Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox

Lead

Short and sweet. Refs coming. Discuss, but please for not too long. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a starting point for the lead. The first graph already has consensus (except I got rid of one of the three uses of "public" in the first 3 lines. the next two have been trimmed considerably, with most, if not all, of the offending statements (from both sides) removed. These were, of course, the attacks on each others methods that were heavy on opinion, but light on any actual facts.Smatprt (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: your lead - it really does not summarize the article. I think we were on the right track before and had graph 1 finally complete. Nishidani's version and mine are not that far apart, which is a pleasant surprise. Also - we have a lead image that everyone actually liked, so all I would ask is that we not move backward on the few things we have agreed on. What do you say? Smatprt (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we really don't have an article yet, and what we're building is going to be radically different in content and structure than the old one, so it's impossible to say if it summarises what we're going to end up with.

As far as content of the lead goes, none of the three are really that far apart. There are four main points to be made, that I can see:

1. definition

2. origin and main candidates that have been put forth

3. scholarly opinion

4. description of present-day status

What yours and Nisidani's versions do is greatly expand on 2 and 3, which I think could be more economically handled in the text (mainly because the introductions to the main treatments are nothing more than restatements).

But right now I'm not really concerned about what's up on the page, so feel free to tinker with it or replace it, nor do I want to hash out a "final" version. Instead I want to hear your thoughts about the structure of the entire article. The last article sprawled like an medieval manor: rooms added on every which way on the whim of each generation's owner, and we need to learn from the mistakes made there. I really think a big problem was trying to add everything including the kitchen sink, and I think using the old article for anything more than a mine for phrases and references is going backward.

For example, I believe we need to think about what all the authorship theories have in common and spell that out in the section after the lead. Believe it or not, I think it can be done in three paragraphs or less. We also need to discuss whether the history and the candidates should be merged, which seems logical to me, or whether we should try to maintain them separately, which I think would be harder to do and make for a lot of needless repetition. Nor do I think, as I have said, that whatever we include as rationales for the various authorship candidates needs to be refuted point-by-point, but I also think we need to avoid long and overly-complicated arguments. Food for thought.

I've just got quite busy, so it'll be later this evening before I can get back to this. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So here you go:

"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.[1] The public debate dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted wide attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.[a][2] Those who question the attribution believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.[3] Of the numerous proposed candidates,[4] major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support,[5] 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. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians, or Derbyites, respectively.[6]

Most authorship doubters believe that Shakespeare of Stratford 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 his known biography[3]. Many doubters assert that if the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford was involved at all, it was more likely as front man or play-broker.[4] Anti-Stratfordians believe Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the extensive education necessary to write the collected works, and question how he could have gained the life experience and adopted the aristocratic attitude they claim is evident in them.[5] 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.[6]

Most mainstream Shakespeare academics, also referred to as "Stratfordians", pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories.[7] Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject, noting that the authorship of Shakespeare of Stratford is supported by two main categories 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.[8] Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view.[9] Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[10]" Smatprt (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is too long and involved, and I think we need to start with a blank slate instead of trying to reuse what we've been arguing over the past three months. Did you read what I put up on the page? I think one more sentence about the obscurity of Shakespeare's biography being the origin of all the various theories might be in order.

Certainly we're going to need more than you and me here. I think we need some kind of outline to determine what all we're going to cover. We can't get into extensive detail with any of the arguments, and we need to source to secondary or tertiary sources. Check out the 11th ed. EB article here (do a page search using "Shakespeare-Bacon Theory") and review Dave Kathman's article in Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide. Also there's a great book, The Poacher from Stratford that is a model of scholarship when it comes to describing the various theories in a neutral manner with no rebuttals. And of course you should read Jim Shapiro's new book, which should be in book stores any day now. This article is going to have to be descriptive and not argumentative if we're to stay out of the weeds this time.

We also need to determine the citation styles before we get too far along. I favor the simple, author, title, year, page number, which is sufficient information for anyone to find the reference, but I've noticed that a lot of writers I read add the place of publication, closer to the MLA, Chicago, or New Hart's style. There are no hard and fast rules on the format, even though some people act as if it's Holy Writ, (and including standard book numbers is just plain unnecessary, IMO), but we should be consistent from the very beginning.

BTW, I've been a bit busy the past few days (but not as busy as you, apparently), and I haven't had the time (or inclination, truth be told) to tell you that I thought your edits at the Biographical fallacy article were very good. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. Really. As to graph one, we all worked so long and hard to build it that I would really hate to start over on that one. But I'll keep an open mind. I've just cut down the other two a bit more (and seeing Nishidani's version below, it pretty much covers the same material - but - and don't make fun of me for this, I tried to keep mine a little more plain english, keeping in mind that we are writing this for a population with an average 8th grade education! :) Smatprt (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If we are not careful, we're in for another weary rerun. I suggest one rethink it freshly, and that we detach ourselves from heated squabbling over words, to simply get at a précis of the essential points, that will be elaborated in the main text. I imagine a brief lead, followed immediately by an historical section on the rise of the theory. What I had in mind for a new lead more or less, after 25 minutes, came out as follows. I am not suggesting this as a text to work on, but merely as a casual exemplar of the laconic synthesis of the main points the lead would require.

The Shakespeare authorship question refers to theories that cast doubt on the traditional ascription of the works of Shakespeare to William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon. Public challenges to the traditional view were first voiced in the mid-19th. century. Sceptics hold that “William Shakespeare” was a pseudonym behind which lay the hand of one, or several writers, perhaps working in concert. Of the numerous candidates proposed, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby have gained prominence. Bacon prevailed in the 19th century, and Oxford most recently.

Doubters highlight the obscurity surrounding Shakespeare’s biography, and a perceived discrepancy between the provincial figure and the metropolitan playwright. The known record, they argue, tells us nothing that could bridge the perceived disparity between a man of relatively humble origins and the genius of the London stage, whose works display a comprehensive knowledge of classical literature, Renaissance books, law, astronomy, languages and the refined culture of courtly society. They assert that one can infer from the works a profile of the real mind and identity behind them.

Mainstream Shakespearean scholars are mostly dismissive of these anti-Stratfordian theories, when they do not ignore them. They adduce evidence that his fellow writers and playwrights never expressed doubts, that both the Folio and the Stratford monument bear witness to a correlation between the theatrical author and the provincial Shakespeare, that scarcity of biographical data was normal for his milieu, and that deducing a writer's identity from his works constitutes a biographical fallacy.

Despite specialist scepticism, interest in the authorship debate continues unabated, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.

Smatprt’s version 393. Mine 286. Reduction of 25%Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Some nice work here, Nishidani. Last sentence is not right - it's despite the academic view, right? Anyhow, I've incorporated much of Nishidani's into mine and pasted it below. See what you think.Smatprt (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not in my view. I elided it because it would mean using 'academic' twice in the same line, an important stylistic objection. I'd like a list, by the way, of the number of academic specialists in Shakespeare, with university positions, who argue for an alternative candidate, reminding you that those who don't subscribe to it, and teach and do research on Shakespeare run into many thousands.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mine runs 166. Your prose style is also much more baroque, which might not be best for an encyclopedia.

I also don't think we should get into all the reasons in the lead, since they will be summarised in the main text. Right now I'm more interested in agreeing to some type of skeleton on which to hang the flesh of the article. Trying to work out exact wording as we go along will surely bog us down. How about beginning a new section to hash out an outline over the next couple of days? It doesn't have to be set in stone, but a rough guide would surely keep us from wrecking so close to shore.

Also are there any thoughts on the citation method as I mentioned above? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What is your citation for the claim that mainstream Shakespeareans that "deducing a writer's identity from his works constitutes a biographical fallacy"? This is important to pin down, in view of the fact that there is a veritable industry of biographies by orthodox scholars which purport to explore the literary works in light of the author's biography. This would seem to be a contradiction to which the article must allude. Therefore we should avoid attributing to "mainstream Shakespeareans" as a whole arguments which only some of them may have made.--BenJonson (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I must apologize for not giving an answer now. I wrote for two hours a large essay on this, unfortunately drafting here, and, clicking the wrong back back, wiped it out. It mentions Sisson's The Mythical Sorrows of Shakespeare, (1934), and Alan H.Nelson, ‘Calling All (Shakespeare) Biographers! Or, a Plea for Documentary Discipline,’ in Takashi Kozuka, J. R. Mulryne (eds.), Shakespeare, Marlowe, Jonson: new directions in biography, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2006Ch.4 pp.55-66, and several other sources.

But that is not the point. I can if I like take to pieces much of the paras now provided, and challenge them, on any number of grounds (I think 'public doubts' is wrong, I think the list of 4 candidates should be ordered along the lines of the emergence of theories, meaning Bacon comes first, then Derby, then Marlowe, and finally de Vere. Never said a word, since this is horsetrading, not nitpicking.

If you think we should not use commonsense, based on wide reading, but justify every word with a precise textual source in RS, then by all means let's return to the embattled status quo ante. As Tom remarks below, of course many orthodox Shakespeareans have used the works to imagine the life otherwise undocumented. Methodologically, all scholars worth their salt know that this is, and cannot be, barring new documentary discoveries, essays in fiction, hypothesis, just-so stories. That is why so much orthodox work on his life is full of 'woulds', 'may have been', 'perhaps's', 'possibilities', and 'one can imagine', rhetorical reminders to the reader that technical, what is being said of the author by reference to the plays and poems is nothing but speculation. The conspiracy school, on the other hand, says that the lack of direct documentation for their theories can be circumvented by reading the works as ciphers, or rewritings of real events in the 'real author's life'. Methodologically, nothing can be proven by such methods, unless the millenial event takes place, and one finds the missing 'smoking gun'. It is one thing to speculate about possible links between elements in the plays and the real, historically attested author, it is quite another thing to say, in terms of method, that the author recognized by contemporaries, tradition and scholarship, was no such thing, and the real identity is enciphered. That is commonsense, it is known to every mainstream scholar, and so obvious it is not often remarked.

I could of course use this same query to ask that every time 'authorship doubters' occurs, that we have an RS source directly mentioning what follows, since in many place we are dealing not with 'authorship doubters' but only one, even eccentric, authorship doubter, and the collective term blurs the individual responsibility for a theory or argument. Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I think it is too early in the lead to do more than generalise the various arguments, and I think this should be farther down. I have several such references, but right now I hope we can agree on some type of outline to guide us. And yes, orthodox scholars are guilty of the same thing, and in fact Malone was the first to do so, which fact opened the door to a shoddy technique that led inevitably to questioning Shakespeare's authorship. The fact remains that it is a fallacy, especially for literary works written for pre-Romantic audiences. Wordsworth himself withheld his "Prelude" from publication for years because he said it was "a thing unprecedented in literary history that a man should talk so much about himself." Tom Reedy (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• 'and their supporters are respectively called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians, or Derbyites.'

I don't approve of this sentence personally, since it is pernickety wadding in a lead, and each genre name can be mentioned in the relevant sections dealing with each other, as the various hypotheses are surveyed in the history section to follow immediately below.User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

God yes. We need to wring out this kind of watery exposition. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to that as well. I cut that line from this version:

"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.[1] The public debate dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted wide attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.[a][2] Skeptics believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.[3] Of the numerous proposed candidates,[4] major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support,[5] 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.[6]

Doubters highlight the obscurity surrounding Shakespeare’s biography, and perceive a discrepancy between the provincial figure and the metropolitan playwright.[3] Many doubters assert that if the man baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford was involved at all, it was more likely as front man or play-broker.[4] Skeptics believe he lacked the extensive education necessary to write the collected works, which display a comprehensive knowledge of classical literature, law, astronomy, foreign languages and the refined culture of courtly society.[5] These researchers focus on the relationship between the content of the plays and poems and a candidate’s known education, life experiences, and recorded history.[6]

Most mainstream Shakespeare academics pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories,[7] noting that both the Folio and the Stratford monument bear witness to a correlation between the theatrical author and the provincial Shakespeare, that scarcity of biographical data was normal for his milieu, and that deducing a writer's identity from his works constitutes a biographical fallacy. Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[10]" Smatprt(talk) 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Above has been recast using much of Nishidani's version. Result is another cut of about 80 words overall. Kept lead paragraph since we already hashed that one out (it's the only graph in the whole article with consensus, so I really didn't want to go through that again). I think my earlier version, mentioning titles pages, etc. was stronger for the traditional case but Nishidan't didn't have that. Will be interested in Tom's input on that.  :) Smatprt (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll get back to it later this evening. We're still a bit constipated, but at least we're sitting on the pot. I hope it doesn't remain a four-holer. Hand me the funny papers, please. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Article outline from Archive for use in summary Lead

Here is the outline we were using to summarize the lead way back when. It might be a good place to start as we discuss the lead and the article structure itself. I've adjusted the list to reflect the current article format. While I agree that the present article needs lots of clean-up, I don't really agree that it wanders all over the place and lacks structure. I do think the overview is necessary before jumping right into the history. Both the overview and the history, however, can be cut down and made more compact.

Overview of article sections to summarize in the lead:

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:

• 0 Lead

• 1 Overview, 1.1 Authorship doubters 1.2 Mainstream view 1.3 Criticism of mainstream view

• 2 History of authorship doubts, 2.1 Early doubts, 2.2 The rise of bardolatry in the 17th and 18th centuries, 2.3 Debate in the 19th Century, 2.4 20th Century Candidates

• 3 Pseudonymous or secret authorship in Renaissance England 3.1 "Shake-Speare" as a pseudonym 3.2 "Shakspere" vs. "Shakespeare"

• 4 Debate points used by anti-Stratfordians:

• 4.1 Doubts about Shakespeare of Stratford, 4.1.1 Literary paper trails, 4.1.2 Shakespeare's education, 4.1.3 Shakespeare's life experience, 4.1.4 Shakespeare's literacy, 4.1.5 Shakespeare's will, 4.1.6 Shakespeare's funerary monument

• 4.2 Comments by contemporaries
• 4.3 Publications, 4.3.1 The First Folio, 4.3.2 Geographical knowledge in the plays, 4.3.3 The poems as evidence

• 4.4 Date of playwright's death, 4.4.1 Shake-speare's Sonnets, 4.4.2 1604-1616 period

• 5 Candidates and their champions, 5.1 Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford 5.2 Sir Francis Bacon 5.3 Christopher Marlowe 5.4 William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby 5.5 Group theory 5.6 Other candidates

It seems to me that the lead version I just posted (the combination of Nishidani's and mine) pretty well addresses the main subjects discussed in the article. And it has come down from 545 words (present) to 305 words. 240 words gone is pretty darn good in terms of cutting and the length is now appropriate to the size and topics covered in the article. Even when we cut it down, I imagine it will still be a good sized article (just not so large as it is now!) I just want to add that I'm not sure our dictate was to restructure the article from top to bottom, but rather to clean up the back and forth style, and address NPOV issues throughout.  :) Smatprt (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My thinking is we can lose or cursorily mention 1.3, 2.1, 2.4, collapse 2.2 and 2.3, collapse the entirety of 4.1 into a couple/three maybe four graphs, with the exception of 4.1.5, 4.1.6, which sections lose entirely, completely lose 4.3 and 4.4 except for 4.4.1 (but radically different from the old version), and treat all of 5 in sec. 2. I'm thinking we need to follow the lead with what all sub-theories have in common, mainly Shakespeare as incapable, others are for various reasons (really only two), and a conspiracy theory. After that the orthodox take on all that, and then treat the history and fold the individual candidates into the narrative as they come up historically with no rebuttals, which should be superfluous anyway after the orthodox take.

I'm sick to death of this today; I'll post some ideas tomorrow. And yes, my understanding is to restructure the article radically, because the frame is an inherent part of the POV, probably the most important part. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom,

• I am trying to keep an open mind here, so let me ask you to clarify what you are thinking in regard to 2.4.

• Also, 4.1.5 and 4.1.6 are basic anti-Strat stuff, common to all theories. I can't see deleting them, though 4.1.6 can certainly be made more compact.

• I think the same applies to elements of 4.3 and 4.4 as well. I agree that everything can be made more compact, but I don't support the complete deletion of so many sections.

• I think to cut out the single candidate arguments, mostly Oxfordian stuff, makes sense and will support you in that request. I know we will have some disagreements about exactly what applies, but you will find me open to your suggestions.

I am willing to compromise on many things to come up with a workable solution. And I will say that Nishidani's suggested lead, I think, shows a balanced approach that I, for one, found helpful. I hope I showed that by incorporating much of it into my current version. So get back to me on my questions and lets continue. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am trying to keep an open mind here, so let me ask you to clarify what you are thinking in regard to 2.4.

Why, soitenly.

My thinking is that the history should introduce and give the reasons for all the candidates as the history progresses. The times in which they were nominated are important to the reasons they were nominated. Just an example: can you think of any reason why anybody would nominate a candidate today using the same reasons Delia Bacon had (i.e. a parallel philosophy underlying the plays augmenting Bacon’s published one)? Or that anybody would take a cipher such as Durning-Lawrence’s seriously ("honorificabilitudinitatibus" as an anagram of Hi ludi F. Baconis nati tuiti orbi: "These plays, the offspring of F. Bacon, are preserved for the world.")? Of course not. The candidates are temporally specific and suit the contemporary idea of the author of the times in which they were nominated. Looney postulated his author “profile” at a time when psychological motivations were catching the fancy of the public, and has largely persisted for the same “scientific” reason.

• Also, 4.1.5 and 4.1.6 are basic anti-Strat stuff, common to all theories. I can't see deleting them, though 4.1.6 can certainly be made more compact.

You’re right, those two sections—the will and the monument—are generic anti-Strat talking points, and as such could be handled adequately in the section following the lead that I proposed. We need to keep in mind, though, that we’re to keep to the Wikipedia summary style. The amount of detail in them now seems unreasonable and unrealistic to me.

• I think the same applies to elements of 4.3 and 4.4 as well. I agree that everything can be made more compact, but I don't support the complete deletion of so many sections.

4.3.1 (the Droeshout portrait) is very minor and is really no argument at all; it’s just another incongruous (to anti-Strats) “detail” that tells them something is amiss, but it doesn’t really advance the argument at all. And the bit about Droeshout’s age is obscure and makes no point at all.

4.3.2 (“Geographical knowledge in the plays”) is much too much, as well as being ill-written. How many examples do you need to assert that Shakespeare had an intimate knowledge of Italy and that academics say that knowledge was flawed? Remember that we’re describing the case, not trying to make it. And why is that under "Publications" anyway?

4.3.3 (Poems as evidence) is an unholy blob of amorphous protoplasm. Its place should be in the section describing the generic anti-Strat arguments, IMO. But remember, these are all suggestions only; I'm not insisting they be instituted this very moment.

And I disagree that 4.4 is "basic anti-Strat stuff", unless you can tell me what other author besides Oxford needs Shiklespurter to be dead by 1604.

Now that we’re away from the day-to-day heat of trying to make sure our edits aren’t stifled and trying to stop the other guy from dishonestly trying to overwhelm the page with his twisted POV, let’s try to take a fresh look at things while we have this period to reflect. For example, I just now noticed that section 4.2, “Comments by contemporaries”, is mostly not that at all, but just an extension of the first part of 2.1, “Early doubts” and 3, “Pseudonymous or secret authorship in Renaissance England”. I never noticed that while being under the stress of trying to edit the article while under the gun. A section entitled “Comments by contemporaries” certainly should at least mention that there are more than 50 contemporary literary comments about Shakespeare (usually in the context of other writers, not as a singularity). The fact that this one doesn’t is testimony to its ill-wrought construction.

I want to reiterate my suggestion that we begin with a blank slate rather than try to put makeup on an ugly offspring. I’m working on some edits and a rough outline that I hope to post for comment tomorrow or so, but I’d like to get everyone’s opinion before we go too far trying to tinker with a page that doesn’t work for anyone. Instead of remodeling, let’s abandon the structure and rebuild on a new lot, using what we’ve learned the past few months. I realize that’s a lot of work, but I don’t think this is going to take more than four weeks or so.

All these are just suggestions on how to proceed. If we don’t agree on this, I doubt we’ll agree on much else as we write the page, because we'll all be tugging in different directions, and I don’t think that will serve anyone's purpose well. Comments? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification In my statement above, "If we don’t agree on this, I doubt we’ll agree on much else as we write the page . . .", I don't mean it to say that if you don't agree with my suggestions, just that if we don't agree on the best way to proceed. I just now realised how that could be construed to mean that I was insisting on doing it all my way. Apologies. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that "4.1.6 Shakespeare's funerary monument" is referring to the idea that the original bust differed significantly from the present one, this is not an argument used by any Marlovian author that I am aware of, and a good thing too! Peter Farey

212.183.140.52 (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter, it would help if you went through the page and gave us a list of passages where 'authorhip doubters' is the subject, but the following assertion is not shared by Marlovians. My position is that all synthesis, in what is a very varied field, risks blurring what are often distinct positions. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I certainly share your concern about the risk of blurring, since (although it did originate with an acceptance of the "not Shakespeare" argument of the Baconians) the Marlovian theory has gradually moved well away from the fundamental argument of most other anti-Stratfordian theories.

For example, the very first sentences of "Authorship Doubters" claims as a "fundamental principle" something which few if any of today's leading Marlovians would accept. We may note that certain things we believe happened to Marlowe occur again and again in the plays, and that most of the cruxes in the Sonnets are explained by the Marlovian theory, but these are by no means "fundamental". The main reasons for our belief these days are (1) that the most logical reason for the presence of the various people who were at Deptford on 30 May 1593 was to fake Marlowe's death, and (2) Shakespeare simply took over where Marlowe left off in such a seamless way that Shakespearean scholars have gone on and on about it for years.

I should mention something about the chronology. We have only very recently come across an on-line copy of William Gleason Zeigler's book, and find that the Marlovian argument in his prologue was a far more "serious" essay supporting the theory than any of us had realised before. I think we can safely say, therefore, that the theory was seriously proposed as early as 1895 - after Bacon but (if what you say here is correct) before Derby.

It will come as no surprise to you that we wouldn't associate ourselves with "Anti-Stratfordians have argued that the authorship question is a manifestation of early modern censorship, which caused many authors to hide their identities in one way or another", nor with any suggestion that "the stigma of print" is of any relevance whatsoever. I fell about at "At least two of the proposed candidates for authorship, the Earls of Oxford and Derby were known to be playwrights, even though no extant work survives under their own name." In fact that whole section is dodgy from our point of view.

I need to check up on this, but I don't think that the section on "Shake-speare as a pseudonym" has ever been part of the Marlovian case, and it certainly does nothing for me.

"Shakspere" vs. "Shakespeare" plays no part in the Marlovian argument.

Shakespeare's attendance at Stratford Grammar school is not something which we have any reason to doubt at all, and most of us would say that it would have even been a necessary part of the deception.

The section on "Shakespeare's life experience" appears to give rather more emphasis than I am comfortable with to the idea that the author was a member of the aristocracy rather than someone (whether one of them or not) who just had the opportunity to observe them close up and personal.

As I said above, the whole section on Shakespeare's funerary monument must go. I found the idea of huge interest when I first read about it in Charlton Ogburn's tome, but can't understand why it isn't now universally understood that the finding of Dugdale's "missing link" sketch completely demolished the validity of Hollar et al's three-legged aberration. Now it's just embarrassing.

As for the date of Shakespeare's death, the section is of course pure Oxford. I know of no Marlovian who would date the death of the "real author" before 1612, although this is probably the area of least agreement between us all! As for the rest of that section, most of us accept Foster's claim that "Mr W.H." must have been the author of the Sonnets, but that the "ever-living" could just as easily mean that he was only thought to be rather than really dead.

The less said about the Marlowe section - which I have just seen for the first time - the better!

Peter Farey. 86.29.85.121 (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New version posted on 3/18/10

I just posted a cut down version with many of your suggestions. I wanted to see what it might actually look like. It takes the article down around 60K which is one of the lengths discussed WP:LENGTH. As I mention at the beginning of the overview "t cuts out the candidate specific material (mostly Oxfordian stuff) and cuts down on every section. I've tried to use wikipedia summary style for the longer sections like the history and the "other candidates"; I've left the candidates at the end instead of trying to work them into the history, as it interrupted the flow when I tried it. The candidates have all been cut down as well - again trying to use summary style, which worked best when I left them out of the history and in their own section. I look forward to comments." Smatprt (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: The present version is approx 94K of prose. This version is at 47K, or right about half the size of the current version.I'm not saying that I fully endorse the version I just posted, by the way. I wanted to see what this combination of Tom's and my proposals would look like and how long it would be. While much rewriting would still be done, some stuff added back in, other stuff cut, I think this is probably the ballpark that we might be in. Smatprt (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that exposition should follow historical lines. To veer from the chronology of proposed candidates only leads to squabbles over why one candidate is higher up the list than any other. The only sure way to desubjective this is to follow the candidates as chronology records them as being discovered: Bacon, Derby, Marlowe, De Vere.

Secondly, many sections are written in 'sandwich style', I borrowed the term from Italian television analysis where the government imposes on the main news channel a format that gives the government views first, the opposition's views next, and then the government's replies to the opposition's views. This is know to be a technique there of 'wrapping round' the alternative view in such a way that its significance is sandwiched, like a blip, between the opening and closing interviews.

Proper WP:NPOV exposition should simply have the anti-Stratfordian view expounded, followed by the viewpoint of mainstream scholarship, with no come-back. If you retain the comeback it only means, for NPOV, that the mainstream is entitled to a comeback on the comeback and it never ends. This is a major structural problem that needs immediate remedy, and I hope the de Vereans can, autonomously, re-edit these sections to give the proper two-way division, and not the POV sandwich format.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that that exposition should follow historical lines, but my thought is that refutations probably won't be necessary for most of the material.

Say you describe the Bacon theory, beginning with Delia Bacon through Ignatius L. Donnelly and Durning-Lawrence (4 graphs max), then take up the introduction of Stanley, the introduction of Oxford, the establishment of the Shakespeare Fellowship, the groupist theory, the introduction of Marlowe, the rise of Oxford, Neville, then the present day state of the topic—mock trial, Frontline, Rubbo, rise of Internet groups, NYTimes poll and Doubters' petition—which last two items would give a pretty good summation of its reception and status—then perhaps a short list of the more interesting of the rest of the candidates.

BOOM! End of article, and no rebuttals necessary, because (A) we've covered the case for Shakespeare early up, right after the generic anti-Strat arguments, and (B) each new candidate and the sheer number of them effectively neutralises the others. We would be rid of the tiresome verbal tennis match by giving a neutral description of each candidacy, and be rid of the detailed descriptions of strained, esoteric Procrustean arguments by presenting the main arguments prima facie. We need to model the article after Schoenbaum instead of Matus. Of course we will have the links for those who want to get down in the trenches of the arguments, but that is not our purpose here that I see. And I do't want to appear confrontive, but I'm might as well get this out right now: I'm not entertaining the idea of including any long-winded recitations of any pretended "veiled allusions" that depend on anachronistic interpretations or obscure biographical details.

I just got paged on an airplane crash. Gotta go. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I crashed, from boredom at the lengths to which this appears to be going once more. But to illustrate why the 'sandwich effect' has to be eliminated, because it games the text in a gross violation of WP:NPOV, note that it is structured just after the lead where we have

(a)Authorship doubters

(b)Mainstream view

(c)Doubts concerning the Mainstream View

That is intolerable. In (c) there is D Price going on about lawsuits and seedy Stratford Shakespeare's money making, as a comeback on that 'Stratford guy', One could throw in easily Peter Quennell to counter this: 'All the Elizabethans were interested in money, and accustomed repeatedly to go to law,' in a 'Doubts concerning doubts about the mainstream view', i.e. another para, whih in turn would lead to a fifth 'rebuttal' from the doubters, in an unending spiral. Conciseness, as you say, and simplicity of exposition is what is required. (Shakespeare.the Poet and His Background, 1963 p.12) Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Introducing the main claimants

Hello, while the sandbox article is not Shakespeare, it seems better to me than the public article. So thank you, contributors! My thoughts on the sandbox article (or you could just read Nishidani's 19:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC) comment):

• Introduction -- I presume that the original doubt on William of Stratford was his economic class. If I am correct, I believe that a description of the original impetus to the idea should be mentioned accurately and concisely very early in the article. This is not written well, but something like: As scholars became aware of the immense contributions of Shakespeare to the English vocabulary and poetry as well as his intimate knowledge of history, law, the court, Italy, and the Classics, they began to wonder how a man from a working-class background could have excelled in so many areas. I suppose that this description might be controversial to one who claims that a typical grammar school student would have gained this same knowledge base, but is that a mainstream position?
• The final four -- Chronologically, shouldn't Bacon be first? My limited understanding is that amid the Shakespeare rediscovery/craze, doubt started with William of Stratford, and a frantic search turned up Bacon.
• Was not cryptogrammetry (if that is a word) a major part of the early case for Bacon? Shouldn't that be mentioned a bit more prominently, if true?

Now I wonder if the purpose of the final four section is to give the best current case for the candidate or a brief summary of the candidacy. In other words, If snobbery against William of Stratford or a crypto-craze is is what elevated an early candidate, should that be mentioned along with whatever today's best arguments are for the candidate?

I have an impression that scholarship, like wikipedia articles, starts out crappy and gets better. I don't think it is bad to mention that dodgy beginnings have lead to a more plausible present state. Thank you for reading this far, Fotoguzzi (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to a number of your suggestions, as well as Nishidani's.

• The presumption that original doubt was limited to reasons of economic class is more opinion than fact. Many say that it's the disparity between the known biography and the "genius" that was the author. It's a subtle difference because his economic class certainly is part of that equation. But the question for many doubters isn't that "because of his class he could not have written the plays", but rather - "from what his biography tells about his life and activities, there is no evidence that he had the background and ability to write the plays". And frankly, snobs exist on either side of the debate.

• I think the final four should remain in the current order due to prominence. The candidates are listed in order of their level of acceptance and notablity as defined by Wiki Policy. To list "Stanley", for example 2nd, or Bacon 1st, is to ignore current scholarship and would give them undue weight. The undue weight argument works both ways.

No, I can't work that way, because prominence is a very shifty thing, Bacon was pèrominent, de Vere now is, Marlowe may be coming back. Secondly, since most editing is being done by de Vereans on what is a page devoted to all theories, prioritizing by prominence = showcasing ourman first. It's self-evidently partial, and the only way round the crux is to proceed by a logical chronological order.Nishidani (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree, "cryptogrammetry" (or whatever the word is) should be mentioned. Probably up in the history section? or the Bacon section? What do you think? But again "snobbery" is an opinion not a fact. It's a fact that crytograms were used in some theories (and still are, though to a much lessor degree).Smatprt (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

All authorship theories have their origin in the obscurity of Shakespeare's life. We simply don't know much about his personal life, and we probably never will. Every argument against his authorship emerges from that biographical lacuna.

My preference would be to give a summary of each major candidacy as we narrate the history of the movement. Important points would be who first made the nomination, when, the reasons why (the major arguments), the later development of the argument, the public reaction and any notable adherents.

And hopefully we can skip the divine revelation epoch before we get down to work. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I don't think anything serious of what I proposed got into the lead: all nuance is lost.
  • I still insist that, especially given the fact that the three major authorship doubter editors are alligned with de Verean studies, that great caution must be exercised in not using wikipedia articles to single his priority and prominence out. One edits to the record, not to one's own preferences. The only way to remove subjectivity in this regard is to give the bare elements, in chronological order, in both the lead and the main text. Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Benjonson's creation of a stub to give the lead a link to 'biographical criticism' and conjure up the impression that de Verean studies practice that technique instead of subverting one of its principles (i.e. the documentary record of Shakespeare is deconstructed to show he was not the author, it is not used to show the biographical continuity between Shakespeare and his works) looks distintly iffy. An attempt is being made, in short, to elide a fundamental divide between mainstream and de Verean methods, by insinuating that the latter subscribe to an orthodox form of scholarship. They don't: they subscribe to a theory which says the biographical data for an historical author tell us nothing of who that author is, indeed, tell us that author is not an author, and therefore the biographical data must lead us to the real author, not mentioned in the historical records of biography. This is pure strategical légerdemain. That article needs a huge amount of work on it, which I certainly won't get involved in, to justify the manoeuver, which looks, once more, like a tactical use of wiki pages. I note that, too, Benjonson doesn't edit this page, but works other pages to provide Smatprt with useful of misleading links. Bad practice.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, is that entry some kind of a joke? Whatever the school of "biographical criticism" is (and I must confess I don't recall the topic in any of the classes I attended, although that might serve only to reveal the paucity of my education), it isn't gleaning clues from a work of literature and then guessing the identity of the author, nor is it making an assumption about the identity of the author and then combing through the work for confirmation. (Although while I was reading the Wiki article I thought I recognised the style, and clicking on the history I learned I was correct. Is that an example of "biographical criticism"?) And in my reading of anti-Strat literature I haven't seen any consistent adherence to any kind of methodology; it's all ad hoc that I can see.

I am disappointed that I'm not getting any discussion about the points I've brought up. And reading through the article diffs to determine exactly which of my suggestions may or may not have been incorporated in the latest rewrite is an unsatisfactory way of engaging in dialogue, to my mind. I made an edit deleting one subsection and rewriting another as an example of how radically I think it needs weeding, but really I want to go in a different direction other than reworking a failed article.

Smatprt, no disrespect intended, but it seems to me that the origin of the some of the differences we have is that you're not all that educated on the subject. Yes, you've got the Oxfordian talking points down cold, but you lack a good overall knowledge of the Shakespeare authorship question. Do you have access to Schoenbaum's Lives? You can buy a copy for a couple of bucks on AbeBooks.com if you don't already have a copy. If I might make a suggestion, that would be a good place to begin and you should read it, especially the sections about the rise of bardolatry and the authorship doubters. He leaves his opinion out of it until the very last few pages (although he injects a dry comment every now and then). Try to read it with an open mind to learn the information rather than to find points you don't agree with. I'm not trying to convert you, but to show how neutral language can be used to describe a controversial subject and to learn some things you might not know about this topic. It is also a major reference for this article and you should have it to hand.

In the past couple of weeks I've noticed that whenever I spend much time reading and responding to this and other Wikipedia discussions, my back and neck muscles tighten up, so evidently I'm referring the stress of all the accusations and arguments to the usual bodily locations (other things are going on in my life also, as usual, but the Wikipedia sessions seem to set off the physical response, although it hasn't always been so). So I'm going to try to disengage and work off-line for a day or so. I'll be back with some rewrites for all to critique. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom, apologies for not responding directly to your comments. Let me get to that now:

• So 2.4 remains as part of the history, yes? I agree, but I don't agree that the "reason" each candidate was nominated is so cut and dry as you make out. I think that if you want to create a sub-articled called the "Psychology of the Shakespeare authorship question, then your research on the matter would fit nicely. But it, in itself, is a theory and not fact. The history section of this article should just stick to the facts and not veer off into opinion and conjecture about authorship doubters themselves. If so, it would beg for the addition of a section on the motivations of Stratfordians, don't you think?

You mistake my meaning. By "reasons" I mean the argument about why the candidate was nominate: i.e. Marlowe was a playwright and there are many exact parallel phrases in his work and Shakespeare's; Oxford's life and "ever" (E.Ver) are found in the works and he went to Italy; Bacon's aphorisms are found restated in the works and many anagrams can be found of his name, etc. I thought I made that clear by following it with "(the major arguments)". Tom Reedy (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think we agree on 4.1.5 and 4.1.6.

• I agree with you on 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 - and those sections are now gone.

• I agree with you about 4.2 (Comments by Contemporaries) - and that section is now gone.

• So we are down to 4.4 - and here is where I am going to ask you to step back and listen to reason. Forget about Oxford, forget about your and my personal beliefs. If you were a "man on the street" and you asked me to name one main reason why Shakespeare of Stratford did not write the plays, and I told you there was evidence that whoever the author was was dead by 1609, yet Shakespeare of Stratford lived till 1616, wouldn't that raise an eyebrow? That is what I mean by it's an anti-Strat argument. Who makes the argument has nothing to do with it. Can you at least see my point of view? I hope you at least try, that's all I'm asking. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the exact same thing as telling that man on the street that there was evidence Oxford wrote the plays. No other candidate uses the argument, therefore it's an Oxfordian argument and should be in that section. I thought we hashed all that out at the other talk page. No one is saying you can't use the argument; just that it be in its proper place. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Final statement on one other issue, that I made above, but seems to have been missed by some. The order of the claimants, both in the lead and the final section, has been by order of current acceptance (which the article is supposed to reflect). By all current RS, Oxford is the leading candidate. To try and diminish that fact, or remove it from the lead, would be to give undue weight to the minor or fallen candidates of the past. The article, like all of Wikipedia, is a constant and never ending work in progress. To answer the main objection, if another candidate comes into greater prominence, then the lead and candidate section will be updated - just like every article on wikipedia. It's an ongoing process and a constantly evolving encyclopedia - not a static one-time publication. That's its beauty. Smatprt (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, This is not an article on current fads. It is an overview of a subject that has a 160 year history. That in the last 20 years more noise has been made about Oxford, is irrelevant. In other decades it was Bacon. Shortly it may be Marlowe again. This is not a problem of undue weight given to minor candidates: the problem here is that the article is being edited by proponents of just one of the four theories who work to give prominence to their candidate. To avoid a conflict of interest, and ensure neutrality, one must use an objective criterion for marshalling the candidates, and the only objectiove criterion I could think of was chronology. Unless you can justify putting your own favourite candidate at the head of each section by adducing objective criteria, then it will remain support for his preeminence based on personal preferences, and will be reverted, by me, consistently for that reason.Nishidani (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your thoughts on my other, more major points. I'd like for all of us to at least have a provisional agreement on the direction we're to take before we lay down the specific longitude and latitude of the destination. Once we discuss that, I don't think it will take very long to get the product in shape——and I'm thinking weeks, not months.

Oh, and there's no consensus on any of the article yet. We're still drawing in sand, so you don't have to justify any reversions or edits by invoking that phrase. But there's really no sense in insisting on including details when we don't have the skeleton agreed to yet, which is why I want to discuss the direction each of us envisions for the article. Otherwise we're all just editing randomly again and arguing over each point the same way we were doing. Can you not see the point I'm trying to make? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I know I am a newcomer to this forum (and therefore probably suggesting the reversal of some decisions already made, for which I apologize), but from what I have seen so far I can see only one way in which anything approaching agreement is likely to be reached on this whole subject.

This would be for there to be one master "Shakespeare Authorship" article consisting mainly of the Stratfordian position and the reasons why virtually all Shakespearean scholars accept it, together with a factual history of anti-Stratfordianism. This would give who the candidates were and just what the major arguments presented were at each point (without rebuttal). It should be possible at this stage to agree upon some criteria for deciding which candidates are 'notable' enough to get such a detailed mention.

Well, it appears to me that you've described what we've been charged to do here, more or less. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Those which do get such a mention would thereby acquire the right to have ONE spin-off entry of their own based upon some sort of agreed template and within an agreed maximum limit as to size. This would concentrate mainly upon their current case, indicating which bits of the Stratfordian argument they reject and why (and what they do accept), what the main arguments for and against their own candidate in particular now are, what sort of support they have, and what other resources there are for those wanting to find out more.

Peter Farey. 86.29.85.121 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some guidelines from our masters that I culled from the merging procedure discussion (my emphasis):

My point is do not worry about which articles will be merged yet. Work on the sandbox and then see where content forking may be required. Merging is a stand-in idea for getting the various sticks-in-the-mud unstuck (and that applies to all sides who are engaging far too much in arguing with each other and not nearly enough with actually editing). ... presumably the main article will have a section on all these ideas. These should be summary style sections. It may end up that these sections become unwieldy and too large and will require content forking to their own articles, but until that becomes abundantly clear we need to keep everything on the same page, as it were. There are parts of all those articles that need desperate culling, but there's also good information. I think it's great to start with them, but multiple sandboxes is just going to get us nowhere. ... One thing to try is to make things simple and short rather than long and drawn out. Wikipedia:Summary style is the name of the game. Trying to keep this article as simple and short as possible is best. If edit warring breaks out over a sandbox then we're truly in a pickle and I cannot help any further. Let's cross our fingers. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that we're to develop an article that sufficiently describes the topic, including the candidates and the arguments for them. If any section of the article becomes unwieldy without being jammed with unnecessary trivia to artificially enhance its notability, then that section may or may not become its own entry. Somebody please correct me if my interpretation is wrong.

I think it's important to also point out the warning about edit warring, which tells me that communication between the editors is key to the process and that we need to adhere strictly to Wikipedia guidelines, which are readily available for consultation. Three days out from ScienceApologist's last comment and we're perilously close to replicating the same dreary impasse that brought us here. If this experiment fails, we should all be topic banned and it be left up to disinterested editors to produce a 500-word article. As you know, authorship was banned long ago from Hardy Cook's listserv discussion because of the recalcitrant behaviour of its partisans. I'd hate to see Wikipedia go the same way, but I know where the blame would lie if became necessary. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you asked for the direction each of us envisioned for the article. What I tried to describe was based on what I have seen so far and what I explained about Marlovian beliefs as a result of Nishidani's request. This is that the moment you start discussing the beliefs held by all anti-Stratfordian groups, you hit a content fork, since there is really only the one thing upon which we are all agreed - that Shakespeare didn't do it. I just thought it might be worth acknowledging that sooner rather than later.

Peter Farey 86.29.85.121 (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you foresee any problems handling that in the description, Peter? Right this moment, without any kind of rewrite on the table, I don't think we can decide whether a separate article is justified. Some theories say Shakespeare was merely a front man; others that he was a minor collaborator. But all theories disqualify him as the author on one ground or another. Your theory disqualifies him on question begging: i.e. Marlowe wrote them. That it isn't necessary to denigrate his character and education the way other theories do doesn't mean that you don't disqualify him. The other major characteristic that all candidates share is the conspiracy theory, although the various details of how that worked are glossed over. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Provided that we refrain from claiming anything as being what all anti-Stratfordian groups believe - other than that Shakespeare didn't do it, and that the identity of the true author was deliberately concealed - then at least one potential problem would be removed. As to the question of whether I see any problem with our attempting within each summary section to agree an adequate representation of that group's current arguments against Shakespeare as well as for and against their particular candidate (and in sufficient detail to satisfy the needs of the interested enquirer) then yes, I'm afraid I do. But if this is the hurdle we have try to clear first, then so be it.

Peter Farey 86.29.85.121 (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Bogus refs from Smatprt

Smatprt has just provided the exact words for the 'biographical criticism' page, reading'Biographical criticism is the Critical Practice of analyzing a work of literature in light of an author's biography in order to elucidate a more accurate, and detailed understanding of its meaning.' Which means that the lead has to be delinked, because de Vereans do not practice biographical criticism in this sense. De Vereans and co do not analyse 'a work of literature' (Shakespeare's works) in the light of an author's biography'. They deny that the author's biography, in the mainstream view, represents the real author's biography, which can be only deduced from within the works themselves, and then retroactively found by analogies from other biographies. So aside from requiring a 'citation', which doesn't exist, the link itself is a misprision and deceptive, since it refers to a different, mainstream method completely different from the one the conspiracy theorists use.Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. There's no purpose in reverting every bad ref or statement at this very moment though (such as the ridiculous first line of that paragraph that, in concert with this, attempts to reverse the validity of the two positions), because hardly anything in the article is going to stay the same anyway. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, Smatprt, are we going to have to go through this all over again? First you put in a ref you obviously haven't read with a bogus page number. Now you provide on-line instructor notes in place of the bogus ref. What you need to do is provide an RS that supports the statement "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. This approach is known as biographical criticism." In actual real life, "authorship researchers" don't use biographical criticism. They look for evidence in the works to fit to their candidate. That's not biographical criticism.

And what are you talking about, " Calling the term OR is not helping." I did not call the term OR. Click through the edit history and see what I appended that remark to before you pop off. I said the statement at the Biographical criticism stub, "In the opening decades of the 21st century it appears to be undergoing a significant renaissance in Walt Whitman studies," appears to be OR because it is not supported in the source cited. Both you and BenJonson have a lot to learn about citing sources. I suggest you study WP:CITE for a start. I'm not going to go through all the bullshit arguments we've rehearsed for the past three months again. I've been asking you to respond to my comments for three days now, and the best you can do it address a few minor tweaks instead of my major points. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)