Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

Oxford and Blackfriars

I have added a reliable source for the information about Oxford and his sublease of the Blackfriars. Smith uses Wallace sparingly as a source, and not at all on the topic of Oxford and Lyly, because Wallace is prone to romanticizing and what I call "doubtlessing". Wallace even has the location of the theatre incorrect, placing it on the ground floor. Smith is considered to be the best source for the history of the Blackfriars, and Wikipedia sourcing should avoid out-of-date sources and "cite present scholarly consensus when available." Wallace is 100 years old and is not a "standard academic text".

And no, I don't agree that a television show full of inaccuracies is an acceptable reference. WP:RS says that "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources", but this particular production is full of opinion as fact and has been strongly criticized for its inaccuracies. See [1] and [2]. In point of fact, WP:NEWSORG, which you give as justification, states that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The show you want to use as a ref is not fact.

Speaking of sourcing, I would appreciate if you, Smatprt, would actually read the sources and accurately cite them instead of pulling page numbers out of the air or not giving them at all. The Bethell cites are a good example of the latter, but citing works you have not read has been a continuing problem on this and the Oxford page. I don't have as much free time nowadays to go right behind you, and often several days or weeks pass before I can check your citations. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the additional source for Blackfriars, and suggest we keep both sources until this dispute is resolved. As there is no "romanticizing" in the information being quoted, I don't see how your most recent complaint about Wallace has any merit. These are undisputed facts and hardly controversial, but since the editors here seem to want a reference for even uncontroversial items, so be it.

You are incorrect as to PBS - the thought that any news outlet that receives criticism is no longer RS is just not policy. Think of the ramifications if your assertion were correct. But thank you for the policy quote - again, it bolsters my position, as the item being sourced is the opinion of Oxfordians ("Oxfordians believe...", not a controversial statements of fact. Or are you saying that Oxfordians don't believe that Oxford was anonymously or under a pseudonym?

As to your last little attack, please stop with the accusations. The Bethell article is linked to a two page web article (the preferred medium here on Wikipedia), that comes up as one page if you wish. Just follow the trail. As to your other accusations, I can only request that you be specific or it just appears like the common whining of the old days.

I would also ask that you refrain from simply deleting existing material you suddenly question the RS for. The first step is to place a fact tag on the material or start a discussion. Too often you use the RS argument (or you attempt to redefine RS) in order to delete material, even when you know full well that the source is accurate. Isn't this game playing becoming tiresome? In any case, simply fact tag the item or the RS in question and we can look at each item in as much depth as you wish. If we can't resolve it, then we are bound by ArbCom to go to dispute resolution. Simply deleting material or deciding on your own (based on your own opinion) that something isn't RS, and avoiding the dispute resolution process entirely, is not what ArbCom recommended we do. Smatprt (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

More interesting than the question of why Tom wants to delete the source, is why you want to keep it. It adds nothing to the article. There are sometimes legitimate reasons for using old sources, but when there is a great deal of scholarship on a topic, there is simply no need to do so. We should prefer up-to-date sources when they are to be found. As for PBS, yes, again mainstream news channels are generally "reliable" in a broad sense but they should not be used for topics where scholarship exists. Reliability is a continuum, not an absolute. Yes, you are right that the statement in itself is not controversial, but I would much prefer a better source. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Smatprt, you might as well open up some type of dispute resolution, because your insistence on using out-of-date refs and citing refs that don't support the statement grows wearisome and is time-consuming.

Earlier this month I made some edits on the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page, which you promptly reverted with the statement that you were "restoring as per BRD (Bold-Revert-Discuss)." You then added an outdated ref from 1854, and added Bevington as another ref for Ward's speculation that Oxford produced court entertainments. You added Manzer as further support for Ward's speculation. I reverted, posted to the talk page, and you finally responded after reverting. However, neither of the new refs you added supported the statement, and obviously you didn't understand that Ward is speculating, because you continued to re-add him and the outdated source as refs and you also cut material you didn't like.

Now on this page I removed your citation of Menzer, p. 89, that you used to support "He subleased the Blackfriars Theatre in the mid-1580s." It was explained to you on the Oxford page that Menzer did not support the statement. In fact, there is nothing about the Blackfriars on that page, and the article is entitled "Professional Players in Stratford on Avon, 1587-1602." And now you want to add another outdated ref from 1912 with the justification "to verify/support any missing details from other references". Sorry, but we don't use catch-all references "just in case" something stated isn't supported by other refs. And in this case I think the time element is important; the way it is written readers would think that Oxford was the owner of the Blackfriars during its entire existence.

As to the Bethell and PBS refs, I'm OK with your explanation for the first; as for the second, I'm sure TV shows are good enough refs for the material, but if you want to use it, I ask that you format the second in an acceptable form for this page.

Regarding your last paragraph, I suggest you read WP:BURDEN, which is policy. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The 1854 reference wasn't even as recent as that. It was a reprint of Johnson's Lives of the Poets (with Hazlitt's later additions on later poets). Johnson published it in 1781. Paul B (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Either way, that and the Wallace source are not preferred refs in a featured article. If this ends up going to dispute resolution it's OK with me, but I think it's a frivolous action given that policy is explicit on this: "However, some scholarly material may be outdated . . . . Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available." Tom Reedy (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom: Re the Bethell article, now that you are citing pages in the printed Atlantic Monthly, I see an inconsistency. The item in the References gives the page range for the article as "45–61". Yet specific citations are to page numbers as low as 36 and as high as 78. Some reconciliation needs to be done, and I do not have easy access to the right library, nor the time right now to do this myself. --Alan W (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Bethell also has a 3-page "Reply" to Matus in which the statements appears that support "his family connections including the patrons of Shakespeare's First Folio", which isn't part of the web version. I'll just add those page numbers to the ref. Contrary to Smatprt's idea that web sources are the "preferred medium here on Wikipedia" (I'm sure they are for Oxfordian, anti-Strat, and other Google scholars), when a printed source is cited the page numbers should be part of the cite.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Reedy (talk • contribs) 04:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There is still a reference to "p. 36" (in what is currently footnote 24) and, since you seem to be trying to attach pages in the printed version to all Bethell citations, one without a page or pages in what is now footnote 189. --Alan W (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

OK I fixed the first one. The second one is just a reference to the article and doesn't need page numbers. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the sources chosen, the context here is Oxfords notable patronage, not detailing the lease. I have adjusted accordingly. Regarding your long rant, Tom, I believe the Menzer issue is one of a case of different editions, but of course you just assume the worst, and start flinging mud. As to formatting refs the way you want them, feel free, but don't assign me duties. I have enough on my plate, thanks. Smatprt (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah - correction - Tom, you are so busy deleting statements and references that you lost track of your own work. The Menzer quote from page 89 concerned Oxford's players appearing at court and had nothing to do with Blackfriars. Next time you come out swinging, please check your own work. And also withdraw that particular part of your long statement above. Smatprt (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to check the edit history; you're the one who lost track because you don't pay that much attention to begin with. Here's the sentence the Menzer cite supposedly supported: "He held the lease of the first Blackfriars Theatre in the mid-1580s, and produced entertainments at Court." The problem is that the source doesn't say anything at all about Oxford producing entertainments at court or anywhere else; it's merely more Oxfordian scholarship, which is another way of saying it's not true. I gave you a list above with other examples of this kind of bullshit editing, so no withdrawal of my accurate statements will be forthcoming.

I also replaced your vague "mid-1580s"s with an accurate date. If you change it back please give us an explanation of why you prefer impreciseness to accuracy. And nobody's giving you assignments; a tag is for anybody who wants to furnish the information. If you don't want to do quality editing, the next time you add inaccurate information or citations I'll just delete it instead of tagging so you won't feel like you're being given assignments. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

More personal attacks. What a surprise. And what "tags?? You said " I ask that you format the second in an acceptable form for this page" - acceptable to you?? Format any refs yourself - I'll supply them however I choose. btw - iirc, the pbs ref used to be formatted better - but you deleted it. Once again, I ask that you keep track of your numerous deletions, and fix your own mistakes if they bother you that much. Smatprt (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

group theory

proposed section:

In the 1960s, the most popular general theory was that Shakespeare's plays and poems were the work of a group rather than one individual. A group consisting of Bacon, William Stanley, Oxford, Mary Sidney, and others, has been put forward, for example. In 2010, the group theory was advocated by renowned actor Derek Jacobi, who told the British press, "I subscribe to the group theory. I don't think anybody could do it on their own. I think the leading light was probably de Vere, as I agree that an author writes about his own experiences, his own life and personalities."

I have started a placeholder section on the group theory. Of course, feel free to rewrite the whole section, but the group theory is practically absent from this article, which is surprising, given the amount of play its received over the years. Another big hole that needs attention. Anyone? Paul?Smatprt (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And again you come in and make a flurry of substantial edits to a featured article without talk-page consensus, which is the very definition of disruptive editing.. You've done this several times in the past with the same result each time, so I have no idea why you insist on using the same strategy. Please list and discuss the changes you wish to make before making such changes, as per the editorial process for building consensus. Just in the past few days I see that you've hit six out of 14.

And please learn how to format your refs according to featured article requirements. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added Smatprt's proposed "placeholder" section at the beginning of this section. I think the problem with the group theory is that it is not really a single theory. Baconians (most notably Delia herself) have been groupists, or semi-groupists, and so have Oxfordians (Percy Allen came to believe that Oxford worked with others). Of course there are variations and disputes even within the single-author versions, but at least those can usually be described. The group theory is so diverse I'm not sure that's possible. At least I don't think there is much point in a separate section. As for the claim that the theory was most popular in the 1960s - is there any evidence for that? The claim appears to be cited to McMichael and Glenn's book, which was published in 1962, before most of the 1960s had occurred. The rest of the section suffers from the problem that it does not provide information, but rather advocacy. We have the statement that it was "the most popular general theory". Well, no, most popular "alternative" theory, perhaps. The rest is just about the fact that "renowned actor" Derek Jacobi gives his support to it. But renowned actor Derek Jacobi is not any kind of expert, and in any case we learn nothing about the history of or arguments for this theory. It just about getting celebrity endorsement - mainly for De Vere in a section that's not even supposed to be about him. There is already reference to group models in the Bacon and Marlowe sections. We could add a sentence to the Oxford section too. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I saw, also: mainly a celebrity endorsement with no real information. I've read several differing statements that some kind of the group theory was the most popular in the 1890s, the 1920s, the 1930s, and the 1960s, but none in a reliable source that I can recall. In any case, a featured article is not a sandbox in which to store "placeholder" sections. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course Derby was a groupie too, at least according to A. J. Evans in Shakespeare's Magic Circle (1956), and that was before groupies were most popular in the swinging 60s. So they've all been groupies at one time. Maybe we could have a sentence or two added to the opening passage that introduces the famous four, noting that they have all been propsed as leaders of or participants in group activities of various kinds. Paul B (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a historical fact that Orazio Cogno was part of oxford's group. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Group mark II

Collaboration in playwriting was common during the Elizabethan era, with writers such as Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, and William Shakespeare appearing as co-authors of plays. Recent scholarship has indicated that many collaborations went unrecorded, including a number of Shakespearean works. As early as the mid-1800's, authorship researchers have theorized that a group of writers was responsible for the Shakespearean canon. Edward de Vere (Oxford), Francis Bacon, Roger Manners, William Herbert and Mary Sidney Herbert have all been suggested as members of such a group, referred to in the 1960's as "The Oxford Syndicate".[196] In addition, playwrights such as Christopher Marlowe, Robert Greene and Thomas Nashe have been proposed as participants. Some variants of the group theory also include William Shakespeare of Stratford as the group's manager, broker and front man.[197]

Smatprt's new "group theory" is yet another example of blatant Oxfordian promotionalism, which segues from mainstream models of collaboration to a wholly fringe theory of group authorship in order to make the latter seems reasonable, and indeed consistent with "recent scholarship". It also once more seeks to put the supposed "Oxford Syndicate" at the centre in defiance of all the long history of group authorship models. If there were a proper group authorship section it would clearly distinguish between normal authorship collaborations, re-writes etc - a phenomenon still very common today - and the fringe theory that a cabal somehow got together to produce a canon of work under the name "William Shakespeare". In the latter case we would have to look at all the relevant models in order - D. Bacons' model; later Baconian cabal models; the various group theories of the 1900s; Allen's model; Evans' model; and also the "Oxford Syndicate" model, Sidney model etc. As I said before, I don't think there is much point to this, as there is no real group model as such, with its own specific arguments and counter-arguments. There is just the notion that various authors got together. Sometimes Oxford, Derby or someone else is the leader of the group; sometimes there is no leader. BTW, shocking as it may seem, some versions of the group theory actually include William Shakespeare as a writer! Paul B (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that a sentence or two be added to the intro section before the four main candidates, stating that all the candidates have been at various times supposed to have been parts of groups, sometimes as the "leader" of a group, sometimes as a mere member. Paul B (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you're thinking of something along the lines of "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, most of whom have also been proposed as members of a group that collectively wrote the works", or even another sentence tacked on to that paragraph.

I dunno. The group theory is mentioned three times in the article already, beginning with Delia Bacon's theory, which is usually thought of as the Baconian theory. I'm really and truly unaware of any groups theories that attracted very many believers. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how many believers there have been. At least with Oxford or Bacon you can say "X was a believer in this candidate", because "this candidate" is the same person, so you have a following as it were. With groups, each group is different. So each believer is not part of a "faction" supporting the same essential idea. Yes, the group theory is mentioned three times, but it's rather arbitrary that it's mentioned in connection with Bacon and Marlowe, but not Derby and Oxford. I also think a sentence should be added stating that some supporters of each one of the main candidates have attributed works published under the names of other writers to their hero. The tendency to add to the canon of the "real" Shakespeare is common to all the SAQ models. Paul B (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's the trouble with all the authorship theories; in addition to each group being different, and each candidate argument being slightly different, you can almost say that each individual believer subscribes to a slightly different theory: some Oxfordians hate the PT theory; some love it; some accept part of it and reject other parts, and so on ad infinitum. Since it's all fantasy anyway, each believer is free to incorporate his or her individual variation that they say "opens up" the works for them so they can personalise their appreciation of the canon, since their basic understanding of art is as a form of personal expression. This makes writing an article that meets the approval of anti-Stratfordians an impossibility.

I would have no problem with a few paragraphs about group theories if it met the criteria of a featured article and went through the collaborative editing procedure for this article as per the arb sanctions (i.e. 1. talkpage, 2. talkpage, 3. talkpage), but I see no reason to include a vague paragraph that doesn't add anything beyond establishing that such theories exist; we already have that. I would think it would begin with Delia Bacon's group and selectively bring it up to date, using reliable sources, but I don't really want to take the time to research and write it. Apparently no one else does, either. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The above conversation lacks one thing - any policy based reason to exclude the section, other than that neither of you either knows how or cares to work on a group theory section. Is that what you are saying? aAlso, is there anything in the recent section that is untrue or not referenced? Smatprt (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant policies are general ones - concerning content, readability, relevance and length (WP:LIMIT; WP:SS). We are not apparatchiks dependent on Party Doctrine for our every move. It is normal to make editorial decisions about content based on general discussion and consensus. Equally, there is no "policy based reason" why we should have such a special separate section. The topic is already discussed in the article. Paul B (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither of us have mentioned excluding a section about groupists; our objection is that what has been offered adds nothing at all beyond a celebrity endorsement, and we have questioned whether "various 'group' theories have also achieved a notable level of interest", as you put in the lede. And no matter what you think of Paul's or my editing ability, there's no call for your snide comment. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding this at the end because there is not an obvious place to insert it: Sir Thomas More certainly seems to be an example of group writing, if another example is needed. Haven't group theories been offered over the years which include William Shakspere and which do not? That is, while it may be hard to state which theories are current and worthwhile, there do seem to have been theories both involving Shakspere and excluding him. Fotoguzzi (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

STM is an example of collaborative writing, not an example of a group collaborating to write the Shakespeare works. I've stated my opinion on adding any more material on group theories to the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy in section on Anonymous

While we're discussing it, you might want to give us a policy-based reason for why you want to exclude the details of the movie that have been mentioned in every review that I've read. It's not a "plot twist"—as you put it—for which we want to insert a spoiler. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The details you refer to, which you earlier called a "major premise" are only revealed in the last 5 minutes of the movie, and are intentionally left ambiguous. They are, indeed, a plot twist. Have you even seen the movie?. In any case, adding a plot twist/plot spolier, and characterizing them as a legitimate plot summary, or as an accurate description of the major premise is simply inaccurate. And reviews are opinion pieces, not the best sources for simple plot summaries. If you want an accurate plot summary, go to the studio, thw writer, the director, or the various movie databases. Smatprt (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is supposed to provide relevant information. The fact that the movie is based on PTII is relevant to this article. These facts are also mentioned in the Prince Tudor theory article. Yes, we know you want to minimise all mention of PT because you don't like it, but it's a major feature of modern versions of Oxfordism. Paul B (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If Oxford wrote the Sonnets and could not reveal his authorship as part of a bargain for saving his son and half-brother, I would indeed call that a "major premise" of the movie. Major premises are often left unspoken until the end of books or movies; they explain everything that has gone before. Would you call the fact that Bruce Willis' character in The Sixth Sense is dead during the entire movie a "plot point" or a major premise? It's not like an O'Henry story or a Twilight Zone episode in which the character finds out that he's being held captive in an alien zoo. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom, while it appears that it has become standard practice on this page to try and talk something to death, I just don't have any interest in going down that road, especially when "consensus building" is being used as a stalling tactic. I have provided my reasons consisely above and have expanded upon them with my edit summaries, which you never appear to read. Here they are:

• Devere is not "depicted" as illegitimate until the last few minutes, an accusation that is left ambiguous at the movies end. Please don't summarize plots if you have not even seen it.
• again, not a major premise, and no ref supplied says that it is. Links to the movie and the PT theory are already provided. imdb for plot ref.
• removing bogus ref, which does not mention any of this stuff!
• former version inaccurate, and RS provided was an opinion piece. We can't use someone's "interpretation" of the plot, and their mischaracterization of plot elements.Stick to uncontested facts.
• refs to professional film critics supplied. Removing plot summary items that are not consistently mentioned, or only serve as pointless plot spoilers. (no objection to PT mention, but need a RS, right???)

Between my edit summaries and my initial comment, I have provided more than enough reasons to justify my edits. One final observance - this section on "Anonymous" was not part of the FA and never achieved any sort of consensus. As we have seen, the reference originally supplied was a fake, citing an opinion piece that didn't contain any of the specific information being cited. I have now supplied refs to 4 Major movie critics (the bug guys:NYPOST, LATimes, Variety, Hollywood Reporter), as well as the IMDB site, confirming my edits. More are available, but even this sampling of major reviewers is pretty much unanimous about what the movie is "about". Smatprt (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether you want to participate in talk page discussion is beside the point, that point being that this article is under Abrcom sanctions to edit cooperatively. If you don't wish to do so, then don't edit this article; it's that simple.

This article is about the Shakespeare authorship question; it is not an article flogging a movie. The reviews you wish to cite as sources were all written to sell the movie, not provide commentary on the topic of this article. That is the reason why they don't include spoilers. Wikipedia, however, does not operate on the same rules as movie reviewers. For one thing, all reviews are opinions, and the opinion of a Shakespeare scholar is relevant to coverage of the SAQ, especially a section title "Authorship in the mainstream media". For another, it has already been explained to you that the fact that the movie is based on the PT2 theory is relevant to this article and that section. And for still another, Wikipedia guidelines for films state that "all of the film's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers ... In short, Wikipedia contains spoilers; please respect this policy (my emphasis).

As to IMBD as a source, it is specifically named as a trivial, not a reliable source, and at best a questionable source. As such, it is not acceptable for a featured article.

A questionable source comes down to what exactly is being sourced. For the basic plot line, usually not very controversial, and a plot line that is repeated in all the sources being discussed, the imbd listing is should be just fine. It sounds to me like you are now deciding what is allowable as a source and what is not, based on what you, Tom, decide is the "best" source. Is that what you are saying? Using this tactic, you simply decide that the "best" sources are those that happen to agree with you and your circle of editors. Now you are wiki-lawyering to the extreme, citing policies that don't apply or are misconstrued, and, as usual, are misrepresenting what I've said or done. Your bullying tactics and personal attacks are not surprising, but they do grow tiresome.Smatprt (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Please click on the links I provided and read them. "The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged.". I did not make that up. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Does improper reference formatting invalidate the reference itself?

Lastly, you have been asked more than once to format references according to style guidelines, which for FA articles are consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes ... or Harvard referencing". Note the "or"; it does not say "and", much less using bald URLs. This article uses Harvard referencing, but for some reason you want others to do the work for you and you say that you'll supply them however you choose. If you don't want to put in the work to conform to Wikipedia standards, I suggest that you don't edit the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that if a reference isn't formatted the way you want it, you will use that as a way to invalidate the reference and delete it and/or the information attached to it? FYI - the REASON I don't finish the referencing right away is that I have no intention of doing that kind of extra work when you are just going to delete everything anyway. I'm not going to play those games with you.Smatprt (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am saying several things: that the format for references for a featured article are spelled out in the guidelines for featured articles and that your refusal to conform to them—as well as the promotional nature of your edits—indicate your attitude toward your fellow editors and Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Morita

We can do away eventually with Morita's reference to Soseki's views. But I put it in because the text does argued that there is no individual personality in Shakespeare, who is in advance of Tolstoy, where, he argues, every now and then one can see the author's views in the people he portrays. Soseki's principle was summed up in 'sokuten kyoshi'(則天去私), the perfection of an author was to be judged by the degree to which he, to use Eliot's words, managed the extinction of his own identity while filling out the independent identities of his characters according to their natural lights. To 'follow heaven and abandon the self', while religious, had its aesthetic function, and Shakespeare was akin to 'god', precisely to the extent that, though God creates men, god is not in his creations. It's rather akin to Joyce's remarks in POTAAAYM:'The artist, like the God of the creation, remains within or behind or beyond or above his handiwork, invisible, refined out of existence, indifferent, paring his fingernails.' Alan, I phrased this in my last edit strictly as Soseki is reported as thinking. Soseki speaks directly of Shakespeare as managing to detach himself from his characters, like a god. This is not unique to Soseki, and your edit re Hazlitt and Keats is spot on, only the way you phrase it in the part attributed to Morita does not reflect that text (my fault: I should translate the section). It could be fixed simply by putting the Morita and Hazlitt/Keats (Bates?) references together at the end of the line. I'm sure further examples of this critical interpretation of Shakespeare will turn up, however, and we can dispense, if they are better, with the Japanese ref (though it does give wiki an international flavour to open specialized articles to all critical discourse, in whatever language). Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Hazlitt, long before Soseki was born, noted that at the heart of Shakespeare's genius was its submergence of self in its representative of other selves. "Shakespeare was the least of an egotist that it was possible to be. He was nothing in himself; but he was all that others were...." (Lectures on the English Poets, 1818). "His genius consisted in the faculty of transforming himself at will into whatever he chose....He was the Proteus of human intellect." ("On Genius and Common Sense", Table-Talk, 1821). And elsewhere. Keats's idea of "Negative Capability", influenced by Hazlitt, focused on Shakespeare as being able to represent life as objectively as any human could, without imposing his own preconceived ideas on what he represents. Shakespeare is the supreme instance of a "camelion Poet" (sic). The Godlike aspect of this kind of artistic creation may have been added to these concepts by others later in the century, but it is clear that this view of Shakespeare's genius was a major countercurrent in 19th-century thinking about Shakespeare. It was far from universal to assume that his own character, certainly not mundane facts of his daily life, could easily be deduced from his imaginative creations. I'm glad you expanded on this, Nishidani; it's a point worth emphasizing a bit more. As for the way I added the new footnote inadvertently making Soseki seem to say something he didn't, since you think that moving the Bate note to the end of the sentence with the Morita note will avoid being misleading in this way, I will do as you suggest now. Regards (and welcome back; I missed your contributions here; I'm glad that your definition of "retirement" is not quite so restrictive as I had feared). --Alan W (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Delia Bacon

...did not "formulate a theory". A "theory" (as in physics) has to be founded upon agreed upon facts (agreed on by divergent members of an intellectual community) and either at present (as in "string theory" or "theory of relativity") or at some time in the past ("theory of the ether") it must be, or have been accepted by otherwise diverging members of an intellectual community. This sloppiness of language dresses Denialists, whether of Shakespeare or the Holocaust in borrow'd robes.

The popular usage, although defined as the meaning of the word in the Compact OED, does not control in a modern intellectual community. The word "hypothesis" is used instead.

In fact, the only "theory" worth the name is "duh, Shakespeare wrote da plays" since it is (1) supported by the available evidence, (2) agreed upon by accepted members of the community, and (3) does not need the posit of conspiracy, which should be only made at the last resort because it puts the entire goddamn enterprise, of relying upon written evidence as opposed to oracle goddamn bones, under a fucking cloud.

Thank you for your brief attention, you clowns. Out, out brief candle.

Idiocracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.104.101 (talk • contribs)

'Theory' is a word, derived from 'theoria'. It has a long history and several usages. See theory. Its usage in science is not the'truth', just one of several ways in which the word is legitimately used. Try to read up on the subject before mouthing off. It is not "popular" usage. It predates the distinction you repeat. New comments go at the bottom of the page. Paul B (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Shapiro Contested Will, uses theory (citing also Hawthorne) to describe Delia Bacon's ideas (pp.91-101). In classical Greek, Θεωρία meant an embassy to an oracle, which pretty much fits to a cup of Tes what the Baconian crowd and their epigones engage in. I hope this placates the whinge. As to candles, you know the one about the rule governing certain cloisters: 'lights out at 10 pm, candles out at 11.'Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Delia hypothesizes at length [3], though perhaps this is indeed a theory, since it is certainly founded upon agreed upon facts. Paul B (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

'Organization' vs 'Organisation'

Whilst I applaud the decision to use British English for this article, the assumption that the word should therefore be spelt 'organisation' is incorrect. Although this spelling has undoubtedly become the more popular of the two over here, there is still a strong body of opinion preferring the spelling 'organization' which has traditionally been considered the better, both etymologically and phonetically. The OED entry for "-ize" explains why. The latest word on the subject that I can find is in R.L. Trask's "Mind The Gaffe" (Penguin, 2002, pp.162-3). He says - about the suffix in words like this - "In British English, the spelling with -ize is traditional, and is still preferred in many conservative quarters, for example at the Oxford University Press. But the newer spelling in -ise is now wide-spread in Britain and is preferred in other quarters. British writers may use whichever spelling they prefer, unless they are writing for a publishing house which insists upon one or the other." Since 'organization' is therefore acceptable in Britain, and 'organisation' considered wrong in America, may I suggest that we stick to the former? Peter Farey (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I generally prefer "ize" endings, but we should follow the UK norm, otherwise there will be endless reverts and knock-on disputes. This is the kind of pointless "issue" that causes unnecessary conflict, bad feeling, angry nationalistic defensiveness and revert wars. Best just leave it and live with "ise". Paul B (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the Americans think the -ise ending is wrong, whereas we Brits only prefer it. Since most of the "endless reverts and knock-on disputes" on this particular subject are, imho, much more likely to come from the States, I would have thought that your argument favours the -ize ending rather more than the other. That I politely suggested it here and didn't enter into an edit war with Alan W is I think relevant. The word appears just three times. Peter Farey (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you are likely to edit war. I'm suggesting that editors with nationalistic attitudes will edit war. It's one of those topics that some people get obsessed by (AD/BC v BCE/CE is another). Someone will come along and insist on converting back to "British" spelling. It happens regularly on articles with specifically British or US topics. We really can't decide unilaterally to use 'ize' endings for this specific article. It's a general policy matter. You can debate it on the talk page of WP:ENGVAR. Paul B (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah well, whilst I am sad that you don't respond to my actual argument, I suppose that you do have Shakespeare himself on your side. "Thou whoreson zed, thou unnecessary letter!" (KL 2.2.63) Peter Farey (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't respond to your argument because this is not the forum for it. Don't you get that? Paul B (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As an American, I do not automatically assume that "ise" is wrong, as I recognize/recognise it as the preferred British spelling. I do find it of interest that the British don't all necessarily like "organise". I still think, however, that if British spelling is to be used for this article, we should go with the more generally accepted "ise" endings, or we will have, as Paul says, no end of bickering. If "ize" in "organize", then why not in "criticize", etc.? Here is a practice where I think we are wisest to "go with the flow". --Alan W (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Peter, but on this one it looks like the 'ayes' have it.Nishidani (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does indeed. And I did pretty much accept defeat with my quote from Lear. I just allowed myself a wry smile by picking from my bookshelf Stanley Wells's Shakespeare & Co., Jonathan Bate's The Genius of Shakespeare, Frank Kermode's Shakespeare's Language and Katherine Duncan-Jones's Ungentle Shakespeare - all by British professors of English using different British publishers - and noting that each of them uses the -ize spelling throughout. Peter Farey (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I should respond to the points made by Paul and Alan. Paul says "I can't respond to your argument because this is not the forum for it. Don't you get that?" Well yes, I do get that you think this, but I'm afraid that I don't agree. The question is simply whether or not Oxford English is more appropriate for this article - which by its nature is somewhat academic - and this is something which should be discussed here. Alan asked "...then why not in "criticize", etc.?". I used the word "organization" in this case only because that was the one you had changed. If it had been decided to use Oxford English, then it would be "criticize" etc. While glancing through those books I mentioned I found "moralizing" & "dramatize" by Wells, "industrialization" & "reorganized" by Bate, "emphasized" & "organization" by Kermode, and "agonized" & "recognized" by Duncan-Jones. Peter Farey (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Organise"/"Organise" was the one you changed, Peter, and then I changed it back, for the reason I gave in my edit summary. I have read the article on Oxford spelling now, and I can respect your point of view on this issue. It certainly is permissible to use Oxford spelling in a Wikipedia article, as long as it is appropriate for that article and is applied consistently. But there's the rub: it would be hard to apply consistently, I think. Some Americans might think that we are using American spelling after all and start to change other spelling. Others of all English-speaking countries will likely be unfamiliar with Oxford spelling (I will admit that I was) and will constantly be changing the spelling one way or another. Again, the constant bickering and edit warring.

And is there any reason associated with Shakespeare in particular to use Oxford spelling? I don't see a particularly strong tie to Oxford. That this article is "academic" is not enough, in my opinion. Having thought about this matter a bit more now, thanks to your bringing it up, I have learned something I didn't know before, so thank you for that. Still, I believe that we should follow MOS:RETAIN in this matter: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.... An article should not be edited ... simply to switch from one valid use of English to another." --Alan W (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

First, everyone, please understand that I am no longer arguing for the use of Oxford English. I have accepted your decision on this.

Alan, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you "started it", only that it was your reverting my edit which caused me to raise the subject here, and if it had been any of the other such words I would have done the same thing. What happened was that I simply intended to add the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition to that list, and in describing it used the spelling which I have always used for "organization", having been taught it that way at school in England, and also thinking of it as the more "correct" English spelling. I then saw that the Shakespearean Authorship Trust had been wrongly named, so I corrected that, and in doing so noticed that it had "organisation", which was obviously inconsistent with what I had just done so I "corrected" that too. It was only with your revert that I started to become aware of the "British English" tag - a phrase that I had not come across before - and, believing that what I had written was just as much "British English" as the other, thought it might be worth our discussing just what we think should be taken as British English in our case, having ascertained that no such discussion had ever taken place here before. At that time, I didn't know that the way I spell things had been given the name "Oxford English" either, although my use of the Oxford English Dictionary (from which the name is derived) on a daily basis does mean that it tends to be my authority for continuing to prefer this spelling. I have learnt a few things too. Peter Farey (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. My reason for having suggested the -ize spelling wasn't because of Shakespeare having "a particularly strong tie to Oxford", but because I think the vast majority of serious articles and books concerning him use it, either because they are written by people whose spelling is American or because, if British, such authors would tend to prefer what I now know to be called Oxford English. Peter Farey (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of how this started, Peter. In fact, so cogent is your argument, or non-argument, that if others here came to a consensus on switching to use of Oxford English for this page, and if someone agreed to police the page (probably a necessity, given the likelihood of disputes and misunderstandings, as Paul and I have said), I would have no objection. It certainly seems more natural to me, for obvious reasons. --Alan W (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Alan, I would be only too happy to make those and other similar changes to the article (I counted about 18) and to police it for at least a year or two. It would be an interesting experiment anyway. How would the rest of you feel about that? Peter Farey (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify what we are talking about, it's British English with Oxford spelling. Peter Farey (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Objection to Simonton citation.

Perhaps I’ll find that my knowledge of Wikipedia policy is still lacking, but the quotation of Simonton (cited three times) is objectionable on at least two grounds. First of all, while Simonton is a world renowned specialist in the field of psychology, he has no academic standing in the specialties of history or literature, and certainly no standing in the combined field of literary-history or more specifically, Elizabethan-Jacobean literary-history. Secondly, the ‘study’ itself, as documented in Simonton’s paper of 2004, contains no supporting evidence. The paper is short and is nothing more than a remarkably brief description of his methodology and his conclusions. Per my inquiry to Dr. Simonton, there is no supporting information. So, the question is whether the paper in question rises to the level of serious academic scholarship that meets Wikipedia’s standards for sourcing and citation. Ssteinburg (talk) 17:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"His (Simonton’s) research covers diverse manifestations of genius, creativity, leadership, talent, and aesthetics", and he is quoted as such. His studies directly concern authorship attribution, which is a multi-disciplinary field and does not require "academic standing in the specialties of history or literature". His 400 or so publications include "Popularity, content, and context in 37 Shakespeare plays", Poetics (1986) 15: 493-510; "Shakespeare's sonnets: A case of and for single-case historiometry", Journal of Personality (1989) 57: 695-721; "Lexical choices and aesthetic success: A computer content analysis of 154 Shakespeare sonnets", Computers and the Humanities (1990) 24: 251-264; and "Thematic content and political context in Shakespeare’s dramatic output, with implications for authorship and chronology controversies", Empirical Studies of the Arts (2004) 22: 201-213. All of these are reliable academic sources as per policy.

Ward Elliott is not a specialist in either of these fields, but he is recognized as an authoritative researcher on authorship attribution, especially on Shakespeare's works, and he is quoted by many Shakespearean academics, as well as by this article. Irvin Matus did not even have a college degree, yet he is internationally recognized as an authority on the SAQ, and he also is quoted by many Shakespearean academics, as well as by this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Simonton’s “study” explores the connections between Shakespeare’s works and historical “context” (events/themes). It is not a “study” of the psychology of creativity. This would be a highly problematic undertaking for a literary historian. A connection here to Simonton’s specialty is tenuous at best and, as I’ve already pointed out, the “study” contains no supporting information. So, the citation of Simonton and this particular “study” represents a test of the standards of quality for citations employed at Wikipedia. This goes beyond being “inter-disciplinary”, wherein a specialty is substantively applied in a compelling way. Here we are talking about an author of a “study” working completely outside of his specialty. Is it Wikipedia policy to accept citations from specialists opining on important matters entirely outside of their specialty? Is it Wikipedia policy to accept citations for supposedly scholarly papers or ‘studies’ that have no scholarly substance? And, to put the matter into perspective, would the Simonton “study” be deemed worthy of citation if that “study” had contradicted the generally accepted chronology (sequence) of the plays? In that case I think it would be rejected for the reasons I’ve stated, as would the work of Ward Elliot (and Valenza) if their work contradicted the generally accepted attribution. Thus, in practice, it appears that the “policy” of Wikipedia is to liberally accept citations that conform to and support the orthodox position while employing much stricter “policy” for citations that do not support orthodoxy. The example of Matus further illustrates my argument.

I am not arguing for equal status for counter-orthdox viewpoints. A preference for orthodoxy is understandable, as is what might be called a justifiable double-standard. However, in the case of the Simonton “study”, there remain the problems that: 1) expertise of the author on the subject of the “study” does not exist; 2) the “study” in question does not meet the most basic standards for scholarly research (no supporting data); 3) there has been (so far as I can determine) no peer review. Frankly, for me, what is most troubling about the Simonton “study” is the total lack of supporting data/information. As I said before, the “study” is little more than a presentation of the author’s conclusions. And so the question is: does this fall within the standard for Wikipedia “policy” on citations? Can we expect this "policy" to be applied consistently?

Ssteinburg (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I suggest that you actually read the paper, or at least the abstract, which states, "In this study the two authorship positions are evaluated by examining the correlation between the thematic content of the plays and the political context in which the plays would be written according to rival sets of dates." Note also the publication's venue, Empirical Studies of the Arts. And for your edification, publication in a scholarly journal is sufficient evidence of peer review. If you have any further objections, I suggest you take them to the Reliable sources noticeboard and make your case there. Barring any contrary directive from there, the statement and the citation remain in the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Identity of Shakespeare first doubted

Returning to a discussion from April of 2011 I wish to take up the matter again. I begin with a very specific response to the following:

“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)”

At the time of the previous discussion I had overlooked the following which makes Gibson’s argument regarding Hall and Marston quite clear. H.N. Gibson, The Shakespeare Claimants, p. 64:

“It follows that only two things 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.”

In the previous discussion the objection was raised that Gibson had not spoken clearly regarding what Hall and Marston believed. We see from the quote above that Gibson is absolutely clear, indeed, that he finds it an “absolute certainty” that both Hall and Marston held the name Shakespeare to be a pseudonym.

It goes without saying that the question of whether Hall and or Marston questioned the identity of Shakespeare is vitally important to Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians. Indeed it goes to the very heart of the authorship question. To address one of the previous objections, such evidence clearly does not lack justification for “relevance” or “space”. It is the sort of thing that even a Stratfordian would presumably want to know. To the previous objection that Gibson’s conclusions have been superseded by subsequent scholarship, it is to be noted that that remains to be demonstrated/documented. Such rebuttal of Gibson does not appear (as I previously noted) in any of the prominent mainstream literature such as Schoenbaum. Regarding his qualifications as a source, I note that Gibson is already cited multiple times in the article. Therefore, I propose the following changes to the second paragraph of the article.

Delete first sentence and insert: Historians first questioned Shakespeare's authorship in the middle of the 19th century, when adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time had become widespread.[4] However, there is evidence that the contemporary authors Joseph Hall and John Marston viewed the name Shakespeare (on Venus and Adonis) as a pseudonym. (citation: Gibson, The Shakespeare Claimants, p. 64)79.200.96.122 (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)79.200.96.122 (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Gibson is acknowledging with "absolute certainty" (not shared by any other person that I know) that Marston thought that Hall thought that the name Shakespeare was a pseudonym. Whether Marston questioned Shakespeare's identity is not discernible (and other evidence indicates the contrary); the same with Hall, and Gibson makes no claim to know their opinions either.

And I suggest you read the discussion again. The excerpt you quoted above is part of the discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I need first to apologize for leaving my signature off several preceding posts. I didn’t realize I was not logged in and I don’t know how that happened. I don’t think it’s necessary to go back and read the previous discussion. You have finally conceded, on the basis of what was previously quoted and discussed, that Gibson believed Hall believed the name Shakespeare was a pseudonym. One case of doubt by a contemporary is, obviously, still very significant, and worth mentioning in the article. But if we read Gibson further we find that he did believe that both Marston and Hall considered the name Shakespeare to be a pseudonym. Following the part I quoted, Gibson says:

“Anything further takes us into the realm of surmise. Still it must be admitted that the possibility that both writers did actually believe that Bacon was the author of the poem in question [Venus and Adonis] exists.”

If “both writers” believed (or possibly believed) that “the author” was Bacon, they can hardly have believed that without first believing that the name Shakespeare was pseudonym. The disagreement hinges whether both Hall and Marston believed that Bacon was the man behind the pseudonym. Gibson continues:

“When Bagley first put forward the case quoted by Theobald, some Stratfordians accepted it at face value, but said that Hall and Marston were mistaken.”

Reading this carefully, this confirms that Gibson believed that both Hall and Marston doubted Shakespeare’s authorship and (this is very important) that “some Stratfordians accepted” this “at face value”. So, counter to your assertion, Gibson clearly does claim “to know their [Hall and Marston’s] opinions”, and, whereas you say that Gibson’s opinion, “is not shared by any other person I know”, Gibson obviously knew people (Stratfordians you don’t know) who shared his opinion. And the question here is, does the fact that you don’t know “any other person” out outweigh the fact that Gibson did?

Now we are faced with an interesting problem. The issue of Hall and Marston's doubt is obviously something that will be of considerable interest to Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians. Since Gibson (M.A, Ph. D, lecturer on Shakespeare) is already cited multiple times in the article, he is obviously an acceptable Wikipedia source. His conclusions and the logic behind them are presented with the relevant supporting information. One can readily judge for one’s self whether one agrees with his conclusions. Per his own testimony his conclusions were confirmed by other “Stratfordians”. In contrast we have the case of Simonton’s “study” on the chronology of Shakespeare’s plays, where Simonton has no established specialized expertise and provided only conclusions with no supporting information by which to gauge the validity of his conclusions. No one, so far as I know, has confirmed Simonton’s “study” or testified to its validity. Noting that it was objected (by Xover I believe) in the previous discussion, that lack of “space” was an a reason to reject the information taken from Gibson (the half a sentence that I proposed) it seems to me that, by comparison, the longer entry regarding Simonton (clearly less informative) could (for the sake of “space” and for the questionable quality of scholarship) be dispensed with. Ssteinburg (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, a suspicion in two Elizabethans that just one of the works, very early, ascribed to Shakespeare may have been written by someone else, Bacon, does not translate into proof that the person(s) entertaining that possible doubt extended their suspicion over Shakespeare's identity, or that Shakespeare, the author of the plays and comedies, was a frontman. Many poems were ascribed to Shakespeare, but not written by him, such as A Lover's Complaint and the poems in The Passionate Pilgrim. Marston and Hall might, let us accept, have entertained doubts about Venus and Adonis. That does not mean that, as the paranoid school argues, they doubted that the Shakespeare of the theatre, and the Shakespeare of plays and comedies was the person whom his contemporaries overwhelmingly recognized as the author. You are engaging in WP:OR to infer that from Gibson's words. A lot of speculation and strong suspicion has surrounded the historical ascription of the book And Quiet Flows the Don to Mikhail Sholokov. Not for that reason do we entertain doubts about Sholokov as author of its sequence, or many other volumes.Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone misreads now and then, but the number of misreadings you make in this and previous discussions gives one pause. "You have finally conceded, on the basis of what was previously quoted and discussed, that Gibson believed Hall believed the name Shakespeare was a pseudonym." No, I have not, nor has any other person here. Go back and read only the black part: I said that Gibson believed that Marston believed that Hall thought the name was a pseudonym. Gibson does not think that Marston believed that the name was a pseudonym; Gibson does not believe the evidence indicates that Hall thought so either. This construction exists only in your desire to have it so.

As has been pointed out, this issue has been discussed extensively. Your edit history indicates that your only purpose on Wikipedia is to try to undermine the historical evidence that Shakespeare wrote his works, IOW, to subvert one of the basic foundations of Wikipedia, reliable sourcing. You have made not one productive edit during your tenure here, nor have you contributed to any other topic. While WP:SPA editors are welcome to work on the encyclopedia (indeed, WP would be hard-pressed without them) as long as they conform to the principles and policies, those whose only purpose is to subvert those principles are not. Please stop your hindrance of other editors by mending your behavior or finding some other place to pursue your agenda. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

To Nishidani. I’m thinking my response to you mysteriously disappeared. So, again, to the absurd assertion that I am engaging in OR: I have added nothing to Gibson, and Gibson (nor any Stratfordian I’ve read) raises the possibility that the author of V&A was someone other than the author of the Shakespeare canon. To suggest that Gibson, or Hall, or Marston could have viewed that as a possibility is a ridiculous attempt to avoid the issue. It is you who are engaging in OR and tossing in a red herring.

To Reedy. You said, “You have made not one productive edit during your tenure here, nor have you contributed to any other topic.” I find this both judgmental and personal. You said, “While WP:SPA editors are welcome to work on the encyclopedia (indeed, WP would be hard-pressed without them) as long as they conform to the principles and policies, those whose only purpose is to subvert those principles are not.” This is also judgmental and a personal attack, indeed slanderous. I have been supportive of Wikipedia policy and questioned Wikipedia policy. Is questioning Wikipedia policy subversive? How exactly would one, with no power at Wikipedia, go about subverting policy?

You said: “Please stop your hindrance of other editors by mending your behavior or finding some other place to pursue your agenda. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)” This is bullying pure and simple. My “agenda” is to see that the Wikipedia articles on Shakespeare are historically accurate. I’ve made no attempt to add even one word advocating for an alternative candidate. You have fought me at every step in my efforts to correct historically inaccurate information such as the bogus claim that Elizabethan grammar school curriculum was standardized by law. When I cornered you on that, you grudgingly made the smallest change possible inserting the word “grammar” before the word “curriculum”. You didn’t make that change to both articles and you did nothing to correct all the other related texts in both articles that are flatly contradicted by the historical record (the actual “law”). You avoid making changes that would correct obvious historical inaccuracy with the expedient excuse that a ‘reliable source’ can be cited. I think I do understand how this works as a Wikipedia policy. However, that means that you and other controlling editors are in a position that allows you to arbitrarily ignore historical accuracy for the sake of maintaining a generally accepted point of view. The problem with such an approach is that it substitutes propaganda for history.Ssteinburg (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please carefully consider what you would like to do at Wikipedia before making further comments. To ask questions about procedures, see WP:HELPDESK. To suggest changes to policy, see WP:VPR. To continue your discussion questioning the reliability of certain sources, see WP:RSN. This page must not be used as a forum (see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALK). To engage in a discussion about improvements to the article, reply to the specific points raised by other editors (quote a few words from their reply to provide context, then explain whether you now agree or disagree, and why). The issue of productive edits has been mentioned because this is not a forum, and only actionable proposals backed by policies should be discussed. There is no problem raising an issue as was done here, but repeating old discussions while not responding to very valid responses is not acceptable—such behavior is disruptive as it clogs this talk page while diverting the attention of active editors. As an example, consider your claim that Tom has "finally conceded ... that Gibson believed Hall believed the name Shakespeare was a pseudonym". That is a big claim (and obviously incorrect to anyone who has read the text in this section), yet the only response to Tom's refutation was to change the subject by saying that some of Tom's comments were judgmental and personal (by the way, it is not acceptable to accuse an editor of making a personal attack except at a suitable noticeboard, with evidence based on WP:NPA). If you want to discuss the article, you need to justify or retract your claim about "finally conceded" very quickly. If you want to discuss an editor, do so elsewhere (see WP:HELPDESK). Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)To repeat. You have no evidence to bear, and comb so minutely over the syntax of one passage in an old commentator that might lend some bantam gram to the colossal weight of your prejudice that you misconstrue him, and when this is pointed out by several people, protest that the nano-'evidence' is being muscled over and beaten up by the brute power of Hulking wikipedians. Lucio Dalla is being buried today, and the funeral is broadcast. So that's all I have to say. I prefer music to twittering humongously on piddling strands of split hairs.Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course I disagree with everything in the responses above, but, so as not to drag the matter out, permit me to say the following. In as much as the article devotes a sentence to the assertion that doubt about Shakespeare’s authorship first arose in the 19th century, there is, presumably, something of significance to the assertion. It follows that evidence of doubt in the 16th century would be of equal interest to all concerned and that that would be worth a sentence as well. So let me propose that we simply add a sentence essentially quoting Mr. Reedy who said:

“No. Gibson is acknowledging with "absolute certainty" (not shared by any other person that I know) that Marston thought that Hall thought that the name Shakespeare was a pseudonym.”

I suggest the quote be modified only slightly as follows:

“H. N. Gibson concluded, with “absolute certainty”, that John Marston thought that Joseph Hall (both Shakespeare’s contemporaries) thought the name Shakespeare was a pseudonym.”

Gibson is already established and a ‘reliable source’ since he is already cited in the article, and I trust none of the editors above would object to using Mr. Reedy’s statement.Ssteinburg (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not go further and insert "Tom Reedy conceded that H. N. Gibson concluded, with “absolute certainty”, that John Marston thought that Joseph Hall (both Shakespeare’s contemporaries) thought the name Shakespeare was a pseudonym"? That gives it more definitive authority and a more better skolarly gloss lacking in your version. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"When I cornered you on that, you grudgingly made the smallest change possible inserting the word 'grammar' before the word 'curriculum'. You didn’t make that change to both articles and you did nothing to correct all the other related texts in both articles that are flatly contradicted by the historical record (the actual 'law')."

Are you talking about these? [4] [5] Tom Reedy (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be taking my proposed edit personally. I don’t think there is anything in my proposed edit that is prejudicial to you or anyone else. I don't think adding the wording you suggest (sarcastically I take it) would be a good idea. I hope that your personal feelings won’t stand in the way of adding something important to the article.Ssteinburg (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually thought you were joking. No, your proposed edit does not clear the bar for me, for all the reasons that have been iterated, and I think the wording is ludicrous. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sure you knew I wasn’t joking. However “ludicrous” the wording is, it is your wording, which I seriously proposed because, while you had backed yourself into an absurdity, that absurdity nevertheless tells the story about contemporaneous “doubt” of Shakespeare’s identity, more than two centuries before the article claims. You deny that Marston thought the name a pseudonym. You deny that Hall thought the name a pseudonym. Or, at least you deny that Gibson believed that either Hall or Marston thought the name pseudonym. But you do say that Gibson believed that Martson believed (falsely) that Hall believed the name was a pseudonym. This, I hand it to you, is a masterful convolution. However, it is so difficult to make a dent here in what Stratfordians want the story to be that I am asking, not for the whole plain truth, but just a tiny piece of it, a tiny piece that everyone here knows is hugely powerful and belongs in that article. So let me see if I can come up with something that isn’t “ludicrous”. Let me see I can improve upon it without changing the meaning:

“While Shakespeare's authorship first became the subject of popular and academic discussion in the middle of the 19th century, when adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time had become widespread,[4] there is evidence that, in the mid-1590’s, the author John Marston believed that his contemporary Joseph Hall had identified the name Shakespeare (on Venus and Adonis), as a pseudonym.” (Gibson, p. 64)

If that doesn’t work for you I ask you to offer wording (consistent with your statement) that does work for you, and that, if you reject the edit on other grounds, you kindly state specifically what those grounds are and not simply refer to the preceding discussion.Ssteinburg (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)