Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

Merge discussions restored from archive for reference

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I challenge your authority and grounds for making this decision. Your simultaneous archiving of the page and closing discussion reflects the need to stifle debate and enforce a false "consensus.' Wikipedia advertises a policy of consensus. There is no consensus here for your proposed action. In fact, a majority of commentators have on various credible grounds opposed the merger. Their arguments have not been answered. Academic sanction is not the only grounds for notability. --BenJonson (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:ANI#Shakespearian fringe theory and some awful articles I've added a merge template. In view of the consensus of experience editors ther, I suggest that the merger be expedited.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Obviously, one article on the fringe theory that WS did not author his own plays is enough. Anything else fails WP:UNDUE. --Crusio (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support These articles have been nothing but promotional pieces for a long time, and any attempt to balance them results in a violent response by the adherents of the fringe beliefs, who guard them jealously from any outside influence . Tom Reedy (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As the original author of the current entry on Marlovian theory, I reject this. I have watched patiently while various "balance" enthusiasts trampled all over it and said not a word. My original intention was not to "sell" the theory, but to present enough information to allow people to decide if they wanted to know more, and to give them guidance as to how they might do so. Peter Farey 86.29.85.121 (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support with one proviso. We need a general overview, which is this page, where all theories are surveyed, and I think one article on the de Verean variation, merging Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship and Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays. Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment -- This sounds awfully close to a vote for oppose. Just sayin'! Fotoguzzi (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UNDUE. Would even support outright deletion of the Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays page. Nsk92 (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Baconian_theory has achieved Good Article stuatus. The Oxfordian article follows the same exact format. And, after all, isn't Wikipedia supposed to represent "all" human knowledge? There are several notable theories and they should each have their own article.Smatprt (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, every detail of human knowledge cannot and should not be recorded by Wikipedia. Look at the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories page, which is about half the size of this page. It doesn't go into great detail of each major individual theory, but summarises them sufficiently without the back-and-forth debate style evident on this page (which is discouraged by Wikipedia, as I have been trying to tell you for months). How the Baconian page achieved GA status is beyond me, but I know that if you hadn't been forcibly restrained by being blocked several times during the procedure to improve the William Shakespeare article it never would have achieved FA status. I've said before that if Nishidani, Paul Barlow, I and a few others were left alone we could have this article at FA status in less than a month, but most of our time has been spent having to argue with you and BenJonson.

I will try to begin arguing my defense to your charges sometime later today or tomorrow. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"In a 2004 interview with Slashdot, Wales outlined his vision for Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." This is also repeated in the main article on Wikipedia itself. Smatprt (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Our definitions of what constitutes "knowledge" obviously diverge. It's not the same as "information". Tom Reedy (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Per UNDUE and FRINGE. More effort seems to have gone into this fringe theory than on Shakespeare himself, which I see is a great shame, the weight this is given is detrimental to Wikipedia itself. Rehevkor ✉ 15:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The great thing about Wikipedia is that it leaves the door open to the kind of discourse that is simply not available anywhere else. Why try to shut that door too? There's a truth to be found in this discussion, and who knows from what argument or fact posted here the final agreement will come. User: methinx —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC).
• Strong support the merge is required so as not to give undue prominence to this fringe theory, per the ANI discussion. The other points raised by ANI (such as use of fringe terminology and fringe sources) also need to be addressed. Verbal chat 16:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, though I very much hope that the resulting article will be a lot shorter than the present one, rather than (as I fear) a lot longer. --GuillaumeTell 16:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - One article cannot possibly do justice to the overall authorship issue, including the history of doubts about the Stratford man and a review of relevant evidence pro and con, plus the same for each of the major candidates. Schoenbaum (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - This article is already over 95K and exceeds the recommendations on length. Merging more information into it seems like a bad idea. As it stands now, it needs to be split as per wp:SPLITTING, as discussed (at length) above. Why the new editors refuse to split the article is another question that should be addressed.Smatprt (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The Marlovian argument does not have the same basis as other anti-Stratfordian theories, and simply cannot be adequately presented within a portmanteau entry. For example, our case case relies hardly at all upon either the supposed inadequacy of William Shakespeare or the strange belief that the characters and story-lines of the plays can tell us anything really significant about the authorship. Peter Farey 86.29.85.121 (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - Why is it that if people disagree with something here, they do their best to hide it or get rid of it altogether? It seems to me that to do so with The Oxfordian Authorship page by conflating it with the Shakespeare Authorship Question page is simply an attempt to marginalize it and its implications for Shakespearean studies. Mizelmouse (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. You can't marginalize what is marginal. (b)No one is getting rid of anything. To the contrary, there is a request that de Verean aficionados limit their efforts at using Wikipedia to promote a fringe idea to one, at most two pages. Since those who subscribe to the theory are dismissive of mainstream scholarship, which is what wikipedia is supposed to be sourced to, too many pages of this stuff, using unorthodox, fringe methods of speculation, tests the tolerance of the encyclopedia, which aims for quality, not titivated spam.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Titivated spam"?? Must you always be so insulting? And another ad hominem generalization (those who subscribe...are dismissive...) without any data to support it? Will you ever stop this incivility? Smatprt (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For the love of God, Montresor! Is there any way you could refrain from these "leave Britney alone" outbursts until this discussion is over? Tom Reedy (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it seems like you could take your own medicine, Tom. It takes two to edit war. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

One hesitates to explain a joke, M. Ghost, but I assure you this one is almost Shakespearean in masterfully-integrated richly-layered literary and pop culture allusions. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Dear Nishidani, 1. I think you misunderstood me. I was not talking of the marginal quality of the different Shakespeare authorship theories, nor do I wish to at present. I was speaking of the possible marginalization of the page if it is conflated with The Shakespeare Authorship Question page. It cannot be done without substantial cutting. 2. Contrary to your remark, those of us who publish in mainstream scholarly jounals often use mainstream scholarship while doing so. If we Oxfordians used "fringe methods of speculation," I do not doubt these journals would not publish us. My partner and I have been published by such journals as Critical Survey, Notes and Queries, Review of English Studies, Shakespeare Yearbook (forthcoming), Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature, Cahiers Elisabethans etc.. Good heavens, I’ve even cited Mr. Tom Reedy in one of our papers. It would be interesting to know where you’ve been published with regard to Shakespeare Scholarship.Mizelmouse (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, give me a list of your publications. From your page it does not appear that you have invested any significant time in writing articles for this encyclopedia. When I say 'fringe methods of speculation' I am paraphrasing several academic sources. I repeat the phrase because the methods used by 'Oxfordian' editors here are exceptionally irrational.Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Dear Nishidani, I believe I said it would be interesting to see where you've been published. You haven't graced me with an answer, so why would I grace you with one? And no, I've invested no time at all in writing articles on Wiki, because it appears to me as I've told several people here--both Oxfordian and Stratfordian--that controversial subjects occasion much argument and ire as they shift and change like tectonic plates. Some material disappears entirely. I prefer the writing I do to stay put. Perhaps you could tell me which academic sources consider that Oxfordians are using "fringe methods of speculation," and what their sources are for such comments? Thanks very much. Mizelmouse (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. 'I prefer the writing I do to stay put.' The allusion to the Horatian Exegi monumentum aere perennius is well-taken. I look forward to the vast scholarship that will gloss your poems, when, if they have not already, entered the Can(n)on.

Comment Thank you. I look forward to it also.

Shakespeare was of a different temper: he wrote for his fellows, and cared not a jot for the aftermath, nor for their precise conservation.

You seem to have a plethora of information regarding Shakespeare's motives for writing. Could you source this statement, please?

Some of us prefer to use our wits for the public good, and not for our own vanity.

Since you haven't published anything on Shakespeare, as you admit below, you can't be said to be using your wits for the public good, at least in that arena.

As to 'partner', I always hear the word with a resonance of that lilt familiar to those who watch classical Westerns.

How interesting. Of course, what you say has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Good luck, and yes, I'm published, but not on Shakespeare. On Shakespeare I merely follow what people who actually trouble themselves to master classical and several European languages, in addition to Elizabethan and Renaissance cultural history, write.

I see. You've never published anything on Shakespeare, but you feel qualified to excoriate those Oxfordians such as myself who have.

I don't take them at their word, of course. If I come across others who venture there without that grounding, I take them cum grano salis. There's too much to read to waste one's eyes on the scribblings of the lazy.Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I do agree. In fact my eyes are particularly bad today. So if you don't mind, Nishidani, I'll stop this discussion now. Mizelmouse (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - I'm not entirely sure how one could merge articles of the size under consideration into one that is already vastly oversized. Shakespeare authorship question is currently 148 kilobytes and has reached the size for which it should be split, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship is 90 kilobytes, Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays is 46 kilobytes long and Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford is 39 kilobytes long. Merging these articles would render an article too large to deal with the competing theories and treat them in a manner that incorporates all the content in a meaningful way. The theories are so disparate that they could not possibly receive equitable attention and would effectively render the article unmanageable. The proper way to deal with this much information is to have an overview article and sections within it that briefly summarize the various theories. That's already what you have here. It already is as it should be. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I agree this article is vastly oversized, but that's because the format is contrary to that recommended by Wikipedia policy and guidelines, which I have tried to discuss with the editors of this page, only to be met with accusations of censorship and POV pushing. This article should be a description, not a back-and-forth debate over the finer points of the individual authorship theories. It could be cut into half or less and still be comprehensive. And I'm not sure that such an article should incorporate "all the content in a meaningful way." The John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories page, which I've already referenced, is much more compact yet covers more different theories than the current three main alternative Shakespeare authorship theories. At the very least all the various Oxfordian theory articles should be merged. As it appears now, the prevailing rationale seems to be that giving undue weight to a theory with absolutely no positive evidence gives it more weight than otherwise. IOW, 0 + 0 + 0 > 0. That might be a good strategy for publicising your particular fringe theory, but that isn't the purpose of Wikipedia, nor should it be. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm inclined to agree with Nishidani's suggestion that there should be one separate article on the Oxfordian theory (not three), but I don't think that the material should be merged here. Given the voluminous information contained in those articles, it seems to me to be something which should remain split out. Dumping it all here would unbalance this article or else be so pared down as to give short shrift to this (admittedly alternative) theory. As for the WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE concerns, the measuring stick for both is the abundance (or lack thereof) of reliable sources. The articles as they stand have plenty of references. I haven't followed all the links, but those references which do not meet the reliable source standard should be edited out. If, after this has occurred, the resulting article is so small as to fit neatly into this article, then I could see the benefit of merging. But right now, the suggestion to merge seems more like an end-around of achieving consensus. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

References to fringe theories here are mainly to fringe books. The few references to mainstream scholarship fit the classic definition of WP:RS. The problem is, that WP:RS privileges quality academic publications, which however don't take most of the stuff thrown up by fringe speculators seriously. So one is constrained to document the meanderings of the 'theory' from its own, otherwise, unreliable sources, unreliable in that a huge amount of this material just gets the simplest matters wrong. This places wikipedian editors in a predicament. No one is opposed to this 'theory' being described. Those who embrace it should try at least to present a minimal quantity of material that is not farcical or risible. They don't. Potentially everything is crammed in, with no regard to quality. And secondly, the main editors for the doubter camp are all de Vereans, which means that the page is tilted to one of several dozen perspectives. This means, 'nolens volens' that those editors in here who favour the fantasy push the particular vein of scepticism, and alternative candidature, they embrace, and, in doing so, edit as spokesman for a sectarian perspective.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - The arguments to merge are based on a priori definition, not substance or reason. It is argued that by definition the Oxfordian theory is a "fringe theory" which deserves deletion through merger. The proposal is demonstrably flawed for at least two related reasons:

1) Proposers ignore the actual language of Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which clearly states even theories which are thought to be "fringe" can achieve notability and therefore deserve inclusion: "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." A Google search for the phrase "Oxfordian theory" (http://www.google.ca/search?q=oxfordian+theory&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) yields 67,300 hits. The first 47 pages (all that google provides on default search) concern with very few or no exceptions the topic which is proposed for deletion through merger. These sources include a major debate in Harpers magazine, and articles in such publications as The University of Tennessee Law Review, New Yorker, and The New York Times -- none of them, incidentally, "debunking" or disparaging the theory.

2) As mentioned by previous commentators, neither Baconian theory nor Marlovian theory have been nominated for merger. Yet it is obvious that a consistent application of the “fringe theory” definition would require identical treatment for all three pages, since they represent the three major alternative theories of authorship. By any credible standard of notability, moreover, the Oxfordian theory is the most notable (for at least the last 26, if not 89 years) of all three, having had far more public exposure than the two alternatives, and having a significantly wider following. Yet the Oxfordian page is the only one proposed for merger. Why is that? The double standard employed by supporters of the merger is painfully evident and must lead an authentically NPOV editor to wonder why there is so much heat about an article with is in the very precise sense of the term parallel with pages which are not likewise nominated for merger.

Finally, as Smarprt points out, the existing article is already over 95K and exceeds length recommendations. I therefore support his contrary move for wp:SPLITTING, as discussed (at length) above and wonder with him “why the new editors refuse to split the article” and instead propose the manifestly ad hoc and double standard solution of merger, with the inevitable loss of detail and specificity that will entail. --BenJonson (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed To merge entries on other claimants into the orthodox entry is sort of fraud. Are the partisans of the orthodox theory (it's also a theory) so terrified that they must use such tricks?

Fullstuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullstuff (talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment It should be noted for the record that this proposal to merge is in response to the report filed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_Topic_Ban_on_users_Tom_Reedy_and_Nishidani--BenJonson (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You should at least send them to the right page, Roger. And don't forget to scroll down and read the two other related complaints (same thing, really). The current request for comments is here. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – Although I have my reservations about Bill Bryson’s claim, I’ve been assured that by 2007 “The number of published books suggesting – or more often insisting – that his works were written by someone else is estimated now to be well over 5,000.” [1]. Assuming that fewer then 500 were written before 1907, that is an average of 50 such books per year for the last century. In comparison with about anyone else, every aspect of Shakespeare gets undue weight, but that goes for the real world as well as Wikipedia. Be it through market forces like positive feedback, or through a need for monocultural simplicity and hero worshipping, the stage sections of my local bookstores depressingly are 1/2 to 2/3 Shakespeare and as little as 1/3 everyone else. At any rate, to comply with wp:UNDUE and to acknowledge its minority standpoint, mention of the authorship question in the Shakespeare article is limited to 75 words and one link (to this article) only. Considering the "well over 5,000 books", excluding a considerable number of books written in rebuttal, I would say a few articles on the subject is not undue weight. Afasmit (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The number of articles on Hamlet alone in early 1970 was calculated at 25,000. Of the 5,000 books, how many survive the week they were published in? Of them, how many were ever cited in WP:RS sources? Tens of thousands of useless books are published every decade on the Bible for every book that has something intelligent, fresh and new to add to them. Not by that token do we think the relatively rare scholarly tome is somehow diminished in importance by the sheer weight of numbers of evangelical bible thumping or speculative fantasies about who the 'Jesus' who loves you was.Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. There's no reason whatsoever to even suggest merging (and hence decimating) these various articles, except that a few editors obviously want to censor the extensively researched and well-documented evidence in them. These deletion-minded editors are throwing about the extremely misleading term "fringe theory" to bolster their agenda, when in fact these extremely scholarly theories are not fringe at all, not even by Wikipedia standards. Now, could we please go back to NPOV, equal time, impartial data, and live-and-let-live -- which is what Wikipedia is all about? Wikipedia is not censored. Softlavender (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• • comment the above post by Softlavender contains a radical misstatement od policy. WP:NPOV does not state that we should give equal time to fringe theories. Rather it talks about giving WP:DUE weight according to the degree of support in the literature. The NYT survey whichfor some reason the "non-Stratfordians" like to quote contains results such as the following:

18. Which of the following best describes your opinion of the Shakespeare authorship question?

2% Has profound implications for the field

3 An exciting opportunity for scholarship

61 A theory without convincing evidence

32 A waste of time and classroom distraction

2 No opinion

This makes it pretty clear how Wikipedia should slant its articles on this collection fo fringe theories.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -- There is plenty of crappy scholarship on the Stratfordian and Oxfordian sides. I think wikipedia articles naturally start out crappy and get better. My reason for wishing to maintain separate articles for the claimants is that there are a lot of them and the article sizes should be different. Giving Henry Neville a paragraph and giving Edward DeVere a paragraph in a combined article would seem unreasonable if only because the Neville idea is so young. If the decoding cipher craze has waned, a Baconian authorship article might still become long to explain the history of the idea while a DeVere article might become long because scholars are coming at the problem from so many angles. To balance my first sentence, there is good research on both sides, too. I hope people aren't afraid of the wikipedia process that slowly improves the mediocre and discards the bad. Fotoguzzi (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - An article on the case for Oxford should be included, and multiple articles are needed to cover the topic adequately. neshge 16:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wember (talk • contribs)

• Support — we don't need separate articles on every bit of minutiae on fringe theories. *** Crotalus *** 17:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Finding a better way forward

It seems that this proposal has caused a wide division among editors and we may be at an impass. While I agree that the current state of the articles is less than ideal, I am not sure deletion and merger is the correct solution. In my opinion, there has been enough scholarly writing on the various theories relating to the Shakespear authorship question (even if only to discredit such theories) to make it impossible to adequately cover the topic in one article due to size limitations. However, I do think three seperate articles on the Oxford theory is undo weight and that theory could be adequately covered in one article. On the other hand, the various fringe articles are themselves written in a back-and-forth debate style which in my opinion is unencyclopedic and detrimental to achieving a neutral article. Further, these articles are plagued by editors who have major ownership issues.

So how do we find a way forward? I propose that to start it would be best to at least merge the various Oxford-theory articles together. After that, a re-write of the individual theory articles could be tackled which would replace the debate style with a more appropriate approach. Some admins should probably be appointed to oversee the revisions to prevent any ownership problems from getting in the way. I know this compromise probably won't make either side happy, but such is the nature of compromises.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a reasonable approach. But I would like to clarify one thing that seems to be a mischaracterization: As mentioned in the ANI t/hread that started this whole thing "Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays and Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford" are at issue. However, while the first two are certainly about the theory (the "Parallels" article having been split off from the parent article due to length), the third article mentioned, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, is primarily a standard biography of Oxford, who was the Lord High Chamberlain of England and potential heir to the crown. Like Sir Francis Bacon, the man himself (regardless of the authorship issue) led a notable life. I think all would agree that it should remain a stand-alone article - with the caveat that the section within, that addresses the Authorship issue, can and should be cut down to a shorter summary, with a link to the Oxfordian Theory article.

Regarding the two theory articles though, I, for one, would agree to the suggested compromise to re-merge these two, and would be happy to contribute to that effort by cutting down on the numerous examples of "parallels" to the ones that most readers would find noteworthy. And I completely agree that admin oversight is a good thing for those, as well as the main Authorship article where we are now. Smatprt (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smatprt and strongly oppose the merger of articles being discussed. A short while ago I posted my concern that the debate style is inappropriate and offensively biased to anyone who simply wants accurate information. I suggested that the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on the authorship question could serve as a model of simple objectivity. It does not regard the authorship question as a "fringe theory" so why can't Wikipedia be equally respectful of the issue? As one who has relied on Wikipedia for accurate and self-correcting of outdated information, I am appalled at the argumentative and hostile criticism of what should be considered a cutting-edge kind of scholarship. Alexpope (talk)Alexpope —Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC).

• comment. The problem is accurate information. I've wasted a montyh trying to weed out the inaccuracies of disinformation, and all I get is protests about being 'hostile'. To repeat, the Enc Brit article is written by a competent scholar. Wikipedia is written by anyone, and many anyones who are enamoured of a fringe theory. By all means take it as a guide to neutral writing. Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• • comment Alexpope, could you be so kind as to quote some samples from the Britannica article, which I do not have readily available, which illustrate the moderate NPOV which you are suggesting should be a model for the article?--BenJonson (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I, too, agree with Smatprt and strongly opposethe merger. The Oxfordian theory is not a 'fringe' theory. It is researched and supported by a number of professors at universities. It is discussed in books from mainstream publishers and major magazines and journals. James Shapiro, a respected Shakespeare scholar at Columbia University, takes it seriously. He has written a book on the controversy wherein he states that he takes very seriously the fact that writers and thinkers he respects have doubted the traditional identity of the poet-dramatist.Wysiwyget (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

He takes the fact that they believed it seriously; the theory he calls "groundless" and characterizes one anti-Stratfordian performance as "a vision of a world in which a collective comfort with conspiracy theory, spurious history, and construing fiction as autobiographical fact had passed a new threshold." Tom Reedy (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"He takes the fact that they believed it seriously"; good idea, and grounds for notability, which I think was Wysiweget's point. But a Wikipedia article is not written by a single professor, especially one as poorly informed and highly selective in his presentation of relevant facts as Professor Shapiro is.--BenJonson (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's nowhere as near informed as you are, as I'm sure he's aware. His publication history pales in comparison with yours. I don't know how he ever screwed up the audacity to write a book about it. Maybe he was encouraged by reading your comprehensive and authoritative work on the subject.

Oh, wait a minute . . . Tom Reedy (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If 4meter4's suggestion is accepted (and I think it would be a good compromise, at least for the Oxfordian articles), there are actually four Oxfordian articles that should be merged: Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian, Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays, and Prince Tudor theory. I agree with Smatprt that the biography article, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, should be a stand-alone article. However, as it is written it is obviously slanted to promote the Oxfordian theory of authorship, and it is heavily dependent on Oxfordian sources, which are not RS, and OR. Who in their right mind would want to spend the time to cleanse the stables and oversee bringing it up to Wikipedia standards? Life is too short. And we haven't even brought up, much less discussed, all the Oxfordian propaganda sprinkled through every conveivable Shakespeare-related article, such as The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet and Francis Meres.

And we're still left to determine what to do with this article and History of the Shakespeare authorship question, which should be merged. there is no doubt, if there ever was, that this article needs to be overseen by a harsh administrator to wring the water out of it. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I might add, in addition to Tom's point, that the de Vereans here seem committed to pushing the theory, but singularly indifferent to editing pages related to it, which would benefit the Encyclopedia, but do not help them, apparently, in promoting their ideas, since it is so much encyclopedic background.

(1)There is almost nothing of note about J. Thomas Looney. Until I edited the facts in the other day, the page hadn’t even noted his birth and death dates.

(2)There is no biography of Charlton Ogburn Sr. who popularized Looney’s ideas. Someone had the clever idea of confusing him with his son, since (see (3)

(3) If you pump in Charlton Ogburn, you don't get the father, but the son, which is certainly an abuse of policy. The biography of his son Charlton Ogburn Jr., who just expanded his father's fantasies, is used again to repeat the blobs, yet no one has cared to actually research and write his life up independently of his de Verean piece of fiction, far inferior to the novel he wrote.

(4) Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, which one should think would have been a showcase for the trenchant historical erudition of de Vereans, is mainly farcical. For

(4a) Alan H.Nelson's Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, (2003), is the standard modern academic biography and yet gets just 3 references out of 69, mostly on trivia.

(4b)The articles sources frequently invoke obscure archival primary documents, against the rules, which suggests either that the editor is using wikipedia for his own research, or citing archives through secondary sources he does not mention, which is again a violation of wiki editing rules.

(4c) It uses Charles Ogburn as a secondary source whereas, since we have two mainstream biographies at least (by Ward and Nelson) Ogburn’s book should not be sourced (Nelson, the standard source, says it has nothing useful to add by way of documentation, if I recall his preface correctly)

(4d) It uses many sources from Oxfordian journals, or people like Nina Green and Stephanie Hughes, who aren't reliable.

In short, were people like Smatprt, Schoenbaum and Benjonson committed to Wikipedia, they would like the rest of many of us, be working to ensure far more articles, outside of the narrow area of Oxfordian 'theory', met Wikipedian standards. It is quite astonishing that bios of the leading theorists languish in neglect, (while bios of people who had nothing to do with de Vere or the theory of his authorship get smacked with this nonsense). Is it because that's far less sexy, and involves more serious work, than the controversies aroused by editing for the theory itself? It is an argument from silence, of course, but arguments from silence is virtually what de Verean theory is based on.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

With all that's been learned by the veteran editors here, why not start over with the goal of a short article on The Shakespeare Authorship Question that two editors could work on offline. Not sure that this follows Wiki procedures, but the current page (and these discussions) seem to verge on the unmanageable. The short article of course would have links to the other pertinent articles on Shakespeare, Oxford, Marlowe, etc. Just an idea.Wysiwyget (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed by the number of people who don't do some work to edit these articles, yet say they should be conserved all of a sudden. If you believe they are important, improve them. Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DISGUSTING

This whole article wildy slanted in favor of the traditional view. It is full or exaggerations and outright falsehoods. It's one gigantic smokescreen to discredit the leading alternative theory that Edward de Vere wrote the Shakespearean plays. It's not neutral, and it's not fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.11.4 (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved

Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2 this here as it is by far a better version then what was here per wp:bold mark nutley (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The candidate sections are not yet finished and the cites need to be checked. There are a few issues in other places, also, but those can be fixed in good time. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Can`t it be done here? If not feel free to revert me mark nutley (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I just wanted to let people know where the work needs doing in case they wanted to pitch in. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of reversion

Look, Smatprt, I'm trying to edit this page. I and several others have already made edits and reverting back to the old, non-consensual version is not productive. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd add this, that the reversion was peculiar, because, for the third time, Smatprt, you have edited out or blanketed my comments. Two of these occurred today, while a complaint precisely about this is being discussed. In this edit I provided a good source for the private email Tom Reedy had used, which was rightly questioned by NT.

In this edit I removed a section critical of Marlowe to the Marlovian theory page, as had been done for all other candidates.

That left a redirect to the Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2, which effectively lacks not only those two changes, but also all of the work done by Tom and the administrator NW, who in the meantime had cleaned up the bibliography. If your reverted old and not 'consensual' version stuck, it would have therefore expunged the interim work of three editors, since anyone looking at the linked sandbox 2 page would find no trace of it. I don't think we want another edit war over this, and I refuse to be dragged into one. Please note that the version you restored is the version no one agreed on, and which we were formally directed to replace. After 6 months, the only page of the 3 sandboxes which meets the terms of that remit happens to be the present one. Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This could be viewed as gaming the system. Simply copy your edits into your draft, and return to the agreed process. No version has received community comment. That is what we agreed to.Smatprt (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can revert pages and post on the talk page you can certainly join the AN/I discussion here. This page is undergoing scrutiny and being edited by more editors than Nishidani and me. Both Sandbox 1 and Sandbox 2 were assessed by outside uninvolved editors, who made the change. As you say, if it's decided to go back to the old version it's still there waiting. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Sandbox 1 or 2 were "assessed by outside uninvolved editors". Please provide diffs to the comments that back up your assertion. Smatprt (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no gaming of the system. I woke up, and found the old disputed page had been replaced by outside editors I have no acquaintence with, one of them an admin who had also commented on the AN/1 dispute discussing your behaviour in reverting me. I proceeded to work on that, and then had trouble finding my edits when you made your revert.

I think the evidence is that, if neutral eyes review (a) SAQ (the old page), and the three sandbox versions (b) SAQ1, with just 60 odd tweaks since we left it in your hands, remaining basically a trimmed copy of SAQ,(c) SAQ 2 (over 1200 edits in revision), (d) and SAQ3 (a monster merger of all bad pages, with no substantial edits), they will find that only one, SAQ2, had had any work done on it, the other three which you stewarded left more or less the contentious and unworkable page in the mess that caused the merger decision. It seems eminently logical to conclude that Tom and I fulfilled our side of the remit, while you haven't, and therefore the interim choice to place it as the default wiki Shakespeare Authorship Question page was eminently logical, esp. since it is the only version formatted, sourced and written according to all the criteria of articles aspiring to go to GA and then FA review. Thyere still much work to be done, but nowhere near the immensa moles that would attend editors were they to return to the troubled pastiches of SAQ, SAQ1, and SAQ3, all of which you superintended.

The 'agreed process' does not consist in never editing towards that end, hanging round for endless review, AN/I disputes, quarrels, appeals to ARBCOM, and dithering for several years, as has happened in the past. These bureaucratic Jardyce vs Jardyce procedures are all very well, but the goal of all of them is to secure reliable, WP:NPOV articles for a global readership, not to provide that readership with a spectacle of endless pettifogging litigation over procedural minutiae in what might well appear to be a WP:CRUSH gambit. Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead/lede

I've made a few small changes which I hope won't be controversial. I'm a bit dubious about the way that the "argument" in the first para turns into an "idea". Also, in the third para, the second sentence is pretty much a rather over-egging repetition of the first. How about removing the second sentence and just adding refs 6 and 7 to ref 5? --GuillaumeTell 18:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, as far as I'm concerned. At this stage the page needs all the help from outside hands (outside relatively in many cases) esp. for copy-editing and formatting since Tom and I are pretty exhausted by this long haul, and overfamiliarity with one's own work leads to blindness, often, for the obvious oversights. I think there's quite a bit of repetition in the lead which was calibrated to reflect, and overcome a long history of edit conflicts representing not a satisfactory compromise, but a set of survival solutions. Suggestions for tightening, and paring down to the bone, mindful of the POV balance (always however with mainstream vs fringe WP:Undue considerations in mind) would be most welcome. Severity according to the most stringent review protocols and general standards is what editors are asking for. Thanks everyone.Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WT. There may be a slight problem in trimming down, removing flab, while retaining the refs, which support that flenched flab! I think if the refs are to be retained (even if provisorily) the best strategy would be to précis the blubber down to baconian rashers that still reflect the sources? I'll give an example in a minute.Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(a)Nearly all academic scholars accept that William Shakespeare was the primary author (of the canon),(Nelson, Carroll) 15 words = Virtual unanimity exists that Shakespeare was the primary author of the canon. (Nelson, Carroll) 9/12 words.

(b)and they deny the validity of the various alternative authorship theories almost unanimously.(Gibson)13 words = and they concur that these alternative proposals are invalid (Gibson)9 words.

Not much flensing, true. But behind that primary of primary author of the canon Tom had in mind recent attribution studies, which are bringing out the cooperative character in several of Shakespeare's works. Since stylometrics are showing two or three hands at work in quite a few plays, the whole unitarian idea of a single concealed author falls to pieces, and, since some of the plays written collaboratively postdate Oxford's death, it means for Oxfordians that deVere must have risen from the grave to ghostwrite stuff with Fletcher, whose Jacobean floruit is too late for de Vere's influence. Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have had a go at boldly scrambling the lead, reducing the (originally too-short) paragraphs from six to four (see WP:LEAD: four is the maximum). All footnotes are intact. What do you think? Please take a look and improve or revert, everybody. (Well, not strictly everybody...) I have some points of detail also; I'll list those here later. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

Looks good to me, 美少年. Phew, what a relief. Thorough active review by several exxperienced hands is just what the doctor ordered to relieve the indigestion. Thanks everyone.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, I see you changed my unpacking of the Bardolatry easter egg here, making it shorter and better. Cool. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

By the way, the lead section can be edited without opening the whole page. This is how. Bishonen | talk 13:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

Oxford sub-heading

There's a "Historical" sub-heading in Shakespeare_authorship_question#Edward_de_Vere.2C_17th_Earl_of_Oxford which has no text. Is this waiting for someone to put something in (I am not qualified to do so) or an accident which needs deleting? --GuillaumeTell 16:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom?Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The candidate sections aren't finished by any means and any additions are welcome. I haven't even begun the Marlowe section. I think the historical is going to end up being the same as the biographical in that particular section. My method is to begin with a rough outline to give it some structure, research and add information, reorganise the section to fit the actual material, and finally cut it down to the bone. Tedious but thorough. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, and may we hope that each of the main candidates will be given equal space in this article ?

Tough cookie! One of the original objections was that the whole candidate issue was written from an Oxfordian POV. That's been adjusted, but the question of candidacy balance remains. One tries to keep WP:Recentism in mind, but the sheer volume of Oxfordian productions since the 1920s, compared to other candidates, makes that difficult, though the case for him is no more solid than for the others, (Marlowe's case is, I think, stronger actually! if only because he was an astonishing writer, and WS's contemporary. DeVere's poetry is pre-Shakespearean/and pre-Marlovian). Giving equal space would mean trimming down Oxford, which might look like prejudice. We haven't even Edward Dyer, on whom a very lengthy book was written by Alden Brooks. One could write most of the content from a Baconian perspective, which had several hundred volumes to its (dis)credit, but there ain't many secondary sources on this, or on Dyer, or Stanley, and there lies the rub on 'equal space'. To do that you either cut down de Vere's profile to the bone, or fleshen out the others by primary source quotation, i.e. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations in the wings.Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oxford is the candidate with the most support; Marlowe has the second-most support, followed by Bacon and Derby, both who are almost dead in the water. My thought is that the coverage should be given to the candidates in proportion to their support, and in fact I've considered cutting Derby entirely to save space. Of course all of them could have (and have had) a 300-page book listing all the detailed arguments, but that would amount to advocacy IMO, because the scholastic consensus is that they all are fringe theories with no merit. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting the lead (details)

Nice article! It must have been a cruel amount of work to take it this far. I've copyedited a few details in the lead section, see History. Bardolatry is spelled with a capital B in its own article. (That could be changed, of course.)

The disabling characteristic grates on my ear. Those aren't disabilities... but I can't think of anything better, for all that.

The list of candidates is typographically a little problematic: "Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Christopher Marlowe..." You see how the reader can't tell for sure whether that's three guys or four, because the commas have several different functions? Not without hovering over Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Might it work to pipe it like this: the Earl of Oxford? Or something.

Guillaume is dubious about the "argument" turning into an "idea". I've changed "idea" to "theories", suspecting perhaps unjustly that "idea" was mostly there so as to avoid saying "theory" too many times. Anyway. I'm not wholly happy about the way the "question" of the title becomes an "argument". Trusty Wordsmyth.net thinks we might want to fix that by moving the page to Shakespeare authorship hot potato, but maybe not... :-D Any ideas? Bishonen | talk 18:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

There was one idea, which turned into many theories (the philoprogenital sutlers of the idée mèr(.)e, to mix metaphors from Eliot and Joyce). Part of the success of Oxfordians is the way, according to Matus, they mustered details from the various 'theories' to rally them to the exclusive cause of Oxford's candidacy.

As to 'argument', historically that is Tom's wise (in my view) compromise between the 'controversy' preferred by Oxfordians (which presumes that there is a controversy over WS's authorship in academia, when there is not), and 'question'. That it is a question is itself 'question-begging'. 'Argument' is used in the common acceptance of the word but also, as befits the article, in its Elizabethan senses, as a subject of contention, the subject-matter of a discussion. One has thought, besides question (avoided also to vary language from the article title) of 'contention' or 'issue'. I think argument gets it right, but on these things, we should, eventually, take a vote. I certainly would argue to kingdom come against 'controversy', in this first decade of the 21st century. The 'issue' is, essentially, historical by now.

'Disabling characteristic'. Yes, that is clearly open to query, though the use of 'disable' in its originative root force caresses my ear. Perhaps 'negative factor' (a bit tinny) or 'impediment'?Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"Idea" I think is suitable, but I like the phrase "disabling characteristic" myself. It's fresh, most welcome in this topic which has been most often described using unimaginative clichés. My main concern about diction is that it be accurate, not unclear, deceptive, or POV. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(Or not POV?) Yes, but you wouldn't value elegant variation over clarity (please click on the link). One thing about immersing oneself in a period is that one starts to talk a bit like people did then. :-p Speaking as a Restoration belle to you two Elizabethans, then, I suppose you've considered simply "who for some reason, such as social rank, state security, or gender, could not safely take public credit"? The "some other reason" is still there, being implicit in "such as", and it would save a couple of dashes. But I won't go on about it, I'm sure you have considered deeply already. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

Journal refs

Would someone take a look at the journal refs that contain a full date? I clicked ref 55 and it sent me to Vickers 2006, but the corresponding citation has the day and month in the date space and so the ref won't pipe down to it. I don't know what the proper form for those are. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Length

Bishonen, what think you about the article length? Is it OK for an FA article or would it hamper the process (a disabling characteristic, as it were)? Tom Reedy (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gosh... I hadn't realized how long it was. Hardly to be read at one sitting. And so much of it being in list form doesn't help. OK, in my opinion, it is too long. Even though I'm pretty sure there are some longer FAs. Also, forgetting about FA for a moment, you want it to be read, right? Including the second half of it. I suggest more emigration of material to daughter articles, especially of the lists. Further: I also suggest you post a question about the length at WT:FAC, where the reviewers hang out. They love to argue about length, and will remember past quarrels better than I do. Bishonen | talk 23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

I did a bit of experimentation and comparative research.

Old SAQ—152

New SAQ—158kb

SAQ no annals—133kb

SAQ no candidate list—152kb

SAQ cut both—127kb

William Shakespeare—101kb

Hamlet—107kb

The Taming of the Shrew—132kb

Characters of Shakespeare’s plays—136kb

Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship—95kb

By cutting the annals it would come in about the size of Shrew, but the problem there is two fold: the article still needs expansion in the candidate sections, and it also needs a history, which I seriously doubt can be written any shorter than it is without leaving out necessary detail. The annals aren't really a list, although they appear so since it's organised around the one necessary datum common to all: date.

One solution would be to fork the candidate arguments into separate articles. The Oxford argument already has its own page, but it is hopelessly promotional and needs to be rewritten to Wikipedian standards using reliable sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I posted a query here. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm with Bish on the list-like sections (I see two; perhaps others as well). • Ling.Nut 01:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Be bold and move them! My perspective is undoubtedly faulty having lived with it so long. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor's observations

I popped in here, following a question being raised at WT:FAC about the article's length. The article's length seems to be the least of its problems, but could be resolved through addressing other issues, principally by addressing the inclusion of extensive lists - see WP:EMBED. These also affect the logic of the article's structure. It is most odd to have an article with a very brief overview, then "arguments against", then "arguments for", then a "history of" section, almost all of which is a (very unhelpful) list, then, wierdly, "alternative candidates". FWIW, here are my suggestions:

• First, clearly the prevailing scholarly view is that Shakespeare wrote most or all works attributed to him. This should be mentioned in the first para of the lead; we should not wait until the third para to be told it is a fringe view.
• Second, that being the case, the article should begin with the section on evidence for Shakespeare's authorship, not with the arguments against. It should begin with the prevailing view, not the minority, dissenting one.
• Third, my second point must also apply to the "Overview" section: it must begin by stating the prevailing scholarly analysis: notwithstanding that the authorship question is the subject of the WP article, it should still outline the majority view of the sources before outlining the contrary thesis.
• Fourth, having moved the "arguments against" section behind the "arguments for", the "Alternative candidates" material should flow logically from those arguments, or be integrated into it. (see further remarks on this below).
• Fifth, the subsections "Shakespeare's singularity and bardology" and "Precursors of doubt" should be the first paras of the "arguments against" section. The "Authorship question annals" subsection should probably not exist at all. It is a list, and to the lay reader an unhelpful one at that, with many uncited entries. One option would be to create a separate article "Chronology of the Shakespeare authorship question" or (modified) "List of publications regarding the Shakespeare authorship question", though I would talk with some experienced list editors (of whom I am not one) about it first.
• Sixth, consequently on the fifth point, there need be no "History of the authorship question", which is not assisting the article in its current form. The paras of "Shakespeare's singularity and bardology" and "Precursors of doubt" are the right way to do this stuff. If there is absolutely vital information somewhere in that "annals" list, then add it in the form of sentences in the historical context material that I am suggesting should be at the start of the "arguments against" section. (If, despite my argument, there is a consensus that a "history" section should exist, then it should come as context between "overview" and "Evidence for...")
• Seventh, while I can see why "Alternative candidates" and the reasons for their candidacy deserve discussion, the current material is a mess. It looks nothing like a usual WP article, and the part on "Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford" is particularly bad, lacking citations altogether, it is not in sentence form, it does not use the evidence to properly make the argument, etc. It looks to me as though there should be a single (perhaps longish) subsection in the "arguments against" section that identifies the candidates and the main arguments for each (just a few sentences in each case I think), and all the material currently in the four candidates section can then be deleted, or, if it is not already there, moved into the WP biographies of those individuals (but only if the material has accompanying in-line cites).
• Eighth, the "Full List of Candidates" shoudl be moved out of this article and into another article as a list. Furthermore, no one should be on this list without a citation that demonstrates that the person is in fact proposed by a reliable source to be a candidate for the authorship. Not even one in five now meet that very basic requirement. Only if their candidacy has some significant coverage in the literature should it then be discussed in the article's body text.

There are other issues with the article, but these are the basic ones that would need to be examined before the article could be considered at FAC, and probably even at GAN. I hope this is of assistance, regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your observations and suggestions. Any article about a fringe theory is problematical when it comes to presentation, and your outside perspective is exactly what is needed. Most previous attempts for outside commentary have been fruitless.

According to WP:FRINGE, articles about fringe theories "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", which is the guideline we've tried to use. The listy sections are an attempt to logically present a good deal of information in a straight-forward, easily-assimilated way. The topic itself is tedious, especially the history, and I thought that getting it over with as quickly as possible would be a boon to readers as well as positioning events clearly in their historical era, but most editors are tending not to agree with me, to which I readily accede when some solution is worked out.

None of the candidate sections are complete, which explains their unfinished nature. Again it was thought that presenting the arguments in a straight-forward logical manner suited the material. Citations are easily found and forthcoming; the task at the moment is to record and organise the material. You're right on summarising the individual candidate's cases, but the charge (as above on the talk page) was to merge the Oxfordian article with this one, which is what is being attempted, although with an expectation of it keeping its own article.

One other thought: reliable sources don't present candidates for Shakespeare's authorship; they're all proposed by fringe theorists. Those that are listed should be cited in a secondary source, although there may be some errors. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking back over the history, I think that Hamiltonstone's suggestions about merging the history and the candidates would solve a lot of problems, especially since 9/10 of the annals are superfluous to the article, as he said. I'll take a stab at it tomorrow if someone doesn't do it before then. (If you knew how tired I am of this project you'd send me a sympathy card!) Tom Reedy (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Consider it sent. I have struck a couple of bits of my commentary per WP:FRINGE. I actually think that part of the guideline may be misguided, but I accept that it is indeed what it says and respect your plan of following it. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried back in August to give a narrative form here, (in 4 sections (a) Shakespeare's singularity and bardology (b) Formal Doubts (c) Unearthing proof (d) The Trials of Shakespeare), to much of the material now listed. I don't know how effectively, though. We thought, in reviewing the review, that listing would be more comprehensive, given the unchoate awkwardness of sources we had to work from. Ideas? (in the meantime, much thanks to hamiltonstone. Nishidani (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(After breakfast) Procedurally, I think the best course is to wait a few days until the many outsiders who have kindly come in to cast a lifeline to us and aid the article can agree on restructuring, taking into consideration Hamiltonstone's important observations, and perhaps adding to them. If we could get outside discussion on, and consensus about, the way to reformat the article, though suffering from 6 months of fatigue, I think Tom and I could implement the community's directives fairly rapidly.

Since the merge proposal, I have always retained a feeling that, while the endless proliferation of fringe material into Shakespeare articles was to be stopped by having one major article outline the essential elements of the marginal dissident view, probably, for purely logical reasons, given the 'humongous' amount of 'cranky' material one has out there, a second article would be needed. My feeling is that this article should be a detailed general overview of the general landscape of the Shakespeare Authorship Question (about 80-90 kb), and that a second article, 'The Candidates', would then cover the specific cases, covering the main candidates, perhaps including Edward Dyer (5 in all).

This would, effectively, contain the pullulation of pages on fringe theories, running by now to a baker's dozen, to two stringently written comprehensive pages. If this were done, the lower half of this page, dealing with de Vere, Bacon, Marlowe and Derby could form the substance of the second page, relieving this of a good deal of the illustrative bulk. Tom's listing could go there, my narrative sections in the version I linked to above, modified, pared down, expanded or re-edited to acceptable standards, could go here. This, at least in the abstract, strikes me as meeting several, but not all of Hamilton's acute observations. (?)Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"a second article, 'The Candidates', would then cover the specific cases, covering the main candidates, perhaps including Edward Dyer (5 in all)."

I think that's an excellent idea (except for the name) that would neatly solve several problems: it would be a repository for the candidates list and give enough space into which all the individual candidate articles could be merged, instead of trying (fruitlessly, IMO) to merge them in this article. Shakespeare authorship candidates would seem to be the logical appellation. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Further suggestions

• The general prose style approach to the "alternative candidates" section found in Shakespeare authorship question Draft 1 appears preferable to the text here, though there would still need to be improved reliance on scholarly citations, and the language is not yet NPOV. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly be welcome relief. The reason this page goes into detail on the arguments is because of the charge to merge the Oxfordian page into this one, which nobody really ever thought was feasible, but I thought an attempt should be made. I'll work on the changes tomorrow (I would be happy to step aside for some other editor to complete the task). We also need to rework the history section into prose summary style. What do you think about the idea of having a page Shakespeare authorship candidates comprising the main authorship candidates to take the place of the current individual pages? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

When you say "the current individual pages", I am assuming you mean merging / deleting for example, Baconian theory, not Francis Bacon? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Well, it isn't as simple as I wish it were. First, I would be most reluctant to see there co-existing both Shakespeare authorship candidates and List of Shakespeare authorship candidates. There should only be one such article. I suggest that there just be the "List of" article. If one were to merge the various candidate stuff into that article, then it should then be structured as follows: begin with a short overview section indicating that all this material relates to a fringe theory about the Shakespeare authorship question, and have a "main article" link to that article; then a section "Leading candidates", with a subsection on each of the leading four (or five) candidates, each one of those sections being not more than a few paras in length and without further subdivision; then have "Other candidates", being the bullet point list now at the "List of" heading. HOWEVER: I am not a big fan of taking all material about the leading four contenders out of the "Authorship question" article altogether. As I read it (and it is certainly a superficial reading) one of the reasons that the fringe theory gets some traction or has some credibility in some quarters, is the identity and strengths of scholarship / writing / stature / whatever of the particular individuals in question (Bacon, Marlowe etc). I don't think the authorship question really makes as much sense in the absence of considering the actual candidates involved. I'm happy to hear views. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• The lead in the current version is preferable, being more neutral, than the lead in Shakespeare authorship question Draft 1
• The hatnote in "Overview" in the current is preferable, being more neutral, than the lead in Shakespeare authorship question Draft 1
• I generally prefer the current version's overview, on the premise that, while brief, it simply prefigures later sections that go into more detail. As a sidenote on which i would welcome comment, why does the article significantly rely on a 1958 reference, given the ongoing currency of the controversy, is there not just as effective a scholarly reference of more recent provenance? Comment welcomed.
• In general, I think the arguments against / arguments for approach of the current draft is to be preferred. However, I note that the "Draft 1" version has a prose style more consistent with WP style. I think the unusual 'subsub headings with bullets' (eg. Francis Meres • ) should probably go. In some cases they may be able simply to be deleted, and the para that follows them will stand as is. If not, then the odd heading may need to be replaced by a lead sentence that forshadows the para topic.
• The "draft 1" approach groups together the stratfordian and anti-stratfordian arguments on each point. In general i think this is not the preferred option because, as the current version points out, at the heart of the dispute is a difference in approach to evidence. Nevertheless, something that the "draft 1" approach does is make it easy for a reader to see argument and counter-argument together and weigh them up. I'm not advocating for it, but i happened to note an example where "Draft 1" has a pro and con on one point (Shake-speare as pseudonym) on which one of the counterarguments that is presented in "Draft 1" is partly missing from the current version (The para beginning "However, Stratfordians assert that no scholar of Elizabethan literature or punctuation affirms that a hyphen signaled a pseudonym, and that the claim is unknown outside of anti-Stratfordian literature"). Not sure if this presents a problem or not.

More thoughts later. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• The 1958 source, Frank Wadsworth's The poacher from Stratford; a partial account of the controversy over the authorship of Shakespeare's plays, is a recognised classic treatment of anti-Stratfordian arguments from an academic perspective. It has been praised by Schoenbaum, Matus, and Shapiro, among others. He was a respected English professor at UCLA (IIRC, I've got his obit around here someplace) who published on shakespeare in addition to his SAQ book.
• As far as Wadsworth's relevancy, anti-Stratfordian arguments haven't changed in the past 100 years or so; they're all basically the same types of presentations that are recycled from candidate to candidate. The individual candidates arguments are also pretty much clones, and Kathman, Matus, and Shapiro all have written about this curious immortality of anti-Strat arguments long after they've been convincingly refuted for any reasonable non-obsessed person.
• WP:FRINGE guideline recommends that articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas "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, which is the reason for presenting the competing ideas in separate sections rather than in a "he said-she said" format.
• Nishidani and determined that the most neutral way to present the anti-Stratfordian side was to state it as objectively as possible without any comment directly upon its heels. We also agreed that every anti-Stratfordian point did not need to be specifically rebutted, but we do note their use of argumentum ex silentio, which is the core of their entire thesis. We also felt that the strongest rebuttal was often to present the idea as baldly as possible without comment, because we don't believe that most readers need to be spoon-fed every point. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding re Wadsworth, and for reminding me of that element of WP:FRINGE. Accordingly, I am happy with that aspect of the current version. Don't know when I'll get around to more on this, but will try to come back. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments so far and only wish we could get more independent reviewers, but I suppose that will come if/when we take it to GA (or FA, which is what is needed to protect the page from advocate infiltration). Since I'm currently topic-banned pending the litigation against Smatprt, it will take a while to implement all your suggestions. The major difference between the two versions is in the use of sources. All of our sources pass muster as independent reliable sources, while Smatprt's relies heavily on fringe publications. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC started

I have started an rfc here: [[2]]Smatprt (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Candidates' list deletion

I've moved the list to List of Shakespeare authorship candidates. The individual candidate profiles could be moved there and the page moved to Shakespeare authorship candidates, which would enable the merging of the Oxfordian, Marlovian, and Baconian pages into one article. Next task is to work the important events from the annals into Nishidani's history and integrate it into the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone made a point about lists. I am minded to agree about lists concerning several things on the page, but disagree with Tom on removing this.

When we came to the page, most RS had the figure of 56 or so. One recent source (Elliott and Valenza 2004) got that up to 62, from memory. By carefully collating all of the available RS, we obtained however 75 names. Though no individual RS states this, every one of those names listed happens to be in one very reliable academic textbook on this specific subject.

So, in compiling these sources, we obtained what might be a first, i.e. the most comprehensive up-to-date number for the candidates proposed (simply because the RS on this date from 1962 to 2004, and missed stuff, or couldn't take into account candidates proposed since.)

I think wiki could be proud of this. Without any WP:OR we came up with a first, and I think that information belongs on this page, with some quiet pride of place? Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Good call moving that list. I have some other comments that I will add to the section above where I originally made some observations. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

With the removal of the list and creation of the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, what sticks out like a sore thumb is the continued presence here of the annals in the "History of the authorship question". How about adding the annals to or merging them into the List article and amending the lists's title? That enables this article to concentrate on the important stuff. --GuillaumeTell 10:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well my idea (above in "Further suggestions") is to combine the list with fuller treatments of the main candidates and call it Shakespeare authorship candidates, which could take the place of the individual authorship candidate articles now, i.e. Baconian theory, Marlovian theory, and Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship.

As far as the history goes, that needs to be summarised in this article in some dozen lines or sixteen lines. Or perhaps it could be integrated into History of the Shakespeare authorship question, although I opposed the creation of that article and was hoping that it could be merged into this one. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

Nishidani, Smatprt, and myself have been temporarily topic-banned from the SAQ and related topics until this issue is resolved. Anyone who cares can comment on that page. Since I'm not expecting to be banned for very long, I'll continue my editing off-line and drop them in after the complaint is resolved, or I'll post them here and they can be added to the article if consensus is reached. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoring RFC

For some wierd reason, the RFC dissappeared. I'm not sure what is going on, but I am moving it here unitl we can figure out what happened.Smatprt (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

After this merge discussion:[[3]], concerning the old Shakespeare Authorship Question article, and these instructions:[[4]], I began working on a draft, as did Tom Reedy and Nishidani. Here are the links to the two versions for community comment and suggestions: Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft1 and Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2.

Since I was responsible for editing Draft 1 (since receiving this assignment from ScienceApologist, I will provide some of my reasoning behind the work I did on this version:

• I began with this version of the old Shakespeare authorship article: [[5]], which was the product of several hundred editors working over the last few years.
• The previous article was rated B Class, but suffered from length issues, as well as some problems with POV and weight.
• After addressing the most obvious issues, I requested impartial reviews from numerous noticeboards and did my best to incorporate the various comments I received.
• I trimmed the article by half to bring the article in line with the guideline on length created or kept in place the appropriate forks.
• I removed the overly Oxfordian focus of the article, and concentrated on the overall subject, instead of arguments for or against any particular alternative theory.
• I focussed on a handful of the basic arguments, beginning with a brief section on various alternate arguments, followed by the mainstream rebuttal, in each section, as per wp guidelines.
• I avoided lists and did my best to keep the basic information that the numerous article editors have contributed over the years, so as not to create "my" version, but rather to provide a verison that reflected the contributions of these past editors.
• As an experiment, I also created a mega-beast of a version [[6]] that merged all the various authorship articles ("offending articles" as ScienceApologist called them), which was part of the original assignment following this merge discussion:[[7]]. This was not an attempt at creating a new article, but to see just how long and unwieldly such an article would be. It proved massive and ridiculous, as I am sure all would agree. I simply wanted to see what it would look like and where the obvious content forking should be. The version attached to this talk page (Draft 1) includes all the appropriate content forking, solving the length issues.

I would greatly appreciate input on these two versions from the greater Wiki community. What are their pluses and minuses? Should either or both be seriously considered as a replacement for the present version? Or should they be merged? Smatprt (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Drafts 1 & 2

Please place you comments below (instead of the various and numerous articles, noticeboards, etc.) It would be nice to have one central location! If there is a better location for comments, please let me know. Smatprt (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Early peer-review on Draft 1

Here is an early Peer Review on draft one: [[8]], with these being the primary content comments:

Ruhrfisch comments: I do not have any expertise on the topic, but here are some suggestions for improvement of the article as an article.

• The article needs to be scrupulosly referenced, but there are whole paragraphs without refs and sections that are quite sparse - for example the whole section "Pseudonymous or secret authorship in Renaissance England" has only four refs and has two plusp aragraphs with no refs at all.
• Several of the sources used do not appear to be reliable sources - for example, what makes doubtaboutwill.org a RS? Or webpages.charter.net?
• I found at least one dead external link - http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/marprelate/tract6m.htm - if this were in article space, the link checker for PR would work.
• External links in the article need to be converted to inline refs
• The refs also need more information in many cases - for example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. Books need publisher, location, year, ISBN, etc. {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The article seemed repetitious in places
• The headers do not all follow WP:HEAD
• I would try for consistency in how each topic is addressed. For example, give the minority viewpoint, then give the objections to it / majority viewpoint.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Note - I think I addressed most of the issues that were raised. Smatprt (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor's observations on Draft 2

I popped in here, following a question being raised at WT:FAC about the article's length. The article's length seems to be the least of its problems, but could be resolved through addressing other issues, principally by addressing the inclusion of extensive lists - see WP:EMBED. These also affect the logic of the article's structure. It is most odd to have an article with a very brief overview, then "arguments against", then "arguments for", then a "history of" section, almost all of which is a (very unhelpful) list, then, wierdly, "alternative candidates". FWIW, here are my suggestions:

• First, clearly the prevailing scholarly view is that Shakespeare wrote most or all works attributed to him. This should be mentioned in the first para of the lead; we should not wait until the third para to be told it is a fringe view.
• Second, that being the case, the article should begin with the section on evidence for Shakespeare's authorship, not with the arguments against. It should begin with the prevailing view, not the minority, dissenting one.
• Third, my second point must also apply to the "Overview" section: it must begin by stating the prevailing scholarly analysis: notwithstanding that the authorship question is the subject of the WP article, it should still outline the majority view of the sources before outlining the contrary thesis.
• Fourth, having moved the "arguments against" section behind the "arguments for", the "Alternative candidates" material should flow logically from those arguments, or be integrated into it. (see further remarks on this below).
• Fifth, the subsections "Shakespeare's singularity and bardology" and "Precursors of doubt" should be the first paras of the "arguments against" section. The "Authorship question annals" subsection should probably not exist at all. It is a list, and to the lay reader an unhelpful one at that, with many uncited entries. One option would be to create a separate article "Chronology of the Shakespeare authorship question" or (modified) "List of publications regarding the Shakespeare authorship question", though I would talk with some experienced list editors (of whom I am not one) about it first.
• Sixth, consequently on the fifth point, there need be no "History of the authorship question", which is not assisting the article in its current form. The paras of "Shakespeare's singularity and bardology" and "Precursors of doubt" are the right way to do this stuff. If there is absolutely vital information somewhere in that "annals" list, then add it in the form of sentences in the historical context material that I am suggesting should be at the start of the "arguments against" section. (If, despite my argument, there is a consensus that a "history" section should exist, then it should come as context between "overview" and "Evidence for...")
• Seventh, while I can see why "Alternative candidates" and the reasons for their candidacy deserve discussion, the current material is a mess. It looks nothing like a usual WP article, and the part on "Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford" is particularly bad, lacking citations altogether, it is not in sentence form, it does not use the evidence to properly make the argument, etc. It looks to me as though there should be a single (perhaps longish) subsection in the "arguments against" section that identifies the candidates and the main arguments for each (just a few sentences in each case I think), and all the material currently in the four candidates section can then be deleted, or, if it is not already there, moved into the WP biographies of those individuals (but only if the material has accompanying in-line cites).
• Eighth, the "Full List of Candidates" shoudl be moved out of this article and into another article as a list. Furthermore, no one should be on this list without a citation that demonstrates that the person is in fact proposed by a reliable source to be a candidate for the authorship. Not even one in five now meet that very basic requirement. Only if their candidacy has some significant coverage in the literature should it then be discussed in the article's body text.

There are other issues with the article, but these are the basic ones that would need to be examined before the article could be considered at FAC, and probably even at GAN. I hope this is of assistance, regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Further suggestions

• The general prose style approach to the "alternative candidates" section found in Shakespeare authorship question Draft 1 appears preferable to the text here, though there would still need to be improved reliance on scholarly citations, and the language is not yet NPOV. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly be welcome relief. The reason this page goes into detail on the arguments is because of the charge to merge the Oxfordian page into this one, which nobody really ever thought was feasible, but I thought an attempt should be made. I'll work on the changes tomorrow (I would be happy to step aside for some other editor to complete the task). We also need to rework the history section into prose summary style. (comments deleted, irrelevant to RfC)Tom Reedy (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(more comments deleted; irrelevant to RfC)

• The lead in the current version is preferable, being more neutral, than the lead in Shakespeare authorship question Draft 1
• The hatnote in "Overview" in the current is preferable, being more neutral, than the lead in Shakespeare authorship question Draft 1
• I generally prefer the current version's overview, on the premise that, while brief, it simply prefigures later sections that go into more detail. As a sidenote on which i would welcome comment, why does the article significantly rely on a 1958 reference, given the ongoing currency of the controversy, is there not just as effective a scholarly reference of more recent provenance? Comment welcomed.
• In general, I think the arguments against / arguments for approach of the current draft is to be preferred. However, I note that the "Draft 1" version has a prose style more consistent with WP style. I think the unusual 'subsub headings with bullets' (eg. Francis Meres • ) should probably go. In some cases they may be able simply to be deleted, and the para that follows them will stand as is. If not, then the odd heading may need to be replaced by a lead sentence that forshadows the para topic.
• The "draft 1" approach groups together the stratfordian and anti-stratfordian arguments on each point. In general i think this is not the preferred option because, as the current version points out, at the heart of the dispute is a difference in approach to evidence. Nevertheless, something that the "draft 1" approach does is make it easy for a reader to see argument and counter-argument together and weigh them up. I'm not advocating for it, but i happened to note an example where "Draft 1" has a pro and con on one point (Shake-speare as pseudonym) on which one of the counterarguments that is presented in "Draft 1" is partly missing from the current version (The para beginning "However, Stratfordians assert that no scholar of Elizabethan literature or punctuation affirms that a hyphen signaled a pseudonym, and that the claim is unknown outside of anti-Stratfordian literature"). Not sure if this presents a problem or not.

More thoughts later. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• The 1958 source, Frank Wadsworth's The poacher from Stratford; a partial account of the controversy over the authorship of Shakespeare's plays, is a recognised classic treatment of anti-Stratfordian arguments from an academic perspective. It has been praised by Schoenbaum, Matus, and Shapiro, among others. He was a respected English professor at UCLA (IIRC, I've got his obit around here someplace) who published on shakespeare in addition to his SAQ book.
• As far as Wadsworth's relevancy, anti-Stratfordian arguments haven't changed in the past 100 years or so; they're all basically the same types of presentations that are recycled from candidate to candidate. The individual candidates arguments are also pretty much clones, and Kathman, Matus, and Shapiro all have written about this curious immortality of anti-Strat arguments long after they've been convincingly refuted for any reasonable non-obsessed person.
• WP:FRINGE guideline recommends that articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas "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, which is the reason for presenting the competing ideas in separate sections rather than in a "he said-she said" format.
• Nishidani and determined that the most neutral way to present the anti-Stratfordian side was to state it as objectively as possible without any comment directly upon its heels. We also agreed that every anti-Stratfordian point did not need to be specifically rebutted, but we do note their use of argumentum ex silentio, which is the core of their entire thesis. We also felt that the strongest rebuttal was often to present the idea as baldly as possible without comment, because we don't believe that most readers need to be spoon-fed every point. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding re Wadsworth, and for reminding me of that element of WP:FRINGE. Accordingly, I am happy with that aspect of the current version. Don't know when I'll get around to more on this, but will try to come back. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments so far and only wish we could get more independent reviewers, but I suppose that will come if/when we take it to GA (or FA, which is what is needed to protect the page from advocate infiltration). Since I'm currently topic-banned pending the litigation against Smatprt, it will take a while to implement all your suggestions. The major difference between the two versions is in the use of sources. All of our sources pass muster as independent reliable sources, while Smatprt's relies heavily on fringe publications. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Other comments

• As the person who stumbled into this mess by providing the above input on what is called draft 2 (and which is currently the text in the article's mainspace), I am not going to comment further here, because it looks like this subject has more than enough discussion around the pedia, particularlyhere. I will make comments re article content on the main article talk page, and not elsewhere. I would probably suggest others do the same. This should not be construed as suggesting I see no merit in draft 1. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. Will you be actually reviewing Draft 1 then? I prepared it in good faith and am hoping you will respond in kind. Thanks.Smatprt (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on both drafts

From a couple of hours of studying the subject based on the ongoing discussions in WP, and a first look at Shapiro's latest book on the matter (Contested Will), and from a first reading of both drafts, I'd say that the controversy is not about behavior as some of the contestants here contend, but is indeed a deep content matter. From reviewing both drafts it becomes clear that academic wars are being waged here on WP by "smaller" proxies, for Ogburn on one side (draft 1), and for Shapiro on the other (draft 2). Suffice it to say that Shapiro himself mentions the ongoing debate in WP, and that he himself traces his own scholarly development from a pure mainstream Stratfordian to acknowledging the importance of the SAQ debate to the development of academic thought on the subject, and to becoming a Stratfordian that now asserts that a long list of works were actually the product of William's collaboration with other authors. warshy^talk 20:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing ref

While cleaning up the bib, I discovered a missing ref. If someone would be so kind as to insert it in its proper place I would appreciate it.

• Schoone-Jongen, Terence (2008), Shakespeare's companies: William Shakespeare's early career and the acting companies, 1577-1594, Ashgate, ISBN 978-0-7546-6434-5

Tom Reedy (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. --GuillaumeTell 10:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

dead link

Ziegler 1895 Was Marlowe: A Story of the Secret of Three Centuries. The link is dead.Nishidani (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It works for me. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

the link for "Was Marlowe the man" works, but I can't get "Was Marlowe: A Story of the Secret..." to work, presumably because it should be "It was Marlowe..."[9]. Paul B (talk)

The link was correct, but it was an external link incorrectly set up as an internal one. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. In technical matters I think my monkeying around only shows that I am the missing link.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I was using the bib link instead of the test link. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Neville supressed?

This article appears to largely omit any mention of Neville as a candidate or co-candidate in collaboration with Oxenford. Why? He has significant biographical coincidences, some part even better than Edward de Vere's! 87.97.101.54 (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A stratfordian logical fallacy that is not yet mentioned

There is a particular dilemma the article fails to properly articulate in its current form. If the merchant Shaksper of Stratford was acting as a willing and motivated "body-double" for the real bard, say, because the royal court bribed him X gold coins every year, than it would be impossible to find out the identity of the true author from historical records.

Maybe the merchant Shaksper was ordered by "powers that be" to go as far as fraudulently obtaining copyright for Oxford's intellectual property under his own name, in order to shield the true author from scandals.

In this sense any proof provided by the "overwhelmingly stratfordian academic majority" is ambigious. It either proves Shaksper of Stratford was the true author or it proves Shaksper was an active doppelganger for the true author. Indeed, if the true author was a shunned aristocrat, the idea of an actual cover-up conspiracy cannot be dismissed due to being a "conspiracy theory"!

(Honestly, I think any bardish research still conducted in the British Isles is pointless, because the era's official paper trail has been falsified so much by the powerful royal court. All shakespearean scolars should move to North Italy in person, especially Venice and dig up archives there for the era. If de Vere was the true author or R&J, MoV, Othello, etc. then there must be a memo or dossier on it, as the Venetian Republic had by far the best secret service in the world at that time. Events they didn't know about, in fact didn't happen.) 87.97.101.54 (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)