Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

Pseudonymous or secret authorship in Renaissance England

I added new material to bring this section up to date and made some edits for clarity. It is important that this page reflect both a sound history of the authorship issue and also the insights which are being generated by contemporary scholarship. These changes include ommitting the name "Martin Mar-Prelate" from the list of hyphenated pseudonyms. To my knowledge, the name was never hyphenated. If someone has good evidence to the contrary, we can add the name back in. But for now, its out. More importantly, I added reference to Oxford's probable authorship of the Pasquill pamphlets. For those interested in a direct link to the new wiki entry which documents this, you can find it here: Pasquill Cavaliero.--BenJonson (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This material is not relevant to this particular article, and is more suitable to the Oxfordian article, although I think it's probably already been inserted there without checking.

Also the refs are not RS. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Instead of just deleting material that you question the source of, the proper response is to put a fact tag on it. You and Nishidani keep deleting material claiming "not RS" but fail to tag it as such. Please refrain and follow proper procedures. Smatprt (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Its interesting that you only noticed this now, Tom. The section has been part of the article for some time, albiet not very well worded and missing critical factual details, such as the fact that the Oxfordians have alleged a solution to the "Pasquill" question. As the anti-Stratfordian case is substantially based on the view that the use of the alleged pseudonym would be an instance of the evasion of censorship. As someone who is not an anti-Stratfordian, and therefore cannot be expected to understand the nature of the case, it is not surprising that you would object. You remind me that I need to add a link to Professor Winifred Frazer's recent Brief Chronicles article, which more fully explains the connection. Once I add the link, perhaps you could read the article and we could discuss your objection further. I have already added a link to the new Pasquill entry to the Oxford page. However, let's be clear about this: as far as I am concerned, a section on this page which discusses the prominent role of pseudonymous publication in the early modern period is simply not negotiable. --BenJonson (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the section a long time ago, Roger, but for some reason have been forced to spend an inordinate amount of time on the introductory material. In fact, I've got notes for re-writes on most of the sections in this article. the one I have for that section begins "During the life of William Shakespeare and for more than 200 years after his death, no one seriously suggested that anybody other than Shakespeare wrote the works nor indicated that the name was a pseudonym. Despite this, anti-Stratfordians interpret . . . ." But all this in good time. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Tom, you won't be able to begin a section that way. Explain the article theory first, than present the more "accepted ideas". And saying that a section on the role of pseudonymous publication in the Elizabethan age, in an article about an Elizabethan writer who may have published under a pseudonym, should be deleted or is irrelevant is just silly. I sincerely doubt you will be able to form a consensus to delete that section.Smatprt (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again you demonstrate your lack of basic reading comprehension. Very well, you boys have fun while you can. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Threaten all you want.--BenJonson (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of the hyphenated Mar-prelate.[[1]]Smatprt (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It might be a clue to one, but that's a 19th century title page. We need an Elizabethan example. For now I'll let your reversion stand, but I think we're on thin ice without a better example. See my point? coda: I was able to check a modern facsimile of the original title page of "Pap with a Hatchett (probably by John Lyly), and it is very different from the one given in that reprint and does not even include the name "Marprelate," let alone in hyphenated form. I think we should redelete this and leave it off unless something better is found to justify it. --BenJonson (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you check this one then? [[2]]? thanks. Smatprt (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

O, Stephen, now we're getting warm. This is a modern facsimile, but it looks to be pedantically reproducing the original text, which is what we need. I would say that to be entirely sure, someone needs to go to the EEBO text and verify that the hyphens are in the original. But I think you've got a good witness to the point. Note, though, that the examples (at least those I saw), are "Mar-Martin," not Martin Mar-prelate."

A few other comments on this section. As promised, as I added the citation to the very fine article by the late Professor Frazer. I also checked and verified the basis for the Elizabethan tradition of Terence as a front. Nishidani could not be more wrong. Roger Ascham, in the explanatory quote that I added to the section, clearly articulates the belief, attributing it to Cicero, that at least some works under Terence' name were written by aristocrats. Please let us all note and agree to stipulate that whether or not this is true or can be proven is totally irrelevant. The point is that it was believed by so prominent a figure as Roger Ascham, the most important classical scholar and educator of his generation. I also refined some other language in the section to make the materials fit more appropriately within the present article, in response to Tom's concerns. --BenJonson (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The text you guys were editing said Terence was seen by a plurality of Elizabethan scholars to be a frontman. I corrected the two errors. One of you guys bungled. In Ascham there is a distinction between a foreigner's Latin (Terence's in four of his plays) and a native Roman noble's. Ascham nowhere supports the view that Terence was not a playwright but a merely funnel for 'aristocratic' playwrights. Terence himself laughs at the rumour. Modern scholarship has a good explanation for this. Poets and writers at that time, as in Elizabethan times, were often locked up, exiled, and punished by the authorities. All the patrons whose influence is associated with Terence had magistratal functions. He was protecting his rear by cultivating friends. But, of course, this is 'orthodox' scholarship, and you people, with 'virtually no', sorry, 'small Latin and lesse Greek', know better. Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani -- what the text once said is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether you are going to join us in making it better, or continue your harassment with these kinds of inappropriate comments, which seek to make the present editors responsible for wording that was supplied by others and to throw dust over the fact that your categorical pronunciamentos of yesterday have been proven wrong in the space of a couple of days. I'm sorry that you don't feel that you are getting your way here, but life is tough. Ascham is a very good witness to the fact that Elizabethans associated the idea of disguised authorship with the name Terence. That is all that is required. We have no way of assessing how widely this view was held. The rest is you creating straw men and then splitting their hairs. Let me once again suggest that you may wish to actually familiarize yourself with the topic in question. I recommend Ogburn or Anderson as good places to begin, although if you want to learn about Oxford,aside from the case for his authorship of the plays, B.M. Ward is still an excellent read. I would take you much more seriously if you could demonstrate a knowledge of even one of these works which transcended hearsay.--BenJonson (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but nothing published by Brief Chronicles is WP:RS. Read [[WP:PARITY|this], especially the sentence, "Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable. Examples: The Creation Science Quarterly, Homeopathy, Journal of Frontier Science . . . and many others." If you insist on its use, we can take it to WP:RSN for an opinion.

Tom, aren't you the guy who a couple of days ago were arguing that Dave Kathman and Terry Ross's private website, which once contained abundant material supporting the superstar shooting star Donald Foster, should be considered an acceptable source? Your lack of consistency is pathetic--BenJonson (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, you need a ref for this edit or you need to delete it: "At least two of the proposed candidates for authorship, the Earls of Oxford and Derby, were known to be playwrights but have no extant work under their own name. Moreover, Oxford has been identified in some studies as the real author of three clearly pseudonymous publications which appeared in 1589-90 under the colorful nom de plum of 'Pasquill Cavaliero.'" The one you originally cited is not acceptable. If you wish we can take that for an opinion also, but I think you know what the objections are and how it will fare. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I'm surprised that you don't know these references, but I would be happy to supply them. They are both common knowledge for anyone who has studied the authorship question, and while you may be pedantically correct that the should be added, their absence in the context of the many other edits required by the page, is hardly a matter for major concern. Why don't you supply them yourself; since you know so much about the history of the topic, it should be like taking candy from a baby for you. The citation that is provided is to two publications by Elizabeth Appleton, the second published by an academic press. It is not a citation intended to justify the fact that Oxford and Derby were known to be playwrights, as you should be able to see from its location, but to the theory that Oxford is the author of the Pasquill pamphlets, which was Appleton's argument. If you don't like her theory, your recourse is to write and publish a rebutall, and if it meets the appropriate scholarly standards, the page can link to it, to indicate the matter is not settled. Until you or someone else does that, the matter is in fact more or less settled, at the stage indicated by the new entry on "Pasquill" -- which notes that existing authorities like EEBO still cling to the Nashe attribution but that Roland McKerrow himself did not accept it. That being the case, at this point in time the only case for authorship of the pamphlets which consists of anything more than mere blind acceptance of tradition, is Appleton's.--BenJonson (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You know damn well what I was referring to when I called for cites. Elizabeth Appleton has a phony PhD and her book was published by the Mellen Press, the bottom-feeding press of last resort used when nobody else will publish your book. She is not RS for anything, as you well know. Either supply a good ref or cut it. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Tom, I don't "know damn well..." that Appleton has a "phony PhD," whatever that means. You don't have any kind of PhD, however, so I don't really know where you get off passing judgment on other people's qualifications. Appleton's technical qualifications are not at issue here. The issue is that she has made a powerful case for Oxford's authorship of the Pasquill pamphlets. Now, I can understand why this would upset you, since if she is right, it establishes a pattern of pseudonymous publication by Oxford, and that is something which, above all else, would be problematic for your dogma. You can cite RS all you want, Tom, but unlike you have I have not only read Appleton's book (and reviewed it, as you may know), but have read the Pasquill pamphlets themselves, Roland McKerrow's scholarship on them (he says they are not by Thomas Nashe), and Oxford's correspondence. I'm not really that interested in getting into a pissing match with you about whether Appleton's reference can stay on this page. There are far less reliable references -- e.g. your buddy Kathman -- about which you have raised no objection. Appleton's work will not be the last on the Pasquill question, and -- mark my words, Tom -- will be upheld by other scholars. So go ahead and revert all you want. It might make you feel better but it will not affect the final outcome.--BenJonson (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom I've supplied two references, one for Oxford and the other for Derby, indicating that they were known as playwrights. These are not to be taken as comprehensive, as they are not. For instance, I did not supplement Meres with William Webbe, who also notes Oxford's reputation as a comic dramatist as early as 1586. When I get some more time, I'll add this as well -- the present refs should alleviate your concern. As mentioned, I'm a bit surprised that someone who professes to have the knowledge you claim of this subject is not aware that these are common knowledge among scholars of the authorship question. But I do agree with you that the article is better with the cites, so I spent some time looking them up and carefully providing them. --BenJonson (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Tom is incorrect and doubt if he has checked the Brief Chronicles editorial review board here [[3]]. Hardly the same as the examples listed at WP:PARITY (note the correct way to link, Tom)where one used "blogs" as the peer review. BC is one of those "few" that actually has "meaningful peer review". And after all the criticism heaped on me for opposing the Kathman website for my attempts to stifle knowledge, it's surprising to see just how much hypocrisy is coming from the mainstream side.Smatprt (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think three of you are abusing 'peer review'. All I have seen is a dozen odd de Verean names, some attached to universities, or graduates of them, sitting on boards for internet sites or newsletters of their own 'anti-stratfordian' cut and then reviewing each other. This is not what is understood in English or WP:RS as peer review. It's fringers reviewing their own marginalia. Tom is correct therefore. This article must distinguish between RS for a fringe viewpoint, which are fringe websites and pamphlets and books, and RS for critical scholarly peer review and sources on Shakespeare. The distinction is being blurred by sleight-of-hand and the slow tenacious drift of the momentous drivelling in here.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, actually, you are abusing our patience with your gratuitously condescending and insulting claptrap. Its time for you to start specifying what your own qualifications are. Have you published in this field? If not, how dare you pass judgment on the distinguished scholars who comprise the editorial board of *Brief Chronicles* by calling them "fringers reviewing their own marginalia"? Actually, very few journals in the humanities practice to the standard used at BC, of double-blind peer review. But please tell us something about yourself. Paul asked who the hell I was, and I told him. How about you? Where do you *stand*, guy? Unfold yourself. This is 2010, not 1995. Do you have a clue? Apparently not. What is your publication record? What anti-Stratfordian books have you read? Have you ever heard of Professor David Richardson? Is he a "fringie"? For my part, I have participated regularly, both as a reviewer and reviewed, in a range of academic publications (about eight or ten in all). I can assure you that the standards of review that are used at Brief Chronicles equal those found at any academic journal and are in fact considerably more balanced than those currently prevailing at a number of publications. The only difference is that the reviewers, all established academicians, have at least got a clue about the actual dynamics and history of the authorship question. You persist in arguing through labels that are wholly irrelevant. There is no sleight of hand, just as there is no "fringe viewpoint." There is fight between established belief and a well articulated, coherent and credible alternative. It is clear where you stand in that debate, and that's fine. You don't have to like the alternative. You damn well DO have to respect it if you want to have any impact on editing this page. --BenJonson (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

'our patience', the pluralis maiestatis, again. The judgements I pass, as a wikipedian, are those I formed on my reading widely in this area, and which I found confirmed by the best scholars in the field, who say people who embrace this crackpot nonsense 'give the Baconians a run for madness' (the real Schoenbaum), some tall order. Who am I? None of your, or wikipedia's business, and you break protocols to insist I reveal my identity to justify my edits here. Your personal indiscretion only invites unfortunate ripostes, of the kind, 'I haven't lectured at Coppin State University where you teach, but I have done so, by invitation, at Oxford', the real place, not the fictional world of de Verean 'Oxfordians' who appropriate the historic name to fudge up the impression to a gullible and not too attentive public that somehow they are connected to one of the highest centres of learning in the world. So enough of this bragging. For, 'I'll cite no further than the initiate know', to quote Gerard Manley Hopkins, bearing in mind Montaigne's advice:

Car de servir de spectacle aux grands et faire è l'envy parade de son esprit et de son caquet, je trouve que c'est un mestier tres-messeant à un homme d'honneur' ( Albert Thibaudet (ed.), Montaigne: Essais, Pléiade, Paris 1937 p.894)

Now "Oxfordians" are using the name "Oxford" for deceptive purposes?? Will you attacks never cease? Smatprt (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not an attack, it's well known, and pretty obvious. 'Oxfordians' attracts naive eyes, deVereans does not. It's all part of the agitprop.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As to Professor David Richardson, what's he got to do with the price of fish? Not one page of Looney or Ogburn, or Price would withstand more than 5 minutes of critical analysis in any reputable school of humanities, in terms of methodological coherence and rigour. I'm not impressed with English departments these days, crammed stiff as they are with people who no longer, as was once the case, have a thorough secondary education grounding in Latin and Greek, nor acquire at least reading fluency in German, French, Italian and Spanish, when they venture into premodern textual studies. So pal, don't come the raw prawn with me. This self-promotion is a bluff, as is the whole fringe theory shebang it represents. It is not conducive to intelligent dialogue if one approaches it with resentment and offended honour, which is a bad thing to carry into a technical discussion. Neither I nor anyone else has to 'respect' the subject of a page to 'have an impact' as editor. Were that so, we would have no WP:NPOV pages on Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Ignatius Donnelly, Torquemada, Berlusconi, George W. Bush, Ayn Rand, Hirohito or Ariel Sharon or any other of tens of thousands of historical figures. We would only have fanpages, on a par with the present travesty you are collectively composing. Nishidani (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ive said it before, and I'll say it again, you do go on and on with your irrelevant parallels and your angst about modern education. I'm happy for you that you've lectured at Oxford. But, as you just said, what does that have to do with the price of fish. I enjoy Coppin. But I also enjoyed lecturing at the Huntington Library, the University of Massachusetts, where I got my PhD in Comparative Literature (not English). --BenJonson (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a final note on Brief Chronicles - you will be interested to note that the publication has been selected for indexing by two international bibliographies in the humanities of which you are all familiar - The MLA International Bibliography and The World Shakespeare Bibliography. I imagine you are also familiar with their standards. Smatprt (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But, Smatprt, are you authorized to say that? Don't bother Nishidani with facts. The fact that the contents of the journal are accepted by the World Shakespeare Bibliography is irrelevant. We're talking about Wikipedia here. Our standards are professional ones....[slaps forhead] "Ay Carumba." --BenJonson (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, I have posted an opinion request here. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I made further edits to this section, mostly for clarity and brevity. Nishidani is correct about at least one thing, although wrong about most: the article as presently written is stylistically handicapped in a way that does no good to anyone. We will not correct this overnight, but I made a few more edits in this particular section toward that end, which cut out of a lot of extraneous deadwood which had accumulated. I also added a reference to Detobel and Ligon's article on Meres. I'm not really sure that it belongs here; Stephen, what do you think? Thanks for your clarification on this point.

I also put in a link to for the name "Martin-Marprelate," which we should do to link this discussion to the Marprelate page. However, because of the hyphen it doesn't work. We need to figure out a strategy for dealing with this. Since we still don't have an authenticated hyphenated form of the name (only a hyphenated alternative, which actually refers not to Martin himself but to one of his opponents), we should keep our options open. --BenJonson (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed this one - it's in the first graph of ther reference linked:

Wherein the rash and vndiscreete hea-

dines of the foolish youth, is sharp-

ly mette with, and the boy hath his

lesson taught him, I warrant you, by

his reuerend and elder brother,

Martin Senior, sonne and heire vnto

the renowmed Martin Mar-prelate

the Great.

Hopefully this solves it. Smatprt (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I did indeed. If this is verified, then what we need to do is make the version "Martin Mar-Prelate" resolve to the "Martin Marprelate" page. Do you know how to make this happen? Thanks for setting me straight.--BenJonson (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Notes

Pt one of his recent edit. Smatprt elides a passage that is backed by five eminently respectable RS, with specific pagination, namely Bate 73, Kathman, 622; Martin, 3-4; Wadsworth, Frank W. The Poacher from Stratford, (1958), 8-16 and McCrea, 13: Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC) He replaces the text with his own preferred version, :

There is no agreement among scholars as to when the authorship question was first raised. Skeptic Diana Price believes that an authorship debate existed in Elizabethan times; mainstream researchers George McMichael and Edward Glenn reported that the first direct statements of doubt were made in the 18th century; and Stratfordian Jonathan Bate believes that initial doubts arose in the 19th century.

This is wholly unacceptable since, by naming Diana Price, who is an untrained amateur 'independent writer', the editor is suggesting that her book, which is RS for what the authorship doubters like herself might think, is RS for a statement that must be technically sourced to a mainstream volume, by mainstream specialists on the subject. Price, I repeat, is RS for the fringe theory, she is not RS for the history of Shakespearean biography.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a complete fabrication. I did not delete the material backed by your 5 sources (which don't even agree among themselves, by the way), moved it to later in the same section (and actually expanded it).

I put the opening graph into neutral language that acknowledges that there is no agreement - even among mainstream critics - as to when the authorship issue first arose. Why are you denying this is in dispute? As has already been noted, when the theory began is obviously part of the theory, and minority viewpoints are certainly allowed to be described by the minority in question. Or are you saying that only people who say there is no theory are allowed to describe it??Smatprt (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I wrote: "There is no agreement among scholars as to when the authorship question was first raised. Skeptic Diana Price believes that an authorship debate existed in Elizabethan times; mainstream researchers George McMichael and Edward Glenn reported that the first direct statements of doubt were made in the 18th century; and Stratfordian Jonathan Bate believes that initial doubts arose in the 19th century." - This is an accurate summary of the dispute over the history. Then, I went so far as to expand the mainstream argument - adding "Contrasting these beliefs, Stratfordian Jonathan Bate states “No one in Shakespeare’s lifetime or the first two hundred years after his death expressed the slightest doubt about his authorship”, and mainstream critic Scott McCrea has said “It was not until 1848 that the Authorship Question emerged from the obscurity of private speculation into the daylight of public debate.” I actually quoted your scholars, instead of rewriting what they actually said into something they did not. Smatprt (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have removed Tom Reedy's paraphrase completely, and inserted into the maintext the footnote from Bate, which he properly left in a footnote. Fine, indeed I apologize for not seeing this, for the red inking. But the point of your exercise was to get McMichael and Glenn up as 'mainstream researchers' (meaningless and misleading: they are academics but not scholars of the Elizabethan era, which is what is required) as representing a mainstream/countermainstream agreement on the issue of pre-1848 authorship doubts. The Glenn McMichael text, by non Shakespearean experts, from is it 1962 and does not represent the current state of mainstream scholarship, which as Paul Barlow and Tom Reedy have insistently argued, discounts the evidence apparently adduced by the 1962 text. You cannot compose a rational article while ignoring the obvious problem in method involved here. You can quote an RS on Shakespeare from 1890 on anything, but not if you pretend that in the meantime, scholarship has moved on, and often dismantled the points made in the 1890 RS. Doing that creates sheer havoc, and that is what you are doing here. Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I neglected to thank you for your apology. But just because Matus discounts a pre-1848 allusion, does not mean that a) he represents scholarly consensus, or b) that "scholarship has changed" Smatprt (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is in contrast to the complete deletion of the opening (more neutral) paragraph that I added. I admit to deleting the word "seriously" from "no one seriously suggested" as the addition of the word "seriously" is a perfect example of a weasel word being introduced into the sentence. Smatprt (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt also distorts what Price writes by changing the language of this: "Diana Price speculates that an authorship debate existed in Elizabethan times, arguing that all literary allusions about Shakespeare are to be read as veiled references to that debate, which otherwise was never explicitly stated" to this:"Price believes that that several Elizabethan works hint that Shakespeare’s works were written by someone else, theorizing that many literary allusions about Shakespeare can be read as veiled references to that debate, though never explicitly stated." :The use of "believes" in an effort to imitate scholarly caution is ridiculous. She wrote it; she obviously believes it. And Price does not "theorise"; her language is speculative: "as though" and "suggests". Nor does she qualify her characterisation of the contemporary Shakespeare allusions. She specifically writes that "all the literary allusions with some hint of personal information are ambiguous or cryptic" (her emphasis).

The distortion belonged to TomReedy, who conveniently left out "some hint of personal information". Instead, TomReedy wrote that Price said that "all literary allusions about Shakespeare are to be read..." This is obviously quite different than "all literary allusions with some hint of personal information are ambiguous or cryptic." TomReedy again departs from guidelines by leaving out the context. In his (rewritten) context, the use of "many literary allusions" becomes required. She mentions "ambiguous", so that "can be read" is also appropriate, given the lack of context that TomReedy's edit was responsible for. Smatprt (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a good rule to follow, Smatprt: if you don't have the reference, don't change the language of a properly cited edit. And NP:NPOV does not mean that all POVs are equal. YOu might want to school yourself at WP:NPOVT. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I do have the reference so what on earth are you talking about. You, Nishidani and Paul keep accusing me of not having books that I do indeed have. I've got Price, I've got Bloom, I've got Cairncross. And I've accessed others online through either "preview" or "snippet" views. These kinds of accusations do no good. Smatprt (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly you have Price. Your edits indicate that you have never read the other two books you claim are in your possession.Nishidani (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You seriously want to argue over "believes" and "speculates"? You are just quibbling. As far as rules to follow, I again ask you to review wp:weasel, wp:peacock and other guidelines that talk about providing "context" so as to not mislead the reader. Smatprt (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Note on TomReedy and Nishidani. These two editors have embraced the use of weasel words and peacock terms, as well as WP:Avoid. They have been shown the appropriate guidelines and continue to ignore them. TomReedy also refuses to follow standard attribution guidelines, preferring to use the weasel phrase "Mainstream scholars believe" or even worse, "The mainstream view is" instead of telling the reader what scholar actually believes what. Smatprt (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletions of material

Deletions of material by TomReedy:(5 day period only)

• [[4]] - Deleted:" The survey was based on a random sample of colleges and universities in the United States that offer degree programs in English. " and "but when asked if they "mention the Shakespeare authorship question in your Shakespeare classes?", 72% answered "yes"."

• [[5]] - Deleted (including tags: "The mainstream view is that during the life of William Shakespeare, no one suggested that anybody other than Shakespeare wrote the works, nor indicated that the name was a pseudonym. Some orthodox critics believe that during the 200 year period after his death, the issue of alternative authorship was never even discussed.

• [[6]] - Deleted: "Anti-stratfordians also note that Shakespeare of Stratford's relatives and neighbors never mentioned that he was famous or a writer, nor are there any indications his heirs demanded or received payments for his supposed investments in the theatre or for any of the more than 16 masterwork plays unpublished at the time of his death."
• [[7]] - Deleted: Price explains that while he had a well-documented habit of going to court over relatively small sums, he never sued any of the publishers pirating his plays and sonnets, or took any legal action regarding their practice of attaching his name to the inferior output of others.
• [[8]] - Deleted: "But Roger Stritmatter argued, in an article published in Cahiers Élisabéthains, that the Edwards passage contains unmistakable reference to a 1583 Blackfriars duel in which Oxford was famously wounded. Elizabethan satirists, Joseph Hall in 1597 and John Marston in 1598 have been interpreted to imply that Francis Bacon was the author of Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, although such references might also allude to another concealed author of the same works. Around the turn of the seventeenth century, Gabriel Harvey, Cambridge don and scholar, wrote marginalia in his copy of Chaucer's works that are interpreted as implying he believed Sir Edward Dyer was the author of at least Venus and Adonis. Authorship researcher Diana Price hypothesizes that an authorship debate existed in Elizabethan times, and argues that this evidence is to be read as veiled references to that debate, which was otherwise never explicitly stated."

• [[9]] - Deleted: "Anti-Stratfordian researchers also cite one contemporary document that strongly implies that Shakespeare, the Globeshareholder, was dead prior to 1616, when Shakespeare of Stratford died."

• [[10]] - Deleted attributions: "Stratfordian Scott McCrea argues that", "Stratfordian Jonathan Bate argues that the "

• [[11]] - Deleted: "More recent developments include a new academic journal devoted specifically to study of the authorship question, a special issue of a leading established journal, Critical Survey, devoted to authorship, and a leading British scholar, University of Hertfordshire Professor Graham Holderness, endorsing the plausibility of the Earl of Oxford's authorship.

Now who is being accused of deleting material?Smatprt (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the list of all the material I've deleted from the article. Smatprt (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert warring

Reverts by Tom Reedy: (5 day period only.)

• [[12]]

• [[13]]

• [[14]]

• [[15]]

• [[16]]

• [[17]]

• [[18]]

And who is being accused of reverting?Smatprt (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you're trying to set up your case, Smatprt, but it won't work. The fact of the matter is that you are trying to make it impossible for anyone other than yourself and your allies to edit this page, and rest assured it has been noted and your patterns of interaction have been documented. That's all I will say for now, but if I were you I'd begin to study WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:N, and WP:COI, among others, and mend my ways accordingly. It would be much better for everyone if you became a good, unbiased Wikipedia editor. Your ridiculous examples of reverts and deletions you went to all that trouble to gather are laughable when seen in context. I know you've done all you can to resist, but as I told you when I first began editing here, sooner or later this page will be balanced and biased account of the authorship controversy. You might as well face that fact. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, more false accusations don't help, and listing a series of wiki policies and guidelines, without any context, is a sign of wiki-lawyering. This is far different than me pointing out the use of weasel words, examples, and directing you to that guideline. I was pretty sure you never heard of wp:AVOID, so I provided it to you and Nishi to point the way to several words you two were arguing over. You might still check that out in regards to your use of "controversial" and how it can only be used when it equates to "debate". And I'm not sure why you would want to quote wp:COI when, in reality, you have published an anti-stratfordian article [[19]] on the very SFP website that you fought at the RS noticeboard so very hard to use. What on earth is my conflict - that I direct the occasional Shakespeare play?? Smatprt (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping track of this, Stephen. Its important to keep careful records. Tom, unfortunately, has no idea where this whole thing is going, so he keeps fighting battles that he cannot win.--BenJonson (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on their involvement at the BC deletion proposal, it now appears that TomReedy and Nishidani may be hounding wp:hound you as well.Smatprt (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Dagnabbit! I'll be deputy-dawg in this new hypothetical scenario of a wiki conspiracy against the conspiracy-mongers!Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's too bad you won't acknowledge any of your inappropriate actions. WP:HOUND is serious. And yet you make a joke out of it. Smatprt (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nietzsche

I hope you de Vereans true-believers do not take my good faith addition of the name of Nietzsche among sceptics as an occasion for ruining the Nietzsche page, which I have just bookmarked, in case the mania for splashing the conspiracy theory everywhere follows this trail. Like Freud, Nietzsche wavered, and in the end embraced the Baconian version, on very complex, and indeed (in the secondary lit on Nietzsche this is often stated) snobbish grounds. You can, see it for example in Ecce Homo:4 'Und, dass ich es bekenne: ich bin dessen instinktiv sicher und gewiss, dass Lord Bacon der Urheber, der Selbstthierquäler dieser unheimlichsten Art Litteratur ist: was geht mich das erbarmungswürdige Geschwätz amerikanischer Wirr- und Flachköpfe an?'(Werke, Carl Hanser, 1994, Bd.2, p.1089). Note however the unkind remarks he has on the American rage for authorship doubters of his time.Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, Nishidani. We stopped beating our wives last week. Thanks for adding the Neitzsche reference. I am going to repeat my request that you stop insulting your fellow wikipedians. It merely makes you look ugly.--BenJonson (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And I'm going to ask that you stop making baseless accusations of "insulting your fellow wikipedians". I know you're trying to build a case that you made an effort to discuss the "problem" with the "offender", but your transparent efforts remind me of the cops who twist a suspect's arm behind his back while shouting "Stop resisting" because they know the dashcam is running. Such accusations from a master of superciliousness is ironic indeed, and will gain you no credibility this time, no matter how many times it's worked in the past. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

'It merely makes you look ugly'. Well, the truth will out. What's wrong with being ugly? I'm comfortable with it.Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you have been asked to refrain from attacking fellow editors going back months and months. No case needs to be mad, as this has been discussed numerous times - and you were warned about this at Wikiquette by an administrator who persuaded you (under threat of a block) to delete your offending statements.Smatprt (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, I take it from your response that you are just going to continue attacking and insulting fellow editors? Smatprt (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

'I take it' means 'I interpret it to mean'. You misinterpreted my responses. I want serious editing, by competent editors ready to inform themselves of the subject under discussion. If you feel insulted by my repeated endeavours to insist you stick to wiki editorial protocols, and stop messing with a text with bad edits that require constant surveillance and correction, well be it. This is supposed to be on the 'high quality scale'. There is no evidence of it, and you've been here far longer than I have. So assume some responsibility. This is not the deVerean aficionados' clubpage. It is a wikipedia page in which even those who subscribe to the fringe doctrine are asked to rein in their partisan belief system to ensure neutrality. I see little sign of any willingness on your part to listen to what editors you disagree with are arguing, saying or demonstrating by reference to real Reliable Sources.Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"You misinterpreted my responses." There's a good one. You're a one man riot, Nishi.--BenJonson (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

POV tags added

I have added two POV tags for the following reasons:

• The lead states that "the theory" dates back to the 19th century as an undisputed fact. This is, in fact, a disputed assertion (disputed by both mainstream academics as well as those who hold the minority viewpoint).

You use plurals for the singular. You quoted 1 sourcebook, from scholars, citing texts that have been construed as suggesting doubts preexisted 1848. Tom Reedy dealt with this. You have yet to show it is 'disputed by mainstream academics'. Paul Barlow contested this, referring to recent research in the intervening 4 decades which gave the denier to your claim.

• The second sentence uses the weasel words "small" and "vast" without any data to support them. The term "vast" is being taken out of context from its use in the source quoted, which says "The traditional theory that Shakespeare was Shakespeare has the passive to active acceptance of the vast majority of English professors and scholars". In the article the usage says that the entire authorship issue "is dismissed by the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars". This is POV and in no way neutral. Smatprt (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've gone one step further: the whole article is a flagrant POV mess. The problem cannot, as your little intervention suggests, be restricted to the introduction.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither 'small' nor 'vast' are weasel words. They have data to support them.

• The vast majority of academics accept that the William Shakespere recorded as living in Stratford-upon-Avon, the actor Shakespeare and the playwright Shakespeare are one and the same person
• The vast majority of academics still subscribe to that belief. WILLIAM S. NIEDERKORN A Historic Whodunit: If Shakespeare Didn't, Who Did? NYTimes
• those involved in the Authorship Question, the vast majority of whom were non-academics William Leahy 'The Shakespeare Authorship Question – A Suitable Subject for Academia?,' p.3 (this is the inverse corollary)
• The vast majority of Shakespeare academics express no doubt that William Shakespeare––Stratford businessman, actor, theater company share-holder–– wrote the plays and poems attributed to him.' The International Marlowe-Shakespeare Society
• ike the vast majority of scholars who work on Shakespeare, I find the DeVere hypothesis wildly implausible Stephen Greenblatt

Nishidani - those are not undisputed facts - those are opinions of selected anti-Stratfordians. (And beside, you are still misquoting your source)Smatprt (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt. I don't like using the sign of the cross, and biting my lips, and exhaling the anodynic susurrus: 'be charitable' under my breath, as a prolegomenon every time I have to reply to you. But I'llk try . .bz hs.. uhm..The citations are not meant to be undisputed facts. They are intended to illustrate the widespread use of 'vast majority' which you recalcitrantly refuse to accept, among scholars who describe what mainstream scholarship thinks of the Authorship doubters. To repeat (cross myself, purse my lips), editors are not entitled to complain about what mainstream sources, or RS, say, as you are doing here, and reject that data simply because, apparently, it rubs up against their prejudices. What you've just done is reject four RS sources simply on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

For the truth of the matter, it is not relevant how many people support one argument or the other. It only matters what the arguments are. For example, the author of The Tempest relied on the Strachey letter as a main source. Since at Jamestown, Secretary William Strachey, Deputy Governor Sir Thomas Gates, Governor Lord De La Warr, and in London the entire Virginia Company were under an oath of secrecy then anyone who had handed Shakspere that document would have been prosecuted. Since England were at war with Spain who were gathering intelligence to decide whether or not to take Jamestown, release of that document would also have been treason. The author of The Tempest had to be a member of the Virginia Council and Shakspere was not. These are the facts and orthodox scholars need to do more work on this issue. I can save time by giving a free download link http://barryispuzzled.com/shakpuzz.pdf (see chapter on The Tempest) intended for anyone with the academic integrity not to brush unpalatable facts under the carpet.Temperance007 (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

He's B-A-C-K! And lecturing again about "academic integrity" while ignoring current scholarship.--BenJonson (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd do well, to read the rules of wikipedia, where it does not matter what the arguments are, but matters greatly if they are sourced to quality scholarly, optimally from university presses.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What's your game here Smatprt? I don't think you are just thick. Is the strategy to exhaust our attention by a pattern of manic attrition in which arguments made earlier (see above my discussion with Schoenbaum on Greenblatt) are ignored, and represented as if nothing had be said, proven, or discussed, until the opposition expires from sheer exasperation, and leaves the field to the fringers who otherwise stand by as you harass the place with wikilawyering and dysmnemnonic hair-splitting? Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As near as I can figure it out, that's it, or certainly a major strategy. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Shall we return to discussing the edits instead of the editors? Thanks. You have proved my point - not one of your quotes uses the term "vast" in terms of "dismissing" the entire subject, which is exactly what you are trying to say. After all your requests for precision in sourcing and quotes, I don't know how else to explain to you that you are misquoting your source. Seriously, one last effort here - don't you think there are scholars out there who do indeed accept the traditional attribution but do not categorically dismiss the entire subject? Personally they don't believe it, but they maintain an open mind or have no opinion because they have done zero research? Or the ones who say "I am not convinced" - not "I think you are nuts, dismissed!"? Smatprt (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are so tied to using the word "vast", which unless you are very careful can be a peacock term wp:peacock, you need to pick one of those quotes to use and not a different sentence of your own devising. You suggested it once above and I would tend to agree that would be the way to go. How did you phrase it?

I don't know of any rule or policy that says the phrasing has to follow the source word-for-word. And I really don't know why you're putting up such a struggle about this. As you frequently say, is the statement in any doubt? The only time they don't dismiss the subject is when they're refuting it, which since their time is apparently more valuable than yours or mine, they rarely deign to do.

We could just scrap the "vast majority" wording and go with Kathman's: ". . . the first [the Shakespeare authorship question] is dismissed as the realm of crackpots"(620), or perhaps the gentler ". . . in fact, antiStratdordianism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence. Professional Shakespeare scholars pay little attention to it, much as evolutionary biologists ignore creationists and astronomers dismiss UFO sightings" (621). I see no weaseling in those quotes, do you?

Seriously, I could go with "great majority," as Schoenbaum suggested many months ago, or at least that's how long it seems. I'm anxious to spend another 15,000 or so words on discussing the third sentence. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Reading

I thought this was an excellent article:

2nd try on the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ravpapa/The_Politicization_of_Wikipedia

"What is to be done? I am the last person to suggest abandoning one of the pillars of Wikipedia. I do believe, however, that true neutrality can only be achieved by granting equal platforms to opposing camps to tell their story as they see it. This does not mean abandoning the principles of comprehensiveness, reliability of sources, and academic rigor. It means allowing opposing narratives free and equal voices." What I have been objecting to all along about this article is the presumption of people who do not agree with the anti-Stratfordian/Oxfordian case presuming to speak for those who do. I think that problem has been partly redressed, and some of the more extreme voices have faded away. But the lingering assumption that because the anti-Stratfordian editors to the page are "lesser breeds before the law" they cannot be trusted to accurately interpret the history and bases of their own skepticism is still unduly influencing page content. BenJonson (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No,we do not grant equal platforms to holocaust deniers and holocast believers, for example. The internet is free for anyone to say whatever they like on their own webpages, but Wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopedia. However, it differs from others in that it gives far more space than is usual to alternative points of view. No-one is a lesser editor, but all editors should respect the rules and not use wikipedia as a promotional tool for pet ideas. Paul B (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? Please cut out this nonsense. The article in question has nothing to do with your illusions. It is about how to improve an encyclopedia when persons of good faith (which does not include holocaust deniers, obviously, don't agree. Please read the article if you want to discuss it and leave your pecadillos out of the discussion. --BenJonson (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. It's one person's opinion, not a policy or a guideline. Who's to say that holocaust deniers are not writing in good faith? Individuals can and do genuinely believe things that are offensive or absurd to most persons. Paul B (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say so, but perhaps you would not. Think about it.--BenJonson (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

'Pec(c)adillo' is spelled with two c's, and is used as a malapropism here. Explaining wikipedia policy is not a 'minor sin'. Ravpapa, after Nableezy, is one of the wildest eccentrics in Wikipedia, because he belongs to that small, sorry, exiguous minority of a minority that insists on rational compromise and narrative equlibrium. I suspect if you called him over, he'd reply that his links to Shakespeare are mainly via such things as Verdi's Falstaff, which Auden in his New York lectures said brilliantly redeemed the otherwise boringly flat Merry Wives of Windsor written by the Stratford man in one of his less inspired weeks. Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Price

The article states: "Shakespeare of Stratford left behind over seventy historical records, and over half of these records shed light on his professional activities. Price notes, however, that every one of these documents concerns non-literary careers – those of theatrical shareholder, actor, real estate investor, grain trader, money-lender, and entrepreneur. But he left behind not one literary paper trail that proves he wrote for a living. In the genre of literary biography for Elizabethan and Jacobean writers, Price concludes that this deficiency of evidence is unique." I have no idea what this last sentence means. In what sense do these records belong in "the genre of literary biography"? What exactly is supposed to be unique? Paul B (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bait and switch. He didn't write for a living. Back then professional writers relied on patronage for their living. Shakespeare didn't have to, since he was part owner of a lucrative theatre troupe and part owner of the playhouse they leased. Sold at the going rate, all of his plays together wouldn't have brought him as much as he made in a year from his theatrical business. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No doubt, but I'm not sure how this helps to illuminate the intended meaning of the relevant sentence. I was asking what Price considers to be "unique" and what is referred to by the phrase "the genre of literary biography". Paul B (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right, Paul, that the sentence is badly confused. What is meant, I think, is that when you compare the records of other writers of the period there is a decided lack of evidence for Shakespeare, in numerous categories of evidence which survives in plenitude in the other instances. For instance, over three hundred known books survive from Ben Jonson's library. How many from Shakespeare's? None that have ever been authenticated. What have we learned from the history of Ben Jonson's annotations in his books? A great deal. Shakespeare? Nada. That was Price's method. You may not like it, but it is a sound historical method, based on the effort to wrestle with the problem of anachronism If there is an absence of certain kinds of biographical evidence, what is the likelihood, given the conditions of the time, that such evidence should exist? This is exactly the question (one of them) we should be asking. David Kathman concedes Price's point when he argues that the reason that there is so much apparently missing (books, letters, literary manuscript of any kind, authentic portrait, etc.) is because Shakespeare was a middle class poet. Price's book shows that Kathman's argument is wrong or at least very misleading, since significantly more documentary evidence survives for other middle class writers. I'm not at all sure what user Tom Reedy means by "bait and switch." He seems to be referring only to the question of patronage, which is a tiny slice of Price's argument. Tom's response also assumes a great deal that is not in evidence. What is in evidence is that Stratford man became wealthy. This is a significant fact, given the thematic preoccupations of the plays. Tom, once more, could you please stop this sort of prejudicial language? I know you're addicted to it, but it really makes you look a lot smaller than I think, in your heart of hearts, you really are.--BenJonson (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know there is a lot of information about Jonson, but the question is what is unique about the evidence regarding Shakespeare, or more particularly what exactly is Price claiming to be unique? Jonson is one of many, many playwrights of the Elizabethan/Jacobean era. I take it that the phrase "genre of literary biography" is simply nonsense, since we are not taking about generic conventions of contemporary biographical writing. Paul B (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You actually believe we have more evidence about Beaumont, Fletcher, Webster, Greene, Kyd, Peele, Marlowe, Nash and Marston's personal libraries, from the books they must have annotated, than from Shakespeare, who, unlike them, apparently, left no books behind? Some method, and I wouldn't put a price on it beyond a senseless cents' worth. Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I suggested to Smatprt that we needed something on Price to be comprehensive, since her book has become a mainstay for anti-Stratfordians. I suggested that he contact her and get her to write a synopsis. He did and then modified what she wrote, so maybe he'll chime in here. I think what she means is that there are no documents such as manuscripts or personal letters from people who knew him from his lifetime alluding to Shakespeare of Stratford being a writer, such as there are for other (but by no means all) writers of the period. She only accepts literal evidence and disallows any inferences made from the historical record, such as the connections between Shakespeare and Camden which strongly suggest they were personally acquainted and the connections between Shakespeare and Buc which prove they were.

What I meant by "bait and switch" is that Price sets up expectations of what types of records we should expect from a writer, qualifies them heavily so Shakespeare's records don't meet the expectations, and then declares that Shakespeare doesn't have them and so must not have been a professional writer (which term is misleading in itself as a form of presentism). She claims that those types of records are used by literary biographers, and she is of course correct, but those are by no means the only types of records they use, and she disqualifies those other types of records by using specious reasoning for her arbitrary use of qualifiers. This type of cherry-picking evidence after the fact is certainly not the way literary biographers work, her claims to the contrary notwithstanding. For example, no literary biographer would ignore the testimony of his fellow actors and business partners Hemmings and Condell on the grounds that it was published seven years after his death.

I believe her statement is that "historians routinely distinguish between contemporaneous and posthumous evidence, and they don’t give posthumous evidence equal weight - but Shakespeare’s biographers do." Smatprt (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I see nothing wrong with quoting her methodology and then pointing out its defects, using RS, of course, McCrea and others. There are several reviews of her book that point out her deck-stacking. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with explaining Price's views. My problem was that the explanation made no sense. I assume, then, that the "literary biographers" in question are modern ones. If so the way that the term 'genre' is used here is misleading, since letters etc are used by biographers of literary figures from all periods where they exist. Of course they are not used when and if they do not exist! We also need to clarify what her methodology is - including what she thinks fit to exclude. Paul B (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So are you two saying that it's pretty much open season on "pointing out the defects" in the methodology of the specific scholars and researchers being quoted through-out the article? So, instead of stating facts or hypothesis, followed by rebuttals, we'll have a bunch of Strats opining anti-Strats, and vice versa? Smatprt (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I was trying to make sense of a garbled passage of prose. I have made it clear that I wanted "to clarify what her methodology is - including what she thinks fit to exclude". That is part of the process of explanation. When I said that the term genre "used here" is misleading, I was commenting upon the intelligibility of the passage in the article, not Price. I don't know what Price herself actually said in her own words. Paul B (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Paul - I was not referring to your statement, but to Tom's directly above yours: "I see nothing wrong with quoting her methodology and then pointing out its defects, using RS, of course, McCrea and others. There are several reviews of her book that point out her deck-stacking." So we will all look to book reviews to attack (point out the defects) each others researchers, is that what Tom is endorsing? Smatprt (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, why exactly do you think that anti-Strats come to a different conclusion than mainstream scholars when the historical record is the same for both sides? And what do you think this is: "Authorship doubters believe that mainstream Shakespeare biographers routinely violate orthodox methods and criteria,[7][8] and include inadmissible evidence in their histories of the Stratford man.[9]" or this: "The majority of academics specializing in Shakespearean studies, called "Stratfordians" by sceptics, generally ignore or dismiss these alternative theories, arguing they fail to comply with standard research methodology and lack supportive evidence from documents contemporary with Shakespeare."

It is incumbent upon this article to explain each side clearly and accurately and to also explain each side's critique of the other's. This article is not a debate; it is a description. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And those statements are already in the article. What you are proposing is using book reviews to add further material to "explain" the explanations. So are you saying that I should start quoting book reviews to explain the many errors Gibson (your source) made, how he made them, why he made them, all under the guise of "explaining". Are we writing a 500-page book here, or an article that has to conform to size limitations?Smatprt (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. We won't quote book reviews. Happy? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Sorry, Paul - I was not referring to your statement." I'm glad you clarified that. Otherwise one might have thought that when you wrote "So are you two saying that it's pretty much open season on 'pointing out the defects' in the methodology of the specific scholars and researchers being quoted through-out the article?" that you were referring to Paul in addition to me. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to your statement to Paul. I wrote "you two" because "you two" were having the related discussion. Must you nitpick and make a new issue out of every word on these pages? This is one of the issues that several editors have raised with you (and Nishidani) that you continue to ignore. Next to Nishi's making an issue out of the occasional typo or editing error, this non-stop argumentative style you have adapted is the true culprit in delaying work on this article. Smatprt (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, (demanding accurate diction)≠(nitpick). Of the two faults, argumentativeness is much less a sin than sloppy writing when composing an encyclopedia article. This is one of the issues that several editors have raised with you that you continue to ignore. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree - argumentativeness, personal attacks, insults, etc. do far more harm to the Wikipedia community than poor writing skills. Writing can be cleaned, edited, fixed up. The other behavior problems can have long lasting impacts. As far as ignoring this issue, I will admit to ignoring comments that start with "learn to read" "go back to community college" "Are you dumb" and other such statements made by you and Nishidani. It is disheartening to see you defend such actions. Smatprt (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC

In response to Paul's orginal question, Price read every extant biography of every alleged writer of the period (24 writers besides Shakspere), and noted the evidence cited as documentation of their writing career. She grouped the evidence into ten categories, and created a 10 x 25 table showing which of the 10 kinds of evidence was extant for each of the 25 writers, including Shakspere. The table shows that Shakspere was the only one of the 25 for whom none of the 10 kinds of evidence was extant. That's the methodology that supports the statement that, "In the genre of literary biography for Elizabethan and Jacobean writers, Price concludes that this deficiency of evidence is unique." The deficiency is unique in that Shakspere was the only alleged Elizabethan-Jacobean writer for whom none of the 10 types of evidence exists. The 10 types of evidence are: "(1) Evidence of education, (2) Record of correspondence, especially concerning literary matters,(3) Evidence of having been paid to write, (4) Evidence of a direct relationship with a patron, (5) Extant original manuscripts, (6) Handwritten inscriptions, receipts, letters, etc. touching on literary matters, (7)Commendatory verses, epistles or epigrams contributed or received, (8) Miscellaneous records (e.g., referred to personally as a writer), (9) Evidence of books owned, written in, borrowed or given, (10) Notice at death as a writer" The book includes more detailed explanations. "Notice at death as a writer," for example, is defined as "within a year" of death. Obviously this excludes the First Folio, which she calls "posthumous" evidence. Clearly the Folio testimony is important; but it is still odd that there was "notice at death as a writer" within a year for 9 other writers, but not the Stratford man, allegedly the greatest of them all. Why is he the only one for whom not one of the 10 types of evidence of a literary careers exists? I hope that answers your question. I strongly recommend the book. Perhaps some clarification is needed in the article? Schoenbaum (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice summary, Schoenbaum. Thanks.--BenJonson (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

1604

Some while ago I changed the phrase "authorship researchers" in the "Date of playwright's death" section to "Oxfordians". The phrase seems to have returned. Obviously only Oxfordians believe this, since Oxford is the only major candidate known to have died before Billy of Stratford (though the "real" date of Marlowe's death must of course remain a mystery). All those Baconians who spilled so much ink on the problem and essentially invented this whole field of fruitful research are being written out of history, as are all those poor but honest Derbyites and Marlovians. I've restored my alteration to the text. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul, there is an extensive scholarly tradition on the problem of the cessation of publication of play quartos in 1604. It includes both Oxfordian and orthodox scholars. One point on which anyone who knows the actual data are agreed is that there is a problem with the traditional view. The numbers strongly support the inference that something of significance transformed the shape of shakespeare's career in 1604. Please see the introduction to the first issue of Brief Chronicles for some citations. Or I will provide them myself, along with suggested wording.--BenJonson (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben, You are spectacularly missing the point. Whether or not Shakespeare continued writing after 1604 - which of course the overwhelming majority of scholars believe he did - is wholly separate from the question of whrether he was dead after 1604 - or 1609. Obviously there is no "extensive scholarly tradition" that says this, from orthodox writers or from spporters of any of the main alternative candidates other than Oxford. Please check what is actually under debate before weighoing in with irrelevancies and question begging. Otherwise all you are doing is muddying the waters. Paul B (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It should probably be "anti-stratfordians". Of course, it applies to the Oxford theory, but it also applies to the group theory as well. More accurately though, it's one of the strongest anti-Strat arguments going. Obviously, if the author were dead by 1604 (or 1609), then it could not be Shakespeare of Stratford. The search would then focus on either a candidate who was dead by then, or on a group theory where sole authorship is not the issue. Smatprt (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No it should not be. Only Oxfordians believe this. The group theory implies nothing concerning dates at which publications can cease, since, like the Rolling Stones, groups can go on after members leave or die. There is no specific date required for the group theory, and of course Baconians and Derbyites cannot possibly believe evidence that the playwright was dead after 1604. They too are "anti-Stratfordians". Paul B (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul, see my remarks above. You don't appear to know anything more about what "Oxfordians" "believe" than you do about what honest orthodox scholars have said about the 1604 question, even though such information has been readily available on authorship related sites such as the Shakespeare Fellowship for several years now, viz: "Although Roth supports Erne’s central thesis, his comment on the chronology of quarto publication also deserves to be quoted: “Erne does not provide a satisfying explanation for the sudden halt in registration of new Shakespeare plays around the time of James’ accession. ” Oxfordians have argued, since 1920, that the abrupt cessation of publication of new Shakespearean quartos in 1604 is most plausibly explained by the author’s death on June 24, 1604." In other words, it is very well understood by honest academicians that there is a "1604" problem, just as there is a "1609" problem with the Sonnets.--BenJonson (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You apparently cannot understand plain English. See my remarks above. All of this comment is almost wholly irrelevant and question begging. Its only relevant aspect supports my point. This is an argument made by Oxfordians, not by any other type of anti-Stratfordian. Your quotation says "Oxfordians have argued, since 1920, that...". This is a uniquely Oxfordian argment, not a Baconian, Marlovian or Derbyite one. You don't appear to know anything more about what non-Oxfordians "believe" than you do about what honest scholars have said about the 1616 question, even though such information has been readily available on authorship related sites such as Bacon is Shakespeare for several years now. Baconians regularly argue that the playwright must have been alive after 1616. [20]. Jeez. Paul B (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul - you are mixing apples and oranges. Group theorists can certainly believe the playwright was dead (or the group changed/disbanded/etc.) before 1609 - it does not hurt their case (unlike Baconians or Berbyites) at all. But I reiterate that it is an anti-Strat argument as it disqualifies Shakespeare of Stratford. Can you deny that simple statement?Smatprt (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem confused. Group theorists are unlikely to believe that "the playwright" was dead after any particular date, since it is a typical feature of group theories that there is no single playwright. That's why they are group theories. But in any case this is irrelevant. Only Oxfordians argue this, for obvious reasons. Proof that plays were written after 1604 would cripple their case. Of course Oxfordians are also "anti-Stratfordians", but they are a specific subset of them. Imagine if someone wrote in the Obama article "American voters admire Barack Obama", and justified the statement by saying that supporters of Obama are in fact American voters. Yes they are, but there are also American voters who do not admire him, so the phrase would be misleading. Paul B (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally get where you are coming from, and although I still believe there are some non-candidate specific anti-strats that make the Sonnets "ever-living" argument, for example, I certainly agree that it is primarily an issue that Oxfordians raise. I don't know if you will remember this, but the whole labeling discussion was raised a while back by Barry (mostly) who objected to having "Oxfordian" everywhere in the article. So to make him happy, I went thru and changed "Oxfordian" to "anti-Stratfordian" wherever I could and that ended that issue. Now we are going the other way. To me, it hardly matters. The only thing I wanted to stress that if we are talking about arguments against Stratford, it cannot be denied that it's a pretty strong argument against him if it could ever be shown that the author was dead prior to 1616. And, by the way, thanks for having a discussion without dragging in the personalities of the editors. It was refreshing. Smatprt (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason for including this section in the article, IMHO, is because it calls the case for the Stratford man into question, and not because it favors any other specific candidate. Oxford is the only major alternative who died in 1604, so he is the main beneficiary; but he isn't the only one among the 50+ candidates proposed. So it isn't just an Oxfordian view. But Paul has a point that not all anti-Strats agree there's a "1604 problem." So I propose that the opening words be: "Many anti-Stratfordians (mainly Oxfordians)..." I think this would take care of the problem. Schoenbaum (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We are only going the other way with regard to this specific section. I don't object to its inclusion at all, only that it is presented as a generically "Anti-Stratfordian" position. I think that you are so wedded to Oxfordian thinking that you can't even imagine yourself into the thinking of Baconian Anti-Stratfordians, who have been the dominant participants in the debate through much of its history. Imagine a section which discussed evidence that the playwright was alive after 1616 (strongly supportive of the Bacon and Derby theories, and also necessarily anti-Stratfordian). Imagine that it started with the sentence "Anti-Stratfordians believe that there is evidence that the playwright was alive after 1616". As an Oxfordian surely you can see how misleading that would be? It implies that that the whole "anti-Stratfordian" position supports the view that the writer was alive post-1616. If Schoenbaum can give evidence that anyone other than Oxfordians have actually argued this point then I will be happy to accept his wording. Paul B (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I proposed changing it to "Many anti-Stratfordians (mainly Oxfordians)..." That does NOT make it sound like "a generically anti-Stratfordian position." If, as you say, you "don't object to its inclusion at all," then let's make this change and move on. Do you agree? Schoenbaum (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've already said, I'm OK with that if you can show that there are any non-Oxfordians who actually argue this. Paul B (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing it to the generic "anti-Stratfordians" would be inaccurate, for the reasons Paul stated. I have never heard any other faction besides Oxfordians argue this point. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The debate over particular terminology is an avoidance of the real issues which the article needs to address, as noted in my above remarks in the discussion. If this article is really about the subject it purports to treat, it should acknowledge that both Oxfordian and traditional scholars (personally, I don't care whether Baconian et alia proponents understand the issue or not) have agreed in effect that there is a 1604 problem. If you don't understand this, Tom, or Paul, then maybe we need to reiterate what the facts are and see if we are all willing to stipulate to them. Otherwise we are just wasting time, like soldiers in WWI firing out of foxholes and waiting to die on the service of the great lies of history.--BenJonson (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We are trying to explain different points of view, not argue through the evidence to discover the truth. See WP:truth. This is a very simple matter of terminogical exactitude, which should not have required any argument at all, but instead we get this long thread and bizarre revert wars over something that should be entirely uncontroversial. The "1604 problem" exists in the discourse of Oxfordianism. It did not exist as a "problem" before Oxfordianism was invented, and it certainly plays no role in other models of anti-Stratfordianism. Simple really. No-one is saying that this subject should not be discussed. BTW, the fact that you apparently "don't care" about Baconian points of view indicates that you are not interested in fairly representing any position other than your own. No doubt there are Baconians who could say they "don't care whether Oxfordian et alia proponents understand the 1616 issue or not" and could happily fill a whole section with their post-1616 playwriting theories. Do you agree that the opening sentence of the section should say "Oxfordians argue..." not "anti-Stratfordians argue"...? Paul B (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Soldiers in WW1, as opposed to the next war, did not think of themselves as firing out of 'foxholes'. They fired from slit-trenches: it was trench warfare. Debates over terminology are important. Nor can I see any 1604 problem as besetting orthodox scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as you have no problem including this section, Paul (and you've said that you don't), then I have no problem starting it off with "Oxfordians believe the author was already dead by 1609 ..." I agree that it's mainly Oxfordians who say this. But I'd like to delete the phrase, "they can identify evidence that," since the paragraph obviously goes on to give supporting evidence. The phrase just clutters up the opening sentence. A more general point is that we all agreed, I thought, to proceed sentence-by-sentence, starting from the top. This jumping around, raising relatively trivial issues at random elsewhere in the article strikes me as a distraction, and as counterproductive. Schoenbaum (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We all agreed to work on the intro sentence-by-sentence, but that doesn't mean any improvements to the article in other places shouldn't proceed. And accuracy is never trivial, no matter how trivial the point. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting the Question of Majorities and Minorities

Its been my intention for some weeks now to draw attention to an interesting fact in the history of the debate which up until now has not received the attention it might merit. In 1991 Douglass Hunt, Professor of English at the University of Missouri, in his edition of the Riverside Guide to Writing (published by Houghton Mifflin as a University writing textbook, included a section, "Arguing When the Facts are in Question." I encourage all editors involved in this page to get a copy of this article and read the whole thing. Its a good read, and indicates how far wide of the mark are some of the over-generalizations of those promoting the "fringe theory" theory of authorship debate.

According to Professor Hunt, “The idea that Shakespeare’s plays and poems were not actually written by William Shakespeare of Stratford has been the subject of many books and is widely regarded as at least an interesting possibility" (174). --BenJonson (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had that book for quite some time but don't remember much about it except that it was an exercise in evaluating arguments. I took it off the shelf this evening and read the first paragraph in the essay beginning on page 169:

"Most people assume that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, king Lear, Venus and Adonis, and 154 sonnets simply because everyone says so: his name always appears in the title page. In fact, his name did not appear on any existing title page until the publication of the first folio, seven years after his death, and many people believe that the man named William Shakespeare could not have written the plays attributed to him."

As you can see, we must call upon our skills of evaluation with the very first paragraph of the chapter. So far I must confess I am less than impressed, but I am willing to soldier on. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You successfully identified a bad error, Tom. The question is, what does the error mean? You will not find that error in any of the canonical authors of the Oxfordian school, from Looney to Ogburn or Anderson. So my interpretation of it would be that Professor Hunt, despite his impressive credentials as an academician, made the same mistake that most of his colleagues make: He didn't know enough about either the Oxfordian/anti-Strat literature or the primary evidence. Its not clear to me how this effects the rest of his judgments. His entire larger point is that the facts are sometimes in question on this topic. I just consulted the current edition of what Encyclopedia Britannica says about authorship. It begins with a typical deception. Hunt is factually mistaken, but arguing in good faith. Whoever authored the 2007 Britannica Macropedia entry is either at least as mistaken as Hunt, or is simply manufacturing an indefensible argument for the purposes of maintaining the status quo for a few more years. --BenJonson (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger, I did re-read the article last night and I agree, it is well worth reading. I don't have it to hand at the moment, but I believe that quotation is not from Hunt, but from an article on the authorship question that he uses as an example to point out types of persuasive language that seem to be neutral. What I got from it was his point that calm and neutral language is more persuasive than obvious, heavy-handed slanting, and I agree. I think this article should be as accurate and as neutral as we can possibly make it, which is why we need both sides involved to weed out the bias. Partisanship necessarily colors all of our judgment, but when it gets to the point that it becomes obvious and unreasonable, what are we to do when the other side can't see it? I think the 1604 discussion directly above is an obvious example. I admit that often it takes a week or better before I can see my own bias (and I'm sure that often I never see it), sometimes after the consensus has been reached in my favor (I have such thoughts about the second sentence issue but I don't want to get bogged down in it again), but it appears to me that Smatprt and you have an undeviating agenda that doesn't scruple to use any advantage, no matter the violence done to history, neutrality, or Wikipedia standards.

I have more to say (as always; "Sufflimandus erat, as Augustus said of Haterius") but I am quite busy today on another project.

Oh, and if it's from the 2007 Brittanica, it was probably written in the 1970s. There hasn't been a new edition since then, and only the major articles are revised. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And what does "sufflimandus erat," in your interpretation, mean in that context? What was on Jonson's mind?--BenJonson (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead: third sentence, etc.

Moving on to the third sentence of the lead, it currently reads as follows: "Those who question the attribution, known as 'anti-stratfordians', believe that 'William Shakespeare' was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.[3]." I'd like to propose that we cut "known as 'anti-Stratfordians'" from this sentence, move it down to the second paragraph, and define all of these terms at once. Here it interrupts the main point. That would leave: "Those who question the attribution believe that 'William Shakespeare' was a pen name used by the true author, or authors, to keep the writer's identity secret.[3]" Is that acceptable to everyone? Schoenbaum (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm throwing some contention out there, but the sentence as written implies only one or just a few actors directly involved in the deception. Every alternative authorship scenario requires some type of deception involving the explicit or implicit cooperation of the government or others in the know, whether loosely or tightly controlled, and I think this article would be incomplete without that being a part of the description. So trying to avoids the buzz word conspiracy, I propose Those who question the attribution believe that 'William Shakespeare' was a pen name used by the true author, or authors, as part of some type of organized subterfuge to keep the writer's identity secret. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Tom, you're throwing "some [major] contention out there" with the proposed addition of "as part of some type of organized subterfuge." There's no consensus among authorship doubters about who, or how many, people were in the know, or necessarily had to be in the know. Yes, the article should deal with the issue, but there's no need to get into that much detail in the lead. The use of a pen name is by definition "a subterfuge" involving some unknown number of people. There's no need to spell it out any further, especially not with a phrase that's clearly designed to suggest that it's an implausible idea to begin with (for anyone unfamiliar with the period) right in the lead. I find it totally unacceptable. Schoenbaum (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you find it unacceptable. Every source that I've read on both sides mentions it right up front. It is a factor in every authorship scenario, just as the demotion of the Stratford Shakespeare is, and this article should not deviate. In fact, I'm surprised at the lack of any mention of it in this article except in two places, both of them mainstream. As it is it implies a single or just a few persons writing under a pen name with the cooperation of others. Many writers have done so without the help of others; Benjamin Franklin comes to mind. There's no great level of detail necessary for the lead. And the phrase I suggested is not designed to suggest that it's an implausible idea; that is intrinsic to the authorship question. The article should reflect anti-Stratfordism how it is, not my version of it nor your version of it, and I find your desire to withhold information surprising, given your comments up to this point. I don't care how it's phrased, in fact, someone else can write it, but I think it needs to be mentioned in the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from agreeing with Schoenbaum on this, I want to point out, Tom, that you are continuing this pattern that Schoenbaum refers to - adding material to the article that is not neutral and designed to belittle the minority view. Are you going to try and drag us this way on every line of this article? How is this helping to overcome your own complaint (and ours) that this process is moving too slowly? Right now, you need to either form a consensus for change (or even something that actually approaches a consensus), otherwise these continued additions are unlikely to happen. Regarding your proposal, I imagine Ben will be also oppose it, do you agree? That would be 1/2 the regular editors opposed, so quite frankly, unless you have another proposal, this particular conversation (concerning your proposed addition) is pretty much over.

Quite frankly, Smatprt, your hysterical accusations are becoming quite tiresome. I haven't added any such material to the article. We're discussing it. Or trying to. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Right now, we are back to two choices: leave it as it is, or accept Schoenbaums cut of 3 words (which I see is not in your version anyhow -so it appears we actually do have a consensus on the cut.)

One other comment. Our charge was to make the lead more streamlined and more compact. The consensus was that it was too long. Now, due to Tom and Nishidani consistently trying to add material (mostly pov remarks that break neutrality), the lead (as well as the article) has now become larger. In the first two lines, (mostly Schoenbaum) negotiated additions to balance your additions, with the result that we just beefied up both sides of the argument. Net change, in two lines, we have added 9 more words. Now Tom wants to add 8 additional words for the next line alone? At this rate, the lead will end up being over 500 words by the time we are through. Needless to say, we need to start going in the opposite direction.Smatprt (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Schoenbaum's original wording for the reasons he and Smatprt have both stated. The original is more clear and to the point. I appreciate Tom's attempt to avoid "buggeswordes" like "conspiracy," but I think that discussion of an "organized deception" could and probably should constitute a section all of its own and need not be brought into the lead in any way. By creating a later section for discussion of this point, we can agree, I hope, that those arguing for the orthodox view can even use the term "conspiracy" as long as they can cite its use in the relevant literature (which shouldn't be that difficult given how readily true believers have recourse to it in order to short-circuit factual and historical discussion). This would be acceptable, to me at least, as long as there is opportunity to cite alternative sources which reject or qualify the use of such terms (For instance, Justice Stevens refers to the term "imaginative conspiracy," to describe his version of the "organized deception" involved.--BenJonson (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you say that, "It [some type of organized subterfuge] is a factor in every authorship scenario ... " As I said, the use of a pen name is a type of "organized subterfuge," so nothing needs to be said beyond that. You seem to want to imply some sort of "massive conspiracy," which isn't unnecessarily so. Oxfordian Nina Green has proposed that only the author and his front man knew the truth, so it's not true that it's a factor in "every authorship scenario." Again, the article should address it somewhere, but not in the lead. That's too much unnecessary detail, and I will not agree to it. Schoenbaum (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You people aren't really all that proud of your theories, are you? since you want to suppress full disclosure until further down in the article. I'm not aware of any WP:RS publication by Nina Green, although my knowledge of her activities is very limited.

Very well, I withdraw my suggestion and go along with Schoenbaum's suggested edit, since it wasn't in any of the earlier suggested rewrites, as long as the information is addressed in the Authorship doubterssection, which needs rewriting to comprehensively articulate the commonalities among the various authorship theories instead of being a shill section. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nina forgot to mention the go-between, Robert Armin.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course if Nina is right, then all those hidden messages expressing secret knowledge of the true author must be...imaginary. However, it's worth noting that the earliest doubters did not imply a conspiracy, or at least Disraeli's character and Hart don't. They simply imply that Elizabethan plays were like many modern film-scripts, written and rewritten by several hands, so that “Shakespeare” is a name attached to multiply-authored works, It’s a version of the group theory, but without the secretive aspect. Paul B (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well quite a few were, as you know, and doubts about a single hand in many emerged quite early, as did doubts that the Folio's attribution of plays like The Two Gentlemen of Verona to him was correct. Hamner denied it, as early as the mid 1740s, as did Coleridge. What they had was, as heirs to a much deeper literacy than we epigones can boast, pitch-perfect ears, that tingled at shifts in style and authorial tone even in a written text. That's one reason why, as opposed to actors and judges, great poets (other than the great but tone-deaf, yawping Walt Whitman) haven't joined the great conspiracy murmur as it grumbles, in frock coats, in the wings in minor opinion. Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, Shakespeare's authorship was first questioned on Titus, sometime in the late 1600s, I believe. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. Moving on, I've redrafted the rest of the paragraph, rearranging it while keeping most of the same content, with a couple of exceptions. I think it's important to see it in its entirety, but we should probably still discuss it one sentence/issue at a time. So here's what I propose:

Over 50 alternative candidates have been proposed. The major ones include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby. Oxford, Bacon and Derby are also often associated with various "group" theories. Bacon had the largest following during the early years of the controversy, but Oxford has received the most attention -- especially from prominent public figures -- since being proposed in 1920. Supporters of the four main candidates are referred to as Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians and Derbyites, respectively.

Comments anyone? Schoenbaum (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(A)'especially from prominent public figures' is not necessary for the lead.

(B)'Bacon's name prevailed in the 19th century controversy. Since 1920, Oxford's candidacy has won greater/gained prominence.'

One can vary B in many ways. I offer it as a template for the succinctness commended by WP:LEADNishidani (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's the wording above or some other, I think that if the "50+ candidates" or "more than 50" or 'numerous" bit is going to be in there then we need to provide some context that addresses the fact that only Bacon and Oxford have attracted wide followings and/or the support of prominent figures. Otherwise, I think it can be misinterpreted to sound like all the candidates were actually well-researched and generally accepted by the majority of authorship doubters. In this regard I would suggest something closer to what we have now or along these lines:

*Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support,^[4] statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Of the numerous candidates proposed,^[5] only Oxford and Bacon have won support from prominent public figures. Supporters of any one of the four main theories are commonly called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively.^[6]

On other thing that I like about this is that it stays compact. The present version is 81 words. Schoenbaums's version takes it up to 90. My version reduces it down to 77. A small reduction, but it least it goes in the right direction! I think further detail should go into the history section. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You write:'addresse(s) the fact that only Bacon and Oxford have attracted wide followings and/or the support of prominent figures.'

Theories aren't described or evaluated according to their public following, or support by 'prominent figures'. And, are you willing to provide good sources for the suggestion that no prominent public figure has ever supported any candidacy other than that of Oxford or Bacon? Putting the 'prominent figures' into the lead already betrays the hand of deVereans, who love to showcase the moot court folly and the 2007 declaration. To overplay this is to violate NPOV, with regard to potential Marlovian, Baconian, Rutlandian etc. propounders (the Rutland theory was once a vogue in Europe, especially Russia, for example). Rubenstein has many levelheaded things to say, for example, in his book, which however proposes Neville's candidacy, which has no prominent backers I know of. So one simply cannot press this 'prominent backers' stuff without endandering the neutrality of the article.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the theory attracts prominent supporters has already been addressed, and any further detail should go in the text rather than the lead. Also we don't need double links in one paragraph to the same Wikipedia pages. My suggestion logs in at 64 words:

Of the more than 50 proposed candidates, major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians, or Derbyites, respectively.

If we want to inject a bit of history, this version is 72 words:

Of the more than 50 proposed candidates, major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Bacon's name prevailed in the 19th century, but since 1920 Oxford's has won greater prominence. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians, or Derbyites, respectively.

Whatever we do we don't need four references for Oxford and none for the others. One or two for all should do. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

All the above verbiage not withstanding, you have not addressed the issue I raised concerning the "more than 50" reference being taken out of context. If it stays, then it has to be rewritten somehow so that it is clear that the great majority of those candidates were never taken seriously by most authorship doubters. Almost all of them, I imagine, were single source candidates with no adherents other than the nominator. The bottom line is that there have never been more than a few candidates that ever received any continuing research (or criticism), and this is completely unclear. Of course, if we simply cut it down to "numerous", then we can leave the rest to the history section, where context can be provided. Smatprt (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I do note what you say about mentioning Oxford so much and the issue of sourcing "only" so have tweaked it to accommodate those objections:

*Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support,^[4] statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Of the numerous candidates proposed,^[5] only a handful have been endorsed by prominent public figures. Supporters of any one of the four main theories are commonly called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively.^[6] Smatprt (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say "more than 50" is taken out of context? The very next phrase "major nominees gives it sufficient context. And don't be so sure about how seriously some of the others were taken; entire books were written on such "minor" nominees as Queen Elizabeth and Rutland, not to mention the groupist books.

And I'm not saying anything about Oxford being mentioned so much, just that he's the only one referenced, and overly referenced to boot. (But now I see you are replying to Nishidani and not me, but I think his point is that endorsement of prominent figures is not necessary to mention since it's already been said.) Tom Reedy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You save a lot of space simply naming the number generally accepted.

There are four major nominees among the 56 (note)candidates proposed so far: de Vere, Bacon, Marlowe and Derby. The former two have received most support. Many variations of these proposals do not exclude group composition.'

Insistence on endorsement by public figures is ridiculous. That is a minor issue, esp. for the lead, but a major factor in the deVerean movement, and therefore cannot stand the test of WP:NPOV, which is strict on leads.

One could save wordage by relegating the Oxfordians, Bacopnians, Marlovians or Derbyites to the maintext. I say this also because historically there have been booms of support for Rutland, and I suppose a thorough grasp of the 160 year old literature, which few probably know, would reveal other major candidates in vogue from decade to decade or continent to continent.Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To speed this along I'll agree to numerous; it's six of one, etc., anyway, and the exact number can go in the main text, plus we lose a few words. Here are my proposals, the first at 62 words:

Of the numerous proposed candidates, major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians, or Derbyites, respectively.

And the alternate version with a bit of history at 70 words:

Of the numerous proposed candidates, major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Bacon's name prevailed in the 19th century, but since 1920 Oxford's has won greater prominence. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians, or Derbyites, respectively. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben just posted this to the page - I am moving it here til we finish this discussion, leaving the previous version in place.Smatprt (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Although more than 50 alternative candidates have been proposed, the list of those with any significant following includes only statesman Francis Bacon, William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe and, most recently and persuasively,Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Supporters of any one of the four main theories are commonly called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively. (BenJonson's version)

In regards to Tom's version I just want to comment that I still have concerns about making prominent mention of the minor candidates without clarifying the fact that there have never been more than a handful of serious candidates. Listing the major nominees doesn't quite cover it, cuz, in reality, they are not only the major, but the only real nominees (yeah - maybe one or two others) that have received attention from more than one scholar from both sides of the aisle. Ben's makes a good attempt at that, though I don't know if his "only" can be sourced. "Most persuasively" is also problematic. But I appreciate his attempt at responding to my concern about giving the also-rans too much weight. Smatprt (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"In regards to Tom's version I just want to comment that I still have concerns about making prominent mention of the minor candidates without clarifying the fact that there have never been more than a handful of serious candidates." Excuse me? Just which minor candidates have I mentioned? They're all lumped up in "numerous" and it's followed by the "major nominees", which certainly puts the first group into perspective. And sorry, Roger, but your prose is even flabbier: "the list of those with any significant following includes only ..." should be "those with significant following are ..." And your "most recently" is incorrect; Marlowe is the most recent significant nominee.

We also need to remember that brevity is not as important as accuracy and neutrality. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You old hound dog, Smarprt, Nishi and Tom and Paul and all the rest of the serious people 'round here are right: a man can't accomplish a dang thing with you fluttering about, moving this and that and calling for more discussion. I demand that my edit be restored. I cut clean 20 words out of the flabby, misshapen, justly controversial piece of crap I started with, and its still not GOOD enough for smartypants smarprt. Humph. I see my mentor Malvolio existing stageleft right now and I've half a mind to follow him offstage to mind my own business for a while. Who do you think you are, anyway, some kind of stage director who can just go ahead and push everyone else around and gang up on us all? I'm fed up. Miffed in Oxford, Missouri --BenJonson (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Very funny, Ben :) Yeah - I ain't nothin' but a hound dog! That's actually a great number from the last show we did. As I said, very funny - now back to line 4? Smatprt (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that's the way you MUST have it, how about this:

"Although more than 50 alternative candidates have been proposed, the list of those with any significant following is small. Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Supporters of any one of the four main theories are commonly called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively."

I don't like it one dang bit, but if I can't have my own way, maybe it'll do. dodo. --BenJonson (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I realized this doesn't read well. Let me revise one more time:

"Although more than 50 alternative candidates have been proposed, the list of those with any significant following is small. Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Supporters of any one of the four main theories are commonly called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively."

There, cut out a whole dangnab wasted sentence. We could do it another way, but this to me comes closest to what the Quakers would call the "sense of the meeting." A hedge fund operator might call it something else, but that's for him to say.--BenJonson (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you are going. This is getting close and with Tom giving a little on "numerous" we would have:

"Although numerous candidates have been proposed, the list of those with any significant following is small. Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Supporters of any one of the four main theories are commonly called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively."

Shorter, it has all your elements, and it would address my concerns (I'd close my mouth!):

"Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Of the numerous candidates proposed, only a few have received a significant following. Supporters of the four main theories are commonly called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively." Smatprt (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else?Smatprt (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, first I want to thank you for your two proposed versions above. My initial reaction was that both versions are better than what I first proposed, and so either would be acceptable to me. But upon hearing of Smatprt's concern that the primary focus should be on the major candidates, I now prefer his last version, which is similar to yours, except it mentions the four major candidates first, before mentioning "the numerous candidates proposed, only a few of which have achieved a significant following." It's a valid point, and his version keeps the minor candidates more in perspective relative to the others, IMHO. I hope you will agree. Schoenbaum (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You're the only one insisting on that, and BenJonson's latest even gives a rough number. The problem is that it's bad writing; it moves from the specific to the general, from the introductory to the expository. If I said, "I bought radishes, onions and butter. I needed a few items so I went to the grocery store," you might not find anything terrible wrong with it—we talk that way all the time—but it's backwards, the same as mentioning "numerous candidates" after naming four specific ones. And as I said, stating there have been numerous candidates, then stating there are four major ones and naming them, makes it unnecessary to say "only a few of which have achieved a significant following" because that type of writing conforms to how human beings think, so the medium (the grammar) is the message, so to speak. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, de Vere is showcased. The lead is about a topic with 160 years of history, and cannot play up a trend for one candidate, who happens to be favoured by three editors here, with such phrasing as 'Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support'.

Few of the numerous candidates have received significant backing. The major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively. Theories of multiple authorship between various candidates also exist. (56 words) Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I think you make a valid point. The "numerous candidates" should be mentioned first. I will therefore accept the first of your two proposed wordings, i.e, the shorter one (at 62 words), which reads as follows: Of the numerous proposed candidates, major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians, or Derbyites, respectively. Are there other takers? Schoenbaum (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, I just reverted your deletion of the phrase "who currently attracts the most widespread support" in Tom's proposed wording, which I've just accepted. We've been discussing this very sentence, trying to reach a consensus, as you well know. It was an act of extreme bad faith for you to change it unilaterally before a consensus was reached. Schoenbaum (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would remind you that you have just accepted Tom's suggestion does not make it policy. Take your 'extreme bad faith' attributed to me, and place it in your own court, with its double standards, as I addressed them in a note below, before catching this. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Given Schoenbaum's statement above, I too will agree to Tom's proposed wording, as restated by Schoenbaum. It is a reasonable compromise and will allow us to move on to the rest of the lead. I also agree that it was extreme bad faith editing for Nishidani to unilaterally change the lead while the rest of the page editors were in the middle of discussions concerning the very sentence that Nishidani altered/deleted. Smatprt (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll change it in lieu of any other objections; it will be easy enough to revert if there are.

You might want to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia terms before bandying them about. Your and Schoenbaum’s accusation of bad faith against Nishidani for doing the same as BenJonson is more than a bit hypocritical, and speaks much louder to the uninvolved editors watching this page than lodging any formal complaint.

I expect a lot more heat on the next few changes. Let's begin a new section. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

News: A Diversion for all to Enjoy

This should especially appeal to Nishidani, since it is clear evidence of a creative conspiracy. http://www.undertheradar.co.nz/utr/more/NID/1991/Video-and-Download:-Edward-de-Vere---Mind-Thoughts.utr#comments_1991--BenJonson (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It was very entertaining until the appearance of the yuppie kids. I much preferred the statues. My contribution is a hard-to-find classic that has been compared to Citizen Kane: http://www.megavideo.com/?v=B8H0RRZ1. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't click on the video, but gazed for some moments at the mousy, rodent-visaged adolescent with the wispy womb-broom. I have a book, in Japanese, on Nietzsche's moustache.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani at his finest, still doesn't get it. Look up "news of a difference" under Gregory Bateson. Neitzche's mustache has rotted your brain.--BenJonson (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

'Fool: Dost thou know the difference, my boy?'

You know how William Shakespeare of Stratford answered de Vere (whom I admit was the author of the Sonnets, only I beg to differ as to the boy he wooed there). It was Shakspeare himself, who replied to every one of the frustrated love letters de Vere sent to him via Roger Arnim, as the recent discovery of his 126 answers to deVere's sonnets shows. de Vere wrote of differences in poem 105, and sure enough, in the manuscript find, shortly to be published, found in a buried rick in Avon's fields recently, we find the reply, no. CV:-

How mediaeval you would have me seem!,

A perfect knight from that benighted age;

So rare in virtue readers must esteem

Your verse mere romance for a girlish page.

The wit too forces blasphemy in that play

Where my three virtues coincide in one,

Like some scholastic clerk’s, that would betray

A mind so bored by doctrine it would pun.

I’d rather be any of those triple wights

Whose evil stalks your brilliance as they rant.

Macbeth or Edmund;or Iago who ignites

The truths in all that difference you scant,

Or all three men in one, whose daring-do

Would test the mettle of Fair, of Kind, and True.

Quite familiar with Bateson, thanks. I prefer his double-bind theory when thinking of de Verean patterns of thought. But the 'news of difference' is just old Bateson recycling Norbert Wiener and Thomas Kuhn. I prefer King Lear: 'Come, sir, arise, away! I'll teach you differences', and the splendid use Terry Eagleton made of it in his monograph William Shakespeare. Indifferent to your diffidence about my deference to difference, and no doubt huffy and resentful of the fact you refuse in turn my suggestion you peruse Prof. Hikami Hidehiro's fascinating remarks about Nietzsche's moustache in his Nietzsche no kao, (Tokyo Iwanami 1976) I'll save you the standard allusion to Jacques Derrida's difference/differance elucubrations, and direct your attention, by a return of ironical courtesy, to Gilles Deleuze's Différence et répétition. Shakspeare is all about differences, Oxfordian harping all about repetition. Hence Norbert Wiener's theory: 'disorganization in transit' is what happens when textual evidence is decanted through incompetent interpreters. But enough. Like Prospero, I must turn a walk or two. Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Decanted?" "Incompetent?" Hum. You just can't seem to stop using those big words with which to veil your insults, can you? History will judge who is a better interpreter, not you, and not even Norbert Weiner, and certainly not Dr. Derrida's postcard.--BenJonson (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to learn you also have the gift of foresight into future history, and have a Nostradramatic assurance it is on your side. Something of an oracle, then, and so, taking the Stratford man's advice, when Sir Oracle opes his lips, let no dog bark! Let's drop this futile and purposeless banter, which you invited in your section heading. Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to modify lead sentence

These sentences seem choppy to me: The public debate dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted public attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.

How does everyone feel about combining them thusly: The public debate, which dates back to the mid-19th century, has attracted public attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.

Too much in one sentence?

Also Smatprt, why don't you turn that note into a reference, since it supports the statement? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I have no problem with making it one sentence, but I still like your suggestion of making it "Public debate of the issue." I would also put a semicolon before the final clause to make it a compound sentence. These changes would yield the following: "Public debate of the issue, which dates back to the mid-19th century, has attracted public attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures; but it is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars." Schoenbaum (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is better.--BenJonson (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A comma is called for as the sentence is constructed. But I think we should probably leave it alone or risk opening another can of worms. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

'Public' is repeated three times in the space of a single sentence. Reconsider.Nishidani (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani's point is well taken, hence: "Debate on the topic, which dates back to the mid-19th century, has generated considerable attention and a thriving following, often involving prominent public figures; but it is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars." This eliminates the duplication and preserves Schoenbaum's use of the semicolon, which is preferable because it develops a more detailed pattern of subordination and emphasis. The word choices reduce the volume and improve the accuracy of the sentence, viz. "on" for "of." One does not really have debate "of" an issue, but "on" one. --BenJonson (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering - with this change, would it then be saying that it was the "debate" that has attracted a thriving following, including some prominent public figures? Presently it is "the issue" that has attracted both. Also, it seems taking out "public" takes us back to the argument over when the theory began. We do not know when private debate start - what is sourced is McCrae's statement that "public debate" started in the 19th century. Why don't we at least finish the first paragraph before we look at it as a whole? Bringing this up in the middle of our discussion of line 4 is just a distraction. Can we avoid duplication of words as we move forward, instead of going backward to address new issues? Smatprt (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine holding this question in abeyance as you suggest, Smatprt, pending further discussion about the whole paragraph. No wording we have yet hit on seems ideal, including mine. Tom, see my comment on your talk page.--BenJonson (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting Quote On the Bard

"Literature provides insights into the human condition in a way that no political treatise can match. Shakespeare’s greatness lies not in a gift for memorable phrase but in his matchless exploration of enduring human concerns that are not tied to a particular era or social system. A literary establishment that fails to convey that, fails altogether."

This is sort of VEry Pre-Derrida, wouldn't you say, huh, Nishidani?--BenJonson (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

'We are turning towards a society which will, I believe, be neo-feudal in its outlook and spirit. It is a society which Shakespeare advocated at the end of the 16th Century; but he was not heeded. Men chose the mercenary route. . . . It's almost as if the Stratford myth has had the effect of putting the plays in a time-capsule for 400 years, so that Shakespeare's true message can be revealed to us today, alongside the author's identity, with the force of a revelation. Perhaps Nostradamus was referring to Shakespeare in The Centuries when he wrote:

For five hundred years no account shall be made

Of him who was the ornament of his time.

Then of a sudden he shall give so great a light,

That for that age he shall make them to be most contented.

Although Shakespeare is emotionally steeped in the feudal age, he is not advocating a simple return to the mediaeval system, but rather looks forward to a new society inspired by the ideals of feudalism.' Charles Vere, 'The Shakespeare Authorship Question:Why it matters'. (1995)

This is kinda VEry pre-Shakspe, wouldn't ya say, Ben, or is that Sir Politick Would-be?Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This is actually Looneyism. Most of his followers never read his political views that he lays out in his book. He yearned to go back to a time when a few privileged men held the political power, with a subservient underclass meekly obeying their betters. He claimed that this was Shakespeare's message; he had no gift for subtlety or irony. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Trash

I note this is getting attention.

Another recent article in the Oxfordian online journal Brief Chronicles applies numerical analysis of Francis Mere's Palladis Tamia ("The Servant of Pallas Athena") to argue that although on the surface he seems to be attributing a dozen plays to Shakespeare of Stratford, he is esoterically identifying Oxford as the real author.

My point is, how much froth from the net and current newsletters, on obscure speculations by amateur nobodies and manic methodists can we harvest for a general article? What is needed is a general overview, the history of the debate, key points, theories according to the various exponents, and a general note on what mainstream scholarship thinks or dismisses. Personally were that done objectively, I would consider even reducing all mainstream references to the fringe hypothesis to a final section. I really don't think any of the material here requires much 'counter argument', since it is a bizarre mishmash of bits and pieces from all over the place, with no systematic or conceptual development at all. But certainly, someone there must decide how much to include. The above essay is crap of the purest variety, of which we have an abundance also from the Baconian school's long history to draw from, and seems to be here merely to give prominence to the journal. A brilliant Arabist, Margoliouth, once wrote (1920?) a short work on cyphers in Homer, saying the poet had identified himself in the opening lines of the Iliad and Odyssey. I read a lonely copy of it in a huge library one afternoon in my youth. Once he got going there was no stopping the rot: Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides, they all had the cryptograms. He is justly remembered for his semitic scholarship, which was dazzling. If the finest minds fail, imagine the mess when journos and amateurs try their hands.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• The Brief Chronicles are producing a rather lengthy chronicle at the journal's AfD... :-) --Crusio (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we all know! Anyone who is familiar with this sort of scholarship knows full well how reliable this article is likely to be. K.C. Ligon is a nice person, but an amateur. The nature of the discussion at the AfD is indicates how difficult it is to discuss this topic reasonably. Paul B (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Oxfordians are traveling down the same path the Baconians trod. Since there's no evidence for their man, they turn to ciphers and strained interpretations of allusions. the Marlovians are breathing down their necks, although they can't see it.

I agree that all these arguments need to be weeded out. There's no scheme to them, and even if there were, they don't belong in a general article about generic anti-Stratfordism. The reference is really supporting nothing more than its own statements, and as such violates has no scholarly purpose other than promotion, and this particular example violates several Wikipedia standards, such as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.) and one other that I can't find right now that prohibits the inclusion of novel interpretations that haven't been discussed outside of its initial publication. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I will say this. After wasting a few hours over it, I found one nugget of information worth noting, Enoch Powell had lectured on Meres to the de Verean society. His was one of the most extraordinary, but wasted, minds of the century in classical scholarship. If he was a true believer, the pro-fringers should put him in. He was far brighter than the judges and actors in the 'notables' list.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Powell was certainly sympathetic to anti-Stratfordianism. I don't know whether or not he subscribed to any version of it. Paul B (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of other things

1. At the top of the article is the following: For the purposes of this article the term “Shakespeare” is taken to mean the poet and playwright who wrote the plays and poems in question; and the term “Shakespeare of Stratford” is taken to mean the William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon to whom authorship is credited. I find this rather confusing and I'm not sure that these terms have been applied with sufficient rigour. Before I fell off my chair with boredom, I noted the following (and there are probably more):

• William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon
• William Shakespeare
• the Stratford man
• "Shakspere" of Stratford
• Shakespeare of Stratford
• the Stratford Shakespeare

"Shakespeare" by itself doesn't always "mean the the poet and playwright who wrote the plays and poems in question". Let's see - "Shakespeare's grave monument", "a fundamental principle of those who question Shakespeare’s authorship", "doubts about Shakespearean authorship", probably lots and lots more.

2. Given that there are at least 13 other articles that deal with the authorship question, many of which overlap substantially with parts of this one, it seems to me that this article could be cut quite radically (I think that this has been suggested by Nishidani and maybe others). For example, the History section could come first after the lead and the overlapping sections could be summarised more succinctly. GuillaumeTell17:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. We need to lose the debate style of back-and-forth argument and the section on each candidate should do little more than summarise the history of their candidacy and point to the appropriate Wikipedia article (all of which, BTW, need major overhauling, as now they are nothing but promotional screeds in violation of Wikipedia principles). Tom Reedy (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. 13 articles on this? Is there a linkable list? Surtout pas trop de zèle.Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Here you are.GuillaumeTell 18:09, 5 March 2010 (U

Not only are there 13 articles on this, this particular page is linked to hundreds of other articles. It's all part of the plan for a brighter, more Oxfordian-friendly tomorrow in which the Stratford yokel is relegated to the dustbin of literary history! Tom Reedy (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, William Tell. You deserve an apple, and I a dunce's cap. I'll repay you with the pertinent riposte Odo Rigaldus would have made in this context: Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per unum, which Occam poached to earn himself the laurel.Nishidani (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to Schoenbaum

Don't try that again. Don't call what I did 'edit-warring', for this is meaningless, unless it is part of the game of 'documenting' a false charge for the distraction of future administrators in some plaintiff action. One edit, eliminating a piece of boosting for the candidate you, Smatprt and Benjonson are editing to showcase here, in the lead which I haven't touched for a while, is not 'edit-warring'.

Had you been both sincere and coherent, and had you desired to uphold the principle you have stumbled upon today in my regard, you would have reverted, for example, your colleague Ben Jonson here, who changed substantially the lead, which I had, in respect of the agreement, not interfered with for some time.

It was reverted [[21]]. Please try and pay attention in the future. Smatprt (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

By you, not by Schoenbaum, and it is Schoenbaum's double-standards I took to task. Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Unlike some others, I don't suffer from ADS. Your revert has the edit summary: moving Ben's version to talk. Let's not jump the gun.' All a neutral observer need do is compare this to Schoenbaum's reaction to my parallel behaviour, 'Undid revision 347891093 by Nishidani (talk) Nishidani is edit warring over wording we agreed not to change prior to talk page consensus,' and (s)he will fish out the good cop/bad cop technique (here reversed from its usual order) being employed here. Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As it stands therefore, you challenge me with 'edit-warring' simply because I, taking note of the lack of objections from your side over BenJonson's breaking of the agreement (he was not the only one), thought the right he exercised extended to everyone, as no one complained. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There is no aristocratic privilege here. Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Again - you really need to look at the various edits before making your (false) accusations. Objection/complaint was noted from this "side", the edit was reverted [[22]]. Smatprt (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, as per above.Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, you wrote above: "I would remind you that [just because?] you have just accepted Tom's suggestion does not make it policy. Take your 'extreme bad faith' attributed to me, and place it in your own court, with its double standards, as I addressed them in a note below, before catching this. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)" I neither said, nor implied, that it was "policy" just because I had accepted Tom's suggestion. It was "extreme bad faith" on your part because it was a change you made without consensus to something we were working at the time you made the change, and after we had all agreed to Tom's proposal to proceed one sentence at a time to try to reach consensus. If you don't consider yourself a party to that agreement, please say so. Otherwise, please adhere to it. Re: your allegation of a double standard because I didn't object to something Ben Johson changed, that's your problem. Take it up with him. I happened to notice your change because it was to what were were working on at the time. Re: "no aristocratic privilege here," damn right, and don't you ever forget it. Rules and agreements apply to you, too. Schoenbaum (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't say it was 'policy', you acted as though it were. As to changes without consensus, look at Smatprt's whole history. Yes, I confirm, your behaviour and that of Smatprt was one of protecting your own and going after the adversary. Double standards. I note that outside readers who might like to edit still have no section, as I requested, where they can view the provisory 'consensus' worked up over, it must be thousands of words and weeks, in the lead. You conduct the operation, know the state of the text, and yet coyly, below, ask me, of all people, to copy and paste, if I can find them, the three lines hidden like a needle in a haystack in all this drivel. I haven't agreed to anything, until I can see what is going on in the Nacht und Nebel of this relentless to-and-froing-Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You can stop being jealous, Roger

I just received an e-mail from Brian Holderness, whose name you have been bandying about as one who has endorsed "the plausibility of the Earl of Oxford's authorship." You'll soon get a copy, if you haven't already. Here's an excerpt:

I don’t think Edward de Vere wrote Shakespeare’s plays and poems. I wouldn’t especially care if he did, or if the real author was proven to be a wandering Kentish tinker, or Queen Elizabeth I, or the Pope. I don’t have any strong personal investment in ‘the Stratfordian hypothesis’, but it does seem to me a reasonable one. Of course there are lacunae, and doubts and questions about ‘the man from Stratford’ (who is not in these circles permitted even to enjoy his own name). But they are nothing compared with the lacunae and doubts and questions that would apply to any other candidature. There may well be ‘reasonable doubt’ about Shakespeare. But how much reasonable doubt would one have to countenance to explain that someone else wrote those works? How much historical evidence would we have to dispel, how many conspiracy theories would we have to swallow?

[...]

To assert, as Oxfordians invariably assert, that only an aristocrat could have mastered such learning, acquired such favour and displayed such genius is surely to underestimate the lower orders, and to overestimate the upper class. Let’s list on our fingers all the great writers produced by the British hereditary aristocracy ... all right, then, just use one hand ...

He goes on, but I assure he in no way agrees with your public depiction of him, so you can stop being jealous of him now. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I also got an email from Professor Holderness, and have engaged some interesting exchanges with him. Your rather crass headline assumes that my "jealousy" was predicated on some assumption about Holderness views on authorship. I was not surprised to receive a clarification that amounted to a retraction of his quoted remarks, and I'm still "jealous." --BenJonson (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Here's something you and -- especially -- Mr. Nishidani -- will enjoy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMuWmVUsg74&feature=player_embedded.

In fact Shakespeare came from exactly the social class from which the overwhelming majority of famous writers come - the aspirant but insecure "middling folk". That social uncertainty animates Jane Austen's preoccupation with threatened gentility and Dickens's need to imagine a dynamic but stable social hierarchy. It's far a more common agent of creativity than either aristocracy or poverty. There's the odd Byron and the odd Clare, but Shakespeare is far more typical of literary stars than either of them. Paul B (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

'all right, then, just use one hand'. Sound advice, given what the other hand's probably doing!Nishidani (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, Paul and Nishidani, as I said is response to earlier smears along these lines, "This is false, and a blatant mischaracterization of our views. Of course great writers come from humble origins... That's not the issue. Here's how it is stated in the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt: 'Scholars know nothing about how he acquired the breadth and depth of knowledge displayed in the works. This is not to say that a commoner, even in the rigid, hierarchical social structure of Elizabethan England, couldn't have managed to do it somehow; but how could it have happened without leaving a single trace?' That's the issue. It would have been a remarkable achievement, and it should have attracted a lot of attention, and left records.... Please stop mischaracterizing our views about whether commoners write works of genius." Now you are making these same false allegations about our views again. There's a name for such persistent, mean-spirted strereotyping. It's called bigotry. You are the class snobs and elitists in this group, who cannot let go of your stereotypes about who is capable of writing works of genius, not us. Schoenbaum (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet . . . and yet . . . the alternative candidate always seems to be either a nobleman or someone who went to university. Passing strange, that. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Schoenbaum, I did write a long reply to this and many other things, but decided against confirming the edit. The first point I made regarded blatant mischaracterization of our views.' That our seems like a direct proof that this is a WP:COI conflict again, because you are saying that yourself, BenJonson and Smatprt share a unified view, the major view within the fringe theory, that de Vere authored the works, and associate yourself with that Society. At least one of you is an academic with a personal investment in the theory. It was not a misrepresentation of your collective opinion, for suffice it to cite Looney, Ogburn Senior and Junior and Price and list the obloquy poured on the yokel (lists have been made) to show that your statement misrepresents the historic de Vere position, which is one of contempt for the 'man of Stratford'. Now, as this goes public, and one negotiates for recognition from the mainstream, this element of sneering contempt for the villager is elided, since it does not make a good impression, and perhaps you three sincerely embrace the airbrushed version being pushed. But this article concerns, among other things, the whole deVerean position since 1920, not the public packaging of the doctrine (87 years later in a delicately phased and cautious testament(2007)), with all the care taken to put one's best step forward, you now assure us about.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The 'mainstream' can document the long history of snobbism attached to your school, and therefore to state this is not an 'attack' but a responsible reminder of the evidence. I see no evidence to justify your attacking us as bigots, elitists and snobs, unless it is a proof of bigotry to note bigotry, and of elitism to remark on snobbery.Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani - the fact is that all three of us are "anti-stratfordian". Just as you, tom and paul are "stratfordians". According to your logic then, all 6 have wp:coi issues. Tom and Paul and Ben have all been published (thus a personal investment), so they should all be banned from editing?? Come on. Also, simply because you, Paul and Tom are anti-oxfordian, does not mean that Ben, Schoenbaum and I necessarily share the same beliefs about who we think actually wrote the plays. You'd be surprised.Smatprt (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No-one is saying that you, Schoenbaum, are motivated by snobbery. The argument is that snobbery has played a significant role in anti-Stratfordian views over the years. This is a commonplace claim, which has been made in the literature for over a century, not some sneer invented by Wikipedia editors. Read, for example, Delia Bacon's comments about her visit to Stratford, or Hart's remarks about the "vulgar and unlettered man" from Stratford. For example, Holderness writes that the "alternative author" story arises from the elevation of Shakespeare's status as a writer: "Shakespeare was the son of a Stratford small-businessman. England's greatest poet must surely have had a more exalted parentage. So he became Lord Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, Sir Walter Raleigh, or Queen Elizabeth herself." (p.11) I don't know what "trace" of Shakespeare of Stratford's personal reading and conversations you expect to find. It would be remarkable indeed if there were a trace. It's not remarkable that there is none. Paul B (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The accusation of snobbery is just another tool that Stratfordians have used to avoid actually debating facts. Far easier to launch personal attacks in an attempt to distract. But, frankly, whether one is a snob or not (since there are snobs on both sides, no doubt), what on earth does that have to do with the facts of the case? Answer: None.Smatprt (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary. The anti-Statfordian case is based entirely on the idea that Shakespeare is somehow the "wrong" person to have written the plays. It was not based on the discovery of any evidence. It's not as if some document was found that suggested there was another author. Evidence was "discovered" - or invented - later to support particular candidates, but the basic argument was that Shakespeare of Stratford could not have written the works because he was the wrong class, too "vulgar", too ignorant. It is an entirely legitimate reply to that claim that it is essentially snobbery. You have every right to disgree with that reply, but it's not a smear or "personal attack"; it's a response to the central anti-Stratfordian argument. Paul B (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(a) It was, to cite one of many examples, Schoenbaum's opinion.

(b) One doesn't debate 'facts', one ascertains them. One debates theories perhaps.

(c) There is nothing 'personal' in establishing known views of 'Stratfordian' scholars of eminence.

(d) The facts of the case include, among other things, many statements by authoritative scholars, that the de Verean literature betrays, or certainly in much of its past, betrayed a contempt for people of humble background. They called a spade a spade when employing the words 'snobbism' and 'elitism' to diagnose the temper of much of this polemical literature in the fringe.Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that - simply using this page as an example - it's you three who consistently exhibit the very snobbery you are discussing. How many times have you three retorted with "go to college", "Learn to read", "you are idiots" and, of course "I've attended 4 universities". Isn't it really the stratfordian camp that is full of snobs?Smatprt (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not snobbishness. If I listen to, or read, anyone descanting with an authoritative air about something they are unprepared about or ill-informed of, I make a mental note, and usually do not interject. If however, they challenge what the finest scholars do, while themselves remain rank amateurs unfamiliar with what scholarship requires (a lot of hard, unrewarded years of intense mental discipline and mastery of recondite techniques of analysis), and make a lot of noise before a public that may be unfamiliar with the subject they appropriate, and out of touch with what professional minds do and think, then I am usually tempted to speak up, on behalf of professionalism over amateurism. Outsiders can occasionally make acute contributions to a complex subject, but to quote, in its modern construal, the Renaissance proverb, the exception 'proves' the rule. In general, rush in where angels fear to tread, and one risks finishing up like that gente attuffata in uno sterco/che da li uman privadi parea mosso, that Dante wrote of. The last rule of all scholarship is, when you have learnt humbly from a master, the lesson is completed when you can challenge him. The only rule of fringe congregational amateurism in popular belief, is to find a master, and spend the rest of your days, annotating his obiter dicta, or refining his unquestioned theories. Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Justice Scalia has his own take on this" "[Mrs. Scalia] thinks we Oxfordians are motivated by the fact that we can't believe that a commoner could have done something like this, you know, it's an aristocratic tendency....It is probably more likely that the pro-Shakespearean people are affected by a democratic bias than the Oxfordians are affected by an aristocratic bias," Smatprt (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they are affected by the the fact that all the evidence says he wrote the plays. It's not any kind of class bias. The class bias comes in when you ignore the evidence because somehow it must be "wrong" that someone from that background wrote the plays. Do you find people with "a democratic bias" insisting that Lord Byron's poems were really written by his butler? Of course not. This supposed "democratic bias" does not create imaginary alternative authors. Paul B (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Justice Scalia's opinions on the topic would rank zero in a properly constituted court of scholarship on the Elizabethan era and its issues, just as my or any other kibitzer's opinions on constitutional law would be, justifiably, laughed off with a dismissive sneer, were one to broach Scalia with them. Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead review. A defect in procedure.

Much of the consensus discussion line by line of the lead is lost in the great and unceasing to-and-fro of bolded versions, often pushed by the same editor. The average bystander will, I think, have little understanding of what has been agreed to.

A line-by-line review is only going to function if each line's provisorily consensual form is copied and pasted to a separate section, not to be edited in the meantime, where editors can see how the text is developing. Given that these negotiations are verbose and contentious, and run to thousands of words, what is being lost in the flow is the prior context within which each new line is being discussed.

The danger is that two sentences, and weeks down in prolonged discussion, the preceding consensual text is lost from view. If we agree to give some play to 'open/public' or 'de Verean prominence' in one line, then move on, and, weeks later, haggle over language about de Vere and 'public' debate and 'prominence', 'notables' without keeping constantly in mind the earlier sentences, chaos will ensue.

So I suggest the two, or is it three sentences, which have a provisory consensus (no poll, at least as far as I am aware of, has been taken here, the method being an informal WP:AGF one) be copied and posted in a separate section:'Lead Work in Progress', so that as we deal with each further sentence, ready reference to context can be secured.Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Would you like to take the lead in doing that? Schoenbaum (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You've managed and corralled, correctly,the whole review. I stopped looking at most of it after I saw about 4 different proposals by one editor in a few hours. It's a courtesy. You know what I don't, here.Nishidani (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Second lead paragraph

It now reads thusly:

Authorship doubters believe that mainstream Shakespeare biographers routinely violate orthodox methods and criteria,[7][8] and include inadmissible evidence in their histories of the Stratford man.[9] They also claim that some mainstream scholars have ignored the subject in order to protect the economic gains that the Shakespeare publishing world has provided them.[10] Authorship doubters assert that the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford did not have the background necessary to create the body of work attributed to him, and that the personal attributes inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man.[11]Anti-stratfordians also note the lack of any concrete evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford had the extensive education doubters claim is evident in Shakespeare's works. They question whether a commoner from a small 16th-century country town, with no recorded education or personal library, could become so highly expert in foreign languages, knowledge of courtly pastimes and politics, Greek and Latin mythology, law, and the latest discoveries in science, medicine and astronomy of the time. Doubters also focus on the relationship between internal evidence (the content of the plays and poems) and external evidence (biographical or historical data derived from other sources).[12]

I think the first two sentences should be scrapped or relegated further down into the main text. It doesn't seem to me to be important to the main premise of the theory that Shakespeare was a fraud. The third sentence gets to the heart of the matter and should lead the graph. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I had the same thought about the first three lines (and part of line 5) of graph 3, as well:

"The majority of academics specializing in Shakespearean studies, called "Stratfordians" by sceptics, generally ignore or dismiss these alternative theories, arguing they fail to comply with standard research methodology and lack supportive evidence from documents contemporary with Shakespeare.[improper synthesis?][citation needed] Mainstream scholars reject anti-Stratfordian arguments and say that authorship doubters discard the most direct testimony in favor of their own theories,[13] overstate Shakespeare's erudition,[14] and anachronistically mistake the times he lived in,[15] thereby rendering their method of identifying the author from the works unscholarly and unreliable.[improper synthesis?] Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject.[16] Support for William Shakespeare as author rests on two main pillars of evidence: testimony by his fellow actors, and by his fellow playwright Ben Jonson in the First Folio, and the inscription on Shakespeare's grave monument in Stratford.[17] Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records—the type of evidence used by literary historians that Stratfordians believe is lacking for any other alternative candidate—are also cited to support the mainstream view.[a][18] Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[19]"

It seems that both graphs start out attacking each others methods instead of stating the facts of their cases. It's true that both camps question each others methods, but in stating "this is why we don't believe in him" and "this is why we do", why don't we just stick to the facts of the arguments instead of each others opinions of the researchers and their methods? As Tom says, it can all be relegated to the main text - maybe it's own section so everyone can lash out and then be done with it. In the spirit of compromise, why don't we agree on simultaneous deletion of the material from both graphs, with an agreement to discuss where best in the article it might be more appropriate? Smatprt (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If, on the other hand, both sides can't agree to delete these attacks, then I would support moving the first 2 lines of graph 2 to the end of the paragraph instead of the beginning so the graph at least starts with the more important facts of the anti-strat case.Smatprt (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's take one paragraph at a time. The anti-Stratfordian paragraph begins with a generalization about biographers with no supportive detail and then speculation regarding the motives of academics. Neither of these have much to do with why anti-Strats believe that Shakespeare didn't write the works. If you want to keep the two sentences, then I suppose for balance we should mention the speculation about anti-Stratfordian's motives as well, none of which has been discussed in the article, but I suppose we could make room for it. There is certainly no lack of material to choose from. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My preference would be to start over, drop all attacks on motives, competence, character, who does and doesn't adhere to alleged standards, etc, and briefly summarize where Strats and non-Strats differ in the evidence they look at, and how they interpret it. I'd like to begin with a statement something like: "Doubters acknowledge that there are clear reasons why most Shakespeare scholars have long thought that the Stratford man was the author. The main evidence supporting the traidional view -- the testimony in the First Folio, published seven years after he died, the Stratford monument and inscription, and the appearance of his name (or a similar name) on many of the published works would seem to amount to a prima facie case for him as the author. If this were the only evidence one looked at, most people would naturally assume that he was the author. But doubters also find huge gaps in the evidence, and note that other evidence seems inconsistent with the traditional view. In light of all of this other evidence, in retrospect they also see apparent anomalies in the evidence supporting the traditional view that they say renders it inconclusive. Given their doubts about the traditional evidence, plus other evidence that seems to strongly contradict it, they seriously question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford's was the author of the works." I think this is an accurate, and much more constructive summary of the view of doubters than what we have now. This would be a major change, so I'm very open to suggestions, but please consider it. Schoenbaum (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

First, Tom, et al, I think we need to look at both graphs 2 and 3 together. They both suffer from many of the same issues and I have no hope of reaching a consensus on either paragraph if we fail to consider them together.

Schoenbaum, I think you (and all of us) need to look at wp:lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, and not introduce new material that is not represented in the article. While I appreciate your attempt, I think is belongs in the "authorship doubters" section, leaving the lead to properly summarize the main points raised in the article.Smatprt (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

To quote wp:lead: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." Graph one introduces the article. Now we need to provide a "summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article". Presently, graph 2 does address the main points raised by the anti-strats. Even the lines questioning orthodox methods are reflected in the main article. All of graph 2 can certainly be rewritten, but it does, at least, provide the required summary. Smatprt (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So show me the "main points" in the text that the first two sentences summarise: "Authorship doubters believe that mainstream Shakespeare biographers routinely violate orthodox methods and criteria,[7][8] and include inadmissible evidence in their histories of the Stratford man.[9] They also claim that some mainstream scholars have ignored the subject in order to protect the economic gains that the Shakespeare publishing world has provided them." Tom Reedy (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt's edit corrected.

Re Smatprt's edit

The two sources say that:

(a) Altrocchi 'accepts that this new document proves that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was considered by his contemporaries to be or to have been the Roscius of his age, that is, an important actor on the public stage.

Nelson, a finicky, meticulous scholar, was in correspondence with Altrocchi, and assures us Altrocchi accepted that find as a 'proof' that the Stratford man was accepted by his contemporaries as an actor on the stage.

(b)Altrocchi wrote ‘By his annotation, the book’s owner is declaring himself a Stratfordian since he is attributing Stratford-on-Avon’s reputation to Shakespeare as well as to its two foster sons, John, Archbishop of Canterbury and Hugh Clopton, the only two Stratford “alumni” thought worthy of note by Camden.

(c)Altrocchi then further argues that the document he uncovered: confirm(s)the remarkable early success of what Oxfordians view as William Cecil’s clever but monstrous connivance:forcing the genius Edward de Vere into pseudonymity and promoting the illiterate grain merchant and real estate speculator, William Shaksper of Stratford, into hoaxian prominence as the great poet and playwright, William Shakespeare.

Smatprt's take on this is the gloss:'although Dr. Altrocchi stresses that the annotator makes no reference whatsoever indicating that Shakespeare of Stratford was known as a playwright.' The point is, Altrocchi takes it as confirming the identity of the two.

Does one really need to construe this to make it mean what Altrocchi intended?, namely that in his view, the document shows that William Shaksper of Stratford was taken by this contemporary at least to be the great poet and playwright, William Shakespeare?

Use the key language of the sources, do not paraphrase around what you find disagreeable to create a false impression of the RS, Smatprt.Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Without even troubling himself to justify his edit against these objections, Smatprt once more attempted to intervene and influence the way readers may interpret this straightforward report of what a de Verean and an 'orthodox' scholar wrote here. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is you who is warping what Dr. Atrocchi meant and you know it: To quote Dr. Atrocchi:

"Since there is no evidence that Shaksper of Stratford was a famous actor and little or no valid evidence that he was an actor at all, this reference to “Roscius” raises an interesting question. Just what did the annotator know about Shaksper of Stratford? He believes Shaksper is famous enough to be mentioned as an important foster son of Stratford, but in what capacity? If the annotator knew the works of Shakespeare, why not call him “Our honey-tongued Ovid” or “Our mellifluous Virgilian wordsmith?” In the vast majority of cases, “Roscius” has been used to refer to great actors, including Shakespeare’s two usages in 3 Henry VI and Hamlet. Calling Shaksper “Roscius” would seem to indicate that, despite the lack of evidence, there were some who thought he was an actor and that acting was how he “made it” in London." Smatprt (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, it is tiresome dealing with people who can't apparently construe English, or read sources in their totality. I've bolded your quote to help you reread what Altrocchi says here. I would suggest, before interfering with the text, that you reread, if you got that far, what he wrote further on in his conclusion, and then consider why his correspondent Alan Nelson, an impeccable RS, testified in his own paper that Altrocchi took this as proof of the identity of the two. Altrocchi says the document confirms the success of what he and others take to be a hoax, i.e. that people in Shakespeare's day took the 'illiterate grain merchant of Stratford' to be the 'great playwright'. This concluding remark goes beyond what Altrocchi himself discovered, i.e. the identity of Shaksper of Stratford with Shakespeare the actor according to a contemporary report (long denied by Ogburnians). Altrocchi here is asserting that his evidence means contemporaries linked all three - Shaksper the grain merchant, Shakespeare the actor, and Shakespeare the playwright. Don't interrogate, or cherrypick what you like to cancel parts you dislike in RS, or write around what RS say. Report them faithfully, fa Chrissake. Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Bardolatry section

As per Nishidani's previous previous comments about simply deleting material instead of bringing the material here for discussion, I am bringing this recently added section off the article page and here to talk. I would like to understand the justification for adding such a long section on the possible influence of "Bardolatry" on the authorship question. First, it is extremely long and could be summed up in a sentence or two, with links to further history of that side issue. Second, while well written, it is merely a series of opinions on "why" authorship doubt exist. It is a theory that attempts to delve into the minds of authorship doubters and can in no way represent any hard facts. This is supposed to be summary history of the debate itself. If you want to go off on this tangent, then it should be in a separate article with the appropriate link. Finally, this article is already too long and needs to address this. Adding a large amount of additional material which, as I said, could be summed up in a sentence or two, is problematic. Here is the addition I have removed pending the outcome of this discussion:

The rise of bardolatry in the 17th and 18th centuries

Main article: Shakespeare's reputation

Upon the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, Charles II reopened the theatres, and two patent companies—the King's Company and the Duke's Company—were established. 18 years of closed theatres had resulted in the loss of playwrighting as a profession, and so the existing theatrical repertoire—the works of Shakespeare, Jonson, and Beaumont and Fletcher—which had been preserved by folio publication, were divided between the two companies and revived for the stage. Sir William Davenant, reputedly Shakespeare’s godson and head of the Duke’s Company, was given the exclusive rights to perform 10 Shakespeare plays. As the director of the Duke's Company, Davenant was obliged to reform and modernize Shakespeare's plays before producing them, and the texts were "reformed" and "improved" for the stage.

During the 1660–1700 period, stage records suggest that Shakespeare, although always a major repertory author, was not as popular on the stage as were the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher, although in literary criticism he was acknowledged as an untaught genius even though did not follow the Frenchneo-classical "rules" for the drama and the three classical unities of time, place, and action. John Dryden argued in his influential Essay of Dramatick Poesie (1668) for Shakespeare's artistic superiority Ben Jonson, who does follow the classical unities, and as a result Jonson lands in a distant second place to "the incomparable Shakespeare", the follower of nature and the great realist of human character. In the 18th century, Shakespeare dominated the London stage, and after the Licensing Act of 1737, one fourth of the plays performed were by Shakespeare. The plays continued to be heavily cut and adapted, becoming vehicles for star actors such as Spranger Barry and David Garrick, a key figure in Shakespeare's theatrical renaissance, whose Drury Lane theatre was the centre of the Shakespeare mania which swept the nation and promoted Shakespeare as the national playwright. At Garrick's spectacular 1769 Shakespeare Jubilee in Stratford-upon-Avon, he unveiled a statue of Shakespeare and read out a poem culminating with the words "'tis he, 'tis he, / The God of our idolatry". In contrast to playscripts, which diverged more and more from their originals, the publication of texts developed in the opposite direction. With the invention of textual criticism and an emphasis on fidelity to Shakespeare's original words, Shakespeare criticism and the publication of texts increasingly spoke to readers, rather than to theatre audiences, and Shakespeare's status as a "great writer" shifted. Two strands of Shakespearean print culture emerged: bourgeois popular editions and scholarly critical editions. Nahum Tate and Nathaniel Lee prepared editions and introduced modern scene divisions in the late 17th century, and Nicholas Rowe's edition of 1709 is considered the first scholarly edition of the plays. It was followed by many good 18th-century editions, crowned by Edmund Malone's landmark Variorum Edition, which was published posthumously in 1821. Dryden's sentiments about Shakespeare's matchless genius were echoed without a break by unstinting praise from writers throughout the 18th century. Shakespeare was described as a genius who needed no learning, was deeply original, and unique in creating realistic and individual characters (seeTimeline of Shakespeare criticism). The phenomenon continued during the Romantic era, when Samuel Taylor Coleridge, John Keats, William Hazlitt, and others all described Shakespeare as a transcendent genius. By the beginning of the 19th century Bardolatry was in full swing and Shakespeare was universally celebrated as an unschooled supreme genius and had been raised to the statute of a secular god and many Victorian writers treated Shakespeare's works as a secular equivalent to the Bible. "That King Shakespeare," the essayist Thomas Carlyle wrote in 1840, "does not he shine, in crowned sovereignty, over us all, as the noblest, gentlest, yet strongest of rallying signs; indestructible". Again - it looks like this should be it's own article. Smatprt (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt. The correct way to write the possessive pronoun in English is 'its' not 'it's'.

There is no need to excise unilaterally a whole section of a text merely to discuss it here. When we are dealing with a swathe of material like this, the proper approach at best would be to copy and paste it here, as is being done with the Lead. No one removed the lead because it has severalproblems that were to be discussed on the talk page. I certainly did not suggest anyone take a measure like this, as you insinuate. As I have repeatedly noted, actions like this smack of a proprietorial WP:OWN attitude. Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the material. It is extremely relevant to the authorship question as it puts it into historical perspective. Anti-Stratfordism did not arise out of a vacuum, and almost every book outlining the history of it includes the historical context. This is a key component of balancing this article.

As to Smatprt's POV cuts earlier, I haven't reverted them because the material eventually will be integrated with the history, but the POV nature of the cuts are noted. (He's so predictable I can hear him now: "What POV? I cut Oxfordian material along with the Baconian.") Also the debate style back-and-forth will be rewritten when the material is merged, but I'm probably talking months before that is completed.

Whether the article is too long or not is immaterial at this point. It needs to sufficiently cover the topic. We can cut later. One good place to start would be all the Oxfordian debate sprinkled through the text under the guise of generic anti-Stratfordian commentary. Also the candidate sections should be cut down to a couple or three sentences with links pointing to the main article. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smatprt that this should have been discussed on the talk pages and a consensus reached before it was put in the article. I also agree that it's too long, and should be summarized in the article, with all the detail in a separate article. All this context has little to do with the authorship question. The main focus of the article should be on evidence. Cluttering it up with this background information looks like an attempt to distract from it. Schoenbaum (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason you don't think it belongs in an article about the authorship question is because you don't know much about the topic, so what you think about how it looks is irrelevant. Your comment, "The main focus of the article should be on evidence" shows that you think this is a debate, not an encyclopedia article. And since there is no evidence for any other author besides Shakespeare, feel free to delete everything from the article that is not evidence, because all there is from the anti-Stratfordian side is speculation, misreadings, strained interpretations, and special pleading. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom, for reminding us again who are the real snobs when it comes to this issue. Schoenbaum (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Schoenbaum, didn't you realize that Tom is an expert on the distinction between an Encyclopedia article and a debate? If you follow his logic carefully, you'll see what the difference is. In a debate you are allowed to use evidence. But in the genre of the Encyclopedia article as defined by the o so brilliant Tom Reedy, you can't. You can only present the dogma of the day according to Mr. Reedy, backed up by his his lovely comrade, Mr. Nishidani, the expert on Hebron, genocide, and Shakespeare. --BenJonson (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Tom, I apologize for that last remark, which I've taken down. It was very unlike me, and I just don't know what got into me. Thanks, Ben, very much, for enlightening me regarding Tom's expertise. Schoenbaum (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring resumes?

When you remove a large chunk of material, knowing that your removal does not have consensus, I believe you are edit warring. The same for the reverse. Please be aware that some admins continue to be interested in this article. There is no reason to make a large change here without first finding out on the Talk page the degree of support your change is likely to enjoy. EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, this is obviously directed at us - you for the addition of an entire new section of over 5,000 bytes, and me for reverting it. This could have been avoided if you attempted to form a consensus for this major addition of material. Judging from the discussion, however, there is nothing even approaching a consensus for your addition. I am asking you to remove it and work with the rest of us on the talk page to form a consensus on what, if any, of this material is appropriate for this article. Smatprt (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I second Smatprt's motion. Please let's discuss this major addition to see if there's a consensus for it before putting it in the article. Schoenbaum (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Editorializing

Like most issues having to do with the controversy, documenting the history of the Shakespeare authorship question is highly contentious. There is no consensus, academic or otherwise, as to when the theory was first proposed or alluded to.

Wholly unnecessary, expressing a personal opinion by Smartprt I assume, question-begging, undocumented, 'highly contentious' for whom?, what do you mean by academic consensus? (most historians date the rise of controversy to 1848, only you guys equivocate) unreferenced, and as usual jammed in there as bilge to make a talking point. Before I remove it, I'll give you a day or two to justify why a notoriously poorly writtenarticle needs more prosey waffle like this, tacked on it.(I hope this waffle was not jammed in to bait a natural revert action before admins eyes? ) Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your source says "no 'serious' doubts", using "serious" in that "oh please only idiots" way. Or do you think they were saying that there were "humorous" doubts??? Other researchers vehemently disagree and accuse your sources of ignoring evidence. Sounds pretty contentious to me - like everything having to do with this debate. And there is no consensus. Some scholars say it started in the 19th century, some in the 18th, some in the 16th. While it is true that all the sources that you agree with say one thing, that does not make it so. You say only we guys equivocate. No - its the scholars we have provided as sources - which you take a blind eye to. And again with the false accusations and attacks?Smatprt (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing, as you do in almost every edit, sources that wikipedia asks be considered for their qualitative excellence, published by mainstream academics with a university imprint, with what 'researchers' i.e., amateur untrained (mostly) speculators on the fringe, argue. Get this into your head there is no serious contention or controversy in academic studies on Shakespeare about most of the material you adduce from the fringe, because it is below interest, curiosity or regard. It is true, your movement is desperate for 'engagement', it wants 'controversy and contention' as a form of recognition: but almost nothing it publishes excites the slightest desire to contend or controvert, because, well, nuclear physicists usually don't argue with a pub brawler convinced that the world was created from an egg, as some ancient Orphics thought. The 'consensus' you talk about is a fiction created, between the 'consensus' required on wiki, and a hypothetical 'consensus' to be attained between serious scholarship and people who, for example, think that a 'Mute Swan' was on Ben Jonson's mind in 1623 when the word, and the taxonomic distinction, wasn't introduced until 1785, and when in 1623 all men with a thorough or slight acquaintence with Greek and Latin languages and literature knew that the word 'swan' associated with a poet indicated 'great lyric powers'. Diana Price is not a 'scholar': she is an amateur researcher for a fringe theory. The dud bits of evidence for doubt you adduce, refer to two crummy pamphlets put out by otherwise unknown scribblers voicing ambiguously some comic skirmishing with Shakespeare's image. You guys don't equivocate. You simply don't understand what evidence means. That is why, except for some long-suffering oddbods in forums, or a few distracted and ill-informed people in the Supreme Court of the US, almost no one takes the 'evidence' seriously.

So just accept the fact that you have to describe, in so far as you understand what writing a lucid, synthetic, rationally coherent account requires, what you fringers have said over 160 years, without fudging up an impression for readers that somehow this 'alternative research' has the serious world of scholarship quivering with exasperation, fear, contention and grief at the meteoric analytical brilliance of the murmuring 'public' margins. Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

speculated/hypothetical

(1) Smatprt changes

‘including an earlier version of Hamlet (known today as the ur-Hamlet).

to

including a hypothetical early version of Hamlet (known today as the ur-Hamlet).

His latest version in an apparent attempt to get me to edit-war, is 'it is speculated'.

'it is speculated that there was an earlier version, which has not survived, known today as the ur-Hamlet.'

Well, no. I objected to hypothetical, because the evidence shows that several testimonies exist to something called Hamlet being played on London stages. 'Hypothetical' has been used by some editors in their various editions, true, for example Ann Thompson, Neil Taylor (eds.) Hamlet, Arden, 3rd ed.2006, p.70 and A. R. Braunmuller (ed.) The tragical history of Hamlet prince of Denmark, 2001 p.xxx but context is important 'it is generally held that there was an earlier Hamlet play, the so-called Ur.Hamlet'(Arden p.44):‘it seems likely that an English-language Hamlet play was being performed in the late 1580s or 1590s’ Braunmuller, p.xxix.

The speculation surrounds who wrote it (Kyd? cf.'he is reknowned for having written the lost play of Hamlet(pre-1589), which was the source of Shakespeare's play, but it cannot be proved that he wrote it.' Philip Edwards, (ed.) The Spanish Tragedy, (1958) Manchester Uni reprint 1977 p.xvii). Speculations about how it may be related to Shakespeare of Stratford's Hamlet abound, as do hypotheses.

However, against that we have, to cite just a few sources, where the editors write without loosely using 'hypothesis'

• (a) ’Hamlet is haunted by the ghost of his father, so is tragedy is haunted by the ghost of an earlier play, the Ur-Hamlet, as it is called, of which no text survives’ G.R.Hibbard, (ed) Shakespeare. Hamlet, Oxford 1987 p.12
• (b) ‘it seems tolerably certain that a Hamlet was being acted in London in 1589 and quite certain that one existed by 1594.’ John Dover Wilson,(ed.) The Tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmark, Cambridge, 1969p.xvi
• (c) ‘Shakespeare’s immediate source for Hamlet was an earlier English play . .this earlier Hamlet-Ur-Hamlet, as it has come to be called,’ O.J Campbell, A.Rothschild, S.,Vaughen, (eds.)Hamlet, Bantam Books 1961 p.278
• (d)By 1589 there seems to have been a Hamlet on the London stage. This play, conventionally known as the Ur-Hamlet, is usually thought to be the work of Thomas Kyd. It was never published and has not survived.’William F.Hansen, Saxo Grammaticus and the Life of Hamlet, Nebraska University Press,1983 p.67
• (e)'Several references from 1589 onwards show that a play about Hamlet already existed,' Stanley Wells, Shakespeare: The Poet & His Plays, (1994) 1997 Methuen p.199
• (f)'Kyd arouynd 1587 may have written 'Hamlet, the missing revenge tragedy now famous as 'ur-Hamlet' since it must have been a source for Shakespeare's later tragedy', Park Honan, Shakespeare: A Life,p.129

And since you harp on Harold Bloom:

• (g)Harold Bloom, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human, 1988 pp.395ff., is arguing that the Ur-Hamlet itself was written by Shakespeare.

All these writers, careful in their language, accept as a shown and known fact that a prior version, the Ur-Hamlet, did exist.

All I can see is an attempt to use 'hypothetical' or 'speculative' as adjectives suitable to questioning the mainstream viewpoint, which here, does not 'speculate' or hypothesize that an Ur-Hamlet existed, but rather, by a strong margin of consensus, accepts the testimony that a pre-1602 play of that kind existed, and speculates about it, who wrote it, and its possible links to the play we have by Shakespeare's hand. You've made me waste another hour, simply because you prefer editing wiki to your tastes, to reading sources bearing upon wiki articles. Congratulations, it's called stalling attrition, wikilawyering, wasting people's time, and is very effective.Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, you could have just left "hypothetical" and saved an hour. Because, after all, it is speculation that an "Ur-Hamlet" even existed. As Cairncross speculated, it might have been Shakespeare's Hamlet in the first place. Paul's version may have left that possibility open, but in the context of the sentence that preceded it, that possibility was, at the very least, unclear. Smatprt (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I left it unclear because it is unclear. However the views of Cairncross et al are irrelevant here and serve only to interrupt the flow of the passage. Don't you care about clear exposition and readability? Nevertheless, contrary to what you say, even Cairncross does not deny that the Ur-Hamlet existed and was an earlier version of the play, which is exactly what the passage says (and what even your confrere BenJonson says in his recently created article on Andrew Cairncross). Paul B (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As Paul Barlow explains below, a perfectly acceptable, neutral statement was finessed and frigged about with by your idle edit, creating confusion, which other editors then had to waste time to fix. Cairncross speculates,etc. The point I made was that the mainstream consensus is that there was a 'Hamlet', the Ur-hamlet, beig played in London. The mainstream does not exhaust the patience of everyone by denying the evidence from several sources pre.1602 that such a play existed. It speculates who may have written it, or when it came on stream in the productions, it makes hypotheses about what structure and content it may have had. You cannot see this, you keep replying to evidence by refusing to listen to it, and this mode of behaviour you exemplify is a bullodozing, classic instance of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Nishidani (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

When I wrote the original passage ("including an earlier version of Hamlet (known today as the ur-Hamlet).") I deliberately phrased it so that it did not say that the earlier version was necessarily written by someone other than Shakespeare, but Smatprt has to turn a concise and simple phrase into a confused and turgid one, jumping from past to present tense as he does so. Nothing in the original version contradicts the minority opinion of Bloom et al. But Smatprt just can't see that. The whole point of this sentence is to explain - very concisely - that scholars had identified this source problem by this date. The earlier Hamlet is specifically mentioned by Hart in his book as evidence that Shakespeare was a mere adaptor. Unfortunately Tom has added to the confusion by oddly excising the reference to D. Bacon's first publication and Smith's response to it (his 1857 publication specifically replies to Hawthorne and others who had asserted DB's priority). To be compreensive we ought also include the anonymous 1852 Chambers essay, which adopts arguments similar to Hart's (viz: Shakespeare was a theatrical entrepreneur who employed one or more anonymous starving poets). Paul B (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The sentence that I changed said that Delia Bacon had identified Bacon as the true author in the 1856 Putnam's essay, but she did not. She went on about what an uneducated lout Shakespeare was, but she never named anyone as the author. She was supposed to do so in the next installment, but the editor killed it. It wasn't until the next year that she published her book, which stated the works were written by a coterie of playwrights directed by Ralegh and inspired by Bacon, who wanted to spread his philosophy through implicit as well as explicit means. After she published, Smith expanded his letter and published the version as Bacon and Shakespere (IIRC), and claimed priority because of his earlier letter and also said he had been holding his tongue for 20 years.

This illustrates the need to fully explain the phenomenon, as well as the bardolatry that was the precursor. According to Schoenbaum and Smatprt, all this is unnecessary because the important thing is that the True Author has been identified and everything previous to Looney is just so much prologue. The only reason anyone ever doubted Shakespeare is because the evidence doesn't add up; bardolatry had nothing to do with it, just like slavery had nothing to do with the American Civil War; it was over states' rights, and American foreign policy had nothing to do with 9/11; it happened because Islamofascist terrorists hate freedom. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know DB does not identify an author in the essay - she doesn't even clearly identify one in the book. My problem is that you deleted the sentence about the essay instead of improving it. Also, Smith clearly says that he is responding to claims about DB's earlier essay, not to the book. He is insisting that he had not read, or even heard of, the essay when he wrote his privately circulated letter. Paul B (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the material and added a section on the Chambers essay. It's actually quite intriguing that Hart and the anonymous Chambers' author are essentially describing the experience of poor journalists having to write for the journals and serial publications typical of their own day - such as Chambers Magazine itself, or other serials such as those created by Charles Knight and Samuel Beeton, who published numerous books under their own name that were actually written by various anonymous researchers/writers paid by the line. (even Mrs Beeton's famous cook-book was first published as "Beeton's Book of Household Management", part of the "Beeton's book of.." series). Shakespeare is portrayed as the owner of a sort of literary franchise, creating "Shakespeare's book of Hamlet" (part of ongoing the "Shakespeare's book of..." series), and employing anonymous writers who haven't got the capital to publish on their own. The fact that Robert Chambers himself was the secret author of Vestiges of Creation, anonymously expressing radical philosophical ideas, may also be relevant to the development of Delia Bacon's model. His likely authorship was widely discussed at the time. It would be good to know if anything RS is published on this context. Paul B (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, you attribute to Schoenbaum, a belief that is strictly in your minds. He has stated that every edit he has made has been as an "anti-Stratfordian" and not to benefit any candidate. By essentially calling him a liar, you do not assume good faith and continue to make unproved accusations, which is your history. And you misquote both of us when you say that "all" of the bardolatry section was unnecessary. What both of us said was it was way too long and deserved its own article. Quite different than how you have misrepresented us. We also objected to your making a major change in the article with no discussion and no consensus for what, even you must admit, is a major addition of material. Smatprt (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Again, you attribute to Schoenbaum, a belief that is strictly in your minds". Baloney. Only an Oxfordian would write this, and you know it. Paul B (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess we have to agree to disagree. Schoenbaums' rebuttal was "What could be more relevant than evidence that the real author died long before Wm. Shakspere of Stratford died?" It's one of the strongest anti-Strat arguments simply because it rules out the Stratford man. The fact that it fails to rule Oxford out is a plus for Oxford, but so what? It would also be a plus for any candidate that died before 1609, such as QE1, Marlowe, or any new candidate that might come along that meets that criteria. (And no, I'm not saying the Queen is a strong candidate, but she has been nominated, yes?Smatprt (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You know QEI is not a serious candidate. She has no body of followers. And Marlowe did not die before 1609 in Marlovian theory, so it does not rule him out. In fact Schoenbaum clearly refers negatively to "other candidates", as you know, but chose not to quote: "The supporters of other authorship candidates need the author not to be dead by 1609, despite all the evidence he was. Oxfordians don't "need" the author to be dead; they merely point to all of the evidence he was." What is the point of this persistent disingenuousness? Paul B (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cairncross

Paul Barlow has just reverted Smatprt’s latest effort on the uncontroversial passage the former originally wrote. I intended to do the same, since it is evident wadding nonsense, and does little more than restore the deception he has angled for here, despite repeated explanations as to why his edits here are wrongheaded. Smatprt edited in:

although some scholars believe there was no "Ur-Hamlet" and that Shakespeare's play was written earlier than is traditionally believed).

Neither Bloom nor Cairncross can be cited as scholars who disbelieved in an 'Ur-Hamlet', as Smatprt insinuated they did here. When I first objected to his fiddling with the text like this, Smatprt replied:

'after all, it is speculation that an "Ur-Hamlet" even existed. As Cairncross speculated, it might have been Shakespeare's Hamlet in the first place.

There is no ‘speculation’ (Oxfordian inhouse jargon for this particular point). Cairncross and Bloom both accepted that the Ur-Hamlet existed. They just argued that it was by Shakespeare. The fact that Cairncross thought it was by Shakespeare is neither here nor there. Charlton Ogburn Jr.argued that since Shakespeare was always the author of the piece, there was no Ur-Hamlet to speak of, which is a bewildering position to take, since all it shows is that Ogburn Junior never understood the conventions of Quellenforschung, in which Ur- is a prefix attached to indicate a prior version of the earliest text we have.

(2) Note that Smatprt does not give a page number for Cairncross’s book. What he does is cite the title of the book and then quote the only fragment of it given on the wiki Ur-Hamlet page, where a paginated reference is also lacking. What Smatprt did therefore was violate a cardinal canon of WP:RS, which reads:

It is improper to take material from one source and attribute it to a different one. For example, a webpage may provide information that the page's author attributes to a book. Unless you examine the book yourself, your source is the webpage, not the book. You should also make clear, where appropriate, that the webpage cited the book. It can be important to be clear about this for two reasons: (a) because the credibility of your edit rests on the webpage, which may have misinterpreted the book, and (b) because it is sometimes preferable to cite the original source, especially where the issue is a contentious one.'

All this despite his protestations that 'I've got Cairncross', while refusing to give the page number. So please do not come back on this: the point is settled, and the originally phrasing by Barlow was perfectly clear, and neutral. Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Another false accusation. I didn't "refuse" to give the page number. You have asked for it and I have just provided it.Smatprt (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt did the same thing here. He claimed he had changed the quotation from a book review into a direct quote from the book, but all he did was put quotation marks around the book review text. It was obvious that he didn't have the text, but he never lets an inconvenient quibble such as that stop him from making an edit. I also removed a ref to Wadsworth he had purloined to support his edit because the source said no such thing. We need to check every ref in the article, because I suspect there are more than one or two of these. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cairncross - page 69. Check it out for yourself.Smatprt (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Emailing friends does help in tricky stiuations, doesn't it. You still haven't answered the question. Where do, as you have asserted several times, Cairncross and Bloom assert that they 'believe there was no "Ur-Hamlet".' You have cited them for this statement, you have cited them for believing that prior to the Hamlet quarto, no earlier text existed.Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Another baseless accusation - all right - pick a page number from YOUR Cairncross and I'll tell you what's on it in (with no time lag for emailing). And to answer your question, check page 69, as well as the note I just added with the quote. And, TOM, I just expanded the quote from Gibson (which I am STARING at. Now withdraw your accusations, both of you. Smatprt (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My "accusation," as you put it, is not false. If you had the reference then, why did you change the quotation in the manner that made it obvious you were working only from the book review article? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting. Could it be that YOU are the one that does not have Cairncross???Smatprt (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well? - or are YOU emailing someone with the Cairncross? :) Smatprt (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated cracks have put me in an edit-conflict, constraining me to reclick back (while doing so adjust my text) now 4 times.

Sorry. The burden of proof is on you. I, unlike yourself, never said I had Cairncross at my elbow (the test is useless in anycase, since with two friends watching, one with a copy, emails can supply any answer instantaneously to the other's needs). If my deduction was correct, I have no problem in apologizing. But it still remains a fact that for several edits you did not supply a page number to Cairncross but simply the remark found on the Ur-Hamlet page, where it is without pagination, meaning you did not check the book you say you had at your elbow. Second, you did supply page numbers for Bloom. But it turned out the Bloom page numbers did not support what you said they argued. So it is proven that there either you had not read Bloom, or if you had, deliberately misrepresented what he wrote. You have, I see dropped Bloom on the quiet, tacitly admitting you got that wrong, without explaining how you caused the confusion in the first place.

Editing is not a coy game of hide and seek. It is a matter of sharing information. You have constrained several editors to question you on your various chops and changes to this text, in which, on every correction of a mistake, you simply go ahead and readjust the text to avoid the error you made earlier, without the slightest apology for the large waste of people's time your frantic and messy work of errors constrains them to fix. This method merely makes us all waste a huge amount of time correcting you until you get things right, on an edit that shouldn't be made in the first place, as Tom Reedy, Paul Barlow and myself have said (3 people challenge you and you still persist in tinkering)

I am still waiting for you to tell me where, as you asserted in earlier edits, Bloom and Cairncross denied the existence of an Ur-Hamlet. Since your record is one of chronic miscitation of sources (I see in your latest revision that you implicitly admit Harold Bloom said no such thing on the two pages you earlier cited in your edit for the view he denied the existence of an Ur-Hamlet), anything you wish to put in must be backed by quoted evidence. You as tendentious editor, not I, are required to cite the evidence from Cairncross. It won't change things anyway, for as Paul Barlow said above:'the views of Cairncross et al are irrelevant here and serve only to interrupt the flow of the passage'. Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

ps. This is farcical editing. Why must anyone be dragged into this absurd bickering simply because one editor is careless, slapdash, and when corrected, just persists in finessing his useless edit until patience is exhausted? Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2010

I have no problem fixing an edit (which for some odd reason, you object to the fixing of edits??). I did so, so hopefully the issue is settled. You, hover stated "Carincross said no such thing" - which implied you DID have the Cairncross at your elbow. So you made the same mistake I did - trying to offer a point from memory. Thanks for urging me to double check both my Cairncross and my Bloom. I agree we should be precise and I, at least, apologize for the minor error. But my remaining question is, if you simply wanted a page number, why not add a tag requesting such, instead of resorting to mass deletion? You are such the fan of correct protocol - so why do you constantly break this one? Smatprt (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, man. Learn to read! Read what follows very slowly, consult dictionaries, check out the relevant passages in a standard English grammar book, email a few friends who may have studied English to high school level.

Justify this quote from your latest edit.

Shakespeare merely wrote the play earlier than is traditionally believed, an opinion shared by Harold Bloom and Peter Alexander

It requires justification because the Quarto Hamlets have matter in them that could not have been written before 1600. I'm presuming you are not an adolescent struggling in remedial classes in English, while you edit with furor here. But Bloom and, apparently (I haven't read him) Alexander, hold Hamlet wrote the Ur-Hamlet, for Chrissake. Bloom knows, as everyone does, that Shakespeare wrote, or lies behind, also the Hamlets we have. He wrote Hamlet as we have it, and he also, for Bloom, authored the Ur-Hamlet, an earlier version. Since Bloom believes this, your attempt to conflate Bloom and Cairncross is twiddle-brained, For Bloom accepts there are earlier and later versions, and when there are earlier and later versions, you completely confuse the distinction and confuse readers, in the misleading suggestion that, like Cairncross, Bloom believes 'Shakespeare merely wrote the play earlier than is traditionally believed.' That is immensely ambiguous, for the play could mean the Ur-Hamlet, any of the Quartos, or the Folio version, all of which have substantial differences between them your ridiculously stupid paraphrase ignores.

As to Cairncross, his book's thesis is cited in the secondary literature. Perhaps you don't understand the distinction.

No one should be expected to work with editors who persist in not understanding what their interlocutors are actually saying. Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Size of article

Smatprt has created a new anti-Stratfordian page, History of the Shakespeare authorship question, on the grounds that this article is too long and needs to be split. The guidelines for article size at WP:SIZE recommend that article be between 6,000 and 10,000 words long. This article right now is 13,000 words. I've identified 1,200 words in the main text that is peculiar only to the Oxfordian argument (not counting the Oxford candidate entry), most of it under Date of Playwright's death, and another 2,500 in the individual candidates' entries, most of which is duplicated in the individual candidates' articles. In addition, there is a lot of back-and-forth debate-style text that could be summarised and cut down to probably less than 30 per cent of the present size.

One problem is that we need to cover the Baconism periods a little more, but I don't see any major wordage being added, mostly a bit more detail on the cryptogram phenomena.

So if we can weed out the single-purpose Oxfordian arguments and concentrate on the common arguments against Shakespeare's authorship, and then cut down each candidate section to a short summary of when they were nominated and for what main reason, I think the article can be comprehensive and still satisfy the size requirements. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The history section is also completely lacking any coverage of the group theories that you had identified earlier as missing from the history entirely, as well as a more thorough history of the Oxfordian theory, including why, for example, it is regarded as the lead theory. this obviously needs explaining. Smatprt (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Presently the two longest sections, that probably should be split into side articles, are the History section and the Debate points section. This of course is covered at WP:SPLITTING. You will see that Wikipedia does not encourage deleting material as a response to length, but rather splitting the article. This is a basic policy and guideline.

My point is that all this material is in the appropriate articles, most of it verbatim, so it would not be a deletion of material, just a deletion of material that is duplicated elsewhere and that the sections in fact point to. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The only section of the date of death section that is indisputably an Oxfordian side argument is the Tempest to and fro. I will delete that presently, but if there are any objections to this please feel free to revert. Aside from that, I do not support cutting material from Wikipedia, in violation of general policies, when the correct approach (according to policy) is to simply split lengthy articles. Your resistance to this policy is truly odd. I would also insist that prior to deleting any material (other than the Tempest dating issue) that a consensus by achieved for such deletions.

And your constant putting words in the mouths of other editors I also find odd, as well as tiresome. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I find your refusal to split the article when appropriate very disconcerting. It gives the appearance that you want to use deletionism as a way to cut anything from the article that you do not like. I hope that is not the case. The history section would make a really great stand alone article and time would be much better spent creating an accurate summary of that section, rather than embarking on a pOV deletion craze. Smatprt (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Too late; you've already been on a POV deletion craze for many months. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)