Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

authorship first questioned

“Shakespeare’s authorship was first questioned in the middle of the 19th century, when adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time had become widespread.[4]”

Weren’t some of the earliest works published anonymously or with no author’s name on them, and if that is the case, does it not make this sentence misleading? DeVereGuy (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Many plays were first published without an author's name. That was entirely normal at the time. As Shakespeare's name became marketable it started to appear on title pages. It's rather like the way Hitchcock's films started to be marketed as "Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho" etc after Hitchcock became famous as a director, but the early films were not marketed with his name. This has nothing to do with "questioning" authorship. Paul B (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. Anonymous publication does not equal questioning authorship, and in fact Meres attributed plays to Shakespeare that had been published anonymously. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I agree with everything you’ve both said except that I still see this as a misleading sentence. It seems to suggest that there was in fact no question of authorship until the 19th century. If something is anonymous then the question of authorship is self evident because someone did write it. Someone doesn’t have to ask the question in writing to have it *be* a question. I don’t mean to be quibbling or semantic, but I think the sentence could be worded better.

If you mean to say that no one appeared to *care* who wrote the works, would it not be better to say that? DeVereGuy (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

But there is no evidence that there was any "question of authorship". The fact that playbooks did not give author's names is not a question. Other evidence from Meres etc indicates that Shakespeare's authorship was no secret. You see a play. You buy the playbook; just like seeing a film and buying the DVD. Probably some people did not care too much who the author was, just as some people aren't interested who directed a movie. I don't think we should confuse the fact that some people, obviously, did not know who the author was, with the idea that there was a question of some sort about authorship. It's obfuscation. Paul B (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying is that you don’t know, but the sentence, as it stands, suggests that you do know. “Don’t know” is the responsible and neutral point of view. Since the whole article is about the question of authorship, if you get the history wrong, you get nothing right. DeVereGuy (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we do know, from a mass of evidence that William Shakespeare was identified as the author of plays and poems. Of course it is impossible to know what anyone and everyone might have thought about anything, but if we adopt that that position, we get into absurdities. "We don't know if anyone believed that Queen Elizabeth came from Mars, but they might have believed that." So by that token, any history about anything cannot be written. We can't say that Einstein created theory of relativity, because for all we know someone might have thought of it before, but we just don't know about it. We can't say there was no dispute about the truth of X until Y came along because someone might have been sitting in a tavern disputing it with his mate 100 years earlier, but we just don't know.... Paul B (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I propose the follow edit to the second paragraph (replace paragraph) of the draft article:

While Shakespeare's identity was questioned by Joseph Hall (Satires, 1597) and John Marston (Pygmalion’s Image, 1598), * it wasn’t until the middle of the 19th century, when adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time had become widespread, that the “authorship question” became a matter of scholarly and public debate.[4] Shakespeare's biography, particularly his humble origins and obscure life, seemed incompatible with his poetic eminence and his reputation for genius and erudition,[5] arousing suspicion that Shakespeare might not have written the works attributed to him.[6] The controversy has since spawned a vast body of literature,[7] and more than 70 authorship candidates have been proposed,[8] including Francis Bacon, the 6th Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe, and the 17th Earl of Oxford.[9]

Citations (*): McCrea, The Case For Shakespeare, p. 138; H. N. Gibson, The Shakespeare Claimants, pp. 59-65. --Ssteinburg (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ssteinburg, and thanks for trying to help improve the article. Your comment here is exactly the right form: a concrete and specific issue, with suggested improvement, and the sources to support it. However, two notes: 1) the lead of the article should just summarize the rest of the article, so any such changes or additions needs to be proposed relative to some part of the article proper (and the lead might then later be updated to reflect this if necessary); and 2) it's not enough to “find a source that supports what I want the article to say”, but rather we need to survey the field of scholarship and reflect what their opinion of the matter is, and we give preference to “better” sources (based on criteria like peer-reviewed, published on a university press or well-regarded journal, author is well considered in the field, etc.). On that last point, Wikipedia has actively decided to limit itself to mainstream scholarship and accepting sources outside of the mainstream only in specific and very narrow circumstances. This means, in practice, that if mainstream scholarship says, for example, that Hall and Marston did not question Shakespeare's authorship, then it doesn't matter whether we can find a source that says they did; we can't include it. Only if mainstream scholarship on an issue should be of the opinion that there is room for discussion on the issue might such sources be used, but then only in the limited sense of supporting that, for example, “McCrea thinks this, but most scholars disagree”. In other words, based on this issue I think it will be very hard to incorporate the change you want here.
There are also further issues here. Your addition gives a lot of weight to the argument about Hall and Marston, but we have some limits on space and balance which would make it hard to justify giving this argument so much prominence. Again, the deciding factor isn't how persuasive that particular argument is, and especially not how persuasive you personally find it, but rather how important it is in the overall picture and relative to all the other various arguments made by authorship doubters (and that includes all the arguments they make that you personally may find unpersuasive or even a bit loony). For example, we know authorship doubters right now don't like to talk about any “conspiracy” in relation to their theories; but historically this has been a major thrust of anti-Stratfordian arguments, and so the article needs to discuss this aspect too.
In any case, thank you for making the effort of participating in a constructive way (I know that can be hard on articles like this). All else aside, we really do appreciate all the help we can get in improving the article. And please don't hesitate to ask if there is something unclear in the above comment, or if there is any other quirk of Wikipedia we can help you navigate. --Xover (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go over this? Neither Hall nor Marston ever mention Shakespeare. They satirise the writings of someone called "Labeo". Most scholars do not think either of them intend this as a code name for Shakespeare. Some think either or both may do, but Michael Drayton is the favoured candidate. Even if they do intend Shakespeare, they never question his authorship - or Drayton's or Daniel's or whoever it is. Hall says that "Labeo" should "write better" or "write alone" - that is he should not collaborate with other authors. Collaboration was common at the time, as we all know. So whether or not this refers to Shakespeare it is not questioning his authorship in the SAQ sense. Only someone willfully misreading McCrea could footnote the relevant passage as if it supported your views. He clearly states that he doesn't think that Hall's "Labeo" even refers to Shakespeare. As for Gibson, he is misled by the Baconian misidentification of "Labeo" as a reference to the Roman legal scholar, which it is not. So Gibson's views have been wholly superseded in this instance, as all otherwise reliable sources can be on specific details (including McCrea on Wilmot). Paul B (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Xover, for the considerate response. If I may, I’d like to pursue a couple of points. Since Stratfordians biographers and proponents routinely make the claim, with considerable emphasis, that there was no contemporaneous “doubt” about Shakespeare’s identity, the issue is obviously very important (to both sides), and it is, therefore, extremely relevant (even critical) to the paragraph in question. McCrea is cited elsewhere in the draft article. So, as a source he’s already been vetted. Gibson is an orthodox source. Clearly, Gibson’s intent was not to argue against Shaksper’s authorship. One may (as Paul B. has) take issue with Gibson’s assertions, however, Paul’s claims that Gibson has been refuted by broad and authoritative consensus of subsequent scholarship (I am paraphrasing) is, at this point, merely Paul’s claim. Further, I don’t think it serves neutrality, or the goal of giving the reader the complete picture (concisely of course), to hide the fact that there are differences of expert opinion within the orthodox community on an important question. The changes I have proposed are concise. They barely add length to the paragraph. They add highly relevant information. And they are, by Wikipedia standards, authoritatively sourced, indeed, do not draw on any “fringe” sources. I also need to respond to several of Paul’s assertions. To say that Gibson was “mislead by Baconian misidentification” is a statement of opinion on several counts and, on each count, debatable. I will not debate these matters here. It is clear that Gibson saw “Labeo” as evidence that Hall and Marston believed the name Shakespeare was a pseudonym. Whether Gibson believed (rightly or wrongly) that Bacon was the suspected author, and how he came to that conclusion, is beside the point. As to Paul’s comment, “Only someone willfully misreading McCrea could footnote the relevant passage as if it supported your views.” My “views” are not the issue and it is somewhat offensive be accused of “willfully misreading”. Obviously McCrea was not making a case for Oxford. But, McCrea closing comments on this question, on page 138, clearly indicated a position that “Labeo” was someone other than Shaksper. So, I ask again that the proposed edit be accepted. Thank you.--Ssteinburg (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, lets be clear. If you are not willfully misreading you are either knowingly misrepresenting the sources or you can't read properly. McCrea very very clearly says that Hall's Labeo is not Shakespeare. Gibson says maybe. To footnote the first sentence to these sources would be for Wikipedia itself to be dishonest, since neither of them support the assertion. Much of the rest of your reply is evasion. Paul B (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be correct that I have “misread” McCrea, and after further consideration, I would say he is unclear. He says, “…John Marston seems to identify Labeo as the Author [of V & A].” Later he says, “Hall specified in Book VI of his Satires that Labeo was a writer of “heroic” and romantic poetry, who imitated Sir Philip Sidney . . . Probably Hall had Samuel Daniel or Michael Drayton in mind.” This statement, and his other statements on that page, do not, in my opinion, logically cancel out the “seems” in the earlier statement. But, since McCrea is unclear, I withdraw McCrea as a supporting source. On the other hand, Gibson says, “We agree that Hall is patting himself on the back because he thinks he has guessed the identity of the author writing under a pseudonym . . .” That seems perfectly clear to me. The “maybe”, to use your word, applied to the identification of Bacon as the hidden author. Gibson says, “. . . but that he believed Bacon to be the author in question is not so certain.” So, in the case of Gibson, I suggest, respectfully, that you are “misreading” (I do not suggest that you are doing so "willfully"), and that, in terms of Wikipedia standards, he is a perfectly qualified source. As to your accusation of "evasion", I would ask you to clarify. What points have I evaded? Plus, let me say that, your accusation about "evasion" suggests that I am obligated to provide something. I'm not responding here out of any sense of obligation, and I rather doubt that Wikipedia would take exception to that. Since we are, presumably, having a discussion here about an actual edit, and not debating for the sake of debating, I am attempting here to be factual, relevant, helpful, objective, honest, and non-combative. You have accused me of "evasion", "willfully misreading", "knowlingly misrepresting" and you have attacked my ability to "read properly". Frankly, this does strikes me as rather personal. --Ssteinburg (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

McCrea says that Marston is referring to Shakespeare but Hall isn't. They are both using the Attius Labeo = bad poet code, but referring to two different writers. Marston, of course, says nothing about collaboration or use of someone else's name, so even if Marston is making a dig at Shakespeare, it cannot support the claim being made. As for Gibson on Hall, this is what he said (footnote on p.60), "the plain sense of Hall's words is "collaboration". He does not like a poem, which he believes is the work of two writers, and he tells the principal that he probably would have done better if he had written it alone, though it might be better still if he had left it unwritten. The word "swaine" like that of "shepherd" was a conventional pseudonym for poet, and accordingly confers this rank on the supposed junior partner. The names Shakespeare and Bacon are of course read by Theobald; there is nothing in the lines, as we shall see, to support the identity of either of the writers concerned." He then goes on to discuss Marston and after the line quoted by you he says that Theobald is "proably" correct in identifying references to V&A and Lucrece, but "such details, however, are found in other poems too so there is no absolute certainty". Only by conflating the Marston Labeo with the Hall one can this reading be made. Other sources, including McCrea, reject that conflation. In the end Gibson merely thinks it possible that Hall believed someone collaborated with Shakespeare on these poems. Again the source simply cannot bear the reading you are giving it, and neither source states anything like what the sentence you want it to support states. I'm sorry you were upset by expressions like "willfully misread", but I honestly could not understand how anyone could read what McCrea says and come to the conclusion that it supported the sentence you want to add. I'm still perplexed. Paul B (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

To Paul. If I may follow up once more. You say, “Again the source simply cannot bear the reading you are giving it, and neither source states anything like what the sentence you want it to support states.” Again, Gibson, says (second paragraph on page 63), “We agree that Hall is patting himself on the back because he thinks he has guessed the identity of the author writing under a pseudonym . . .” Based on the absence of quotation marks at the beginning of the paragraph, and on the content of the paragraph, I’m pretty sure this is Gibson, not Theobald, speaking. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your comment, but I don’t think there is much room for interpretation of that statement. Clearly, Gibson is acknowledging that Hall thought the name Shakespeare was a “pseudonym”. Now, while this leaves us with only one source, there are, I believe, any number of statements in the article that have only one source. And, I don’t think it can be claimed that there are no other Stratfordian authorities who agree with Gibson. Moreover, if Gibson has been, as you say, “wholly superseded”, one would, I think, expect to see it “superseded” in such works as Schoenbaum’s Shakespeare’s Lives. I cannot find that Schoenbaum addresses the issue in that work or his Documentary Life. I do not find it in the Shaksper biographies of Matus, Greenblatt, Honan, or Shapiro. Ackroyd touches on the issue concerning Marston, but in a way that is, in my opinion, problematic for the Stratfordian view. I’m not saying there’s nothing out there that has “superseded” Gibson, and I have to add that the term “superseded” is presumptuous and would probably best be replaced with something “rebutted”. But, to say that Gibson has been “superseded” or “wholly superseded”, or rebutted, doesn’t appear to me to be an accurate description of the situation. --Ssteinburg (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You are perplexed because what you are seeing here is a primary example of the reasoning that underwrites anti-Stratfordism. I know that anti-Strats of all stripes find all kinds of "hints" about Shakespeare's supposed non-authorship, but neither McCrea nor Gibson say that "Shakespeare's identity was questioned by Joseph Hall (Satires, 1597) and John Marston (Pygmalion’s Image, 1598)" in any form or fashion, nor am I aware of any other RS source that makes that argument. This article is not the place to argue the point; it is descriptive only of both sides' arguments, so the edit has no place in this article, much less the lede. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

To Tom. See my response to Paul. I say your statement regarding McCrea is arguable. I say your statement about Gibson is flat wrong. Read what Gibson said. Attacking my “reasoning” is hardly an argument and, as I understand the “rules” here, hardly in the spirit we’re supposed to be abiding by. So, let me say plainly: when you say, “This article is not the place to argue the point”, you’re not making an argument, your avoiding an argument, or let me say, discussion. How can this issue not be highly relevant, very much to the “point” of the article, and absolutely relevant to the paragraph in question? And may I ask, noting that you say that you are not “aware of any other RS source that makes that argument”, are you prepared to say state that “no other RS source makes that argument”? --Ssteinburg (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you would format properly; I know you know how to do so.

I know what Gibson wrote. Quoting you quoting Gibson: "Gibson, says (second paragraph on page 63), 'We agree that Hall is patting himself on the back because he thinks he has guessed the identity of the author writing under a pseudonym . . .'"

Please show me where Gibson says that identity of the author that Hall guessed is Shakespeare.

I think every detail of this proposed edit has been examined, and it fails to attain the threshold of acceptance for inclusion into this article. If you don't agree, then at least acknowledge that the edit does not have editorial consensus. Further "discussion" is a waste of time—if not your time, then most certainly mine. But please fill free to continue if you desire. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That the identity of “the author” using the “pseudonym” is Shakespeare seems quite obvious to me. But, taking up your challenge to that, I offer you this (sorry about the length). Near the bottom of page 62, Gibson’s quote from Theobald concludes with: “…both of them [Marston and Hall] definitely identified Francis Bacon as the author of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece.” What Gibson says immediately thereafter is not important for our purposes except to note that it does not divert us from the idea that Bacon was the author of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece. Gibson says, “I have said that I regard this as the most telling piece of evidence produced by the Baconians in favor of their theory. This, does not imply that the Baconians’ interpretation of it is not open to criticism, or that they can be allowed to make it mean more than it actually does mean ; and the concluding sentence of the passage I have just quoted certainly claims more than is justified.” Now, I will be so bold as to suggest that the gist of Gibson’s objection is Theobald’s identification of “the author of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece as Bacon. However, there is no reason, so far as I can see, to assume that we are, at any point, speaking of any other “author” than the author of those poems, and surely no one would deny that that author was, ostensibly at least, Shakespeare. Following immediately after the words quoted above are the words we quoted previously from Gibson. I hope you don’t mind if I quote it again. He says, “We may agree that Hall is patting himself on the back because he thinks he has guessed the identity of an author writing under a pseudonym and collaborating with an inferior poet…” Skipping to the bottom of the paragraph (not relevant to this discussion), we find Gibson saying, “Theobald is more probably correct in his identification of the poems concerned. In the Rape of Lucrece a number of stanzas do begin with…” It is clear that Gibson was referring, with total consistency, to the Shakespeare’s two major poems and to “the author” of those poems (i.e. Shakespeare). The entire discussion never deviates from “the author” of those poems to any other author. If Gibson was not referring to Shakespeare as “the author” Hall believed was using a “pseudonym”, who was he referring to and how, logically, would we follow him there? You’ve made it very clear that you feel this discussion is a “waste of time”, and I don’t rate my chances of succeeding with the proposed edit as very high, but I am hoping, and asking, that someone who is genuinely neutral will read pages 62-63 of Gibson, consider the arguments here, and make an impartial decision. I apologize if I’m not “formatting” properly (you are reffering to the indentation?). I’m still working to become familiar with the procedures here. --Ssteinburg (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It is customary to indent replies one level relative to the message you are responding to, by placing a “:” before your text. Since talk pages on Wikipedia are rather more disorganized than, for instance, email, newsgroups, or web forums, it's relatively more important that everyone make an effort to make discussions as clear and organized as possible.
Getting back to the thrust of your message… Gibson is quoting B.G. Theobald's Enter Francis Bacon (1932) and he is doing so in order to refute him, so you cannot use Gibson to support your proposed addition of Hall and Marston. Even if you could, that would only bring you to Theobald, writing in 1932, which is actually a century later than the article currently says doubts emerged. In order to get back to Hall and Marston you need to find a contemporary reliable source that says “Hall and Marston doubted Shakespeare's authorship”; and it would probably also have to be qualified with “…of Venus and Adonis”, which is miles away from supporting a general doubt about Shakespeare's authorship of the canon in general (authorship attribution of individual plays and poems are discussed all the time by mainstream scholars, usually as regards collaborations). And even if you did manage to find such a source—which I think everyone here would be very interested to see, by the way—there is still the issue of due weight. I realize that for a Baconian who finds this argument persuasive, it must seem exceedingly prominent—as Gibson writes, it's is the single strongest piece of evidence the Baconians have produced to date (he means to be ironic, but still)—but from the broader and historical perspective this is a minor and fairly obscure detail.
However, to hold out a branch as well, it is possible that it could be fit in on the Baconian theory article. It deals specifically with the Baconian theory, which leaves a lot more room for the things important to Baconians, and since Gibson lists it as an argument the Baconians make, fairly prominently even, it might merit more weight there. However, let me immediately caution that even there it would have to be cast as “In 1932, B. G. Theobald argued that Hall and Marston questioned Shakespeare's authorship of Venus and Adonis, thinking it was co-written with Bacon, but mainstream academics such as H. N. Gibson do not accept this argument.” Not verbatim of course, but you get the gist.
Finally, let me again thank you for attempting to be courteous and constructive in what I can only assume must appear to you as “the lion's den” or some such. As you know this is a controversial subject, and I think long months of conflict has wearied us all to the point that our ability to assume good faith in new comers is stretched a mite too thin for comfort. As you may have been able to infer from Tom and Paul's responses above, this issue has been discussed previously on this page (among many similar issues), so the repetition is getting to be a little tiring. Please don't take it personally! --Xover (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Xover, for you courtious response, as before. Please do not feel obliged (you or the others) to respond. I intend this as my parting comment. Yes, indeed, the frustrations of both sides are more than evident. I am a partisan and, your very welcome courtesy withstanding, my perspective is that, if the article is published (as I assume it will be), it would be objectionable to present it as a consensus between Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians. And, if I may, have to disagree regarding the treatment of Gibson’s interpretation of all Hall as necessitating the dating you assert. Were that logical, it would be necessary to apply the dates of Stratfordian biographies to interpretations (disputable interpretations) of Greene’s Groats-worth as referring to Shakespeare, or Shaksper. I’m not looking for reconsideration. The discussion has probably dragged on too long already, as you yourself have indicated. I don’t know that I have a vote, but, just to be clear, my vote would be against the article. But again, I thank you for your civility and wish all parties well. Let’s see if my “indent” works. If not, I beg your pardon.

"Gibson’s quote from Theobald concludes with: '…both of them [Marston and Hall] definitely identified Francis Bacon as the author of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece.'" You yourself give the evidence that Gibson did not say that Bacon was the author, although for some reason you evidently believe that if one person quotes another person they must both be in agreement. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I had meant to sign off with my last comment and not further extend a discussion that you and others in control of the article have repeatedly complained has gone on too long already. You leave me no choice but to continue the discussion. I more or less conceded on McCrea. He argues both ways. On the essential point of Hall believing “the author” of V & A was using a pseudonym, Gibson is unmistakably clear. On that point (the point of this discussion) you should concede. Whether Hall thought the author of V & A was Bacon, and whether Gibson believed that that was what Hall believed, or agreed with him, is totally beside the point. I’m not arguing a case for Hall believing “the author” was Bacon or anyone else. The point is that Hall, according to Gibson, believed that the name Shakespeare on V & A and Lucrece was a pseudonym, which, there’s really no way of getting around it, means that there was contemporaneous “doubt” about Shakespeare’s identity. And, since you’ve prompted me to reengage, I have to say, in further response to Xover’s comments, who’s civility I do sincerely appreciate (would that such a “tone” prevailed in general), that the idea of dating Hall’s “doubts” to the date of Gibson’s book is (I have to say) absurd. Though it should not need pointing out, the issue of Hall’s “doubts” goes with the date of Hall’s “doubts”, not with the date that those “doubts” were discovered or commented upon. I am under no illusion that you, or the others who are in control, will concede on the critical point of this discussion. Since Stratfordians have worked so hard to portray “doubt” about Shakespeare’s authorship as a purely aberrational phenomena that arose from 19th century bardolatry, I hardly expect you will concede on a point of historical fact that is fatal to the fable you are serving. It is, to be sure, only one of the fables that have been built into your article. Finally, for me, this has been a test of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has failed the test. --Ssteinburg (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If you decide to make further comments, please prune all unnecessary text from them. In particular, editors should very rarely need to refer to other editors (except occasionally to make it clear to whom they are responding). Commentary about Stratfordians, Wikipedia, and "who are in control" does not belong here (see WP:TPG). The only useful comment would be to withdraw or change your proposal in view of the information provided above, and if still supporting a proposal, supply reasons to justify it (reasons which account for the information provided above). Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Very well. I withdraw my previous proposal and submit the following proposed edit to the second paragraph (replace paragraph) of the draft article:

While it appears that Shakespeare's identity was questioned by Joseph Hall (Satires, 1597), and possibly by John Marston (Pygmalion’s Image, 1598), * it wasn’t until the middle of the 19th century, when adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time had become widespread, that the “authorship question” became a matter of scholarly and public debate.[4] Shakespeare's biography, particularly his humble origins and obscure life, seemed incompatible with his poetic eminence and his reputation for genius and erudition,[5] arousing suspicion that Shakespeare might not have written the works attributed to him.[6] The controversy has since spawned a vast body of literature,[7] and more than 70 authorship candidates have been proposed,[8] including Francis Bacon, the 6th Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe, and the 17th Earl of Oxford.[9]

Citation (*): H. N. Gibson, The Shakespeare Claimants, pp. 59-65. --Ssteinburg (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What Gibson says is quite clear (BTW you have repeatedly misquoted him by leaving out the word "may". He said - "We may agree that Hall is patting himself on the back because he thinks he has guessed the identity of an author writing under a pseudonym and collaborating with an inferior poet, and that he is aiming his satire at this author; but that he believed Bacon to be the author in question is not so certain." There is a tentative element here, not a certainty. Gibson's conclusion is quite clear: "It follows then that only two facts can be deduced with absolute certainty from the works of Hall and Marston. They are: 1. That Hall believed he had guessed the real author, or rather part-author, of some poem published under a pseudonym, but does not clearly indicate either. 2. That Marston believed that Hall meant Bacon as the author and Venus and Adonis as the poem. Anything further takes us into the realm of surmise."

Now this is Gibson's own view. It is not a view shared, as far as I am aware by any other author at all. Furthermore, it follows from the fact that he does not know that Attius Labeo, not Marcus Labeo is the reference, so the whole argument about lawyers is out of the window. As McCrea makes clear, the link to Bacon's motto is in a totally different poem (and in any case its a latin tag, not necessarily referring to Bacon), a fact which Gibson seems to have forgotten. There is no such reference in Marston's short poem The Authour in prayse of his precedent Poem, which is a jokey piece commenting on the lascivious nature of his verse Pygmalion's Image. In the context of the poem, the reference to Labeo contrasts a frustrated lover with Pygmalion, who gets to bed the girl. The allusion to V&A, if that is what it is, is rather confused, since the relevant line is spoken by Venus herself, not the male character or the poet's voice. In any case, it's not part of any commentary on secret authorship. The most obvious explanation is that Marston is using the generic name for a bad poet. Indeed it has also been argued that Hall's Labeo is not a single person but a kind of incarnation of "bad poetry". I suggest you read Hall and Marston's poems to see just how much the anti-Strat interpretation drags these passages out of context and recontextualises them in ways which bear almost no relation to how they appear in the originals.

The concept of a "reliable source" does not mean that every opinion expressed in such a source must be accepted as true. That would be absurd, since scholars disagree. That's why we have the rules of undue weight. There has been so much written on Shakespeare that we have to decide what's important and what's marginal. Here, for example, is what Ronald J. Corthell says about the coded references in Virgidemiae: "they have been linked to most of the important literary quarrels of the period, including the Marleprelate pamphlets, the Harvey-Nashe controversy and the so-called Hall-Marston quarrel." ("Beginning as a Satirist: Joseph Hall's Virgidemiarum Sixe Bookes", Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, 1983) Corthell does not seek to identify Labeo, but makes it plain that he is supposed to have published a wide variety of types of verse, which was not true of Shakespeare. Davenport's edition of Hall argues that Hall's Labeo is a composite figure, not a single poet; a joke about how Persius's marginalised Homer-translator has now taken over, to become a kind of god of kitsch in the vulgar culture of Elizabethan poetry. I can't claim to have made an exhaustive study of this, but I can honestly say I have made an effort to look at the academic literature that is available to me. Not a single non-Anti-Strat writer identifies Hall's Labeo with Shakespeare. Not one. I realise that it appears to you that we are trying to keep something out, but the reality is that Gibson is utterly marginal here. His information is inadequate, just as McCrea's is on James Wilmot, and he makes mistakes. All reliable and good scholars make slips when dealing with complex material, a point that has been made repeatedly here. You can find someone somewhere to support hundreds of different views on Shakespeare. We have to choose what is most relevant. That does not mean that this argument should be excluded. In fact it is already present in the history of the Shakespeare authorship question article, and it certainly should be added to the Baconian theory article. Paul B (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why should I concede to your misreading and misquotation of Gibson? Hall didn't say it; Marston didn't say it; and Gibson didn't say it. And your misapprehension does not stop there; you even miscontrue Xover's words to mean something altogether different than what he plainly wrote.

And no one "owns" this article nor is anyone protecting a "fable" by suppressing "a point of historical fact". You suggested an edit; we pointed out the problems, yet you evidently will not or cannot listen, and instead choose (the idea that anything I wrote left you "no choice but to continue" is ludicrous and implies you are incapable of controlling yourself) to continue pushing an edit to the lede whose citations are inadequate. You made the suggestion; the edit was discussed and its problems were pointed out. Move on, please. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. You guys keep telling me to stop debating and move on. Then you pounce on me again, pushing me to keep debating. Is the rule here that you get to have the last word? You are right. I misread Xover. My apologies. Now that I reread what he said, he’s simply wrong (as are you). On the essential point relevant to my proposed edit, Gibson states that Hall believed the author of V & A was using a pseudonym. Can we make the huge assumption that Gibson believed “the author” of V & A was Shakespeare? If he did, I’m right, you’re wrong. I would cite your for "refusal to get the point" and "tendentious editing", but your powers here are greater than mine, and I find it rather unsettling that, having been encouraged to participate, having been provoked over and over, I now see (in the draft of you last post) that my very words and sentences are being catagoricaly criticized. No doubt you are keeping score. How am I doing? What's my score? And you think this isn't Orwellian? For whatever it's worth, the citation would be Gibson, not Theobald, and, based on Wikipedia rules, as I read them, Gibson ought to be a perfectly acceptable source. --Ssteinburg (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You have my deepest sympathy.

You write, "Gibson states that Hall believed the author of V & A was using a pseudonym." Your confidence is misplaced; he flatly does not say that.

As Paul quoted above, Gibson wrote "We may agree that Hall is patting himself on the back because he thinks he has guessed the identity of an author writing under a pseudonym and collaborating with an inferior poet, and that he is aiming his satire at this author, but that he believed Bacon to be the author in question is not so certain." Please find a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word "may". Mine says the word expresses possibility or permission; it does not mean "must". IOW Gibson is saying that even if we grant that Hall is saying that he has identified a pseudonymous author, which interpretation is by no means certain, but evenif we do then he (Hall) is not saying that Bacon was the author nor does he (Hall) even identify the poem. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Your link “may” be clever, but it is flippant and your intent is clearly to insult. You insult me again saying I should “find a dictionary”. There appear to be no limits on your behavior. Where are the referees? I’m not a grammarian, but I know that the nuanced “we allow ourselves” usage of “may” is common, and, if we can find a grammarian, I think they will confirm that, logically and conventionally, this is the meaning Gibson intended; a meaning that implies agreement. Again, Bacon has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. --Ssteinburg (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Niggling

Praises of "Shakespeare" the writer are explained as references to the real author's pen-name, not the man from Stratford

I instinctively bridle at 'Praises' as an unqualified subject. I know one 'sings the praises of', etc., but I usually think that in this context, in standard English (anglocentric) prose, 'Praise' is used as an abstract generic noun, with plural meaning. I expect: 'Praise of Shakespeare . .is explained' etc. It's true I'm plum-tuckered out, flat out like a lizard slaking its thirst in the Stony Desert , burnt to a GrahamGreenish crisp etc., and may well be suffering from lexicological paranoia, but before the eyelids drop, and fingers wither, I thought I'd just pop this query. Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that you survive to read this, I will suggest that we cannot simply change "praises" to "praise". We'd have to write the sentence as:

Praise of "Shakespeare" the writer is explained as referring to the real author's pen-name, not the man from Stratford.

But I'm sure you knew this (unless you were truly hallucinating). The problem with this change is that it might be taken as a single instance of praise, or, if comprehended as praise in general, it still might not be quite what the passage is getting at. Aren't we referring to a number of more or less well-known praises that have come down to us in writings of the period, rather than just praise in general? Yes, the "praise in general" in a way encompasses the "plural meaning", but don't we mean to emphasize the fact that there were several individual instances? (Hang in there, Nish! Keep the faith! You will make it.) --Alan W (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

We all 'made it'. Naturally, as almost always, this is ambiguous and I mean that, in both primary senses! Thanks Alan.Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Great job!

Thanks to all who pitched in and achieved an almost-impossible task on such a controversial topic and formerly-troubled article. All of the changes that were made after FA nomination convinced me I dont' really have all that good an eye for first-rate quality when it comes to encyclopedia articles. I've nominated it at the featured article request page for April 23, and some of you who know more about this than I do might want to take a look at it.

I also hope that the improvements don't cease just because the page was promoted. I know plenty of work remains for the article to be as comprehensive and neutral as possible, and I hope some of you feel the same way. I do know that i plan to take a break for month or so from editing so I can catch up with a couple of projects I've neglected over the past year. (And maybe I can also stop using Brit spelling for a while and stop getting funny looks from people at work!) Once again, I really appreciate all the time and effort that went into this project. I think we can all be proud of our accomplishment. Cheers mates! Tom Reedy (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Wrad (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! While my reservations remain, the unstinting labours of a dedicated crew are certainly evident in the present form of the article. Fotoguzzi (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well done to all involved. The correct decision was reached and the article was improved significantly in the process. Poujeaux (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Well done to those who took the brownfield site left after the carpet-bombing and constructed such an architectural wonder. I haven't yet looked at the body of the article but the lede is very much improved from last time I looked in.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Loose ends

I'm going through and cleaning up any loose ends I can find with the language. I have a question about this sentence: "They attempt to disqualify William Shakespeare as the author and usually offer supporting arguments for a substitute candidate."

Why is the "usually" there? I propose it be changed to "They attempt to disqualify William Shakespeare as the author and present a case for their substitute candidate." Tom Reedy (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Greenwood tradition (1908), picked up by Twain and now ostensibly programmatic for those who underwrite the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, whereby one dismisses Shakespeare and leaves the who dunnit hanging in the air.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OK how about "They attempt to disqualify William Shakespeare as the author and usually present a case for a substitute candidate"? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What about: "They attempt to cast doubt upon William Shakespeare of Stratford as being the author and have, historically, often presented a case for a substitute candidate"?Rogala (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

They don't attempt to merely cast doubt; they try to disqualify him. "being" is unnecessary and grating to the ear. The "historically" is assumed from the first sentence in the graf, and the statement is not confined to the past. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You actually raise a very good point and, although I think it will be perceived as a minor point to some, in the spirit of trying to eliminate factual error, I want to mention it. Please note the preceding sentence in the Overview: "The arguments presented by Anti-Stratfordians—a collective term for adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories—share several characteristics". Per Nishdani's very correct statement about the Dec. of Reasonable Doubt crowd (arguably the most currently notable star in the AS firmament) that sentence is incorrect. Its assertion that it is only those with an alternate candidate in mind who may be called "anti-Stratfordians" is simply in error. Anti-Stratfordians must be defined rather, along the lines of ..."all those having doubt about the authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon" to be factually accurate, complete and reliable.

I agree that there have been very few generic anti-Stratfordian proponents over the 150+ year history of this phenomenon who did not eventually choose an alternate candidate. This is, BTW, one of the weaknesses of trying to come up with a list of generic AS statements as is attempted by the current SAQ. The Dec. of Reas. Doubt from "Doubt About Will" does represent a notable stage of anti-Strat. efforts as it (arguably) goes back to some past anti-Strat. ideas (Henry James, early Twain, etc.) related to "doubt about the traditional authorship attribution without naming a specific candidate" or describing any theory of alternate authorship.

To be factually accurate, the whole first paragraph of the overview should (in my opinion) be re-written as follows:

The arguments presented by anti-Stratfordians—a collective term for both those who are generally skeptical of William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author plus those who become adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories—share one characteristic: They assert that the Shakespeare canon could have been written by someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford. A majority of anti-Stratfordians postulate some type of conspiracy that protected the author's true identity.Rogala (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I see what you're driving at here, but wouldn't it be fair to say that the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, rather than being “generally skeptical”, are trying to foster “bi-partisan” collaboration by omitting the various individually favored alternate candidates? That is, rather than being agnostic about the “real” author, they are merely refraining from mentioning who they favor in order to keep the Oxfordians and Baconians from beating each other to death with the nearest Marlovian. --Xover (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The statements as written are correct, since they contain the qualifiers "usually" or "often", which allows that there are some few exceptions to the first sentence's umbrella "share certain characteristics". Not very many anti-Stratfordians say "I don't know who wrote them but I know Willy didn't." Those that do so are the exceptions. Since this is a general overview, either version is correct, but my purpose was to try to simplify the construction, not ensure that we nod to every variant theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Xover: Brilliant insight...as that is exactly the thought I have been turning over in my mind since 2007. I have not seen any reports to that effect in the media or in any RS, however, and the website itself disavows that entirely in the text of the document. In the absence of those statements, I think your conjecture, though it MAY WELL be accurate, is either "original research" or perhaps synthesis and not permissible on WP. Note: Even if it is accurate as to the founders of the DAW movement, it does not apply to all adherents, or even necessarily, the majority of adherents.

@ Tom Reedy: I think my statement above demonstrates (prima facie) that the current opening of the Overview is in error, pure and simple, in both the technical definition of anti-Strats and where it goes in the next sentence. It is easily corrected though and should not lead to a huge debate. I agree your construction is simpler, but that is not a substitute for factual.Rogala (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently we impute different meanings to English words. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I just thought of something: I suppose one could take the position that the "Doubt About Will" people are NOT actually anti-Stratfordian per se. Question for the editors: Are the DAW signers anti-Strats or not ?Rogala (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Tom Reedy: LOL...I hope not. Please forgive me if my meaning was unclear, I will try again: The first sentence in the Overview does NOT contain the words "usually" or "often" in its definition of the term anti-Stratfordian. That is a fact. It does contain what may or may NOT be a mistaken definition of the term "anti-Stratfordian". That is open for dialogue. The second and third sentneces DO contain the words "usually" and "often" but they do so in referring to the definition of the term "anti-Stratfordian" (which, as noted above is possibly mistaken). Thus...no opposing word imputations exist....just a possibly mistaken or incomplete definition and some modifiers which are therefore logically misplaced unless one somehow EXCLUDES generic doubters from the cohort of "anti-Stratfordians".

This is not mere word-smithing..it address a potential error of fact.

Whew...anyway, does anyone care to comment on the substantive portion of what I wrote regarding the prima facie error in that first paragraph ?? Or perhaps comment on the validity of possibly excluding the "Doubt About Will" crowd from the blanket cohort currently termed "anti-Stratfordian" ? Rogala (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this work ?

The arguments presented by anti-Stratfordians—a collective term for those who doubt that the Shakespeare canon was written by William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon—often share several characteristics.[20] They attempt to disqualify Shakespeare of Stratford as the author and usually offer supporting arguments for a substitute candidate. They often postulate some type of conspiracy that protected the author's true identity,[21] which they say explains why no documentary evidence exists for their candidate and why the historical record supports Shakespeare of Stratford's authorship.[22]

It eliminates the incorrect/incomplete definition of anti-Stratfordians by placing "all doubters" of Shakespeare of Stratford together, and it therefore preserves the ability to more easily make generalized statements about them as a group (which I perceive as being very important to some editors). It also disambiguates between William Shakespeare of Stratford and the concept of the proposed pen-name with considerable economy of expresssion.

Lastly, it keeps all the statements about the anti-Stratfordians as a group which were already there.Rogala (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Procedurally, it is always best to examine the sources behind statements. In this case Baldick 2008, pp. 17–18; Bate 1998, pp. 68–70; Wadsworth 1958, pp. 2, 6–7; Matus 1994, p. 15 note; Wells 2003, p. 388; Love 2002, p. 198: Wadsworth 1958, p. 6; Shapiro 2010, p. 255 (225). One must always ask oneself: is the point or distinction I wish to make reflected in the sources?Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

@Rogala: I think the current text in the "Overview" is simpler and good. It could be argued that "adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories" excludes someone who merely doubts that Shakespeare wrote the works, but I think the comparative rarity of that expressed sentiment means the distinction is not worth making. Further, a reader would understand that such a "doubter" is still an adherent of an alternative-authorship theory (the alternative being "don't know"). There is no need to disambiguate "Shakespeare" in the context of the overview because the meaning is clear. Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll take a vacation like I said I would do earlier. I only wanted to clean up a little and it resulted in this wall of text and I certainly don't want to debate the issue. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just so I am sure I understand the reasoning of the other editors, please give me your opinions on which of the below is the clearest, most factual and most directly verifiable in an RS as cited in the current article:

1) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories,

2) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for those who question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works long attributed to him,

3) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for those who doubt that the Shakespeare canon was written by William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon,

4) anti-Stratfordian-a collective term for those reluctant to accept William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author of the canon published in his name.

Before you answer, please consider the definition in the lead (and most recent) source actually cited. As Nishidani wisely suggested, I looked it up yesterday before I got into this thread too deeply. From Baldick's "Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms", the definition is "anti-Stratfordian: Reluctant to accept William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon as the true author of plays and poems published in his name..." If Baldick sees fit to make this distinction as to "Stratford-upon-Avon", then I say, so should Wikipedia.

BTW, the second source (Bate from 1998) does not define "anti-Stratfordian" on the pages cited. He does use the phrase "the theory that William Shakespeare of Stratford did not write the works of Shakespeare" in that section though, and he relates it to Anti-Stratfordians a few lines down.

The bottom line is that the phrase as written in the SAQ is inconsistent with the sources cited, as has been demonstrated. It therefore does need to be edited. Any editor can do this, but, as this rather long exercise in getting consensus proves, I would prefer that we get our minds around one of the choices which is accurate, factual and consistent with the sources cited. That being said, the WP:BOLD guideline probably does apply when a) errors of fact and b) phrases clearly inconsistent with the sources cited are used.Rogala (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is pointless. The first phrase is concise and clear. The longer ones are turgid and confusing. I see no inconsistency with the sources and no-one - Strat, anti-Strat, agnostic - has objected before. I'm all for accuracy, but the FAC review was very harsh on long, confusing constructions that try to cover all bases. We need to be clear. Also, Anti-Strats are not simply sceptical, by defintion they assert that WS was not the author. The works were not "long attributed to him". They always were and still are. I see nothing wrong with "alternative-author theories", since that includes anyone who thinks there was a different author but who does not know who it was. That is a theory that there must be an alternative author. Paul B (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I should like to respectfully disagree in no uncertain terms with Paul's assertion that "this is pointless" as well as the implication of his further claim that "the first phrase is concise and clear." Clarity is no virtue when content deceives. And, indeed, the case against the present wording is far worse than even Rogala seems to be aware. Per Nishidani "it is always best to examine the sources behind statements." This is indeed true and one generic failing of the present document is that it so often depends on the kind of secondary or tertiary sources such as those cited in order to make a point when consultation with original documents will put the matter beyond dispute. It is beyond reasonable dispute that the single most important anti-Stratfordian of the twentieth century (possibly excepting Looney) did not support any definitive alternative candidate. That person was Sir George Greenwood. Greenwood's reticence to follow the Baconian path was anticipated by BOTH Twain and Whitman, with Whitman for his part explicitly disavowing Bacon and telling Horace Trauble, "we shall see, we shall see" -- intimating a belief that the real author had not yet been named as well as making crystal clear that he opposed the Stratfordian interpretation but was unwilling to offer a definitive alternative (See http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/whitman.htm). Greenwood's agnosticism frustrated Andrew Lang, who in one of the most important anti-anti-Stratfordian books ever written, Shakespeare, Bacon and the Great Unknown, mocked him as an advocate of the "great unknown." Note the title of Lang's book. In 1912 "the great unknown" was still a major player, and many of the best minds like Greenwood's not only did not make claims for an alternative author but refused to endorse any of those then in existence. It therefore seems to me that not only is the point a substantive one, but that Rogala's insistence on defending accuracy in wording in this case rest on an absolutely correct view of the history of the dispute, however one reconstructs the view of the contemporary DRD document. It is simply not historically accurate to claim otherwise, end of subject.--BenJonson (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Gee Ben, I thought you were topic banned. However, I agree with what you say. As is so often the case, you seem to have trouble construing what others say before you argue against it. I said "I see nothing wrong with [the phrase] "alternative-author theories", since that includes anyone who thinks there was a different author but who does not know who it was. That is a theory that there must be an alternative author." In other words, all anti-Stratfordianism implies an alternative author or authors, which is covered by the phrase "alternative-author theories". Now, if you'll excuse me I'll go back to reading Alfred Dodd. He's great fun. You'll be happy to know that Bacon was helping us from heaven to fight the Nazis back in '43. I know how strongly you feel about Nazis. Paul B (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I know you can't reply now, but I'll just add that the current phrasing is "alternative-authorship theories" (not "alternative-author theories" as I mistakenly wrote). This is very precise, since it allows for the group theories as well as for the Great Unknown, and even for the Great Invisibles, whose "vibrations" helped Bacon to be so amazingly creative according to Dodd. Paul B (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

BJ. 'Per Nishidani "it is always best to examine the sources behind statements".' I.e. the sources behind statements made in wiki articles. Editors must justify their proposed text by showing that they conform faithfully to the secondary sources employed for that section of text. This has nothing to do, as you think it does, with examining the original archival or historical matter on which the secondary or tertiary sources we use as references are based. To do this would be to engage in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH practices, as Steinburg did above in trying to make Gibson say something he clearly did not state. The practice is disallowed here. p.s. I believe you are not supposed to be commenting on these articles.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Rogala, you didn't take up my suggestion. This is an article providing an overview of an historic argument. The scholar who, having Joseph S. Galland's massive 6 volume Digesta Anti-Shakespeareana, with its list of 4509 items from 1856 to 1946 at hand, went more deeply than anyone else into the 'historical' intricacies of the subject, namely Wadsworth (1958), would certainly not accept your 'historically' as in '"They attempt to cast doubt upon William Shakespeare of Stratford as being the author and have, historically, often presented a case for a substitute candidate".' Greenwood, who invented the word 'Stratfordian', and perhaps Twain, were anomalies. Wadsworth, having surveyed far more of this than Gibson, Shapiro, Matus, McCrea or anyone else, wrote this:

'Paradoxically, the sceptics invarably offer as a substitute for the easily explained lack of evidence concerning William Shakespeare, the more troublesome picture of a vast conspiracy of silence about the real author . . .In addition, they are all strong believers in the wonders of class distinctions . .Almost invariably this violent dislike of the man of Stratford is balanced by a frenzied worship of the sceptic's own candidate . . .'Wadsworth (1958:6)

Greenwood was a noted exception. 'Historically', in the heyday of these febrile speculations before they almost died off (1950s-1980), anti-Stratfordism consisted of a two-pronged assault on the yokel and arguments for an alternative candidate.

The same is true of the conspiracy theme.

What has happened over the past decades is that Oxfordians absorbed the whole literature of those who argued against the Stratford yokel and for another candidate to push their candidate into front-runner, so that effectively anti-Stratfordian is now functionally synonymous with 'Oxfordian' (Matus 1994 p.15 note). Then in the Declaration, which is primarily organized by Oxfordians, they present themselves as doubters of the academic consensus about WS of Stratford, and stop there. In the wings, hovers however the Earl of Oxford.

The article is obliged to cover the whole terrain, and uses generalizations by qualified historians for the period 1848-2010. It cannot allow its general overview to be influenced by the tactical switches in promotional policy by those Oxfordians who are repackaging the story for this generation. The tactical switch on conspiracy relates to the 1987/1988 moot court verdicts. The tactical change to challenging publicly WS's rights, rather than pushing Oxford's case, may be due to the fact that Alan Nelson's 2003 biography made claims that Oxford was the outstanding cultural figure and intellectual genius of Elizabethan times seem ridiculous. The man who was paraded as the finest poet of our language couldn't even spell simple English words correctly, and flubs elementary tests for a minimal knowledge of legal clichés in Latin.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Which means that I thought Tom's questioning of 'usually' right in that it underplays the record, and wrong in so far as he proposed eliding it without adopting a more precise adverb. 'Usually' strikes me as a concession to delicate sensibilities belied by the literature, and therefore we should rather say, with Wadsworth, 'almost invariably'.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Paul B, you wrote:

1) "no-one - Strat, anti-Strat, agnostic - has objected before". Maybe they did not notice the definition didn't match the actual sources without the use of WP:SYNTHESIS ? I cannot help what is "past" but I can try to make the future language a bit crisper, where possible. I am trying to do so in with tremendous good faith.

2) "long attributed to him". That is a DIRECT quotation from Mr. James Shapiro on page #3 of his book (US Edition). It is actually in the first sentence of his book. As he is the only Stratfordian scholar to ever write a book on this subject, he probably deserves a little respect from this community.

Also, Can we PLEASE stick to the CONTENT here not past editing history ?? I've read it all and, while it does not reflect well on a number of people who WERE there, I was not one of them, so please: WP:CIVILITY and, with regards to this topic WP:BITE.

Thanks to all those who commented....especially Nishidani who took the time to give some good background detail. Your thoughts on this are high caliber in my opinion, but probably not permissible due to the rules which we all know about involving WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS.

So, back to my question, which "definition" is most DIRECTLY verifiable in an RS without resorting to WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS ?? It cannot be #1 as has been demonstrated. #2 is a close paraphrase of James Shapiro (with the addition of the words "of Stratford" from the current lead source) who would be troubled to be described as "turgid and confusing" by Paul B, I think. #3 is a paraphrase by me (I don't take offense at the "turgid and confusing" part). #4 is a the definition in the Oxford Dictionary if Literary Terms as I pointed out earlier with the word "canon" substituted for "plays and poems".

Is there any direct comment on this point ?

I personally like #4 as it is from the most recent source, but #2 isn't bad either. What POSSIBLE objection could there be to either of those considering the known quality of those sources and the complete unambiguity of the definition ? Rogala (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I will be away from the computer for awhile as I am actually going to SEE a Shakespeare play tonight rather than just write about the authorship. Please do not interpret my temporary non-responsiveness for a few hours to be a sign of brusque-ness.Rogala (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not going to end well because you are repeatedly pursuing a pointless distinction while using far too many words (in particular, the links to WP:XXX are entirely off topic). You have not identified any problem with the current wording, and you are not engaging with the detailed responses which explain that the current text is short, accurate, and easily understandable. Common sense is important at Wikipedia, and your "If Baldick sees fit to make this distinction as to "Stratford-upon-Avon", then I say, so should Wikipedia." comment fails to acknowledge that someone writing a definition of a term has to spell out what they are talking about, while such turgid detail is totally out of place in this article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are my last words on the subject for now. In one sentence (32 words total), here is what I am suggesting:

"The first sentence of the SAQ Overview should use the definition of "anti-Stratfordian" as provided in the first sentence of the lead source which was cited - 'The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms'."

That's it.

To me it is axiomatic that if one cites a dictionary as the source for a definition, one should use the definition printed in the source, not a new definition synthesized from several sources and possible WP:OR.

Johnuniq wrote: "You have not identified any problem with the current wording, and you are not engaging with the detailed responses which explain that the current text is short, accurate, and easily understandable."

Although "short", the current text is not accurate and likely falls afoul of exactly the WP guidelines I indicated for the reasons I indicated. It also does not match the text in the source cited. I am engaging with EXACTLY those responses.

Tom Reedy opened this section by soliciting feedback on this exact portion of the overview (the first paragraph). That is my feedback. Full disclosure: I have discussed this in detail with an admin and I am going to let it be at that.Rogala (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You repeatedly say it is not accurate, but I have yet to see any evidence that this is the case. As for OR, that does not mean we should use the exact words of a source. That is called quotation. We can and should use our own words as long as they are appropriate. The current phrase does not in any way correspond to WP:SYN, as far as I can see. It's just one of many possible formulations. You are, of course at liberty to raise the matter at the NOR noticeboard. It still remains entirely unclear to me what the problem is and why you are so-preoccupied with this. Paul B (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Paul B: Respectfully - Please feel free to see ruhrfisch's talk page for background on my interest in this. As to why the current text is inaccurrate, please feel free to re-ask that question on my talk page and I will re-state.

I might well ask back, however: Why is using the dictionary definition from the exact source already cited an issue for ANY concern at all ? (especially with the paraphrase I suggested using "canon" vs. "plays and poems" to prevent it being a quotation) What is up with that ? Can someone explain what I am missing ?

As for me, I desire to disengage on this topic for now as far as the SAQ talk page goes, but I think my points are crystal clear.Rogala (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Butting back in here for a moment, the "dictionary definition" is not used to support the anti-Stratfordian definition (which was inserted into that sentence as an afterthought); it is used to support the rest of the sentence. I recall a contentious discussion about the phrasing of that sentence (minus the anti-Stratfordian definition) because (IIRC) the original wording was "all share certain characteristics". If you have indeed followed the editing and discussion on this page as you say, then you certainly should be aware of the amount of thought and discussion that has gone into parsing almost every phrase in this article, and the surprise you expressed on Ruhrfisch's page ("I admit to being EXTREMELY surprised by the length of the discussion on the relatively simple issue which I pointed out") seems a bit out of place. In fact, it appears to me that you are the one lengthening this discussion by continually changing your focus, as a chronological reading of this page indicates. It appears that you are a bit confused being a bit less than ingenuous in claiming that clarifying the definition in line with a source was your only goal, since you admit above that you did not even read the sources until Nishidani referred you to them a day after you had already posted several times, and that you were only responding to my original query: My only question was about the use of the adverb "usually". I'll now go back to my refuge in hopes that this discussion is finished. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the current formulation is in fact the most accurate, but that's only one consideration. It is part of a sentence. Just dropping a sentence from a source into the middle of another sentence can make the whole confusing or more difficult to read, as I firmly believe all your suggestions do. Paul B (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Tom Reedy: You wrote: "It appears that you are being a bit less than ingenuous in claiming that clarifying the definition in line with a source was your only goal, since you admit above that you did not even read the sources until Nishidani referred you to them a day after you had already posted several times, and that you were only responding to my original query: My only question was about the use of the adverb "usually". I'll now go back to my refuge in hopes that this discussion is finished."

Please re-read the time stamps on both those posts and retract the accusation of being "less than ingenuous". I do take offense at that and it is in error. The entire paragraph is based on the definition in the first sentence. This includes the sentences which contains the word "usual" and "often", as you can see by re-reading the thread top to bottom. The conversation after this all flowed from your point, as the above dialogue reflects.Rogala (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

From Nishidani’s revision as of 08:17, 5 April 2011: Procedurally, it is always best to examine the sources behind statements. In this case Baldick 2008, pp. 17–18; Bate 1998, pp. 68–70; Wadsworth 1958, pp. 2, 6–7; Matus 1994, p. 15 note; Wells 2003, p. 388; Love 2002, p. 198: Wadsworth 1958, p. 6; Shapiro 2010, p. 255 (225). One must always ask oneself: is the point or distinction I wish to make reflected in the sources?

From your revision as of 18:42, 5 April 2011: As Nishidani wisely suggested, I looked it up yesterday before I wrote this post. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

@Tom Reedy: I revised it minutes later when I re-read what I had written as I realized it was unclear as to WHICH post I was referring...which was one my original posts. The point stands: I read the sources before I got too deeply into the thread to make sure that they supported to definition of the cohort which the words "usually" and "often" seek to further explain. Please check the "revision history" on all my posts and you will see I often revise them several times in the minutes after I originally post them. I am a poor speller when typing quickly and can also rightly be accused of thinking faster than I can type. I politely repeat my request for a retraction of your accusation.Rogala (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

NOTICE: I am following Paul B's suggestion and have posted it the NOR notice board for third party comment.[1]Rogala (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That’s great. Since you modestly make the claim to have read and internalized every major section of the guidelines over the past several years, you should have no problem figuring out what you should do next and to provide a link to the conversation. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have struck out and amended my comment that I made yesterday out of my irritation, and I agree that I should have been warned about my comment, especially since he was. If anything, I should be held to a higher standard, being an experienced editor of this page, and I apologise to Rogala for inappropriately venting my spleen. I fear that we are misunderstanding each other, as I cannot make much sense out of his subsequent clarification; there's a good possibility we're not even commenting on the same part of the section.

Apology most sincerely accepted.Rogala (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

While thinking about this last night I seem to recall that originally those were all one sentence that were broken up during an early RfC, and that the reference was misplaced, because the cite supports the second sentence much better than the first. IIRC (and I'm not going to wade through literally thousands of edits to find it) there was then a big discussion about the wording, which included the word "all", and only after that was the anti-Stratfordian definition tacked on. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I was the one that inserted what is essentially a parenthetical, and it was in response to comments at FAC that we used a specialist term without explaining to the reader its meaning. And I suspect a part of the confusion here stems from the idea that it is a definition of anti-Stratfordianism. It's not. It's an explanation of the specialist term (“jargon” if you like) “anti-Stratfordian”. And as such it is amply covered by the sources cited (not that they would be insufficient as a definition either, but a definition of less than one full sentence would be a bit ambitious in that case). I think there is also some further confusion in that it is inherent in any theory which asserts that Shakespeare was not the author that, since the works do demonstrably exists, someone else must have written them (whether a single individual, a coterie, or space aliens; and regardless of whether that someone or someones are known or unknown, or even unknowable). There is thus absolutely no need to specify that some anti-Stratfordians do not subscribe to any specific alternate author; the mere fact that they believe Shakespeare didn't write it means they adhere to a theory of alternate authorship. --Xover (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been called too verbose by some. I plead "too often guilty". I am going to re-state my idea pithily and then leave it alone.

Please compare these three statements below. I maintain #2 or #3 are preferable to #1 as they are 100% factually accurate and directly supported by the sources cited in plain English without the need for ANY possible interpretation (or "spin") by anyone either pro-Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian.

1) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories, (current)

2) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for those reluctant to accept William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author of the canon published in his name (close paraphrase of Baldick)

3) anti-Stratfordians-a collective term for those who believe that someone other than Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays and poems commonly attributed to him (close paraphrase of Prescott - which was cited by Nishidani late last week)

If the consensus of the current cohort of editors is that I am "wrong headed", then I must drop it until such time as consensus somehow changes. I accept that, and appreciate the time taken by all to discuss this.Rogala (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No one is calling anyone else "wrong headed"; or if they are, they shouldn't be, as criticism on Wikipedia is supposed to be of content, not persons.

I have done a fair amount of editing of this article, but never of the passage in question, so I think I can be reasonably objective about this. My opinion is that version #2 or version #3 might conceivably be preferable if at this point in the article the reader had not yet been given any clue as to what the SAQ is and might not learn much more afterward. But the lead, which the reader would normally just have read, already provides the right clues. A more succinct version fills the bill here--we want the Overview to be short. Even so, the following sentence does expand on the idea a bit, just in case anyone might be in doubt about some implications. On top of that, arriving at this wording involved a long evolution, with much debate, and I'd be inclined to give some benefit of the doubt to the editors who debated and worked on that passage. Not that it shouldn't still be changed if it is wrong. But, to me, it is certainly not wrong, and given what comes before and after, that phrase (the current choice, #1) seems just about perfect. --Alan W (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Good call, Alan. This has been raked over fairly thoroughly, indeed exhaustively. Nishidani (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

History

Hi. I'm doing some research on the history of the Oxfordian Theory and the Shakespeare Authorship Controversy and came here for help. I noticed some discrepancies between the main history article and this one, so I am trying to make them match up better. I also noticed that the history section of the Oxfordian Theory article is woefully inadequate. I'll try and fill that out a bit as well. - Anton321