Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

Secret authorship?

How is Sir John Hayward a "specific example from Shakespeare's day" of secret authorship? He was accused of covering for some other author, but he didn't. I fail to see how this example is germane to the topic. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that he didn't, Tom? The specific accusation was that Queen Elizabeth did not believe that Hayward was the author of the Latin epistle dedicatory attached to his History of the Reign of Henry IV. It is not known whether Elizabeth's suspicions were justified or not. Why would you claim that it is known?--BenJonson (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

To me it smacks of catching at straws. Probably mischievous to suggest leaving it alone, for this reason. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I can see how it could be used as an indication that the authorities thought he was a secret author, but as far as an example of a person of high social status being a secret author, it's thin to the point of invisibility. I suggest our friends from across the aisle find more relevant example, change the topic to pseudonymous authorship (a different thing), or delete the section. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines, Tom. I think this is an interesting bit of history but it should be used that to show that the authorities were aware of and sensitive to this kind of activity going on. I also think your earlier comment (which for some reason got deleted), that we should also have a more relevant example of a true hidden author, such as a comment on the Mar-prelate pamphlets, was a good suggestion.

Caldecott references

Quoting Harry Stratford Caldecott's Our English Homer, or, The Bacon-Shakespeare controversy: a lecture as an accepted scholarly reference on the source for Shakespeare's plays is unacceptable. I intend to delete such references unless a viable argument is forthcoming for their inclusion. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree - unless the lecture were reproduced in a reliable third-party source. There may be some part of the reference that would be acceptable under very limited circumstances, but as a source for Shakespeare's plays, there must be a better source out there. Smatprt (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well,. it appears the Caldecott work was indeed published by a third party - the Johannesburg Times in 1896. The book is held by a number of university libraries. Yes, it's an old reference, but there are plenty of old references on Wikipedia in FA articles (such as William Shakespeare - all that Chambers, for example). So according to Wiki policy, it's not really an obvious candidate for deletion. That still shouldn't stop us from replacing old references with newer and better ones, though. Smatprt (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not the third-party publisher I was objecting to; it's his ideas about the sources of the plays--he's not a reliable source. Nobody I know agrees with his sources. there are plenty of source studies--I've got three or four books on it myself--and none of them agree with him that I am aware of.Tom Reedy (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not up to us to admit only the stuff we agree with. If it's published by a reliable third-party source, then it's usable. One can always add differing opinions, though. Smatprt (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So in other words we're supposed to admit all the conversations antistratfordians had with Shakespeare and Oxford when they consulted mediums because their conversations were reported in third-party sources? The Caldecott sources for Shakespeare's plays are just as ridiculous as those. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well we could... but, seriously, I agree with your point - we have to pick and choose and do our best to avoid the outer fringe! I think t would be best to (eventually) rewrite that section with some more up-to-date research. I know there are other references out there for the main point of the Caldecott assertion - that several of Shakespeare's sources were not even translated into English at the time. As I mentioned earlier, however, my time is pretty limited between now and mid-January, so I won't be able to do much til then.Smatprt (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, Stephen. I'll take care of the page while you're gone. Mmmuhuhuhuhuhuhahahahahahaha(wheeze)!!!!Tom Reedy (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

References in general

Some of the material I'm adding without references, noting that I will supply them later. When adding references, we need page numbers, not just "Ogburn, The Mysterious William Shakespeare" or such. After we get done someone is going to have to go through and regularize all the references in a consistent format. If anybody sees a statement that needs a reference, please tag it as such. But please, no more titles without page numbers. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the various reference formats are all over the map. Ogburn's book is fine as a reference, as it was printed by a reliable third-party publishing house. But Tom is right, page numbers are a must. Hopefully, some of the people adding these incomplete references will see this discussion and supply the missing page numbers. Otherwise, I will try and do some clean-up after the holidays. Smatprt (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, we have a problem on both sides of the aisle with self-publications and blogs. These are not reliable sources and should be replaced with references that are. Third party and/or peer-reviewed publications need to be supplied. This applies to Kathman's personal website, for example. As far as I am aware, it is not peer-reviewed. Surely any of the information he supplies can be found in better sources. I will tag such sentences and if no reliable sources are forthcoming, I will delete the appropriate material. Smatprt (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Smatprt, there's nothing wrong with having the Declaration of Reasonable doubt website as a reference for its mention, because it the thing itself, an Internet petition. Also the Chaplain reference should be from his autobiography. As far as Internet authorship sites, they should be listed at the end of the article. Most references to them in this article is merely an underhanded attempt at publicity seeking, so I agree their refs should be replaced with publications. Be sure to give a heads-up before deleting material--sometimes it takes a little time to find an appropriate ref. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems some posters are relying on blogs and meaningless websites, while the Oxford Guide to Shakespeare is dismissed. Un-flipping believable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Spockula (talk • contribs) 19:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is dismissing the Oxford Guide to Shakespeare? It's certainly a reliable source for this article and any Shakespeare-related article. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not I - only the self-published Kathman blog/website is not RS, which (I believe) is what I said. The Oxford Guide is, of course, usable - although the chapter on the Authorship is pretty weak, full of stuff authorhip researchers do not agree with - but it's a published RS so it is usable. Smatprt (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he may have been referring to my acceptance of the reasonable doubt web site. As to "authorship researchers," there are two types. The first type is the one who claims that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the works and spends his or her time looking for evidence for it. The second type studies the first type. They're all over the place when it comes to motives of the first type, but in their use of literary history and identification of the errors made by the first type, they're all pretty much agreed. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Structure of this article

I think we all need to roughly agree on what the structure of this article should be. Should it be a recitation of the authorship doubts followed by the mainstream refutations in the same section? And it also appears to me that a lot of antistratfordian assumptions are going unanswered, especially in the introductory material. Should they be refuted by the mainstream view immediately after they are stated? Tom Reedy (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a little work in this regard, expanding the "mainstream" section in the lead into a summary of the Mainstream overview and reordering the paragraphs a bit to reflect the construction of the article itself. Let me know what you think. In answer to your question above, I think each section is the place for the mainstream response. I think this works well in the "Shake-Speare as a pseudonym" section, for example, with the Stratfordian response to the hyphenated name issue directly following the anti-Strat view. As for the lead, as it's supposed to be a summary of the article itself, I kept that in mind with my recent edits and look forward to hearing your thoughts. Cheers! Smatprt (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that one critical improvement that would be of a structural nature would be to clarify the question of what seems to constitute evidence to the two sides in the debate. Stratfordian evidence is largely external -- the monument, the names on the title pages, etc. Anti-Stratfordians, and especially Oxfordians, seem to prefer evidence of a psychological or literary nature, which is one reason so many psychologists have become attracted to the authorship question and have taken heretical positions on it. Oxfordians in particular have made telling points by focusing on the relationship between internal evidence (the content of the plays and poems) and external evidence (biographical or historical dissiderata derived from other sources). Not surprisingly, moreover, it is this very lack of tangible connection between internal and external sources of evidence -- the discrepancy between the life of the alleged author and the content of the works attributed to him, that has always been the Achilles heel of the orthodox view of authorship. I think the article would greatly be improved by a frank acknowledgment of these differences in emphases about what constitutes relevant or probative evidence.--BenJonson (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have some suggested language? Smatprt (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Do you think there should be an entire section devoted to it? It is one of the main points of differences between the two camps. I think not only should the two types of evidence be spelled out, but the opposite side's criticism of the other side's included, also. Four grafs? 1. AntiStrat evidence explanation, 2. Strat evidence explanation, 3. AntiStrat critique of Strat, 4. Strat critique of antiStrat. Or some other combination. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream view

Dear Editors: I am very uncomfortable with the following sentence regarding the mainstream view of Shakespeare's education: "The Stratfordian position maintains that Shakespeare of Stratford was entitled to attend the The King's School until the age of fourteen, where he would have studied the Latin poets and playwrights such as Plautus and Ovid.[77]" Though carefully worded, it is deceptive. To say that a subject was "entitled to attend" seems to indicate that he did NOT attend this school, and to say that he "would have studied" certain subjects is pure speculation. An encyclopedia article would not say that "Eleanor Roosevelt was entitled to attend Radcliffe"; it would tell us where and how she was educated, not what she MIGHT have done. The author Shakespeare might have had private tutors, or parents who educated him, but why not just say so, if it's true? Alexpope (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)alexpope(talk)January 12, 2010

Tweaked as you suggest, with acknowledgement. BTW, new talk page entries go to the bottom of the relevant section, or the bottom of the page in a new section. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Alex, you should look at the evidence before making such statements. The point is that he was entitled (because of his father's social position) to attend the school, but the records of attendence no longer exist. So it is assumed by the mainstream that he did attend and would have studied the known curriculum. With Eleanor Roosevelt, a much more recent figure, the evidence of her schooling presumably exists in abundance so such caveats are not necessary. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So, was my edit to this effect too hasty? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the mainstream position is that he did attend, on the grounds that he was entitled to and so one would assume that he did. In addition, the evidence of his work is sometimes used to support the claim that he used sources that would have been familiar from the curriculum. Maybe another slight tweak would do it. Paul B (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the school's original charter, all Stratford children were entitled to attend the school. I believe it was Sidney Lee who first proposed the idea that his father's position entitled him to attend (or it could be Halliwell-Phillips, I disremember). Also the curriculum was mandated by English law, down to the Latin text that was used, and other schools' curricula have been preserved. All this can be sourced from Baldwin's William Shakspere's Small Latine & Lesse Greeke, as well as Cressy's studies, but I haven't had time yet to do so. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

======================================================================================================

I moved this section:

Mainstream scholars recognize that very little biographical information exists about Shakespeare of Stratford, and this lack of solid data leaves an enigmatic figure. Mainstream researchers find this lack of information unsurprising, however, given that in Elizabethan/Jacobean England the lives of commoners were not as well documented as those of the gentry and nobility, and any such documents that might have existed are unlikely to have survived until the present day. However, Charlton Ogburn Jr. points out that we know a great deal more about the lives and educations of commoners such as Ben Jonson and Christopher Marlowe than we do about William Shakespeare of Stratford.

back down, along with the added material, for several reasons. First, this is not a good introductory paragraph to the "Mainstream view" section. Secondly, "mainstream scholars" say no such thing, and if you took a poll most of them would say we have more biographical information about Shakespeare than any other playwright. We don't even know the name of Ben Jonson's father or wife, for instance. Most of what we know about Marlowe is because of his trouble with the law, not because he left us a lot of personal information.

We've just begun improving this article and I'm sure I'll revisit this particular edit again. In the meantime, please stop trying to use this article to proselytize and confine your edits to documenting the topic in an unbiased manner. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I think your hostility is unwarranted. I used the exact same statement beginning "Mainstream scholars.." that appeared in the original text, so I am not changing what the mainstream writer said. It just seems more honest and open to make that concession before launching into a paragraph of details that are strongly slanted against the alternate view (and tedious, besides!). Attempting to prejudice the reader in the first paragraph by implying that the doubters are all wrong is an unfair tactic that I hope you will correct. In logic, we call that "poisoning the well." It's odd that you don't see the proselyting and misstatements by the Stratfordians, but any attempt to clarify or balance the item objectively, or to neutralize the inflammatory language of Stratfordian views, is deemed by you as "proselyting."

um...Tom...That wasn't my post!Smatprt (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Smtprt (I'm assuming this is you, even though you didn't sign off), I have displayed no hostility at all. But when an editor says such things as "Charlton Ogburn, Jr., whose book is a major contribution to Shakespearean scholarship and a fair-minded examination of the authorship question" and make such edits as making a claim that the actors who wrote the FF preface said teh author was an unspecified actor, and that "his fellow actors identified the playwright as "Sweet Swan of Avon" in the prefatory material to the First Folio," I have to think there's something going on, if only ignorance, that means all that editor's edits are going to have to be watched very closely. I've reverted about half of alexpope's edits because they were inaccurate or obviously biased.

Actually, I cut some of that down after I saw the post. But to reiterate - the posts (here and in the article) were not mine !Smatprt (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The formatting threw me off. OK, then, the same goes for alexpope. And nobody's bullying anybody off the page. If you want a good quality article, you're going to have to make good quality edits. Spending hours trying to source a bad edit is a waste of time, and just because a statement is sourced doesn't mean it has a place in the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for a straight-up article on authorship: cite the history, lay out all the arguments and all the refutations, use reliable sources, and leave out the campaigning. I'm sure you'll keep me to a high standard of fairness, and I expect and invite it, but be prepared for the same from me. If you want this article to be anything other than a shill for one side or the other, you're going to have to be more rigid in your standards. Getting rid of the various web sites used as references was a good first step.

Now you are refering to my work. Thanks (I think)!Smatprt (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're referring to saying "Attempting to prejudice the reader in the first paragraph by implying that the doubters are all wrong is an unfair tactic that I hope you will correct," but I'm sure you'll explain it to me. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not my post. Smatprt (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you ordered me to "back off" I'll do so, and you will never hear from me again. I've spent a whole afternoon researching the references in order to give exact page numbers in an attempt to be helpful to your readers, but I do have better uses for my time. In rewriting this article, I hope you do make it better (I'm sure you can).I suggest that,in rewriting this article, you enlist the help of several anti-Stratfordians (Baconian, Marlovian, Oxfordian)to be sure that you are representing their views correctly and fairly. But if your own blind prejudices are so blatantly obvious in the rewrite, and if you feel you must squelch you stand the chance of destroying Wikkipedia's reputation for fairness and objectivity. (BTW, Chambers is not the only source for this information; try to offer a variety of references instead of just repeating the biases of one scholar, if you really want to inform your readers and not just bludgeon them over the head.) Farewell, talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpope (talk • contribs) 21:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

History of alternative attributions edit

Smatprt, you write, "resting this pending further discussion. If stratfordians can infer the meanings of ambiguous statements why can't anti-stratfordians (as long as these beliefs are properly cited)" as justification for your reversion. OK, let's discuss.

First, the so-called early examples are strained interpretations that just happen to be missed by everybody else, which is why I say you need to stick to explicit, plain language examples (I forgot where I read that Ben Jonson was a Baconian, but that is this type of highly interpretive "example" of early doubting of Shakespeare).

intrepretations (strained being in the eye of the beholder) are not off limits. If you thik they are, please state the Wiki policy that says so. That would be futile, though - can you imagine stripping all Shakespeare related articles of "interpretation"?Smatprt (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Second, the statements are not properly cited. Not only do they originate in authorship web sites, but they don't support the stements other than by flat assertion. The only one that comes close is the Diana Price cite.

Most, if not all, can be found in the Price book, which is a RS.Smatprt (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Third, please give me some equivalent examples of stratfordians inferring the meanings of ambiguous statements in this article (you might be able to do that, because I haven't read the entire article yet, but if they're there strip 'em out!). Tom Reedy (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in a bit of a rush to get off to rehearsal (and the next few weeks will be pretty hit and miss for me due to a rather full plate at work) but let me just give you this example - from the FA article on WS:

"He was well enough known in London by then to be attacked in print by the playwright Robert Greene: ...there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tiger's heart wrapped in a Player's hide, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Johannes factotum, is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country."

and later

"Greene’s attack is the first recorded mention of Shakespeare’s career in the theatre."

Both of these are based on scholars interpretations of the words and what they mean. And nary a word that some mainstream scholars now believe that this diatribe was directed at someone else. In the case of this statement, at least the article acknowledges that "Scholars differ on the exact meaning of these words" but then we have "but most agree that Greene is accusing Shakespeare of reaching above his rank in trying to match university-educated writers, such as Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Nashe and Greene himself." Most?? Was there a survey to determine what "most" scholars believe? In any case, the quote is not an "explicit, plain language example" as you seem to want to limit the article to. We didn't do that in the main WS article, why should we create a new rule for this article? And what Wiki policy would justify such an exculsionary rule? Smatprt (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. However, can you show the points of similarity between the allusions and Shakespeare as strong as those in Groatsworth in those examples cited in the article? I don't think so, and the references don't make them clear, either. If you want to keep them, explain them as well as the Groatsworth example is done in the Shakespeare article. Otherwise any claim at all can be allowed, such as the one I mentioned about Ben Jonson being a Baconian, and this article will turn into cloud-gazing mush.

By the way, I would like to say that so far most of your edits during this time seem to be even-handed and fair. I'm trying my best to do the same. Let's try to keep it up. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Stating the obvious?

This sentence in the intro is only a rewording of the previous one: "This trend continues into the 21st century." I want to delete it. Discussion? Tom Reedy (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes - it seems to be pretty redundant. I went ahead and deleted it.Smatprt (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

William Stanley section?

Since William Stanley (6th Earl of Derby) is mentioned in the introductory matter, shouldn't he have a section setting out his candidacy?

I agree that he should.Smatprt (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also the order of candidates changes every time they're listed. Is this rotation an agreement among the various champions or should there be some chronological or popularity order imposed upon them? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The last time we discussed this, we decided to list by popularity. I'll take a look and see what you are talking about.Smatprt (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Tht's fine, but I recombined the nominees in the intro. It seems to me that Oxford having his own sentence opens up questions about undue slant, and first mention should be primacy enough. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. And Happy New Year! Smatprt (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I know California time is behind Texas, but two days? Tom Reedy (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Waking up was hard this year... and then there were all those actors to resuscitate!Smatprt (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi-diddle-dee! An actor's life for me! Tom Reedy (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Long "a" edit

Tom - I am wondering about your edit [[1]], as it deletes the whole doubters argument. I think antistrats are saying here that Shak, Shag, Shax, would all rhyme with "Shack", whereas the author's name does not. Are you saying that the "Shack" pronunciation didn't exist, or that the "Shake" pronunciation didn't? Or what? This should probably be restored, although maybe recast better? Smatprt (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying there is no Elizabethan source that tells us how or even that Shak- or Shake- differed in pronunciation, and we shouldn't invent one. We had a long, drawn out discussion on hlas about this several years ago, and the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Elizabethans imposed no difference in pronunciation the way we do now because of spelling. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the whole shak/shake thing is just someone's "theory", just like the "Ur Hamlet", "Shakespeare as Schoolteacher", and so many others on both sides are just theories with no concrete evidence to back them up. The name differentiation has been addressed by both sides in print and in news articles, so it is usable, whether we agree with it or not. Otherwise, we are not really stating the argument correctly. What we should probably do here is what we've done in other sections - let the doubters state their theories, then follow it with the mainstream response - in this case I imagine it would be something along the lines of what you just said - "mainstream scholars maintain there is no Elizabethan source that tells us how or even if Shak- or Shake- differed in pronunciation".Smatprt (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. You can quote some anti-Stratfordian publication and I'll rebut with a textbook. The debate I referred to was more than 10 years ago, and here is an extract from one of my last posts on the subject:

The fact is that names (all names, not just Shakespeare's) written by hand show a much greater variation than when printed. It was printing that eventually standardized spelling, not some rules made up by grammarians. Streitz's "magic 'e'" rule was only just beginning to come into being during Elizabethan times, and it was quite some time before it was accepted. Even today, there are plenty of words with a terminal "e" that don't affect the pronunciation of the previous vowel. Almost every page of the first folio is replete with them. Less rare (there's one) are (there's another) words that have a long vowel pronunciation without a terminal "e," although they do exist, and were even more frequent in Elizabethan times. How would the word "some" be pronounced with Streitz's "magic 'e'" rule, for example? How about the word "phony?" Why isn't it pronounced the same way (why doesn't "way" have a terminal "e"?) as phonic?

I also compiled a list of words from Oxford's letters that illustrates my point. The first spelling is Oxford's, the second is the modern word.

lat = late se = see amise = amiss imput = impute ame = am her = here wares = wars arr = are pute = put loke = look ofe = of hape = hap mad = made bad = bade thuse = thus deme = deem tropes = troops bene = been latlye = lately tru = true bloke = block crose = cross bare = bar on = one hade = had abrode = abroad costes = coasts car = care rote = root profites= profits ode = odd ofe = off stoke = stock Tom Reedy (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Poems section

This is one of the weakest sections in the article. It should be organized chronologically, giving a brief history of the way Sonnet criticism has been influential in shaping the authorship question. There are numerous other points of relevant reference here, not just sonnet 76, and the singling out of Charlton Ogburn in this context is misleading. Examples of other points worth mentioning even in a brief synopsis: 1) the author seems to be forty years of age or more; 2) "Fair youth" theories have concentrated on only two candidates, William Herbert and Henry Wriostheley, with most Stratfordians and virtually all Oxfordians favoring the latter view; 3) de Vere's daughter was engaged to be married to Southampton during the period when the first seventeen "marriage" sonnets were written. I'll work on some improved language for this section.--BenJonson (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there was no objection to these proposed edits, I have made them. I'm still not happy about the section-- it needs quite a bit more thought and nuance (I did not include, for example, the issue of the author's apparent age or some other matters that really deserve emphasis -- but the section is much better organized (chronologically) and the wording is quite a bit clearer and more focused. I will be continuing to edit this section over the coming weeks and invite anyone's comments as the work progresses.--BenJonson (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"first recorded in the early 18th century?"

Can somebody give me a cite on this?

go to the second paragraph of the "history of alternative attributions" section. Several 18th century examples are provided and referenced. The earliest is also mentioned here: [[2]].Smatprt (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We had a long discussion about this during the FA process for the William Shakespeare article. Here is the relevant excerpt:

Yes, all of this is very interesting, but I'm not sure we've answered the fundamental - indeed, for me, only - point. Does our source, or does it not, say, in so many words, that doubts about Shakespeare's authorship started to be expressed about 150 years after Shakespeare's death. If yes, can someone please copytype the relevant sentence here? AndyJones 12:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Here Andy - "the first man to question Shakespeare's sole authorship of the plays was a certain'Captain Goulding'. In a small book called An Essay Against Too Much Reading, published in 1728, he hinted at one of the anti-stratfordian arugments."(page 56).Smatprt 14:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The source is "Shakespeare and his Rivals: A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy" by George McMichael and Edgar M. Glenn, a pair of college professors. It is copyright 1962, and published by The Odyssey Press, in NY. lib of congess card #62-11942. It is strictly informative, providing source documents, contemp. reference, first signs of doubt, etc. It makes it clear on the first page that "most academic scholars aceept that Shakespeare was Shakespeare", and in presenting each theory, pretty much dismisses them. In the above "casebook", it states that the first to question Shakespeare's authorship was a "Captain Goulding" in book called "An Essay Against Too Much Reading", 1726, where the author, refering to Shakespeare, states that in "all probability cou'd not write English." According to the "Casebook", this was also reported in 1957 in "The Great Controversy" - The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined, by William F and Elisabeth S. Friedman, Cambridge University Press, pp1-4. Smatprt (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good enough. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Advertising Books on Wikipedia

I'm completely dumbstruck that someone has added a blatantly Oxfordian book "The Shakespeare Controversy" to what is supposed to be a balanced article on the authorship question. Whoever did this must be so obsessed with their own candidate as to have lost touch with reality! WellStanley (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WellStanley, The fact that you are dumbstruck suggests that you are not familiar with the work in question. Have you bothered to read it? Please respond. Other than your characterization of the book as "blatantly Oxfordian, what are your objections to Hope and Holston's book? Please be specific. I'm not impressed by your prejudicial speculations about the alleged "obsessions" of other contributors to this page. You clearly have much to learn about the authorship question before you can be trusted to offer reliable edits to this page.--BenJonson (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Name calling again? and so soon? Please grow up.Smatprt (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, it's only a small part of reality. It's the same fault as the people who can't see anything good about the Democrats or about the Republicans, just a different subject. Nothing major. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The image was agreed to during a proper discussion. Neither the title nor the image caption take any particular stance, so I don't particularly agree with your reasoning. If you have another image to propose, then please do so here and build a consensus for replacing the current one. In the mean time, this one should stay in place. Smatprt (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

He does have a point that it is a blatantly Oxfordian book, even if the bias is not detectable from the cover. (This is the kind of thing you get into with 50-some-odd claimants.) I think that if it is replaced, it should be with the SAC question mark image or maybe just a plain Droeshout engraving, or how about the cover of Stanley Wells's Is It True What They Say About Shakespeare?, but I really don't care one way or another. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I imagine WellStanley would support that! (kidding). But the point, as with any lead image, is to come up with the best graphic illustration of the subject at hand. A lead image that is both high quality and interesting or compelling in its own right. The present image was chosen due to the ideal combination of graphic image and word content. And remember - this is the Shakespeare Authorship Question page, not the William Shakespeare page. (It's also not the "This issue does not exist" page.) Smatprt (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing compelling about the present illustration. In fact, it is quite banal. The Wells cover is at least interesting and has some action and lively colors, but I doubt if he'd let us use it. I favor the question mark Droushout if there are no copyright issues (and I would think there would be some with the present illustration). Tom Reedy (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Wells cover is very humorous, but hardly encyclopedic. Yes, its funny and colorful but what on earth does it say? Is WHAT true about Shakespeare? That he was gay? Catholic? Beats his wife with the 2nd best bedpost? In contrast, the existing cover is (at least) direct and to the point of the article subject. And the quill and ink are the perfect images for a controversy about writing. And the caption was written precisely to be balanced. No bias is remotely detectable. Given that, I'm just not sure what the real objection is. Smatprt (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the 50-odd claimants addition, I am not comforatable with the present usage.

Why not? It's true, it's part of the history of the authorship question, and I would think it would work for your side as it shows how widespread the doubts are of the traditional attribution.

I agree that it shows widespread doubts. It's the placement and lack of context. See below comments.Smatprt (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a bit misleading, as the issue has always boiled down to only a handful of strong claimants who were/are able to attract notable supporters and continuing research published in reliable sources.

It "boiled down" after 150 years, and new claimants are being announced almost yearly. In addition, every person who puts forth a claimant is every bit as convinced as you are that his guy is the right one. The most popular now may not be the most popular in 20 years.

In the lead para, this needs explaining better. And really, to conform with Wiki policy, the article should just be limited to candidacies that have been discussed in reliable sources.Smatprt (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What Wiki policy dictates a less than comprehensive article? And here's one basic problem: who's to say what a reliable source is when it comes to candidates? The Scientific American published an article advocating Queen Elizabeth. Is that not a reliable enough source compared to, say, Ogburn? I fear your bias is the motivation behind your desire to limit the mention of the number of candidates. To be comprehensive, this article needs to at least mention the rough number of candidates that have been put forth (57 at last count, I think). "Numerous" is too vague, and could mean anything from 10 to 10 million. The article does not, however, in my opinion need to cover the arguments for every one of them, just the major ones. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But to hear you tell it - every new claimant is a major claimant according to the person who put them forth? Regardless, reliable sources are well defined by wiki policy. That shouldn't be a problem and should be easy to determine. In terms of policy - can you come up with a reliable source for each of the 50 (or 57)? And would you really want to if you could :) ? And, Tom, I do agree with you that the number should be mentioned and I am surprised at your accusation that I want to limit that mention, because the fact is - it already IS mentioned! Basically, I just don't think it belongs in the lead. More to the point, this has little to do with my personal "bias" as you say (and I wonder if you even know my true bias), but everything to do with our earlier agreement that we limit the ridiculous. In the body of the article, that's one thing - but the lead should be more discerning. I am assuming you have seen the section where it is already mentioned, right? If not, my apologies. Please see para 6 here [[3]]. Smatprt (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of the discussion concerning all the hearsay about Shakespeare of Stratford - all those stories and traditions with no real sources. Some of it (very little, though) made it into the WS article body, explained in context with the necessary qualifiers, but none of it made it into the lead. Does that make sense? Smatprt (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As per the "more than 50," I think it should be in the lede because it is part of the general history of authorship and almost every article I've seen written for the general public states it in the first few grafs. I've got several refs for it, if we need it, as well as a list of the candidates. Burying it in the last sentence of the article is hardly the same. But, as I said, going from the general (which is what the lede is) to the specific (the body of the article), no more than a passing mention of a few of the more obscure candidates should suffice, with the main emphasis being put on the arguments for the leading contenders. (And BTW, good edits so far, I'll get you a ref on "no scholars" claim later today.) Tom Reedy (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"More than fifty" puts the topic into context (as recommended in WP:LEDE) for any newcomer and for this reason should certainly be included.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points all. I've made an edit to put the "50" info back into the lead, and provided some (brief) context. Hope it works for everyone. Smatprt (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I get the idea you're not a true believer in this edit, because you're using it as a debate point. Why didn't the original read, "Demonstrating the widespread doubts that persist over the traditional attribution, numerous alternative candidates have been proposed, several of whom have generated considerable followings?" I know I was the first to bring up "widespread," but upon thinking about it, the doubts aren't really that widespread, nor would the number of candidates indicate the extent of the doubts anyway. Let's just change "numerous" to "more than 50" and be done with it. It's accurate, it's fair, and it's balanced.

Is every edit going to be this way? This is a very minor one. I can hardly wait for the tough ones! Let's save our strength for those. We also need to be more efficient in our verbiage; lay out the facts and keep the commentary for the arguments.Tom Reedy (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As to the original - we are cleaning up the entire article, and you, for example, started the review at the first sentence. Every line is coming under scrutiny so I don't understand why you are asking why the original wasn't a certain way. I'd be fine with the addition to either version (numerous or 50). In this particular compromise, I made a good faith attempt to meet common ground and I thought I had done so by using your very own words ("I would think it would work for your side as it shows how widespread the doubts are of the traditional attribution"). I agreed to that reasoning. I thought we had achieved a consensus on that and proceeded accordingly. Now (gol darn it) you are changing your mind and want to question your own use of "widespread", doing a 180 on me. Needless to say I think you were right the first time, after all, there is an online petition with 1600 names, hundreds of books, thousands of articles, notable adherents including academicians, Supreme Court Justices, statesmen, lawyers, doctors, housewives?!,etc., etc., etc. I think by any definition of the word, the term widespread applies. I would hope that you could at least agree to that, which was, after all, your original sentiment. My problem remains that "more than 50" without any explanation, is not accurate or fair. Most were insignificant, which is apparent as they gained no followers (and no followup research) to speak of. A handful have much stronger claims, have been researched extensively, and have shown staying power thru the last century or two. For the first hundred+ years, Bacon was the main contender, and for the last 90 years or so, Oxford has achieved the most "widespread" support. And the Group Theory continues to be a dark horse candidate, so to speak. So saying "more than 50", without any qualifier or context which mentions what I have just summarized, it not accurate nor fair. As I said, I thought we were approaching a consensus on this. I guess that is not the case. Sorry. Smatprt (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You never had a consensus to add that "context;" you had a consensus to replace "numerous" with a rough figure. This is a basic article about the authorship, and as such should include all the relevant facts about the topic, not make an argument that the authorship question is true or false. The addition of the "context," as you put it, is actually an argument that the number of claimants is evidence of something, and if you insist on putting it in the lede then I must insist on a rebuttal in the same place, something that I'm trying to avoid. All I'm asking is to include a simple fact about the authorship theory that you will read in most treatments of the subject--books, articles, web sites--plus I included a citation. Why you are resisting this I don't know. I've laid out my reasons: it's a widely-known basic fact; it is more accurate than a generalization such as "numerous," which could mean any number from 10 up. Explain to me exactly why "it is not fair," as you claim. Why is there a need for any more explanation of "more than 50?" I think people know how much 50 is--it's five times the number of fingers you were born with. As far as my original comment about "widespread," I said I thought about it and changed my mind. So what? Are you so hide-bound in your beliefs that you never change your mind? If you think 1600 signatures translates into "widespread" you don't have any sense of proportion at all. The NYTimes survey should disabuse you of that notion, and as a matter of fact over on the Shakespeare page you made that very argument: that the link should be added because it showed it's a minority view. I think you need to get over the idea that you're the final arbiter on this page. I know you've had that position for a long time, but those days are over.Tom Reedy (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Main Entry: wide·spread

Pronunciation: \ˈwīd-ˈspred\

Function: adjective

Date: 1582

1 : widely diffused or prevalent <widespread public interest>

15. Do you think that there is good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?

6% Yes

82% No

11% Possibly

1% I don't know

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

2% Has profound implications for the field

3 An exciting opportunity for scholarship

61 A theory without convincing evidence

32 A waste of time and classroom distraction

2 No opinion

93% say "a theory without convincing evidence" or "a waste of time and classroom distraction. Unless you can make a case that 7% = "widespread doubts, " you're SOL. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom, with three opponents to deal with now, I feel the main contributor of this site could use some support. Hope he doesn't mind.

How can you use a 44-year old reference, The Reader's Encyclopedia of Shakespeare, to give us an accurate number of candidates? If the reference's number was accurate (did they list them all or was that someone's wild guess again?), the real number may have doubled or more, and over 50 gives a false idea of precision.

Be careful with the use of "it's fair, and it's balanced", through its cynical use as a slogan people now more often than not use it to mean the opposite

Likewise, people mocking doubters (Bill Bryson's slipshod attempt comes to mind) have used "more than 50 candidates" too frequently to be neutral, usually as an introduction to a list of the most bizarre suggestions. Btw Bryson also claims that over 5000 books (not papers: books) have been written about Shak not being the man; I hope he mistyped 500 there and he believed himself upon reading it later. Perhaps he meant to type "papers", but his number is getting legs.

You edited with "I think I know the reasons why mainstream scholars reject the arguments". In that case you would have to quote yourself ;-). From what I've read, snobbery, incompetence, naïveté and paranoia form the standard rejoinder. Since you can't speak for all mainstream scholars, your sentence should be in the form "Such and so have said that authorship doubters … (ref)".

Widespread is not the same as a majority. 5000 books, even if off by an order of magnitude, would certainly qualify the idea as "widely diffused", in the meaning extensive, common, endemic, rampant, or rife (where the latter three terms probably are too slanted to use instead;-).

Finally, I had to look up "SOL", and I'm afraid wiktionary calls it "vulgar"... Afasmit (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you've focused only on Shakespeare professors. What on earth is that about? My example lists thousands of individuals from all walks of life - truly widespread indeed. As to your accusation that I have been the final word on this page, you are, once again, sadly mistaken. OldMoonwalker (your side of the aisle) has been watching this page even longer than I have and together we have worked thru a number of issues, building consensus after consensus. So please, do some fact checking. And do be prepared to build a consensus for any additions that are not readily accepted by all the editors.

I'm OK with your latest edit. As for the points brought up by Afasmit, I'm pretty sure the number is in the low 60s by now, but my adding them up from the list given in the cited source would be OR. The list is the same one Elliot and Valenza worked from for their stylometric papers, and the book is still considered a classic source, so there's nothing wrong with using it, especially sine your side is quoting 100-130 year old books.

As far as how widespread authorship doubts are, to take a page out of your book, what poll do you get that from, or are you just making an assumption based on your personal impressions? "Most widespread" is a relative term, and is technically correct, even if it only describes, say, 2 percent of the population compared to 1 percent, so I have no objection to you using it the way you have, i.e. as a description of the relative support for Oxford, as opposed to the degree of authorship doubt (by far the "most widespread" support for the author is William Shakespeare of Stratford, as I'm sure you're aware).Tom Reedy (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple calculations are allowed in WP:NOR, but using the material requires the agreement of other editors. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Afasmit's comment: "From what I've read, snobbery, incompetence, naïveté and paranoia form the standard rejoinder." You obviously are not well-read in the literature rebutting antistrat ideas. If you were inclined to remedy this, I'd suggest you pick up James Shapiro's new book to be released in April, Contested Will: The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy. You can also find lots of substantive information at the Shakespeare Authorship Page at http://shakespeareauthorship.com/. (Oh, and Bryson's numbers are correct. Maybe you should also learn more about antistratfordian material.)Tom Reedy (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ten non-barking dogs

There currently is no mention of the absence of references to Shakespeare of Stratford ("Strat" to be short here) as a poet or playwright by people who "should have known him", though this theme seems to be a staple in anti-Stratfordian books. I've just read an apparently well-researched introduction to ten such "eyewitnesses" by one Ramon L. Jiménez at a Baconian website [4]. Undoubtedly, not all of his arguments will hold up to intense scrutiny, but he compiled some remarkable cases. Perhaps most familiar is William Camden, who listed Shakespeare in 1605 as a poet for the ages, but also wrote in the updated 1607, 1610 and later editions of his Britannia that Stratford-upon-Avon owes all its (minor) consequence to two natives of it: John de Stratford and Hugh Clopton (who now is probably only in Wikipedia because he built New Place!). Of course, there is Strat's physician son-in-law, John Hall, who in 1630 bundled cases of his career, but notoriously forgot to mention his father-in-law in the published volume (with cases starting as early as 1611). A mysteriously lost second casebook probably was all about our man;-) Hall does tout treating famous people, like "the excellent poet" Michael Drayton, who lived close by Stratford and had lots of reasons to write about Strat as a poet or playwright in his extensive correspondence, but mentioned him only once, in the late 1620s ("he was an excellent comedian" (actor?)). The Stratford-native Thomas Greene, publisher of Drayton's poems and small-time poet himself, was a close friend of Strat: he and his wife and kids even stayed at New Place for months in 1609-10. He (of course) mentions Strat in his diary, but not as a poet or playwright and even fails to mention Strat's death six years later. The fact that James Cooke, who bought John Hall's casebook from Strat's daughter Susanne, translated it and published it in 1657, doesn't mention Shakespeare in his foreword (where he relates the whole story of buying the books from the widow of the "very famous doctor") or anywhere at all is also somewhat odd. Fulke Greville, from 1606 to 1628 Recorder of Stratford-upon-Avon, hobnobbed with many poets (including Strat's alleged son William Davenant), was a serious poet and playwright himself, and wrote lots, but never mentioned Shakespeare at all. The "stage enamored" Queen Henrietta Maria, said to be the first person to be called an actress, passed through Stratford in 1643. She and her entourage stayed two nights, of course in its fanciest house, which was New Place, with Strat's daughter Susanne, but there is not a peep about staying in Shakespeare's shack in her copious correspondence.

The other three are good too, but this is getting long. Though standard fodder for scoffing dismissal, arguments from consistent absence of an expected observation are valid. If a researcher does 10 (properly executed) independent experiments expected to confirm a theory, and all fail to do so, he/she usually modifies the theory or adopts another one, even if each individual experiment still left some room for the original theory to be true. Jiménez himself compares this negative evidence to Conan Doyle's famous "dog that didn't bark".

Before spending hours on making a perfect one-paragraph summary of this, with 183 references, I'd like to check if said paragraph will be welcomed. Even more welcome would be, if a better-Shakespeare-versed individual could try to summarize it. Afasmit (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and write it, but don't use a web site as a reference. You might want to include all the copious references to other poets and playwrights of the same time that list their names by their hometowns. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It'll be a week or so before I get around it. I certainly don't mind if someone beats me to it.

Re your "copious references", this argument is not based on a comparison to other poets and playwrights. Provided that Strat was someone noticeable, each of these listed people would normally be expected to say or write something, anything, at least one of which should have survived until people like James Wilcot desperately started to look for traces (which is something that hasn't happened to remotely this extend for other poets or playwrights). For example (to stay in your facetious mode): "Hey Thomas, what do you know: I got seriously ill when visiting the Rainsfords in Stratford again (yes, my old flame, but it's all right), and guess who their house doctor is: no other than The Great One's son-in-law. The Chosen One himself was an honored guest in this literary-loving household, ya know. The good doctor could at least confirm that Bill didn't die because of his all-too-“merry meeting” with Ben and I that night in 1616. I know, I've complained about the "rival poet" from my neck-of-the-woods in many letters, but now he's dead and now his son-in-law has cured me with a cup of violets syrup, I got to admit he and his poetry weren't all that shabby. Ciao, Mike." would have been helpful. Afasmit (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This kind of material would do nicely in the Comments by Contemporaries section. Perhaps as a subsection. I look forward to seeing what you come up with! Smatprt (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"No scholars" is a pretty bold statement

Tom, could you provide the direct quote for the references you used for this line: "Stratfordians respond that no scholars of Elizabethan literature or punctuation accept the claim of hyphenation as a marker of a pseudonym"? I'm just surprised that any researcher would speak for all scholars in a particular field. Thanks, Smatprt (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no direct quote, which is why I just listed the books. No Elizabethan or grammar scholars that I know of have written about hyphens as a sign of pseudonymous writing, as you would expect if it actually were the case. I need to recast the sentence to reflect that, but I didn't have time yesterday. I'll patch it up for now and get around to recasting it sometime today or later this week. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Lede reflecting content or lede directing content?

Stephen, regarding this edit that you reverted: "Mainstream scholars reject these arguments and all of the proposed alternative candidates, saying that authorship doubters overstate Shakespeare's erudition and anachronistically mistake the times he lived in, thereby rendering their method of identifying the author from the works invalid."

I intend to provide the material later on as we get down the page. I wanted it in the lede because it is a major objection to the authorship theories. If you want to leave it out until I get the material written and sourced, fine, but I intended it to be a guide to the eventual final product. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest before we keep going with these "he said, she said" edits that we agree on some type of format for the argument points. My suggestion is that we separate anti-Strat and Strat points by paragraph, at least, and try to achieve some kind of balance in the amount of space devoted to each. IOW, make the anti-Strat argument in one graf followed by another graf with the Strat response. (The anti-Strat should be first, IMO, because this is essentially an article explaining the authorship debate.) Also, except for correcting grammar or reordering material for better comprehension (as I did in the intro with the Oxford mention), let's stop editing or deleting the other side's depiction of the argument. When I first got here a few weeks ago, the Strat argument was a parody, the result of anti-Strats setting up the opposite side, for whatever reason (a lot of it still is, but I intend to correct that eventually). I want nothing more than for the anti-Strats to set out their arguments accurately and to be allowed to set out the Strat side in the same manner. At the same time, I want the article to be comprehensive and give full coverage to the history and the essence of the argument. If we have a problem with a particular edit, let's discuss it here instead of constantly reverting each others' edits. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's going to be hard to come up with a strict format, as evidenced in the Shake/Shak section. The current example, where the Strat view ended with a bold "no question" statement,could (and should) be rebutted. Some sections might need to start with the antistrat view, whereas others might be better to start the other way around. Your suggestion of 4 graphs might be a good general format, but the order might be problematic, depending on the topic, and/or whether or not new (or newly discovered research) is available. The Tempest section is a good example of this - there is new Strittmatter/Kositsky, challenged by Vaughn, then rebutted by S/K. If Vaughn next rebutts S/K, then that would be added, and so forth. Maybe, to be fair, we switch the order up so that sometimes Strats have the final word, and sometimes anti-strats do? Smatprt (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(We're editing at the same time.) I would go for a rotation--you start first in one section and I start the next--but this is essentially an article about anti-Stratfordism--what it's about and the reasons why most people don't buy it. How about instead of just piling on opinion quotes at the end of my material you actually rebut my response in a new paragraph? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"and the reasons why most people don't buy it"? I don't agree that's what this article is about! I mean, how on earth can you determine what "most people" think? Smatprt (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the same way you determine that authorship doubts are "widespread." Tom Reedy (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Good - beat a dead horse. (I thought you wanted to move on!). The flu is described as "widespread", but still most people don't have it. Give me a break!Smatprt (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Time to move on when you're hoist with your own petard, eh? And we're not writing an hysterical newspaper article; we're trying to write an encyclopedia entry. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And BTW, unless Trevor-Roper was actually responding to what Thompson said, saying he is "countering this statement" is inaccurate. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "he" countered the statement. Anti-Strats counter the statement with his quote. It's right on point so I don't get the resistance.Smatprt (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes you did say "he" countered the statement: "Countering this statement, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University Hugh Trevor-Roper noted . . ." Perhaps a refresher course in English at your local community college might help. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see the snobby side of you is back. The holidays had me worried that you might actually stop being so insulting!

It's not me; its just that you're such an easy straight man. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Playing the clown to my straight man? An excellent use of your time! Smatprt (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, you say "Sorry, but "no question" requires a response. Otherwise, balance is lost. You can't end a section with a bold statement that isn't accurate."

My understanding of how this is supposed to work is that you put forth the strongest argument of the antiStrats and then I respond with the Strat answer. You can't keep going back and adding more arguments to the Strat response, unless you want me to keep adding counters to your counters, and then we'll have an infinitely large in-progress article that no one can possibly read. As far as "bold statements", should I counter such bogus statements as "highly expert in translating foreign languages, knowledge of courtly pastimes and politics, Greek and Latin mythology, legal terminology, and the latest discoveries in science, medicine and astronomy of the time" with my rebuttal just as soon as you make it? Because if you want me to I will, but this is not really supposed to be a debate. It's supposed to be an article setting forth the information known about the topic and its history. Quit trying to get some type of illusory advantage by trying to get the last word in; that's not good-faith editing. Lay out the argument straight up and let me lay out mine without your interference. This article is going to take a long time to get up to standards. Let's try to move down the page a bit faster, shall we? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

First - I'm in no hurry and think we should take our time to get it right. I'm confused by your "last word" comment - did I not discuss that problem and say "Maybe, to be fair, we switch the order up so that sometimes Strats have the final word, and sometimes anti-strats do?"?Smatprt (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with it now since you've separated the grafs, especially since I noted that a specialist said that modern readers have problems comprehending English secretary and then you quote a professor of modern history. I only wish you'd added that he authenticated the Hitler diaries. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Another pointless comment. (Besides, you know he authenticated based on erroneous data he was supplied with, which he was completely candid about). Ah it's great to have you back.Smatprt (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for pointing out the "modern history" bit -I've now clarified that since Trevor-Roper is an acknowledged scholar in Early Modern History, meaning the 16th, 17th & 18th centuries! Thanks for the help ;) Smatprt (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha! You're so predictable, but unfortunately wrong. I corrected your "clarification." Trevor-Roper actually examined the diaries and the handwriting. I suggest you actually read his Wikipedia entry. He was a social historian, not an archivist, and his career was full of petty disputes with better historians than he. His most successful book was a biography of a person who died in 1944. You're welcome to him and Justice Stevens both as "expert testimony" against Shakespeare's signatures. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I recast it so you won't be tempted to censor his expertise out of the article. Trying to mislead readers by use of "modern" is not helpful, Tom. His expertise is "early modern Britain" and you know it! (Off point - I didn't say he didn't examine the diaries and the handwriting. (Nor was he the only historian who came to the wrong conclusion) Part of authenticating the data was, or course, the providence of the material, right? And I did read the WP article, did you? He explained his error and was quite up front about it. Then he went on to publish more work that was well received. But really, SO WHAT? You love those red herrings, don't you)Smatprt (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. Any way you cut it, he wasn't an expert on handwriting, early modern or modern. He was a social historian. As I said, you're welcome to cling to your Ogburn and Trevor-Roper; I'll take Thompson and Yeandle and all the rest of the people who work with Tudor documents day in and day out. And quit getting hysterical; nobody's trying to "censor" anybody; accuracy is what I'm after. I'd just like for once to see you add an edit without launching a campaign. And what the hell is "providence of the material?" Tom Reedy (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - typing too fast and not hitting the preview button - I meant "Provenance". And don't worry - I'm not getting hysterical, just calling a spade a spade. Trying to hide the fact that his speciality was 16th-18th century Britain (not "modern" history) is what I call censorship. You want accuracy, now you have it. And actually, you have paragraphs 1, 3 & 4 in the section, so I think you should be pretty happy. Oh - and about your: "I'd just like for once to see you add an edit without launching a campaign." I guess you forgot about all the edits I made that you recently complemented me on! ("By the way, I would like to say that so far most of your edits during this time seem to be even-handed and fair. I'm trying my best to do the same. Let's try to keep it up. User:Tom Reedy". Not to mention my edits having to do with format, linking, references, vandal reversion, etc., etc., etc. - And besides - isn't "campaigning" exactly what you are doing? You campaign for the Stratfordian side with just about every edit. And you should, as that is why you are here. I have no problem with that and actually welcome the attention and the opportunity to make the article better. Also - please remember that until now, the Strat side has been maintained by OldMoonraker, and before that, AndyJones - both from your side of the aisle. If you want to complain about the former state of the Stratfordian information, why not consult with them instead of throwing stones?) Anyhow - we have actually worked thru one section pretty well. Time for a brew. Cheers! Smatprt (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy enough about it now, but you need to remember that this is a process. You can't just edit and expect it to stay. You have to admit that the "widespread" flag I put up forced you to make a better edit, and even my dig at Trevor-Roper caused you to make it a stronger edit. I don't mind strong edits, just misleading ones. We need to talk about the next section, "Authorship doubters." I'm OK with you editing any way you want using any argument you want, and I'll keep my hands off. I'll rebut in the next section, along with setting out the mainstream view. Or do you want to rebut paragraph by paragraph? Or should we have four sections: Authorship doubters, rebuttal of authorship doubters, mainstream view, rebuttal of mainstream view? Or there are many other combinations. (Or we might just want to hammer it out as we go along.) In any case, I'd like to see direct rebuttals with citations instead of arguing past each other.

And grow a sense of humor. Someday the earth is going to fall into the sun and everybody will be dead. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If you really knew me, you'd know my sense of humor. And these exchanges actually had me laughing. Text exhanges never give you the tone, and prevent you from seeing me smile or hearing me laugh! Regarding the "widespread" bit - you know that I only made it because you, in effect, suggested it - or at least planted the seed. My original concern about the 50+ was not about "widespread" but about the context is needed to be in. I too am content with the final result. Same with Trevor-Roper - although you could have raised your concern here instead of simply reverting. And Yes - as Tom Lehrer sang.. "We will all go togther when we go"! Well, now I'm off to direct a gaggle of high school and college kids in "All Shook Up" (Elvis meets Twelfth Night!). Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to produce this with them next: http://runleiarun.com/lebowski/ Tom Reedy (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest AlexPope edits

January 2010

I know I said I wouldn't be back, but I couldn't resist checking to see if you made the improvements you promised. The article is better, but still misleading and slanted. I have suggested a few changes that make the presentation more accurate and the language more neutral. The introduction is too argumentative in the second paragraph, too detailed for an introduction, and redundant because it repeats the assertion also made at the end that Mainstream Scholars reject the points of controversy and all of the proposed candidates. The mainstream view is amply represented in the Wikkipedia item on "William Shakespeare" and need not be repeated here. Why not just refer readers to the main item on Shakespeare with a link? Similarly, the doubts have been summarized on the web site "Doubt About Will" so readers can also be referred there with a link. That's fair and balanced, right? Alexpope (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)alexpope

I have removed the paragraph describing "Doubt About Will" and the (broken) link to the web page, citing WP:ELNO in the edit summary.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Alexpope, would it be too much to ask that you learn some basic Wikipedia editing skills? (And with an MA in English lit, shouldn't you have learned the rules of capitalization by now?) Also if you want to edit, I suggest that you confine yourself to the anti-Stratfordian viewpoint and don't edit the mainstream view. As per your suggestion to merely put in a link to the main Shakespeare page, you evidently don't understand the purpose or construction of a Wikipedia article. I would suggest that you check with Smatprt before you make an edit and get his advice. Otherwise it appears that every edit you make is going to be reverted. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Authorship doubters edit

Stephen, why do you think this is appropriate at this place in the article? Am I supposed to add a section of names of those who believe Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare along with a bunch of quotes saying how idiotic the doubters are? I see nothing wrong with a list of the names of prominent doubters, but adding so much material that it more than doubles—almost triples—the section is nothing but promotion, and not suitable for what is supposed to be a neutral article. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Having notable adherents is one of the key Wiki requirements for having this article exist at all. Listing a representative group, and (very) short quotes explaining their thoughts is part of having a comprehensive article. WS has his own article where many, many, many, scholars are mentioned and quoted. The article states numerous times that this is a minority view. Neutrality is not the issue here - but demonstrating why the issue exists (and who the notable adherents are) is. Bottom line - notable adherents to a minority theory are a requirement - and what sets this issue apart from "Moon Hoaxes" and "Holocaust Deniers" - and other conspiracy theories that a) fail the notability test, and b) have failed to sustain interest or generate new research, as is the case here. Also - your note that the material doubles or triples the section is not accurate, as I deleted almost half as much material in my previous edit. On this issue, I will certainly put up a fight, and am perfectly willing to appeal to the appropriate wiki committee to get a ruling, if need be. Smatprt (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from some other editors on this. Notability is sufficiently demonstrated by listing their names along with what their occupations as a link to their Wikipedia article without going into extended quotations. If you want it in, I'll insist on putting in my list along with their quotes about anti-Strats, also. You realize you're degrading the quality of the article, though, don't you? You might as well get the ball rolling on your appeal, because I'm going to revert it to what the status quo was until you get the ruling. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and add your list - but if your quotes simply attack anti-strats, instead of addressing the actual issue, it will only make them (and you) look bad. And I'm wondering - since all articles on WP are supposed to be neutral, are you going to mind if I add more material to the WS article, which is entirely devoted to the Stratfordian position and fails to properly summarize the authorship issue?Smatprt (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Since your list is nothing more than an appeal to authority (or more accurately, celebrity), my list would be the exact same thing. Neither adds anything at all substantive to the article. I'm taking steps to appeal, as you suggested, rather than getting in a time-wasting edit war. As far as editing the Shakespeare page, knock yourself out. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Also - your initial question was why I thought it was appropriate at this place in the article? So I moved it down and put the mainstream view in the top position. I notice in your reverts that you didn't mind keeping the top position. And you have not suggested any other solution other than simply deleting material (which itself is severely frowned on by Wiki policy). And what happened to your request that I develop the anti-strat case and you develop the strat case and we generally leave each other's wok alone (with the exception of minor edits)? Is what you are really saying "Keep your hands off my edits, but I'll do what I want to yours?" I must admit, it's hard to keep up with your changes of stance every other day. Hardly seems fair. Smatprt (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Smatprt (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It is simply inappropriate to 'list' supporters in such a way. We discuss supporters of theory X or Y in relevant articles, but don't list them. That's nothing more than "celebrity endorsement" and has no proper place. Comparable examples might be the Climate change denial article and the Christ myth theory, comparable anti-mainstream concepts. There's no list of non-specialist celebrities who have expressed agreement with these ideas, but plenty of references to names of people who have made specific arguments, pursued court cases, etc. These are placed in context in different ways. Individual theorists are given separate sections in the Christ Myth theory article. The Climate change denial article, figues are mentioned in the context of events. But in no case that I know of are there lists of "endorsements". Also "deleting material" is not "frowned on in wiki policy"; it happens all the time quite legitimately. Paul B (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the entire section is nothing but cheerleading for the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, which should take mo more than one paragraph. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Book graphic revisited

To Smatprt. The content of this article should not be decided on the basis of who has the greatest willpower in getting their own way. It should be edited on the basis of balance. The book graphic at the head of the article advertises a publication that clearly has Oxfordian bias. If there is to be a book graphic at all it should be replaced with "Who Wrote Shakespeare?" by John Michell. WellStanley (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to correct you, WellStanley, but passive/aggressive behavior is not synonymous with willpower, although willpower is involved. For a classic example, see the edit just above in the previous section. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

One must question why you are so afraid, WellStanley, to admit what anyone who has bothered to study the authorship question with an open mind already knows: "Oxfordian bias" is synonymous with an informed perspective on authorship. Having read both John Michell's book (which I reviewed when it came out) and Hope and Holston's book in the 1992 edition, I can easily cite you chapter and verse as to why Hope and Holston is a better book. But your statement is an argument from authority. Why "should" the replacement take place, other than the fact that you say so, and according to you the book has an "Oxfordian bias"? The first argument is one from authority and the second is one from defintion -- you impose a label on a book that I can't even tell you've read and argue in favor of another that I can't tell you've read either. Stop throwing your weight around. As you yourself said above, you aren't primer inter pares here.--BenJonson (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

see below

• Looking through this article, it has clearly been edited for Oxfordian bias. Oxfordian books are cited when a neutral book would have sufficed. The list of authorship doubters are ALL Oxfordians! Whoever has been editing this is using the article to advertise his/her own beliefs and seems to have no interest in informing the public. People should rage against this. WellStanley (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A sprinkling of the early ones were Baconians, and Emerson wasn't a doubter at all. Other than that, your comments are spot on. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you are quite wrong about Emerson. He most certainly was a doubter of the official Shakespearean tradition of authorship, although a less prominent one than Hawthorne or Whitman.

No, Roger, I am quite right about Emerson, and you are the one who is quite wrong. That book quotes Emerson out of context to make it appear as if he doubted the authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford, and ignores the clear indications to the contrary in the very same essay (although I doubt the authors of the book have read the complete essay or even know about it, both being in thrall to Looney and Ogburn). As you well know—or should know, being an English professor—Emerson had quite a lot to say about Shakespeare. For a summary of what he said about him that shows he accepted Shakespeare of Stratford as the author, you can read this: http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/47f7b9f308d96dd6. For those who don't mind reading, you can go here and read the entire essay: http://www.emersoncentral.com/shak.htm Tom Reedy (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Whitman was typical of the most brilliant of the 19th century doubters of the official bard. He refused to endorse the Baconians, and his position on this matter deserves emphasis in any article describing the history of the debate. If you had read the book which you are endorsing removing from the page, you would know these things. As for the "Oxfordian bias," WellStanley, you don't seem to realize that this page has been edited over the years by many types of anti-Stratfordians. The Oxfordian arguments have risen because cream rises. Its now interesting to see what is happening. Advocates of the traditional view of authorship are apparently so insecure in their beliefs that they cannot even bring themselves, in 2009, to admit what Encyclopedia Britannica has been saying for the past 36 years, namely that the Oxfordian case is the strongest of the all the alternatives. If this is the case, then it is only natural that the Oxfordian case should be the most prominent one the page. But the revisionist impulse is strong at this particular moment in time.

I'll check out that book, but I'm not convinced of Emerson or Hawthorne either.

Oxford's case is presented as the most popular; nobody's denying his rightful place as an authorship contender, but that doesn't mean this article should be about Oxford. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

WellStanley, takes someone of singular ego and lack of self awareness to come in after a few days, with no experience with wikipedia, to write as you do that the content of this article should not be determined in the basis of "who has the greatest willpower." I previously responded to your outrageously prejudicial and premature comments about Alden Vaughan's SQ article. You ignored my comments, but have now come on and issued mass deletions of material that has been patiently developed and edited over the past six years by literally dozens of contributors to this article. You must feel that you are a singularly enlightened being to engage in these highhanded tactics while accusing others of wanting to "get to their own way." --BenJonson (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the material he deleted was about six hours old. You might as well get used to the fact that this article is going to be rewritten in a balanced way.Tom Reedy (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletions of material

Tom - do you support this mass deletion of material? Instead of finding neutral sources all the material is just deleted??Smatprt (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

To Smatprt. I suspect your use of the term "mass deletion of material" is intended to whip up feelings of horror in the uninitiated visitor and divert attention away from the positive effect of these deletions which is to balance the article, surely a service to Wikipedia. I think it is unhelpful to its readers to try to sustain a biased article that you are clearly using to advertise your personal beliefs, and I think it is disrespectful to other editors to visit their talk pages, deceive them by misrepresenting my honorable intentions, and then try to use them to get you out of your personal 3RR dilemma. Despite being the offending party, you then have the audacity to place a threatening template on my Talk page. Do you have no respect for others? WellStanley (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Barry. Long time no see. Paul B (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

He didn't do a "mass deletion;" he deleted it in several steps, explaining each step. I only see two grafs that he deleted that I disagree with, the first two grafs of the "Authorship doubters" section. About the rest he's right: it should be in the Oxfordian article instead of this one. As far as using Oxfordian sources, though, I don't see how you can find enough anti-Stratfordian arguments without using at least some Oxfordian sources. And it would help if, while you were trying to disqualify Shakespeare of Stratford, you would not make it a point to identify every Oxfordian who weighs in on an issue as such. If you feel it necessary to identify the authorship sympathies of every source quoted, why didn't you identify Trevor-Roper as a Stratfordian?

Why does it matter whether Trevor Roper is a "Stratfordian" or an "anti-Stratfordian?" It is precisely this use of labeling individuals that is to be deplored. What matters is not what you want to call Trevor Roper, but what he said. To claim otherwise is to engage in a logical fallacy.--BenJonson (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to talk to Smatprt, not me. He's the one with the labeling fetish—al least as long as their Oxfordians. I haven't seen him name any Baconians. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that identifier for Roper. In a way, that shows that even within your own camp, there are lingering doubts. Smatprt (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

One can display their ignorance of English secretary hand without harboring doubts about who the author is. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as finding "neutral sources," I suppose if you want to keep the material you're going to have to recast it and find some more even-handed sources. Or you could appeal and see what happens. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy about "neutral sources" -

Then why in the hell did you bring it up? Read your first comment that started this section. And there is certainly this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I brought it up because someone else did and I was responding. Smatprt (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

if they are there, sure, we can use them, but using Oxfordian sources, as long as they are RS by Wiki definition, then they are completely acceptable. I mean - what if you could not use Stratfordian sources? That would be absurd, don't you think?Smatprt (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And 3 edits in a row totaling over 6,000 bits is, indeed a mass deletion. No talk, no consensus, just deletion of material.Smatprt (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Signature illustration

I've put together a jpg file illustrating all of Shakespeare's signatures, but I don't know how to upload it. Could somebody show me how? Or I would be glad to e-mail it to someone who could put it in the "Shakspere" vs. "Shakespeare" section of the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there is already a file that exists - let me do a quick look. Otherwise, I can upload it for you. Smatprt (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I found it and placed it for you. I'm all for more graphics! If your image is better though, let me know and I'll be happy to upload it for you. By the way - you should always check WikiCommons for images - there are millions of them and their search engine is great.Smatprt (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got a much better jpg that I made of all the sigs along with captions. the one you uploaded is based on engravings more than 200 years old, and except for the first will signature (which has been lost due to deterioration) is pretty useless. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

All right, I figured out how to upload it, finally. Next I need to figure out how to do multiple images with text beneath them to replace that one screenshot to improve the quality. I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes - your graphic is an improvement. Well done. For the record, I did not upload the previous image. It was already in the wiki database.Smatprt (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Typo in Tom's version. Any views on replacing with the re-worked version here? It's a combination of Tom's text (acknowledged in the description) and an existing Commons file. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd support the switch - lose the typo and it looks cleaner in general. Smatprt (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw the typo after I had already uploaeded it. The only objection I have to the switch is that it uses an old, inaccurate engraving of the signatures instead of photographs, which I think look more like real signatures and add verisimilitude to the illustration that the engravings don't. Leave it for now, but sometime later this week I plan to upload the individual signatures and add them with captions similar to the monument images (but much smaller of course). Speaking of which, can someone resize them so that they're the same height? I've got much better images of the Dugdale and Rowe engravings if you need them. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets have returned

It appears that banned user BarryisPuzzled [[5]] has returned using two new sockpuppets - User:WellStanley and User:AnnaGram. These are, of course, different that the dozen+ socks he already got busted over). They (he) are regurgitating the same verbiage, the same deletions, the same mock offense at others, etc. WellStanley over-pushes the Mitchell book at every opportunity (as did Barry), focusses his bile at only Oxford (as did Barry), makes accusations about my and BenJonson's edit histories (as did Barry). Annagrams only edits (other than here) have been limited to Bacon related edits (Barry's personal candidate), as well as having conversations with (and cheering on) his other sock (exactly as he did before). I am not the only editor who recognized him (thank you PaulBarlow for catching him so quickly). You all might check out these links if you are unfamiliar with the case: [[6]] and [[7]]. I suggest that until this matter is resolved that further interaction with these "users" be avoided, or at the very least, that all users be aware that they may be wasting their time and talents in responding to them. If you were not aware of these cases, or are new to this page (Tom), you should probably give a quick read to the case files. In the meantime, why feed the beast? Smatprt (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been determined that WellStanley and AnnaGram (and DrBand) were all sockpuppets for banned user BarryisPuuzzled. They all have been indefinitely banned. See here: [[8]]. Smatprt (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Add to introduction?

I propose we add this graf to the end of the introduction:

This article gives a brief history of the authorship question and its current state, a summary of its various claims, and the mainstream response to those claims. For a more comprehensive treatment of the mainstream view of the authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford, see William Shakespeare. For detailed arguments for the most popular candidates, see Oxfordian theory, Baconian theory, and Marlovian theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There's obviously nothing controversial about the line itself, but I don't think that is really in the Wikipedia style. It's kind of just stating the obvious. All the links are already sprinkled thru the article. Besides, at this point we have to start being concerned about article length - see here: [[9]]. We are already over and will soon need to discuss what sections can be separated off into sub-articles. But that should probably come a little later.Smatprt (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether we use the sentence as it stands or not, I mostly wanted to set out an organizational plan that makes sense. As far as length, there's a lot of detailed information that could be summarized, a lot of duplicated information that needs to be cut, and some sections that need to be combined, but some sections are just going to have to be expanded. In any case, let's write the article first and then cut it down, concentrating on main points instead of trying to cover every little detail. And we've got plenty of time. I'm not planning to work on this 24/7; I'm thinking more taking a section at a time and not being done for six months or so. If we want to try to get featured status (which I admit is a long shot), it's going to have ot be better organized and better written than the hodge-podge it is now. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm also working on an outline to structure the article, and welcome any suggestions. Roughly this is what I've come up with:

Introduction

Short mainstream view

Short anti-Stratfordian view

History of the authorship movement

Anti-Strafordian claims or debate points, whatever

Stratfordian response to those claims

Main candidates, each with own short section and main arguments:

Oxford

Bacon

Marlowe

Derby

Authorship question today

Links, other reading, etc.

Of course each section would have much more detail

I think if we agree on a coherent outline (and by no means am I wedded to that one) and follow it instead of randomly editing willy-nilly, we can eliminate a lot of disputes and reverts and eliminate a lot of redundancy. It would increase the odds of getting the article feature status (probably the first such on a fringe theory), thereby protecting it from random drive-by vandalism. And by having an agreed-upon version, every editor would have a stake in maintaining the integrity and balance of the article in the future.

Is it possible? Or am I merely dreaming? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me get back to you on that!Smatprt (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

V&A derived from 1623 poem?

Smatprt, are you sure you want to keep this sentence from Shakespeare's Education? I've brought up Caldecott's reliability before, but you see, to think he's a strong source for your side.

"Similarly, anti-Stratfordians claim that what Shakespeare called "the first heire of my invention", the poem Venus and Adonis, appears to draw extensively on Giambattista Marino's Adone, which was never translated into English,[87] although no academic source studies concur."

Marino's L'Adone wasn't published until 1623, and it was dedicated to Louis XIII, who wasn't even born until 1601.

If you want to keep it, that's fine with me. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

By all means, I'll cut it. It's not that I'm enamored with Caldecott. And I didn't add that line so I can't vouch for it. It was a properly cited reference and (as you know) I'm just not fond of deleting referenced material. In this case, you've explained the obvious problem and I agree with you. Thanks (truly) Smatprt (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you checked what your sources say instead of blindly quoting them you might be surprised at how you've been hoodwinked. I suggest that more than proper citation defines scholarship. (I remember the anti-Stratfordians have often mentioned it as an honor to Price that in her writing, whatever he penned, she used proper citations. My answer hath been, 'Would she had blotted her errors. no citations would have been needed.'Which they thought a malevolent speech.) Tom Reedy (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Tennis

No knowledge of tennis required, only of Holinshed; the Henry V insult is a direct lift from the Chronicles. Poins was a tennis player, but the game was "popular, although sober citizens frowned on it", according to the editor of the Arden edition of Henry IV part 2. Same for falconry: citing from The taming of the shrew Brian Morris, in turn quoting from The Art of Falconry by Gerald Lascelles, has: "..the technical terms describing the training of hawks in Shakespeare's time were household words". --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are rightly rebuttals, not something we should insist they delete (the supposedly deep knowledge of history is also attributable to Holinshed and Halle). We've been trying to correct the anti-Strats errors for more than 150 years, but for some reason they continue to make them, and their typical response is "Yes, x and y and z may not be true, but the cumulative weight of them should count for something." And if we insist that everything in the article be logical and correct, we won't have an article. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My initial thought was to delete but, persuaded by Tom, I'm now proposing to tidy this and add as a rebuttal. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Authorship article outline

I've been outlining the article as it is to discover the logic behind the presentation. So far I'm about a third done, and the design is illogical with lots of duplication. It also follows a "he said-she said" format with a lot of the arguments of the anti-Strats not very well developed and a lot of the depictions of the Strat position are not very accurate. there is also a lot of material that rightly goes into the Oxford section instead of the general anti-Stratfordian section.

As I did earlier, I suggest we try to develop a coherent scheme to the article. I think if the anti-Strat editors determine which arguments are the strongest and develop those rather than trying to plaster one- or two-line arguments all over the place, it would make for a better article.

If you want a copy of the outline as I have it so far, e-mail me. The talk page doesn't support the formatting. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Attacks and Insults

I have removed a number of attacks and insults from this talk page, along with a number of sockpuppet contributions (for obvious reasons). I think it might be a good idea for the regular editors of this page to review WP:NPA. Particularly, please pay close attention to the following specific example of "What is considered to be a personal attack": "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream". Also - "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor."Smatprt (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

other candidates

I've been looking at this section. Of course the list of other candidates is potentially endless, so we have to decide who to mention. There is currently a reference to Campion, wirh a citation tag next to it. The case for Campion seems to come from one Joanne Ambrose who runs a "Campion was Shakespeare" website [10]. As far as I can see we either link to the website, which is perfectly acceptable, or remove the reference to Campion altogether. There is no rule against linking to or footnoting "non-reliable" sources, if those sources are being used simply to indicate the beliefs held by individuals or groups (e.g. we can footnote Mein Kampf to support the claim that Hitler believed there was a Jewish plot against Germany, but not to support the claim that there was a Jewish plot against Germany). So it's really a question of notability. Is Campion's candidacy worth mentioning, even very briefly? If so, we can cite Ambrose's site. Or is this just a one-woman campaign of no sigificance? Paul B (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I say we cover the main three or four candidates with their own sections; mention the also-rans in a concluding paragraph (Dyer, etc.) and skip the rest. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Authorship doubters and History combined?

Authorship doubters is just floating out there as an appendage to an already-complete (in format, not substance) section. I think the first graf should introduce the History of authorship doubts section, and the Declaration material be moved to the end of it. The list of doubters' quotations should be deleted, as they are non-substantive in that they don't move the article forward and personal opinions are not support for other personal opinions, no matter how celebrated the source. The names should be peppered into the history section at the appropriate chronological place (as I've done with Freud in the history section).

In addition, the first part of "Shaksper" vs. "Shakespeare" should be combined in some way with the "Shake-Speare" as a pseudonym section, and Shakespeare's education and Shakespeare's literacy should be combined. the last two grafs of "Shaksper" vs. "Shakespeare", about his handwriting, should be in that section also.

If there're any objections or discussions, let's get them out now. We won't lose any material except for the extraneous quotations, and the organization will be improved considerably. Of course, that's not all that needs to be done organization-wise, but it's a start. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestions, though I might suggest the following: *Combine the handwriting stuff from ShakevsShak with the literacy section as you say, but make it a subsection of the education section. I think that would be cleaner as opposed to making the education section longer than it already is. The education section might be better organized with several subsections in this way, giving a better opportunity for rebuttals to be closer to the issue(s) at hand. *re:Doubters - I support leaving it where it is in the overview (it's helpful to have them explained a bit, as opposed to the definition of mainstream scholars, which is pretty self-explanatory). However, I would suggest moving the list of quotes to a separate article (there are plenty of policies regarding list-articles, and then adding the appropriate wiki link. I'll be happy to work on that part a bit (although I've go a show opening next week so my participation will be limited until after next weekend. Smatprt (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok - removed the list and made them their own article. I also restored the section to it's placement before I had added the list. Since this is the article about authorship doubts, this placement makes sense to me as an intro/overview to the article. Tom - would you like to have a go at removing all the handwriting stuff from the ShakVsShake and combining it with the literacy section? I think that can be accomplished regardless of whether it stays as it's own section, is made a subsection of Education, or incorporated directly into the Education section. Smatprt (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the process now of constructing a better signature grafik to go with the signature stuff. When I get it done I'll try to combine the related material as per your suggestion above, which I think makes sense. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1604 issue

This needs rewriting, especially the section on Roger and Lynne's article. It references a page that doesn't mention Strachey's plagiarism, yet they have Alden's response to that charge only. I was attempting to fix it, but I backed off because I think an Oxfordian should write it instead of me, since I might not represent the argument fairly.

Also if the Shakespeare Fellowhip page can be used as a source why can't Dave Kathman's? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The fellowship newsletters and publications are peer-reviewed, whereas Kathman's website has not oversight at all.Smatprt (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Show me where it says their web site is peer-reviewed. Peer review doesn't mean the board of directors told you to put up the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You know I'm quite busy for at least another week. I'll reply on this soon, though - hopefully in the next day or so. Smatprt (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Kathman's website is perfectly acceptable on two grounds. According to WP:Fringe fringe theories can legitimately be countered by use of sources that might otherwise be deemed non-reliable, because it is in the nature of fringe theories that their content is not debated point by point within reliable sources. This guideline was introduced to counter the cotradiction in earlier formulations, which allowed fringe theories to be described by non-reliable sources (because that's where they are found), but not rebutals, which were held to a higher standard. This meant that the argments and claims of fringe theorists could be described in great detail, while almost all criticism was excluded. However, a good case can be made that it is not necessary to invoke this policy, simply becase Kathman's site can be used on the specific grounds given for use of blogs and websites in WP:RS - that the author of the site is independently established as a legitimate scholar in the field, and this is the case with Kathman, who is widely published in the relevant area: 16th century literature. Paul B (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt quoting the editor's opinion as a reliable source?

You've got to be kidding. State the point of the article, not the editor's opinion of how devastating the article is. That assessment is properly left up to the reader. Surely you can see the conflict here. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of self-serving promotion.

Sorry, but I just disagree. Saying a journel editor can't render an opinion just does not hold water. His opinion was published in a peer-reviewed journal. It's a RS. Smatprt (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, yes his opinion was published in a peer-reviewed journal, but his opinion is on a piece that he edited and appeared in the same journal, not on the topic of this article. Can you not see the difference? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves, especially the part "the material is not unduly self-serving" and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reference. this also seems to me to come under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMON#Use_common_sense. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how these policies are relevant to this situation. Whereas misquoting or misuse of policy definitions is not appropriate and is against policy. Smatprt (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm deleting the editor's opinion. Not only is it the equivalent of quoting an author's dustjack et blurbs to support what he says in the book, but it also a violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, which states "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints." and "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.." Also read Characterizing opinions of people's work at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Characterizing_opinions_of_people.27s_work, which states "This is out of place in an encyclopedia; we might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history. But it is important indeed to note how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts."

Again - you are incorrectly using NPOV to support your stance. You now seem to think that every line in the article needs to be neutral, which is not the case. Can you imagine how that would effect every edit you make that isn't "neutral"? How would you state the Stratfordian case if could not endorse or oppose a specific viewpoint? NPOV is to insure that the article itself is balanced.Smatprt (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I may be incorrectly using the wikipedia definitions, I'm not all that familiar with them, but you're completely missing the point. I'm not opposed to the point of view expressed about the authorship debate, and I'm not opposed to using Roger and Lynne's article. I am opposed to larding the article with praise for their paper. It's out of place, for reasons you obviously don't understand. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how one short sentence can be labeled as "larding the article".Smatprt (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Either you want this page to be a quality page and become a featured article or you don't. Putting stuff like this in it will guarantee it will never be. It's a shame it has to be explained to you in this manner. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you can foresee what will "guarantee" a FA. That is the pervue of the FA reviewers, not you or I. I think in this case, it may be your personal bias that is at play here. You seem to be willing to do or say anything as long as it prevents this minor addition from remaining in the article. Smatprt (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't guarantee that this article will ever be awarded feature status, but I can guarantee what won't get it: self-serving comments like this one we're talking about. And if it's so minor, why are you so opposed to its removal? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am opposed to your proposed deletion because it is properly sourced, RS and appropriate to the section. It's a simple as that. Smatprt (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the opinion of an editor on an paper he edited allowable in this (or any other) article?

I am having a dispute with Smaprt and another anonymous editor about an addition to this article. This is the paragraph in question, from the section “1604 issue”:

• Authorship proponents also note new research by Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter which they believe confirm the earlier sources cited by Kermode and Bullough. Alden T. Vaughan, however, has challenged the conclusions of Kositsky and Stritmatter in his 2008 paper "A Closer Look at the Evidence", particularly in charging William Strachey with plagiarism - a charge that Vaughan concluded was in error. In 2009, Stritmatter and Kositsky further developed the arguments against Strachey's influence in a Critical Survey article demonstrating the pervasive influence on The Tempest of the much earlier travel narrative, Richard Eden's 1555 Decades of the New World. CS editor William Leahy commented that "the authors show that the continued support of Strachey as Shakespeare's source is, at the very least, highly questionable."

I contend that the last sentence is not appropriate to an encyclopedia article because it is the opinion of the editor of the paper, that the sentence about the paper sufficiently summarizes the information for the purpose of the argument, and that it is the equivalent to quoting book jacket blurbs to deceptively give more credibility to the argument presented in the book. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am opposed to this proposed deletion for the following reasons:

• It is properly sourced material.
• It is referenced to a 6-page forward, published in a highly respected peer-reviewed :journal.[[11]]
• It is appropriate to the article and the section it appears in.
• The complaining editor makes the argument that the sentence in question is "the equivalent to quoting book jacket blurbs", which is not accurate or supported, as book jackets are written by marketing professionals in an attempt to generate book sales, whereas the sentence in question was written by the journal editor, Dr. William Leahy, Director of Studies at the Department of English at the prestigious Brunel University, Uxbridge, a respected Shakespearean scholar who has been published extensively including articles in both the Elizabethan Review and Early Modern Literary Studies.
• The complaining editor also makes an unfounded accusation in that the sentence has been inserted "to deceptively give more credibility to the argument presented in the book". Unfortunately, this continues a pattern of insults and personal attacks on the article talk pages, often accusing other editors and researchers of being "deceptive".
• The complaining editor labels a second editor who is opposed to this deletion as an anon. This is inaccurate, as the second editor is a registered user, CaptBassett.

Thank you for considering my thoughts on this. Smatprt (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree the overall quality of the writing and presentation of the argument are abysmal, and that is one aspect we're trying to change to make it more readable and comprehensible. And I also agree the editor is quote worthy, but just not on an article he edited. It's as if an actor went in front of a director for an audition and produced a bunch of glowing reviews from his mother, father, aunts and uncles. They would obviously have no merit. What if with every quotation from a Stratfordian source I included an opinion from another academic about how true the quotation was? They would all be properly sourced and referenced, but they would actually be irrelevant to the topic. We're here to present the unvarnished case for the reader to learn. Let's leave off the varnish and gilt. (And if the public doesn't know the name of a registered user, that user is anonymous.) Tom Reedy (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick info for you -Here on Wiki, "anonymous user" refers to a user who has not registered and edits under an IP address, as opposed to a user who has actually registered. Another one of those unique Wiki definitions. Smatprt (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen I see you deleted the editor's comments. Was that Barry? If so, how do you know? Tom Reedy (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

He created two new accounts in the last 2 days, living up to his threat made yesterday " By the time you ban this account I'll be editing articles with my next one". Both accounts were strictly used to edit this talk page. In this instance, it echoes one of Barry's most familiar themes. Knowing Barry as I do, it's pretty obvious. Off to rehearsal now. In the mean time, might you stop deleting anti strat material and focus on adding strat rebuttals. I thought that was what you proposed (letting the anti strats make their strongest case and letting the strats make theirs - except minor things like grammar or formatting).Smatprt (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not well-versed in Wikipedia trickery so I'm glad you caught him. s far as letting anti-Strats make their strongest case, it would be nice if someone could do that. Do you know anybody who has the time to look at the page and work on it? Pat Dooley or Mark Anderson would be good, but I doubt if they have the interest. I've been told by a few anti-Strats that I'm wasting my time because the page is so unstable and for other reasons I won't go into because you'll delete them (a phrase from Lenin comes to mind), but stability is the ultimate goal, even though I think it'll take a year or better. But I'm an argumentative type and I enjoy it, even though it takes time from more serious matters. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Life span chart

There is nothing in the chart concerning the publication of new plays, so the previous cutline is inaccurate and, frankly, confusing. Also if you want to include "new" play publication information, the bar graph does not go far enough (it should go to 1634). And who exactly is "William Shaksper Stanford?" And one of these is not like the other: "time," "life." See if you can figure out why.

I also have no idea what you mean about a "pattern of deletions regarding dating issue." The reason I delete is because of gross inaccuracies and irrelevancies, of which this chart is a pretty representative example. I don't mind you making inaccurate claims, because I can rebut those. But when the writing is so slanted or it misrepresents the evidence or the other side of the argument, that's when I feel like I have the right to step in.

As far as leaving your material alone, my intention is to improve the entire article, but whoever produced most of the copy were not competent writers nor were they very clear about how to make an argument. Last week I vastly improved the Oxford section by rewriting it, and even sharpened and extended your argument. I noticed you haven't reverted any of those changes. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)