevated to have been written by "a seruile stranger" such as Terence.

These are citations from primary texts, and material here must be filtrated through RS secondary sources. That this is handled by anti-Stratfordians I do not doubt. So, whoever wants it in must check his books, and find the a-Strat books where this primary source material is discussed, and source it from them.

A more serious infringement, WP:OR has taken place in the use of Ascham's treatise, where he says no such thing as 'secretly'. As I showed, it was well known that Terence laughed at innuendoes that he had high placed friends to help him polish his work. Secondly he wrote 6 plays, of which two Cicero says were written by others, meaning four were not. This was not done 'secretly', it was openly bruited about in Terence's own time. Thirdly, it was not because the language was 'too elevated'. Ascham says certain scenes have a native fluency of correct idiom one would not expect from a foreigner, formerly a slave, and these scenes thus attest to the hand of a local litterateur of distinction. As is almost always the case, things are distorted.Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, primary sources can be used to quote text - " WP:NOR strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources in addition to these; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", and is essential to writing an encyclopedia." So if the Ascham quote is wrong, of course, change it. But both appear to be usable. And I'm not sure how the Ascham but is any different than quoting Wells or Bates from the statements they make in their books. Can you explain the difference? thanks. Smatprt (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh really, come now. You are selectively snipping and ignoring the full context (reflecting, I believe, what happens with the anti-Stratfordian 'method'). This is elementary. Ascham is not cited, he is paraphrased by the wiki editor who plopped that piece in there, and the paraphrase distorts what Ascham wrote and does so with a series of strategic misprisions of the primary source. Such misprisions are interpretive, since what the paraphrase says distorts, and does not faithfully reflect the original. You can quote a sentence, as the policy shows, from a primary source, but you cannot paraphrase it to make it say what it does not say.

'Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.'

'Reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.’’

Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source'

Policy as any neophyte quickly learns, optimally requires secondary sources to interpret primary sources, which can be cited directly where necessary, but cannot be cited synthetically to buttress an editor's personal beliefs, which is what has happened here. You want a ragged page, or one that strives to reach the 'high importance' criteria that the header says this page is to have?

In any case, these passages are in the secondary sources, and one only uses 'primary sources' with extreme care, when there is no secondary source of quality available for them. It's lazy to disregard good editorial practice, and dangerous to mess round with a presumed liberty to use 'primary sources' when the rules state the dangers involved in harvesting them as they have been done here. Playing with fire, in short.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Precise citation required, particularly from User:Smatprt

(1) Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject.

Where does McCrea say that? I cannot find the page.Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find it. Some refs have migrated as text has been added without changing cites. I'll keep looking. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Tom - you wrote the line, so what gives? Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I was worried only by the 'consequently'. It is true that academics have been, fortunately, slow to pander to public interest in conspiracy theories of this sort. But is it necessary to keep this in? Most specialists are, and always will be, simply too fascinated by the massive critical literature, interpretative books, and technical research on Shakespeare, and the Elizabethan era ever tolet themselves get embroiled in what is, so far, a fringe theory. They have enough minority hypotheses, founded on serious scholarly investigations, to examine without getting themselves sucked into polemics with people who have no philological training or understanding of method.Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(2)A citation needed tag was placed for this sentence in the lead.

‘some claimants have achieved major followings and notable supporters ‘

The sources do not back the first claim. Neither source backs the sentence, with the subject 'some claimants'.

Neither mentions any achievement of ‘major followings’ (what ‘major followings’ means is not clear, in any case)

The Declaration has

Present-day doubters include many more prominent individuals, numerous leading Shakespearean actors, and growing numbers of English professors.’

The second source is a NYT poll. It doesn’t back the text.

Neither text mentions ‘claimants’ Both refer to the authorship question, not to any claimant. It’s a WP:SYNTH violation.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My mistake - I freely admit. I meant to copy over the Atlantic Monthly reference and apparently started referencing something else. I have added that and several other refs to address the notable supporters section. More to come. Smatprt (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What you did was however to add a WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR violation by adding four sources that do not support the sentence but merely name names.

Merely name notable supporters, which is what I was referencing and what I stated I was referencing. Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You cited articles naming several people who believe this stuff, to justify 'major followings' (which is obscure. 'Major' can refer to 'big names' or to quantity of people. It is not clear which you mean). Doing this is a WP:SYNTH violation, making a deduction that there is a 'major following' (which is intended to indicate a widespread public and, not to be excluded, professional following) from listing articles with several public figures interviewed or listed, and using this to invent the fiction that this is 'evidence' of a 'major following'. You still need a citation to justify 'major followings'. As I showed in my proposal below, the problem and the need for citations is simply overcome by referring to the fact that a good number of notable public figures subscribe to the theories. Please read what I write before answering a point I never made. Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I will therefore have to restore the ‘citation needed tag’ since none of the sources, in note 5 to 8, back the sentence they ostensibly document, but rather simply adduce 4 or five people who disbelieve the overwhelming consensus of orthodox scholarship.

• Note 5 doesn’t support the text. It is Bethel’s rehearsal of the usual deVerean doctrines. It says nothing of major followings

It mentions several notable adherents.Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So what? Several notable adherents do not constitute a 'major following'.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note 6 is Jess Bravin’s articleon Judge Stevens’ views about Shakespeare, which are neither here nor there. Judge Stevens was a notable member of the American judiciary, as a Supreme Court Judge, but you cannot cite an article about his personal views, which are as relevant to this as Simon Schama’s views on quantum theory, to prove that the fringe has 'major followings', a phrase whose denotative sense is unclear, and cannot be sdourced until you tell us what on earth you mean by it.

See the graph noting the number of supreme court justices who support Oxford.Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it. A great publicity stunt. 9 notable people with no adequate knowledge of the subject, convened for a day to deliberate whether 200 years of research by expert could stand its ground against 80 years of conspiracy-mongering by non-academics, and we got a split verdict. I eagerly await their verdict on the existence or not of the Higgs boson and the pros and cons of Superstring theory. I doubt whether the Journal of High Energy Physics will have its pages troubled by the verdicts.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note 7 Horace Howard Furness quoted in Appleton Morgan, The Shakespearean Myth 1881 p.201 (actually p.157, in the 2003 reprint), simply says he can’t reconcile the plays with the man. The same point was made eloquently by Furness's colleague of the day (J. O, Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, 1889, Part 1, 8th ed. Kessinger Publishing, 2003 reprint Preface p.vi-vii). So, so what? no one can, as they can’t with Homer, Terence, Aeschylus Cervantes, Molière, Chikamatsu, Murasaki Shikibu, Li Bo (from a provincial, perhaps Turkish fringe family, who wrote much of the most beautiful poetry in the history of the Chinese language), or Cao Xueqin, perhaps the greatest novel of Chinese literature, the son of an impoverished bannerman, about whom we know almost nothing of, except that he was fat, swarthy, and small, and like the companionable witty William Shakespeare in later anecdotes, ‘wherever he was, he made it spring’. So little that weird theories cropped up just after his death that he must have been someone else. etc, etc.

• Note 8 Friedman, William and Friedman, Elizabeth, ‘’The Shakespearian ciphers examined (Cambridge University Press, 1957). This has no page number and is irrelevant in any case since it just systematically dismantles all of the hocus-pocus theories, by people they call ‘cranks’, about a secret cipher in Shakespeare’s work.

These all support the statement "notable adherents". The Friedman's dismantled the argument made by Ignatius L. Donnelly, but by doing so, it's a given that Donnelly was a notable Bacon supporter. They can call Donnelly a "crank", but that does not mean he wasn't a notable crank! Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You gave the book without page references. That book does not deal exclusively with the non-notable crank Donnelly, but with all theories about Baconian cryptograms. You protest Schoenbaum's use of the word 'crank' in one section, and now value Donnelly as a crank because he is notable! Really, this is just verbiage.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE writes:’ The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.’

Oh, please, Bethell merely lists several notable adherents, thus the reference. The cite was not used to quote Bethell making proclamations of any kind. But you guys are just gaming. You know perfectly well that both Bacon and Oxford have notable adherents and numerous supporters. It's you are are just trying to waste time and energy (mine). The statement is hardly controversial, but you are just making it so. Whatever. Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The gaming is all yours, because you refuse to interpret the standard meaning of what your interlocutors say. No one is challenging the fact that notable adherents, all people who have little if any knowledge of the subject, exist for the fringe view. What one questions is your invention of a 'major followings', attached to that cliché. Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What you did shows either that you don't understand what sourcing an editorial judgement requires (namely a source which says more or less what the in-text remark states) or that you are straining WP:AGF by repeatedly adding material that requires your interlocutors to waste hours, if they check it out, on verification, in checks that show the citations are futile, but which in causing editors to check irrelevant material of considerable length, causes an attrition of patience. I don't know if you are engaged in the latter, but it is standard for fringe theories, deVerean and Ogburnian polemicists. Please check what you cite, and refrain from wasting editors' time with misleading data.Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As I explained in my subject line, the cites were added to show notable adherents. But really, it's hardly controversial and it is more likely that you guys are simply trying to waste my time by adding unneeded cite tags.Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't speak of wasting time. None of your answers to serious queries based on wiki protocols address the substance of the complaints. They drivel on. By the way, I am not a plural person (you guys).Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

3.

'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.' Ogburn, Chapter 4, "Baseless Fabric", p 46-57; (2) Diana Price, Shakespeare's Authorship and Questions of Evidence,paragraphs 31-32. in Skeptic, December 1, 2004, retrieved February 16, 2010.

What the editor who wrote that is saying is that both Charlton Ogburn, and Diana Price specifically argue that orthodox Shakespearean scholarship does exactly what fringe scholarship does, and admittedly does, i.e. 'suspend orthodox methods and criteria'

In other words, the orthodox biographical tradition does not use orthodox scholarly methodology, and thus, there is no methodological distinction between academic work on Shakespeare, and fringe theories. Our article however states the contrary elsewhere.

This is an extraordinary claim, requiring very precise references from reliable sources. The two sources are quoted generically, and this is not good enough. You have to provide us with the relevant passages from both texts which clearly state that orthodox methods are 'suspended' in the historical and academic tradition writing Shakespeare of Stratford's life. Unless this is evidenced by a verifiable pair of citations from both authors, once more the sourcing must be replaced by a citation needed tag. Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I provided specific page numbers for Ogburn, which is exactly what Tom requested. The chapter makes a clear case for what the edit in question, but here are some quotes and page numbers:

• "In the void that confronts them, Stratfordian biographers heedlessly embrace a document that might seem to provide a foundation for the edifice they erect. (p 46)

• "Having misconstrued Greenes Groats-worth to make Will Shakespeare a playwright, the Stratfordians misconstrue the next publication in the case to make him an honoured one" p49.

• "The airy reconstructions that the Stratfordians go in for are sometimes of ludicrous effect" p.50.

• "A whole succession of writers, Malone, Steevens, Dycem Collier, Halliwell, Knight and a host of minor authors, are so blinded by their admiration for Shakespeare, that they cannot read a simple document correctly, or are such simple followers of Malone [who gave the misreading currency int he 18th centure] that they have adoped his mistakes and made no inquiry for themselves." p.51

• Ogburn summarizes his own chapter with the following quote "We need to be extremely sceptical about what we read in science, history , and in all other areas. We must always remember what what we are reading may be fraud. We must also remember what what we are reading may be a collection of cliches that have been passed down uncritically from one generation of writers to another, with no one bothering to examine the veracity of what was written."

Also the reference we have these two quotes from Price (who was not quoted "generically" - I provided precise paragraph numbers where you would have found:

• In the early years of the last century, scholars were so desperate to prove that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare that they attempted to manufacture evidence.

• The paleographers suspended their own roles to try to make a case for Shakespeare.Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing me with the definitive proof that the text's:

'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

By no stretch of the imagination can the synthesis ofthis sentence be matched with any of the quotes you have now supplied. It is your interpretation of wehat the drift of their arguments is saying, and happens, on this evidence, to be wrong. So don't use sources to sneak in your own beliefs, again.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"In the early years of the last century, scholars were so desperate to prove that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare that they attempted to manufacture evidence." Excuse me but scholars "attempting to manufacture evidence" for use in their biographies is a definite suspension of orthodox methods. I'm just amazed that you would argue that. By no stretch of the imagination? Wow. Now don't fly off because of this question but is English your first language? Because your definitions sometimes astound me. In any event, lets just say we disagree. 01:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, smatprt. I don't know exactly what that sentence is referring to, but the charge of manufacturing evidence is an accusation, as is the purported motivation, and not an accepted fact by anyone but those who hold the fringe belief that somebody else wrote Shakespeare. If it's referring to Ireland, that certainly wasn't his motivation, and it it's referring to the 1923 Sir Thomas More book, they didn't manufacture evidence, they processed it. And an opinion by a non-expert on paleography or forensic document examination--heck, by somebody who doesn't even know very much about it and who uses signatures to "prove" illiteracy--is not any opinion at all, and that would have to be made clear in the quote. In any case, you don't understand that this article is supposed to reflect the scholarly consensus and make it clear that the Shakespeare authorship question is an extreme minority view. You seem to think that neutrality means that all the arguments should be given equal weight. That's your misunderstanding and that's not Wikipedia policy. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The central problem with this is that it is essentially meaningless. The construction "orthodox scholars" seems to mean anyone who takes the default position that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. This might mean absolutely anyone or anything. Apply this to any other author, artist or historical event. In the long history of scholarship on Homer, Cleopatra, Michelangelo, or Hitler some writers have "suspended orthodox methods and criteria", have invented evidence, eschewed logic and evidence etc. All this means is that some poeople over hundreds of years or over thousands of publications have said some irrational things, used dodgy arguments, mistaken and misrepresented stuff. We can find people saying daft things about, say Michelangelo, over the hundreds of years of writing about him. There have also been forgeries. We cannot meaningfully extrapolate from this to say as a generalisation that "Michelangelo biographers have suspended orthodox methods and criteria to weave inadmissible evidence into their histories." Paul B (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the (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'</ref>)sentence more. Unless there is a 'consensus' that the sources say what the synthetic text in the lead pretends they say, it simply cannot stand there, no matter how much Smatprt defends it. On his own terms, there is no consensus, and never will be one, on the patent absurdities of and calculated deceptions in this one-liner. In any case singling out two authors is partisanship, and Price used in the lead, is advertisement.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Support just on style alone. The sentence is an abomination of prose. I've noticed that most anti-Stratfordian works are badly written, Price being the exception, although she writes doctrine, not history. Even Ogburn, who wrote a very good WWII book I read when I was young, loses his style when writing about Shakespeare. Something about the topic unhinges literary judgment. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I see Smatprt has reintroduced the idea, sourced it uniquely now to Diana Price, yet retained the generic 'authorship doubters' as subject of the sentence, and thus attributing to all sceptics, the published opinion on one aspect of a multifarous debate of one independent student of the problem. This is poor editing. I have put her name to the idea, but I still think it inappropriate to the lead, because, as before, the idea can be summed up more succintly, whereas here you have a showcasing of one author's perspective on one issue in the lead, which smacks of advertising her work and of bloating the introductory section with excessive detail (as now rephrased). A lead cannot showcase one of a thousand author's specific interpretation of a detail. Either rephrase the idea succinctly in a way that you can multisource it as a general 'authorship doubters' viewpoint, or I'll remove it. Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

sonnets

a number of sentences here appear to be pre SYNTH or OR:

"In fact, there is no record that Shakespeare of Stratford, who was not beyond suing his neighbors over paltry sums, ever objected or sought recompense for the publication." This is footnoted to Shakespeare in the Public Records, which no doubt shows that he never "sought recompense for the publication", but no evidence is provided that any legal recourse either existed or that Shakespeare even objected in the the first place. This is OR argument unless cited to a researcher who actually argues this.

"In addition, some sonnets suggest the author was older than the Stratford man (#2, #22, #37, #62, #66, #73, #138), and possibly approaching death" This is footnoted to something called "gradesaver.com" and the Frontline TV show "The Shakespeare Mystery". The former says nothing whatever to support this statement, and in fact refers to scholars who suggest the passages about age refer to Shakespeare's increasing baldness (clearly a reference to the "Stratford man"). The Frontline TV show contains a passage in which the unnamed narrator asserts that "Several sonnets speak of old age and imminent death. De Vere was nearing death at the time the sonnets were written." This is of course rubbish. De Vere died at the age of 54, of unknown causes, possibly quite suddenly. There is no reason to think he believed he was "nearing death" when the sonnets were written. There is no cited support for the specific listed sonnets, which are in any case misrepresented (for example sonnet two starts, "When forty winters shall beseige thy brow...", referring to the future middle-age of the Fair Youth, not to the poet's age. Nothing in it refers to the age of the poet). Paul B (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the sentence in the preface of SITPR I assume is the reference: "He appears [in the public records] as a taxpayer, a property owner, a will maker, a beneficiary in the wills of others, an actor under royal patronage, a shareholder in theatres, a dramatist and is involved in law suits." Is this what Wikipedia calls editing in good faith?

Read this exchange: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#Reliable_sources.3F from above. What's really amazing is that he's been trying to argue that anti-Strats use the same type of evidence as Shakespeare academics. The irony is so thick my teeth fillings hurt. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources removed

• Macbeth, ref =(A.R.) Braunmuller,Macbeth, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997; pp. 5-8.

Braubmuller calls the method circular, describes various theories aabout topical indicator for dating but does not himself claim composition earlier than 1605

• King Lear ref =Frank Kermode, 'King Lear', The Riverside Shakespeare (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974), 1249-1250.

Kermode says no such thing (‘composed no later than 1604'). He writes that late 1604 or early 1605 ‘seems the best compromise’ for the date of composition p.1298 of the revised 1997 Riverside text.

‘In an age when such (eulogies) were expected’ This is untrue, and yet passed off as though it were an established fact all agree on. Many poets did not write eulogies on the passing of royalty.

The whole nonsense about 'failing' to write eulogies of the passing of royalty is a self-goal or conspiracy theorists shooting themselves in the foot. If de Vere or some other aristocrat were indeed, as they maintain, the author of Shakespeare's works, then we would indeed expect eulogies to survive in the corpus, since they were members of court. If Shakespeare was of humble origins, and at best a made gentleman, we would not expect him to write eulogies. Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion for simplifying the lead to conform to WP:LEAD conditions of succinctness

All agree the lead is far too long. It is so because it is repetitive.

All one needs to do is cut out the last two paragraphs, which are clearly more appropriate to the elaborative sections of the main text. I.e. excise

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. They also claim that some mainstream scholars have ignored the subject in order to protect the economic gains that the Shakespeare publishing world has provided them. Authorship doubters assert that the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford did not have the background necessary to create the body of work attributed to him, and that the personal attributes inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man. Anti-stratfordians also note the lack of any concrete evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford had the extensive education doubters claim is evident in Shakespeare's works. They question whether a commoner from a small 16th-century country town, with no recorded education or personal library, could become so highly expert in foreign languages, knowledge of courtly pastimes and politics, Greek and Latin mythology, law, and the latest discoveries in science, medicine and astronomy of the time. Doubters also focus on the relationship between internal evidence (the content of the plays and poems) and external evidence (biographical or historical data derived from other sources).

Mainstream scholars reject all these arguments and say that authorship doubters discard the most direct testimony in favor of their own theories, overstate Shakespeare's erudition, and anachronistically mistake the times he lived in, thereby rendering their method of identifying the author from the works unscholarly and unreliable. Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.

Since both sides lose material, this cuts the Gordian knot. Compare Nostradamus's lead, on a page dealing with fringe theories in abundance.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll go for that. I think we also need to move away from the debate-style assertion/rebuttal format. It is tiresome to read, and a few of the major arguments should be enough. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, since you requested comments justifying the votes cast below regarding your proposal, I will gratify you with a few remarks. It seems to me that the real objection you have to this passage, based on some of your previous comments, is that you don't like the fact that the Oxfordian case has involved a critique, and one that has struck home in critical ways, of the methods as well as the conclusions, of traditional Shakespearean biography and criticism. At any rate, whether that is the main source of your objection, if your point is to save the mainstream of Shakespearean studies from facing the music, it ought to be your objection. Perhaps it would be worthwhile in view of this conjecture to recall the words of Richmond Crinkley, the former Director of Educational Programs at the Folger Shakespeare Library, in his 1985 review of Ogburn. Crinkley commented that if the abundant errors of fact and fallacies of logic which Ogburn chronicles in his book, not to mention the history of unprofessional abuse, are representative of scholarship, then

"it is not just authorship about which we have to be worried."

    New Perspectives on The Authorship Question
   Richmond Crinkley
   Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Winter, 1985), pp. 515-522

I would submit, therefore, that any attempt to write out of the history of this debate the analysis of Ogburn and others regarding this history of error not only compromises the standards of wikipedia, but is an invitation to intellectual tyranny of the worst sort. All specialized constituencies of experts are subject to confirmation bias. The use of works like Ogburn's, whether his conclusions are ultimately correct or not, is to provide the necessary check and balance on such derelictions of professional duty. So I ask, Nishidani: Have you read Mr. Ogburn's book? If not, on what authority would you presume to say, as you did in a previous note, that "by no stretch of the imagination" could the language in question be justified by the cited sources? My reading of Ogburn suggests that the lines in question are a reasonable summary of his perspective on the matter. But then, I am just an amateur aficionado of a "fringe theory" -- unlike you, I suppose? So my view does not count, right?--BenJonson (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

By my word count Shakespeare has 398 words in the lead. Our page, which is on the fringe theories of Shakespeare, has 558, which is absurd. Endless tickling won't solve the issue, and, being somewhat impatient with the slowness of deliberation in here, I've already shortened the lead, without interfering with its contents. I think we need a vote. But if that fails, then either someone should propose concrete measures to hive off 200-250 words quickly. Anything excised can be stuck down in the main body of the text.

Yes, the assertion rebuttal format is flagrntly inadequate. I concur it would be better to simply list the history, major theorists and arguments, followed by replies, without the inordinate minutiae, which loses the reader.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be shorter. The last two paras are unnecessary, and many of the 'citation nededed' tags should go, since the relevant passages are just summarising points later developed in the main text. I think the claim that 'doubts' began in the 18th centry also needs to be removed, since this is much disputed. In reality the 'anti-Stratfordian' position emerges as a definite public debate in the mid 19th century as a spin-off consequence of the 'deification' of Shakespeare. Paul B (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I put the citation needed tags in there. They mark passages which strike me as odd or queer (i.e. 'Oxford and Bacon have achieved major followings and notable supporters' implies the deVere and Baconian hypotheses have a major following, though the 'major following' must refer to the exiguous republic of enthusiasts who follow the alternative author debate. The language deceives the reader into believing that this is not a fringe theory, but one with substantial backing, in either public taste or among the learned. Unacceptably POV-tilting language.*). I don't support the text at these junctures, therefore I called for references, rather than eliding the controversial lines. The 'points made' have yet to be backed up by any verifiable source, and thus should not go into the lead.

As to 'doubts' in the 18th century, while rereading in a new edition 'The Taming of the Shrew' today, I found a reference to the first doubt emerging in 1769, attributing the works to Bacon. I had earlier changed 'debate'(early 18th century) to 'queries' precisely for the reason you give. The public debate took wing, as you say, in the mid 19th century.Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note that I originally edited out 'major followings' and let the sentence, perfectly acceptable without citations in the lead, refer to 'notable supporters'. This is a truthful statement, and does not require documentation. However the language is ugly. The way this should be stated is:

Oxford and Bacon have won support from notable figures in public life.

Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The terminology is perhaps disingenuous, but it's true thst both have achieved "notable supporters" in the sense that well-known people have supported them, though not scholars; it's mainly creative writers, actors etc. I think "major following" just indicates that these two guys have a substantial body of fans, as it were, which is not true of the others. again, the wording could be tweaked to sound less grandiose, but it's not false. I've no idea where the 1769 date for the Bacon hypothesis comes from. The first recorded attribtion to Bacon is supposed to have been made by James Wilmot sometime in the late 18th century, but this is very much in doubt now. Paul B (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict), yes, I think the change you suggest works. Paul B (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The 1769 date refers to Herbert Lawrence's The Life and Adventures of Common Sense. Wilmot came to his conclusions by 1781, but his private researches didn't go into the public record until his confidente James Cowell revealed them to an Ipswich audience of Pickwickians around 1805. So Lawrence has the balmy/barmy palm.Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

N.H. Gibson's, The Shakespeare Claimants, (Barnes and Noble 1962), Routledge reprint 2005 pp.17ff., has details. That's quite a useful book to cite here. By the way he was writing in 1961, and had counted 57 figures for the claimants by that early date (p.10)Nishidani (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no he doesn't, because at no point does Lawrence say that Bacon wrote the works. It's probable that Wilmot never said it either. Indeed Wilmot is essentially a cipher created by fraudsters, beginning with his niece. If you read The Life and Adventures of Common Sense you will see that it is a satire about the life of "Common Sense" who goes through history accompanied by other allegorical figures. It's a fantasy. At no point does Lawrence ever deny that Shakespeare wrote his works. He portrays him as a thief in the literal sense (derived from the supposed poaching story) who stole a Magical Glass from a box, which was the property of Common Sense's father "Genius". With this glass he could see into men's souls. In this way he "stole" his creative powers. Never once does the text say that Bacon or anyone else literally wrote the plays. Indeed later on he complains about talentless 18th century revisers who had no access to the Magic Glass. The editor of The Shrew is evidently confusing Wilmot and Lawrence, having accepted the total misrepresentation of Lawrence's book by Sobran. Paul B (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I should add that one technical reason for my Gordian knot proposal is that the supererogatory final two paras are framed in a way that both violates NPOV, and especially the first of them, is put in to contradict the few words in para 2 of the lead dealing with orthodox theories.

We have

• (a) exposition of the theory and its followers
• (b) a short para on the academic mainstream
• (c) a very large para that is placed to cast doubts on (b)
• (d) a small concessional reply recapping (b), to reply to (c)

I.e. it's redoubling. Secondly (c) runs to 206 words (d) to just 69, i.e. the orthodox recap gets a third of the space given to the fringe recap. WP:UNDUE violation, apart from violating WP:LEAD indications by padding and reduplication of the first two paras. Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A few comments are in order - first, the most serious duplication is the series of attacks against anti-strat researchers and their methods. You say it, repeat it and then repeat it again. You have said before that graph c should come 2nd. I agreed, Tom agreed. But now you want to delete it all? Now if this were the Shakespeare article, then undue weight would be an appropriate accusation, but in an article on a minority topic, it's not undue weight at all. The guidelines are quite clear on that.

Please see below for my proposal which cuts the attacks from both sides (what a waste of space) and gets rid of detail from the long graph and instead summarizes the key points of the debate. Tom wrote most of it, but the way - which is probably why its so compact and to the point. (Good job, Tom... and I can't believe I just said that). Anyhow, in the neighborhood of 170 words are now gone. The lead is now appropriate to the size of the article itself. The article covers a lot of ground, so the lead is going to be challenging. I think what Toma and I came up with was at least a positive step. It's made in good faith. I hope you see that. Smatprt (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've always maintained that the material in (c) is arguing rather than summarizing, and that it should be further down. I'm all for cutting the last two grafs.

As to The Life and Adventures of Common Sense, it is an allegory. You can read it on Goggle Books, but there are several sources who claim it is one of the first mentions of the authorship question. The other is An Essay Against Too Much Reading (1728), which is a joke book. Matus looks at it in his essay, Doubts About Shakespeare's Authorship ─ Or About Oxfordian Scholarship?, which is RS.

I've been quite busy of late and haven't had time to keep up with all the edits, but so far I'm in agreement or near agreement with the way things are going. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting old. My instincts bristled with suspicion when I read the account of Wilmot travelling all over a 50 miles area without finding a decent set of books (he mustn't have had good connections, I thought). But I went ahead, or rather obeyed the dinnergong rather than the inner prod to check this out. ThanksTom Reedy and Paul B. I appreciate being pulled up like that. One gets complacent.Nishidani (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd also favour cutting the last two paragraphs. Glad to see that the hare that I started all of (wow!) 3 days (and hundreds of words) ago is bearing fruit (or coming home to roost) (or choose your own mixed metaphor). --GuillaumeTell 22:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be having this discussion in two places on this page. Here is a version that has been endorsed by several editors up above. This version cuts some 170 words and takes us down to below 400: (note that this was based on the version of several weeks ago so will need the latest changes to be incorporated. Note also that Tom rewrote most of graph 2, eliminating a lot of the detail and (instead0 sticking to summarizing the body of the article:

"The Shakespeare authorship question is the ongoing debate about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually written by another writer or group of writers.[1] First recorded in the early 18th century, the issue has gained wide public attention, and of the more than 50 candidates that have been proposed,[13] several claimants have achieved major followings and notable supporters. Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, 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.[4] 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.

Most authorship doubters, 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.[2] They assert that the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford was more likely a front man, believing he did not have the background necessary to create the body of work attributed to him, and that the personal characteristics inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man.[3] Anti-Stratfordians believe Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the extensive education necessary to write Shakespeare’s works, and question how he could have gained the life experience and adopted the aristocratic attitude they claim is evident in them. 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.[4]

Most mainstream Shakespeare academics, often referred to as "Stratfordians", pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories. Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject, noting that the authorship of Shakespeare of Stratford is supported with two main pillars 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.[11] Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[12] Smatprt (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

All that in graf 2 should be in the body. I think what we have now with the last two grafs cut off is more of a standard lede for a good encyclopedia article. All of the argumentation should be in the article text, not the lede. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree - graph 2 summarizes what is detailed in the article. How can you have a lead that does not summarize the main points? In any case, all the previous detail is gone and (what you wrote) is a true summary.

Adding in the more recent changes, here is what the above version would look like, which eliminates around 170 words, including all the accusations and characterizations of the researchers on both sides of the question, and comes in at less than 390 words (or thereabouts):

• "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.

• Most authorship doubters, 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 he did not have the background necessary to create the body of work attributed to him, and that the personal characteristics inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man.[10] Anti-Stratfordians believe Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the extensive education necessary to write Shakespeare’s works, and question how he could have gained the life experience and adopted the aristocratic attitude they claim is evident in them. 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. Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject, and 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]

I prefer this version, and based on their comments above, I would guess that Schoenbaum and LAL would support this version as well. Smatprt (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a good solution. I agree with Smatprt. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you noted that on a WP:Fringe theory topic, the latest proposed lead gives 305 words to the fringe theory, and 92, a third of that length, to what virtually all serious professional scholarship on Shakespeare says with regard to it?Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, if you want to contribute to what "virtually all serious professional scholarship (geeze, what a mouthful of qualifiers in that sentence!) thinks," may I suggest that there are many other wikipedia pages that might better channel your interest. There is, for example a very long page detailing the life and times of the Stratford bard on the *assumption* that the attribution to him is a secure one. The purpose of the authorship page, as I understand it, is to explore the tradition of doubt about this assumption. Of course, the troubling thing for true believers is that doubt always does involving thinking on the part of the doubter. Therefore, to engage in a serious piece of intellectual history involving that that doubt, you have to actually allow the doubters, at least sometimes, to speak for themselves.

From its inception, this article has suffered from ideologues who feel that this is unacceptable. One does not have to go back too far in the record of the talk pages to find ludicrous comments like "an Oxfordian has struck," pronounced with the sort of derisive condescension that would apply to the sentence "a Martian has landed in my cornfield." Rather more recently, you asserted that no scholars take the Oxfordian perspective seriously. This is just wrong, unless you wish to tendentiously define "scholar" to the point that only those members of a particular elite club within academia are included and everyone else is treated like a "lesser breed before the law," to again quote Richmond Crinkley from an article I daresay you probably haven't read.

Have you ever heard of Jack Shuttleworth, PhD? He was the chairman of the Department of English at the U.S. Air Force Academy for many years before his retirement. He is currently preparing an Oxfordian edition of Hamlet. How about Dr. Felicia Londre, theatre historian and full professor at the University of Missouri Kansas City, who has frequently debated David Bevington on the authorship question and edited an excellent volume of articles on Love's Labours Lost, many of them supporting in one way or another the Oxfordian attribution of the plays. Shall I go on? I know that you seem to have a fetish for brevity, so perhaps not. My point is this: Why do you think that after blunders like your assertion that no scholars support this "fringe theory," anyone should take you seriously?

For a change, let's get real, shall we? Its quite true that the vast majority of Shakespearean scholars are still at the stage of laughing at, and/or scorning anyone who questions the traditions which many seem dedicated to guarding ad infinitum. But this is a historical problem, and like any historical problem, advances are made. I have studied the subject in question as a topic in intellectual history for nearly twenty years now. And there is no question which way the wind is blowing. Twenty years ago, there were no Shuttleworths or Londres or Drayas or Delahoydes or Wrights. Today, they are joined by a growing murmuring chorus of other academicians who are starting to realize that something is rotten in the intellectual traditions in which they have been schooled. Whatever changes are made to this page should reflect that reality. To the extent that they deny it, they merely make wikipedia irrelevant. I should hope that no one here wants to do that. --BenJonson (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all 397 words are about the theory, of which the first graph and last sentence have nothing to do with summarizing the debate points, but merely define the subject. The debate points add up to 143 words to summarize what anti-strats believe are the main debate points and 92 words to summarize the mainstream debate points. As a compromise, I will post a further cut down version below. Smatprt (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My counterproposal is for the first two paragraphs to be retained. The Overview is all wrong, grandstanding as a set piece (like Ogburn's 1952 incipit) one recent event. Technically after the lead, an overview of the history of the argument is required. The Section on the 2007 manifesto should end the history section, coming after the 1987 Supreme Court show. I suggest a compromise. To edit up the Ist para of the Overview, succinctly, and use it to round off the 2 paras in the lead.

Proposed para 3:

'Interest in the authorship debate continues to grow. On 8 September 2007, actors Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance unveiled a "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt", signed by over 1,600 people, including 295 academics, to encourage new research into the question.'

The details can be added at the end of the 'History' section which should technically be first up in the Overview, placed just after a short para on the 1987 Supreme Court show.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Further cut down version, taking the summary of anti-strat debate points down to 122 words, and the entire lead down from 582 to 376 words (I believe the goal was to cut 200 words):

• "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.

• Most authorship doubters, 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. Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject, and 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) 17:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You apparently haven'ìt understood the issue. It is still 262 words for a fringe theory, and 114 words, far less than half, for the orthodox state-of-the art scholarship's attitude to the fringe theory. Gross WP:NPOV violation. The issue is structural. All trimming and paring still ignores the fact that a weird theory is showcased, and commonsense is lower-cased.Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, leads/ledes of fringe theories pages are rarely as you describe them. In the past, among less appropriate comparisons, Tom has compared this theory to the Christ myth theory. They have a lot in common: they both represent historical revisionism, originated about the same time and aged similarly, have had serious academic proponents as well as kooky contributors, and are widely dismissed by the mainstream. The last paragraph of the Christ myth lede reads "The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles, biblical scholars and historians being highly dismissive of it, viewing it as pseudo-scholarship. Some of these specialists have even gone so far as to compare the theory's methodological basis with that of flat-earthism, Holocaust denial and moon landing skepticism." which could very well have been the last paragraph of this page's lede. A difference may be that the great majority of biblical scholars share a faith diametrical to the theory's propositions, while in principal Shakespearian scholars don't. At any rate, after 27 archived discussion pages, the Christ myth theory lede has 249 words on the theory and 51 words for the mainstream attitude towards it. Smatprt's suggested text looks better to me then the current lead (containing the oddest references at the moment) without the last two paragraphs. Afasmit (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good points. It is late here. I'll reply tomorrow. My academic work was on ideology and the publics it captures. I'm familiar with the analogy. Indeed I was called in by an admin to help unlock the stymied Ebionites page in 2007, as one can see from the talk page there. I'd have no objection to the proportion you refer to, were the language of the orthodox position in Shakespearean scholarship expressed as strongly as it is with regard to the Christ myth. A one-liner gets more attention that a screed. What we have instead is 2 thirds of the lead devoted to the fringe theory, and a wet-rag gloss on what 99% of Shakespearean scholarship thinks, and hence there is no analogy of the kind you draw.

I emphasized balance because, in the editing environment, I can see no flexibility in adjusting the para on orthodox attitudes to show the strength of its dismissal of these theories. I tried to cite Schoenbaum's withering judgement, which is the best RS source for what orthodox scholars really think, and it was dismissed vigorously. As far as I am personally concerned, you could have 90% of the hypothesis adumbrated in the lead, with just Schoenbaum's simple, succinct judgement at the end. That would be the best solution, but again, I've been thinking of practical problems in editing here in making my calls. If one cannot get a good fresh lead para expressing the strength of orthodox opinion but just a wet few lines, then one insists that, for a fringe theory, this tilting aims to make it pass for something it is not, a fringe theory, accepted by no scholar who ever held a respectable chair in English. Thanks in the meantime Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are just incorrect about undue weight. You are quoting the guideline for articles about mainstream subjects. This is not. According to wp:weight “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.” Smatprt (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused about your comment. Here are a few quotations from WP:FRINGE that apply to this article that you don't seem to have read:

Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is.

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.

The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.

From WP:UNDUE:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. . . . In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views . . . . 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. . . . Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, in terms of the Schoenbaum statement, please consider this - According to WP:Fringe “When using sources written by authors who are a reliable experts in the field in which they are writing, consider using the facts mentioned by them rather than making direct attributions of their opinions." As you have seen, quoting dismissive and overly harsh opinions by a mainstream orthodox scholar about a specific group of skeptics of his field invites controversial edits. this is one of the points I've been trying to make, though obviously not very well. Smatprt (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, I really think you need to accept that consensus is against you. Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

here - this link WP:Consensus might help you understand why you are mistaken. Smatprt (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you be good enough to pipe to a particular section & then elucidate? Þjóðólfr (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

With regard to this one point about the Schoenbaum quote, I think smatprt is right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe#Evaluating_claims says that "restraint should be used with such qualifiers [of fringe claims] to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment . . . .particularly within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas," and I think the principle can be extended to mainstream assessment of the topic. I think we should go back to my original edit, "Most academics consider the topic a fringe theory . . . ." and use Schoenbaum as a source, if needed. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smatprt, i.e, “When using sources written by authors who are reliable experts in the field in which they are writing, consider using the facts mentioned by them rather than making direct attributions of their opinions." Sam Schoenbaum's expertise was in documentary evidence, not personality assessment. His ad hominem attacks on authorship doubters merely reflect the fustrations of an angry man who didn't like having his authority questioned. The evidence should speak for itself. Schoenbaum (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The first quotation you include is intended to ensure that promoters of fringe theories don't disingenuously use attribution to imply that opposition to a fringe view is the isolated opinion of a single writer: e.g. "Joe Smith says he has travelled to the centre of the earth, but Joe Jones says this is impossible". In fact the overwhelming scientific consensus is that this is impossible. In other words we may use "the facts mentioned by him", rather than present Jones' assertion as a mere opinion. Quoting an individual author creates the impression that we have two equal but opposed views. It is amusing that you are now taking this sentence out of context to exclude the mainstream view! If we followed the guideline we would simply use the "facts" mentioned by Schoenbaum and say that as if it were undisputed that "doubters" are motivated by snobbery etc. Is that what you really want? Paul B (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sam Schoenbaum summarises widespread views on the motivation of "doubters". This claim that one needs to be an expert in "personality" to make such claims has generally been rejected at WP:RS. It applies to characterisations of many fringe theorists in other areas - motivations of "Christ myth" theorists, holocaust deniers, "Out of India" theorists etc. We don't wheel out psychiatrists who know nothing about the historical issues. We use historians. Sam Schoenbaum is not making personality assessment, since he is not discussing specific individuals. However, I think you misuse the term ad hominem. It is no more ad hominem than any other historical assessment of motivation, for example "Milton was motivated by Puritan ideas". If I said Milton's arguments must be accepted because he was a "godly man", or rejected becase he was a "fundamentalist", that that would be argumentum ad hominem. Paul B (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Paul B, Schoenbaum. That is plainly fatuous. You don't appear to have a mninimal awareness, and neither does arguably Smatprt, what editing in here means. In writing that your ironically eponymous Sam Schoenbaum's 'expertise was in documentary evidence, not personality assessment', in order to exclude material from a master historian with the highest expertise in the history of Shakespearean biography, you are introducing your own personal criteria for selecting what is quotable. Wikipedians have no authority to pick and choose according to what they privately think the best RS can be cited for. This is wholly unacceptable. You are now endeavouring to weed out use of an author of RS of the highest scholarly repute, concerning Shakespeare, indeeed from a man who wrote a near definitive book entitled 'Shakespeare's Lives.

The exposition of this fringe theory culls evidence from a mass of sources written by people who had no expertise in their field, in textual analysis, in type molds of the kind we find in the Don McKenzies of this world, in Elizabethan philology, in the historical methods required for this discipline. Nor did they have any expertise in 'personality assessment' (ha! famnously, TS Eliot, following Shakespearean scholarship's avoidance of the biographical fallacy, argued that poets engage in the 'extinction' of their personality (a variation also of Keats' Negative capability in writing, since they must assume for the moment, like actors, the identities that go with the numerous voices their poems strive to articulate. It is as if, to note one of a thousand examples, someone were to read Browning's My Last Duchess and try to deduce that Alfonso II' dramatic voice enciphered his desire that his wife,Elizabeth Barrett, croak it. Poets of this order are chameleonic, as Keats said: their peculiar power is to get inside other, imagined or otherwise, identities and live them fully until the voice they are describing assumes a potent reality, one that is not commensurate with their own being). One definition of an inferior poet is that he is one who can only be himself. The same goes for actors.Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Tom Reedy: "I think smatprt is right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe#Evaluating_claims says that "restraint should be used with such qualifiers [of fringe claims] to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment . . . .particularly within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas," and I think the principle can be extended to mainstream assessment of the topic. I think we should go back to my original edit, "Most academics consider the topic a fringe theory . . . ." and use Schoenbaum as a source, if needed." Okay with me. Schoenbaum (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.

In other words, since Schoenbaum, the real scholar, discussed the antistratfordians, he made their fringe theory notable. However, in discussing them he 'debunked and disparaged' the fringe theorists, and this makes him, by an interpretative twist from another section of policy, unquotable or unnotable for doing so. Brilliant irony! One can pilpul wikirules to obtain any result. Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC

I've reverted Nishidani's edits re: "snobbery and elitism" because there's no editorial consensus on this point on the talk page. Perhaps he can explain why such accusations are "absolutely central to orthodox dismissal of the theory," as he put it. Has anyone ever shown with objective evidence that the incidence and prevalence of snobbery and elitism are more prevalent among authorship doubters than among orthodox scholars? No. Are some authorship doubters motivated by snobbery? Possibly. Are some orthodox scholars motivated by snobbery? Obviously. Are all authorship doubters motivated by snobbery? Certainly not. Again, why is this false and misleading accusation "absolutely central" to the orthodox dismissal? Because the facts are insufficient; that's why. Schoenbaum (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Schoenbaum:

Very well put, and it is a pleasure Sir, to finally meet the real YOU.Isn't it amazing how some people, and even old dogs, have the capacity to actually learn new things? Already in 1991 could tell you were on the path to sanity in the second edition of Shakespeare's Lives, when I compared it with the 1975 edition. Among other changes reflecting your conversations with Mr. Ogburn, you added that marvelous phrase about the "temptation to despair" over the incongruity of the documentary record and the "sublimity" -- I believe that was your somewhat romantic term at the time -- of the literary work. We really must work that quotation in the wiki article, since its undergoing such a facelift. But it is indeed a joy to see how far you have come even since then: "Perhaps he can explain why such accusations are 'absolutely central to orthodox dismissal of the theory,' as he put it." Indeed. You are a master fencer, always were, and always will be. Yours, Ben.--BenJonson (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben. Here's the exact quote: "Perhaps we should despair of ever bridging the vertiginous expanse between the sublimity of the subject and the mundane inconsequence of the documentary record" (Shakespeare's Lives, Second Edition). Prof. Sam Schoenbaum was no doubter, but that's a remarkable admission nonetheless. Don't you just love it when Strats complain that doubters are "amateurs," and only Shakespeare scholars are qualified to render judgments on this question, and, besides, the amateurs are all a bunch of snobs! They even say Supreme Court Justices aren't qualified. Our courts are based on verdicts rendered by citizen-jurors. Such juries routinely render verdicts on questions more complex than the authorship question. Lawyers present the evidence on such questions and make it understandable. Yet Strats claim this issue is too complex for anyone but themselves. They're English professors, yet they can't explain it to anyone else in a way that makes it clear. It's not that difficult: "If writing the works were a crime, would there be enough evidence to convict Mr. Shakspere of having committed that crime beyond a reasonable doubt?" That's the way to frame it. The answer is clearly no, IMHO, and any citizen-juror should be qualified to render that judgment. Strats would have it otherwise. If the case went to the Supreme Court, they would first ask the Justices to step down and be replaced by themselves because nobody else is qualified, and the Justices are too dumb to have it explained to them. And these people have the nerve to claim, without a shred of evidence, there WE are snobs! Anyone reading these talk pages will very quickly see who the real snobs are here. Schoenbaum (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not an "admission". It's a fact about almost all authors from that period. And of course Supreme Court justices are not qualified to assess something of this sort, because they do not have detailed knowledge of the period, culture and literature. The legal concept of "reasonable doubt" is absurd in this context. No one could say Chaucer wrote Chaucer, or Marlowe wrote Marlowe by that criterion. Reasonable doubt is a concept designed to protect people who maybe wrongly convicted unless we can be ceratin of their guilt. It's not how rational historical judgements are made, or we would remain in a state of permanent limbo. Paul B (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

'I've reverted Nishidani's edits re: "snobbery and elitism" because there's no editorial consensus on this point on the talk page.' (pseudo-Sam)

I don't really care if there is no consensus, a term you chaps use to stall sensible editing. I only care what WP:RS commends in regard to editing, i.e., reliable sources, which, in this regard, affirm that on those few occasions when eminent representatives of 'orthodox' scholarship the 'orthodox' is a pleonasm, we are talking about people capable of understanding what scholarly methods allow or otherwise disallow) glance your way, they consider the whole hocus-pocus ofthese fringe theories to rest on two simple and falsifiable assumptions, i.e., that people of humble origins can't rise to the heights of intellectual and cultural genius (da Vinci did, as did Socrates, Homer, Srinivasa Ramanujan, and thousands of others: I thought of the mathematician because his meteoric autodidacticism took wing from reading Loney)'s textbook on trigonometry -Loney-Looney). To believe this is to be an elitist. And it's been noted often in fine sources written by the grey eminences of the Shakespearean fold, as the RS you elided demonstrate. Removing RS on grounds of personal distaste for what they say is frowned on). You are simply saying that a block of editors espousing a crackpot theory will withhold their 'consensus' until they get what they want, priviliging WP:CONSENSUS over WP:RS. Politicking, instead of editing to the record.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Polling/Taking the pulse

Those in favour of simply cutting the repetitive last two paragraphs.

• Nishidani
• Tom Reedy
• Paul B
• Guillaume

Those who disagree

• Smatprt
• Ssilvers
• Afasmit
• Schoenbaum
• BenJonson

—Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

All those who have participated over the last month are welcome to add their vote. I would like to ask those who charge in to then participate and justify their views. Mere voting is meaningless, and numbers can be stacked. That is to be avoided at all costs. Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus building is not vote counting". Smatprt (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your right we should simply cut the repetitive last two paragraphs.Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"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)

CATS

I've added the conspiracy theory cat because the lead itself admits that the 'orthodox' scholarship has been engaged for centuries in a cover-up. I.e. ‘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,’

The fringe theory is self-evident, as pro-Oxfordian editors admit in frequently them,selves citing WP:FRINGE to finesse their defences. The pseudo-scholarship CAT is also mandatory since Ogburn and Price, leading theorists, regards orthodox scholarship as one that 'suspends orthodox methods and criteria',i.e. engages in pseudo-scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not acceptable and will not be accepted. You previously argued that none of the sources in question supported the language you are now using to justify name calling. Do you really think that these contradictions will not be noticed? Do you really fail to see them yourself? To argue that "biographers have suspended orthodox methods" is hardly the same thing as to argue that they have engaged in a conscious and fully purposeful conspiracy. Your attempt to confuse this difference constitutes a rather unappealing example of the deep bias that seems to motivate even your sometimes useful contributions to the debate. No one is alleging what you claim. --BenJonson (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy theory because it theorises a conspiracy, not because the proponents of the theory are conspirators or that they propose that their opponents are. Paul B (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead proportions and language for fringe theory articles. Some evidence

For Afasmit 's consideration. Callling a spade a spade, or referring in the lead to a consensus which ignores,dismisses, or treats a fringe theory as pseudo-scholarship, is commonplace on wiki articles in this category. If you and others ompare the Chrit Myth page, it makes no bones about what specialists think, and cites them to effect. What is being done in the lead here, by Ogburnians, is to pass off 99% of ranking scholarship on Shakespeare as 'most' (when every Ogburnian sources say 'vast majority'), calling the almost non-existent number academics in English studies supporting this hypothesis, a 'small minority', and erasing all mention of the fact that the doyen of the orthodox field on Shakespeare's life, when, unlike most of his colleagues, he deigned to look at this fringe material, dismissed it in a superb RS publication as the work 'cranks' (giving the Baconians a run for madness. The objections from scholarship do not have 'twin planks/pillars', even if one can find a source for that phrase (Kathman). The objections from scholarship are that hitherto 99& of the fringe literature is written by people, much like the editors pushing the version in here, with no understanding of what writing a scholarly investigation into the past requires in terms of training, method and textual mastery. What makes clarity about this particularly important is the fact that the header lists the article as one included in the Wikipedia for Schools, see Shakespeare authorship question at Schools Wikipedia, something which makes it particularly incumbent on editors to ensure that the article does not pass off a fringe theory as an eminently respectable alternative to some vaguely majoritarian 'orthodox' point of view. No editions of Shakespeare for school I am familiar with think that Looneyism is worthy of study as a serious contribution to the understanding of the works. It's much like putting Creationism on the science curriculum (well, after all that's not far off it. The paradox is that the elitism theory comes from Tocqueville's exemplary democracy, whereas in class-ridden England, it is very much a minor cult)

(1)Christ myth theory lead

The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles, biblical scholars and historians being highly dismissive of it, viewing it as pseudo-scholarship. Some of these specialists have even gone so far as to compare the theory's methodological basis with that of flat-earthism, Holocaust denial and moon landing skepticism.

(2)Nostradamus lead.

Most academic sources maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus's quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power. Moreover, none of the sources listed offers any evidence that anyone has ever interpreted any of Nostradamus's quatrains specifically enough to allow a clear identification of any event in advance.

(3) Flat Earth lead.

Although the hypothesis of the flat Earth has long been generally dismissed, there are still occasional modern advocates of the hypothesis.

(5) Holocaust denial lead

Most Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples.[6] For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory. The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.</blo0ckquote>

(6) Moon landing conspiracy theories lead.

There is abundant third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings, and commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims. Various polls have shown that 6% to 28% of the people surveyed do not think the Moon landing happened.

(7) 9/11 conspiracy theories lead

Published reports and articles by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Popular Mechanics and mainstream media 'have rejected the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The civil engineering establishment generally accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC

(8) AIDS origins opposed to scientific consensus lead

While a few reputable mainstream scientists once investigated some of these theories as reasonable hypotheses, this is no longer the case, as continuing research has invalidated the alternative ideas.

(9) Nazi UFOs lead

While there is no credible evidence to support the theory of Nazi spacecraft, the stories are often associated with esoteric Nazism; an ideology that supposes the unlikely possibility of Nazi restoration by supernatural or paranormal means. Consequently all but the most plausible accounts of actual spacecraft are generally held to be religious, political and scientific heresy.

(10) Ancient astronauts lead.

‘Ancient astronaut theories have been widely used in science fiction. Such theories have not received support within the scientific community, and have received little or no attention in peer-reviewed studies from scientific journals.

(11) Atlantis lead.

Scholars dispute whether and how much Plato's story or account was inspired by older traditions. Some scholars argue Plato drew upon memories of past events such as the Thera eruption or the Trojan War, while others insist that he took inspiration from contemporary events like the destruction of Helike in 373 BC or the failed Athenian invasion of Sicily in 415–413 BC. The possible existence of a genuine Atlantis was discussed throughout classical antiquity, but it was usually rejected and occasionally parodied by later authors. As Alan Cameron states: "It is only in modern times that people have taken the Atlantis story seriously; no one did so in antiquity".

(12)Ignatius L. Donnelly[[]] lead.

Ignatius Loyola Donnelly (November 3, 1831–January 1, 1901) was a U.S. Congressman, pseudo-historian, populist writer and amateur scientist, known primarily now for his theories of the history of Atlantis and Shakespearean authorship, which modern historians consider to be pseudohistory.

(13) Ages in Chaos lead

Velikovsky's work has been harshly criticised, including by fellow chronological revisionists such as Peter James. In 1984 fringe science expert Henry H. Bauer wrote Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy, which Time described as "the definitive treatise debunking Immanuel Velikovsky".

(14) Immanuel Velikovsky lead

In general, Velikovsky's theories have been vigorously rejected or ignored by the academic community. Nonetheless, his books often sold well and gained an enthusiastic support in lay circles, often fuelled by claims of unfair treatment for Velikovsky by orthodox academia. The controversy surrounding his work and its reception is often referred to as "the Velikovsky affair"

(15) Mu (lost continent) lead

The existence of Mu was disputed already in Le Plongeon's time. Today, scientists generally dismiss the concept of Mu (and of other lost continents like Lemuria) as physically impossible, since a continent can neither sink nor be destroyed by any conceivable catastrophe, especially not in the short period of time required by this premise. Moreover, the weight of all archaeological, linguistic and genetic evidence is contrary to the claim that the ancient civilizations of the New and Old Worlds stemmed from a common ancestral civilization. Mu is today considered to be a fictional place.

(16) The Templar Revelation lead

‘It proposes a fringe hypothesis regarding the relationship between Jesus, John the Baptist and Mary Magdalene, and states that their true story has been suppressed’

(17)Priory of Sion lead.

The Priory of Sion myth has been exhaustively debunked by journalists and scholars as one of the great hoaxes of the 20th century. Some skeptics have expressed concern that the proliferation and popularity of books, websites and films inspired by this hoax have contributed to the problem of conspiracy theories, pseudohistory and other confusions becoming more mainstream. Others are troubled by the romantic reactionary ideology unwittingly promoted in these works.

(18) Piri Reis map lead:

The map has been used to claim an ancient knowledge of an ice-free Antarctica, transmitted either from extra-terrestrials or an Ice Age civilization. These claims are generally considered to be pseudo-scholarship, and some scholarly opinion is that the region sometimes thought to be Antarctica is more likely to be Patagonia or the Terra Australis Incognita (Unknown Southern Land) widely believed to exist before the Southern Hemisphere was fully explored..

Wow, the editor does go on at great length, doesn't he, to bash his head against the skulls of those he doesn't like with "guilt by association" theories. But let's return to the point, shall we? "the doyen of the orthodox field on Shakespeare's life, when, unlike most of his colleagues, he deigned to look at this fringe material, dismissed it in a superb RS publication as the work 'cranks.'"

I assume the "doyen" being referred to is Samuel Schoenbaum. I wonder if the editor in question has actually read Samuel Schoenbaum, or knows anything at all about the history of the two versions of Shakespeare's Lives? If not, he might be advised to be careful about citing Schoenbaum as if the insults larded in his 1975 edition actually reflect his views near the end of his life after he had learned something about the topic in question, substantially as a result of having actually read Ogburn's Mysterious William Shakespeare and held a number of conversations with the author.

He and Charlton Ogburn became rather well acquainted in their final years, and there is no way on God's earth that the mature Samuel Schoenbaum would ever have agreed to the statements you are are enlisting his support for in this context. The differences between the 1975 and 1991 editions of Shakespeare's Lives are significant, and many of them concern the deletion of the most offensive and small-minded of his remarks about the Oxfordians (including, ironically, Freud) that are found in the earlier edition.

Moreover, the question remains, why single out Schoenbaum? There are others who have been just as dismissive, or worse, and then there are an increasing number who are starting to unlearn the dogma which the editor confidently opines as gospel. One might, for example, take a look a the recent defection of William Leahy, Brunel University Shakespearean scholar, who has in the past three or four years abandoned entirely his unexamined faith in the Stratfordian ideology and now openly advocates for the legitimacy of authorship studies. There are others close to the tipping point, and the imminent publication of James Shapiro's poorly argued Contested Will this coming spring is only going to raise the debate to a new level of public prominence in which orthodoxy will continue to decline.--BenJonson (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The quotation is present in the second edition as well. I checked it this morning.

Regardless, I don't think it's necessary to reproduce rants in order to communicate the fact that we're discussing a fringe theory with a snobby basis. While at one time I was a member of the Schoenbaum school of abuse, I lean more to the Matus school today. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for checking. Please note that I did not claim that that particular quote was not still present in the 1991 edition. I don't have the copies handy and could not check it. I did claim -- and it is true -- that much of the offensive language was removed in 1991, and that the quote which our wiki editor Schoenbaum has now supplied in full -- was ADDED to the 1991 edition. Now please stop and think, before you write your response, about what that means.

It is also a known fact (although I cannot for sure vouch that written documentation exists) that Ogburn and Schoenbaum held some conversations post 1984. These were part of the basis of Schoenbaum's significant shifts in opinion as he grew older, backing away from the dogmatic certainty of his earlier belief.

This is all to his credit. He obviously did not go all the way, but he went far enough to realize that he was damaging his own case by the extreme manner in which he had expressed himself in 1975.

You may be surprised to learn, though, that I disagree with you about not including this quote. I think the quote should probably be included. Better still, how about Evans and Levin, who asked after the Harvard Alumni Review published an article by Ogburn whether the editor (whom they tried to have fired for his temerity in daring to publish a nutcase like C.O.) would next be publishing an article proving that Queen Elizabeth was a Peruvian Transvestite. Such quotations serve an important function in reminding us to what extent wholly irrational motivations and ad hominem abuse have characterized the discourse up until the present. But S's quote is included, the article should also include reference to the changes in the editions which prove that views were changing over time. Perhaps that is too much detail for this particular article, and there should be a separate entry just discussing the role of Schoenbaum's book in the authorship question.

If you say that you were once a member of the Schoenbaum school and are today more of the Matus school I must say that reminds me of the lines from Hamlet when he compares his dead father to Claudius. Stick with the old man, sinner that he was. Matus is a total intellectual lightweight by comparison to Sh. and no moral champion, either (hint: do a background check).--BenJonson (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Roger, I was referring to Irv's attitude toward anti-Strats in general and Oxfordians in particular. He is no mean scholar in my book and I consider him a friend. I prefer the company of those with chequered backgrounds with true passion for their calling to the mindless drones of academe. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"What makes clarity about this particularly important is the fact that the header lists the article as one included in the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection|Wikipedia for Schools" - well the problem is that the header is wrong. Follow the link and you will see that no such page exists and this article is not part of the project. I'm removing the header. I guess the "particular importance" no longer applies. Smatprt (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to break the logjam

I've edited the lede to cut it down and make the most direct and important points about the article. I did so so that we can discuss any changes rather than endlessly posting alternate versions that get lost on the talk page. I think I did a good job of keeping a neutral point of view and attributing the arguments. We do need more citations for unreferenced statement. We do not, however, need 15 citations for each point to grandstand our deep scholarly convictions. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, since you broke your own proposal and posted a version without any agreement, does that make us even? :)

In any case, I posted the only version that has been under active discussion. This is also the only version that has received support from uninvolved editors so if we are going to start anywhere, it really should be here. Much of it I took from your own version and reflects various agreements that have been made on this page (pillars - planks, 50 - numerous). At least this version started here, received numerous comments and was the basis for a beginning discussion. Completely side-stepping this process was not the best way to go. I am perfectly willing to continue discussions about amending this version and coming to a reasonable conclusion. I hope you are too. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I signaled yesterday that I was working on a version and that is what I posted, rather than put it up on the discussion page and have it get lost in the vacuous exercise you call discussion, which lately has only been Roger bloviating and crapping up the boards so nobody can find anything.

This version clocks in at 440 words, it's even-handed and leaves out some problems that we'll never work out. It's also an accurate description of both the anti-Strat side and the academic stance, which I know you are fighting to keep out of the article, but it's going in eventually if it takes us until summer. I hope you were joking with your substitute of "devoted." And nobody agreed to planks, which I completely avoided, or numerous, except for me when I was trying to be conciliatory, which never works with you anyway so I don't know why I even bother. As for the words you say can't be defined, they echo the sources, one of which is your favorite NYTimes staff writer.

Nobody was really discussing the version you substituted. I have reverted back to the version previous to mine.

One of the major problems with this page that is going to have to be overhauled is that it doesn't follow the lede or the lede doesn't follow the text. The major topic should be what is common to all anti-Strat theories: that Shakespeare could not have written the works with his background. The other major topic should be anti-Stratfordian methodology. Anything peculiar to a particular candidate should be in their section, not in the main text. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

1RR restriction?

I notice that User:Smatprt and User:Tom Reedy have begun reverting each other again, after having been warned earlier to make no controversial changes without getting consensus first. To avoid resorting to blocks, I propose a 1RR rule (maximum of one revert per person per day) that applies to all editors. Please let me know if anyone objects to this. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't reversion in the edit-warring sense, but yes, I think it's best to head off any inclinations toward that.

Are properly-referenced edits that accurately reflect the scholarly consensus controversial? My understanding is that the stance of this article should be that of the scholarly consensus and not one of promotion. Am I correct in that? Because one problem we have is that "controversial changes" means "scholarly consensus" with Smatprt and company, or at least that's the way it seems from their reactions to certain edits, and it has resulted in gridlock as far as improving the article because we can't get editorial consensus for any substantial rewriting. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Tom (and now Nishidani) keep quoting 1 or 2 overly harsh opinions, and then label them as "scholarly consensus". How on earth do you prove "acholarly consensus" anyhow? If Kathman and Schoenbaum, in one of their fits, both published something that said "Oxfordians eat their parents" - would that be scholarly consensus, too?Smatprt (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Kathman and Schoenbaum are serious scholars. Their "fits" exist in your imagination. Their dismissals are, as you know, entirely normative. Paul B (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And yes, a 1RR restriction is a good idea, especially as it applies to all editors of this page.Smatprt (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Verbal diarrhea

In response to Tom's classy "bloviating and crapping" remark, the stats over the last five days only are: Nishidani added 77 kB, Smatprt 38 kB, Roger 27 kB. Tom 23 kB, Paul 11kB and Schoenbaum 7 kB. It is recommended to archive a talk page every 50 kB... This way anything relevant gets lost or archived before you can read it. Cutting accusations of stupidity and comparisons to holocaust denial or creationism would help. Afasmit (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree (and hasten to add that my remark was a commentary on the signal-to-noise ratio of the referenced material). We need to divert our energy to actual discussion about the encyclopedia entry instead of parading our hurt feelings. This is not a chat room.

I also want to add that Nishidani's comparisons were not meant as insulting, but as a demonstration of the ledes of other fringe belief articles. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The imputation that this subject can reasonably be categorized as a "fringe belief," however wikipedia may define that term in distinction with popular usage, is not just insulting. More importantly, it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the history of the debate and the precarious nature of the orthodox belief.--BenJonson (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

By 'imputation' I presume you mean 'insinuation', or 'assertion' (2) 'in distinction with' should be 'in distinction to' or 'in distinction from'. One learns these elementary things pretty quickly if one studies English with a passion, Ben. Ignore them, and it is best to keep away from kibitzing of 'orthodox' scholarship. The rest is incomprehensibly vague.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 21 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:[[3]]

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: [[4]]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)

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.[[5]]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? [[6]]? 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 [[7]]. 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)

Reference Section

I put some much needed energy into reforming this section. I divided the bibliography, which formerly included orthodox and anti-Stratfordian works in one category, into two separate sections, as it would have been extremely confusing to anyone who doesn't know the literature well, in the prior jumbled form. I moved Hope and Holston to the anti-Stratfordian section, since the purpose of that book is to survey the history of the dispute itself, not to make original arguments supporting the Oxfordian attribution. I also alphabetized all the other sections (if I made any errors, I appreciate the assistance of Tom or anyone else to make sure that the sections are consistently alphabetized). I moved one Baconian link to a website that was categorized as a print resource, and cut one irrelevant Oxfordian link which was also in the wrong place and which does not really merit inclusion, imho. I encourage us to spend more time making these kinds of obviously much needed corrections and less time engaging in debate with Nishidani et alia. The past few days have demonstrated, if proof was needed, that although a few of his points were valid, the angst which comes attached to many of his comments is a waste of time and energy.--BenJonson (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)