Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

On deleting "Evidence for Shakespeare's authorship" section

Point Counterpoint (ignoring Aldous Huxley). I think this was the problem of the earlier version, and made it most troublesome to edit, because the number of itemized talking points in the fringe literature is infinite, though most of it is ignored as simply wrongheaded, and thus cannot be replied to by using reliable sources. Hamiltonstone's review, unless memory errs, asked it to be corrected ?), with sections separated. Both Tom and I don't and never have really thought a rebuttal section is required. But experience tells one there are many readers, particularly those unfamiliar with the literature, the period, and scholarship, who have no awareness of the state of the art of contemporary academic opinion on this. There are many subtextual elements in these sorts of articles that leave room, if one is unguarded, for leading naïve readers astray, and that is one reason why a fair exposition of the fringe view, followed by a brief exposition of the mainstream view, seems required. It is not strictly a point counterpoint, item by item, to and fro as far as I can see. Nishidani (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• As for Nishidani's comments on the weight issue, I agree that the subject is a… convoluted one, and that some arbitrary page, byte, or word limit should not overrule the requirements of comprehensiveness or clarity. I do however believe that the section “Evidence for Shakespeare's authorship” is not necessary to cover the topic. The article's subject is the Shakespeare authorship question but that section deals exclusively with the mainstream evidence that weighs against it. If you simply remove the entire section the article will still have exactly the same coverage of the actual Shakespeare authorship question. I would agree that this section was necessary iff the rest of the article did not make sufficiently clear the status of the various theories; in other words, the section would be needed iff it was necessary to provide a counter-argument to the rest of the article. In my opinion, this is not necessary as the rest of the article is already clear on the status of the various claims made.
• The article in general is refreshingly free of the typical point—counterpoint style that so many of these articles devolve into. I brought it up to illustrate the problem I see with including the above mentioned section; it acts in effect like point—counterpoint just on a grander scale. My rule of thumb is that whenever you feel the need to counter or balance what you've previously written, then the original point was insufficiently polished. If you present the fringe POV accurately, then you don't need anywhere to specify what the common consensus view is; it will be clear by implication.
• Note that I have personally wished for precisely that kind of succinct summary of the evidence to be available on Wikipedia—not least to have one convenient place to point people confused by what an alleged “lack of evidence” actually means—and hope that it can be a standalone article, possibly referenced as a main article from a summary style section in this article. I reserve the right to hold two or more contradictory opinions at the same time.

I think that just about covers the comments so far. Do please feel free to ask if there is something still unclear; and I'll look forward to a constructive discussion here to determine if there is consensus for any changes in the article and, if so, precisely what form they should take. In particular, if the changes I've suggested in the review comments are insufficiently specific please do let me know and I'll try to fix it to make clear what I mean. I also have a sandbox where I've made the more sweeping changes mentioned to see what effect they'd have, should anyone be curious as to what they would look like in practice. Finally, I don't think I can praise you enough on the great job you've done on this article, perhaps especially considering the surrounding controversy and related WikiDrama. I've long hoped for a FA-quality article on this subject, but I've not previously dared believe it possible. Kudos! --Xover (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is what WP:Fringe actually says: ". . . articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations." I honestly think the article does well at this as it is. I think it does a a good job of "referring readers to more accepted ideas" without an "excessive" point-counterpoint style. Point-counterpoint style is not forbidden in the guideline outright. Only excessive use of that style is. I believe we have a happy medium here. I think deleting the section in question would be a big mistake. Comparing the size of this article to other articles in this project is also a mistake, I think, because it is so different from any of those articles. Rather, we should compare it to other controversial articles. Evolution, for example, is larger than this article by nearly 30kb, and Intelligent design by over 40kb. Both of these articles are FAs. Let's not pull out the scissors quite yet here. Wrad (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to the quote, Wrad, but that's the one I was going to bring up. The old article was full of "Anti-Strats say this, but Strats respond" and "Strats point out that, but anti-Strats reply", and it was like watching a very boring tennis match. That's what I call "point-counterpoint". We tried to follow the fringe guideline in presenting the topic in as neutral a tone as possible, followed by the academic consensus. And if you look at the article, I can only find one specific refutation, that of the interlineations in Shakespeare's will. None of the candidate sections contain any refutations at all. In short, this article follows the WP:FRINGE guideline, and was written to do so.

As to the "Evidence for Shakespeare's authorship" section, it is reffed from sources that deal explicitly with the SAQ, also according to policy, so it is part of the field (half of it, in fact). It seems odd that on one hand we strictly limit ourselves to WP:RS secondary sources and at the same time ignore half of the content of those sources. In the Intelligent design article that Wrad points to above, the mainstream view follows each treatment of the subject in its section; they're not left out on the premise that the article should just cover the fringe topic and leave it to context and implication to ensure that it's clearly a fringe topic. If the section were pulled out and made a separate article, what would it be called? Shakespeare authorship question: The academic consensus?

I think encyclopedia articles should be long enough to cover the topic comprehensively, and that arbitrary length standards are not imposed on Wikipedia for a good reason: some topics deserve little space while more complicated topics need more space. This is a topic that necessarily needs more space, and the fact that several FA articles exceed it is proof that it won't be a hindrance to the FA process. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll readily concede that the article does not violate WP:FRINGE, and, it appears, it was a mistake to explain my point in relation to that. I merely meant it to illustrate why I felt the mainstream section was awkward; and the main thrust of my reasoning is that it is just not needed. The rest of the article does an admirable job of presenting the subject fairly, but clearly, and this section just seems redundant and malapropos. If it came to it, you could actually have an article called Evidence for Shakespeare's authorship (a bit awkward, but not fatally so); or you could incorporate it in some more appropriate article related to his life or his works (the ill fated … plays article could accommodate some of it, I'm sure).
As to the absolute size, a quick peek suggests it's 135kB, which would make it among the top fifty largest FAs. I am personally convinced FAC reviewers will complain at the size; but, of course, this does not imply that they cannot be convinced of the need or that it would prevent the article from passing (there is, after all, no fixed size limits in the FA criteria).
In any case, as I mentioned, I quite like that section and it is with great reluctance that I'm arguing somewhat against my own preference in favor of its removal; but I do still think, by the reasoning above, that it should be omitted. Incidentally, I also think this is the one significant issue remaining; everything else that's needed is just polish. I'm sure it can be improved upon, but on my last read-through I saw nothing (modulo the review comments) else that needs to be improved. --Xover (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing of FA procedures, so, if the overriding desire is to write towards FA to ensure it obtains that qualification, I could endorse your point. Temperamentally, I write towards what I perceive to be the exigencies of the text, in terms of comprehensive coverage of a topic. When I find myself in conflict between a desire for security/recognition and a desire to be adequate to the complexities of a subject matter, I sacrifice, or rather risk, the former, hoping the reviewer/reader will appreciate that the demands of comprehensiveness override formal concerns for concision (this in terms of extrawiki work).

Since the Fringe point can be now discarded, the only potential objection is length. I think the sensible move would be to polish the text intensively, and then, if possible, suggest to FA reviewers or resident experts that, if length is a fatal objection, a simple block excision can be made, but that in the interests of comprehensiveness the writers have retained the complete text. The argument is that the RS materials used to write the article about the SAQ would, if that section were excised or sacrificed, have a good half of their matter (the academic analysis of SAQ theories) truncated, and thus the internal debate by Shakespearean scholars on SAQ theories would disappear from view. Though readers should not be guided towards a view, I think responsible editors in an area as confused as this have to consider the nature of today's readership. What would look like a neutral guiide, without the academic position included, over the conspiracy theories may, to them, read like a user-friendly exposition that then sends them to the sites where most of the disinformation abounds without significant rebuttal from the academic world. The academic world generally ignores the subject, I don't think a comprehensive exposition should, while expounding the subject, hide from view the key details of why scholarship thinks these theories wholly untenable.

Having read intensively over the past several months on this subject, I think it has some considerable potential to obtain recognition as the default internet analysis, in terms of comprehensiveness, neutrality and concision, and that would be a feather in the Wikipedia Project cap. There is a huge amount of conspiracy out there, but little in the way of a reliable cautious survey of the terrain, or vademecum into the subject, of this calibre. I hope FA reviewers see this.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I too think that trying to write to one's idea of what a reviewer might want is not what we should be doing. The main goal should be a comprehensive article covering all relevant aspects of a topic, and certainly the academic rejoinder to authorship proponents is one important element, and I daresay leaving it out would cause more head-scratching than article length would.

That it would be in the top 50 of FA articles in terms of length (as opposed to, say, top ten or top 20) is certainly no argument for leaving out vital information, IMO. One point that I have made that has not been addressed is that stripped of all the images, refs, and external links, etc. (as recommended when measuring article length), the article comes in at 71kb—longer than most, but a length entirely appropriate to such a topic, which is by no means simple on either side, involving interpretations of history and the use of inductive and deductive reasoning.

And are you aware of any books about authorship that aspire to be comprehensive that do what you're recommending? That is, leave out one side and leave it to the reader to discern context and what the other side says about it through implication? While irony is a valid fictional technique (Candide comes to mind), I think it has no place in an encyclopedia article that purports to explain a complicated topic that is full of arguments, not all of them easy to understand

If by chance any major objections are brought up about length, the history section would be the most logical place to make cuts, but again that would take out a lot of context. The candidate sections could probably be cut back also, since they have dedicated full-length articles, (in the case of Oxford, multiple entries, although all of them ill-written and disorganised).

What I am more concerned about is your objection to using the terms "Stratfordian" and "anti-Stratfordian". I can see your point and am willing to go along with it, but I can come up with no good way to do it without introducing the use of awkward terms as substitutes. What, for example, would you call the external links section? "Orthodox"? Too churchy, IMO. "Traditional"? I dunno. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you'll forgive the lazyness, I'm largely going to skip Nishidani's response above, and respond to Tom's following one, except to say that your (Nishidani's) argument to a degree proves my point: you argue that the section in question needs to be there to refute the Authorship side, and to serve as a general refutation for it on the Internet; and this is not the purpose of Wikipedia in general or this article specifically. The specific goal for this article is to explain the Shakespeare Authorship Question and its history (etc. etc.). It is a valid point for debate whether and to what degree one needs to cover the mainstream view and contrary evidence as part of that “etc. etc.” above; but my worry is that at least part of the motivation for keeping this section is the desire to refute (with which urge I would of course sympathize), which would be inappropriate.
I do however agree with you both that one should weigh, at least initially, the needs of the subject and the text far more heavily than a hypothetical reviewer's whims. Iff the section is needed for clarity or context (which is the point we, as I see it, disagree on) then it should certainly stay regardless of what we may fear the wolves at FAC will possibly at some future point feel about it. However, the stated goal of this exercise (the PR included) is to achieve FA status for the article, so I bring up what I imagine those said reviewers will have issue with.
That it would be in the top 50 FAs by size was not intended as an argument; it was a mere data point. If the correct measure of its length, likewise, is 71kB it would be in the top 600 FAs by size (given there are, what, a few thousand FAs, that suggests it's more or less of average size). To similarly give comparable numbers, I above used page numbers; and the current article is 40 pages, while the longest FA (Michael Jackson) is 49 pages (but I suspect a lot of that is templates for awards and such at the end). I still think the article feels quite long, but for all but extreme cases this will be a subjective measure.
The actual FA criteria requirement is for both comprehensive (1b) and length (4); the latter with reference to Summary Style. I doubt simple length alone will overrule the comprehensive criteria, but it may encourage nitpicking on the use of summary style, whether a text that long can be said to be brilliant prose, etc.
I am, inexpert that I am on the Authorship issue, unable to answer your query for a book as example; but neither is a Wikipedia article a book. A single chapter in a book should be quite narrow in its focus, if that helps reconcile your analogy? And perhaps if you think of all of Wikipedia as the “book”, where the Shakespeare Authorship Question is covered in this chapter (article) and the contents of the section in question is covered in all of the rest of the book (in practice spread among the main WS article, the …life article, and the …plays article. Analogies like this are, of course, dangerous to follow too far, so I'll try to not stretch it any further (it's probably groaning as it is).
My assertion is that this article only needs to cover the mainstream view if the Authorship parts of it are done poorly; and my argument is that in this article they are done well and hence the mainstream section is not needed.
I'll beg off providing suggestions for how to avoid the terminology issue for now, but I'll try to practice some placing of the money in the general vicinity of my mouth when I get the chance. I've no doubt any alternative would be more cumbersome, so the question becomes whether they become too cumbersome and inelegant. --Xover (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I've explained my reasoning for this suggestion as well as I can, and as it appears to be ineffectual, I'll drop this as unlikely to ever achieve consensus. There is a significant component of subjective judgement built in to the argument (there is no bright line rule for article length); I am myself only half persuaded on the point; and it can easily be remedied at a later date if it should become an issue at FAC. --Xover (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Organization Problems - Bardolotry

I've moved the lede paragraph on Bardolotry to the Background section, where it logically belongs. How about leaving the edit in place for a few minutes so people can consider both the effect on the lede and on the section in which it is now placed? This is not something which can be discussed in the abstract. It needs to be evaluated visually as well as in terms of a logical structure of the article.NinaGreen (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your method or approach is wrong. With a lead with a long history of development, that is now stable for months, one does not just go ahead and make a major change, here a significant excision and readjustment of text, and ask that other editors then use the talk page to justify its partial or complete restoration from the relocated area back to the lead, Nina. It is not collaborative to do so.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The section logically belongs in the lede, for reasons that can be found in WP:LEDE. If anybody needs to "evaluate it visually" they can find it in the edit history. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to the old edit. Wrad (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It is glaringly out of place in that edit. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a valid point here - in fact I was thinking this yesterday independently. IMHO the lead is excellent, except for the first two sentences of the 2nd paragraph, which read as rather vague and flowery, not essential to the main point of the article, and more based on opinion than fact. For example the claim that "19th-century Romantics, who believed that literature was essentially a medium for self-revelation" is very much a matter of opinion and does not fit with the general view of the themes of Romantic Literature (Nature, historical myths, etc). And even if it is true, it is not central to SAQ. I think the lead should be a more concise statement of the facts, so I suggest replacing those 2 sentences with a simple statement that it started in the C19, so the 2nd para would look something like:

"Questions over the true identity of the author arose in the 19th century, and in the intervening years the controversy has spawned a vast body of literature,[7] and more than 50 authorship candidates have been proposed, including Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, Christopher Marlowe, Mary Sidney, the Earl of Derby and the Earl of Rutland.[8] Proponents believe that their candidate is the more plausible author in terms of education, life experience and social status, arguing that William Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the education, aristocratic sensibility or familiarity with the royal court they say is apparent in the works.[9]"

Discuss... Poujeaux (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does not matter if it is 'opinion', if the opinion is the consensus of reliable sources. However, it does seem to me to be problematic for various reasons. The argument that plays are 'self-revelation' does not actually feature strongly in early SAQ arguments. Rather, it's a feature of Oxfordianism, in which emotional identification with the True Author, struggling to 'express himself', plays an important role. Oxfordianism is a 20th century invention, not a nineteenth century one. The Victorian view is that Shakespeare is a magisterial moral and intellectual powerhouse, who has deep philosophical ideas to express. Bacon-as-Shakespeare is not expressing himself, but rather a view of the world, one shared by other illuminati of the period in Delia B's view. It's really very different from a 'Romantic' belief in self-expression. Also, this assertion does not chime very well with the other argument put forward by Scahpiro and others that Higher Criticism plays a role - a position which breaks down the model of individual authorship. In other words, Bardoloatry does not necessarily imply claims of self-revelation, rather more a belief in 'greatness'. Paul B (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not just drop the Romanticism phrase? It would work (and if I read Paul right, work better) without it.

"Scholars contend that the controversy has its origins in Bardolatry, the adulation of Shakespeare in the 18th century as the greatest writer of all time.[4] Shakespeare's eminence seemed incongruous with his humble origins and obscure life, arousing suspicion that the Shakespeare attribution might be a deception. In the intervening years the controversy ..." Tom Reedy (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's better and it puts the seeming incongruous with the greatness, so as Tom, Paul me and presumably Nina are happy with it I'll take that as a concensus and make that change. Poujeaux (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Stratfordian authority H.N.Gibson(frequently cited in this very article) the controversy began with John Marston and Joseph Hall in 1597 which view was even more fully affirmed by Stratfordian authorities Garnett and Gosse over fifty years previously. According to Stratfordian Richard Simpson arguably the most intelligent Stratfordian,aside from J.Payne Collier,in nineteenth century Stratfordian criticism,the Shakespeare Authorship controversy began with Robert Greene's "Farewelle To Follie" c.1587-88(but not actually published til 1592) and according to Dowden of Trinity Shakspere's most popular academic biographer ever,and others writing in 1869 it began with the publication of Narcissus(registered Fall,1593 but the only know surviving copy is dated 1595)the author named either Oxford or Bacon as the author. This crap about a nineteenth century origin of the authorship controversy should as Reedy well knows(for we patiently instructed him on the subject nearly ten years ago) should go back on the compost heap from which it has once again only recently re-emerged.Charles Darnay (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the above drivel by M. Darnay, it's fair to say that Bardolatry has been closely linked to the emergence of the controversy by several authors. It's a specifically Victorian variant, as epitomised by Carlyle, so the fact that the phenomenon has its origins in the 18th century is not important. I don't think we can say whether Bardoloatry was just a necessary or a sufficient condition. In any case "bardolatry" is just a simple word for a complex range of related views and attitudes. Paul B (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead ref to number of candidates

The lead has:-

more than fifty authorship candidates have been proposed

In the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates Tom and I proposed, I think we totalled 75. Most sources are relatively old and refer to 56, or 60 odd. The 'more than 50' reflects sources like McCrea (I think) used before we came out (after adding to Elliott and Valenza's 2004 listing) with the figure of 75. This was not original research but simply a matter of updating the various lists from RS, and happens to be a wiki first. Therefore I think 'more than fifty' is rather dated, and there is no substantial reason why 'more than 60' (Elliott and Valenza) or 'more than 70', which is effectively what the RS data tell us, cannot be written.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this. "more than 50" is exactly what Shapiro says in the reference cited. By the same token, "the term 'original research' refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by or detailed within the sources." I think we should adhere to a strict interpretation of policy on this and not get into any gray areas.

On the other hand, verifiability is the policy on sourcing, and simple facts don't need to be supported. But this is not a well-known fact such as the sun rising in the east or 2+2=4, and given the contentious nature of the topic I think we should stay well inside the bright line when it comes to policy. In any case "more than 50" makes the point just as clearly as "more than 70." I daresay some writer will pick it up soon enough and it can then be changed. We're asking for trouble and accusations of opportunistic interpretation otherwise. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need go for the higher figure. It's safer to stick to 50. What difference does it make? There could be a footnote discussing the numbers issue. Paul B (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The published paper by Elliott and Valenza (2004) lists 58 candidates. So I think "more than 50" is fine (and E&V could be cited). Poujeaux (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The authoritative Bibliotheca Anti-Stratfordiana(scandalously not cited in the bibliography of an article which professes, after its peculiar fashion, to discuss the Shakespeare Authorship Controversy.)may be found on microfilm at Columbia University.Shapiro's reference to nearly fifty candidates may indicate that he possibly gave it a peep.On the other hand this bit of information was very widely publicized in late 1949 by the Saturday Review of Literature,America's then most widely read literary review.The author was Bergin Evans and Shapiro generally slapdash methods of research would naturally attract him to the more superficial source.If he consulted the Biblioteca itself there would be no excuse for scores of superficial errors with which his work is littered.Odd Nishidami never singled out a single one of these iin all the time he claims to have spent editing this article..Charles Darnay (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing citations

Looking closer at the Historical evidence for Shakespeare's authorship section for a different reason I noticed a couple of issues.

First, the 4th and 5th paragraphs are entirely uncited. Generally there should be a cite at least for each paragraph. In addition, none of the direct quotes in these sections are cited (WP:V requires citations for all direct quotes). I've placed some {{cn}} tags to point the way.

Finally, the quotes in the 4th paragraph themselves are a bit hard to read and confusing. I'm assuming the names each quote starts with are the names of the Stationers registering the works in question, but it's really hard to parse what I'm guessing is tabular data when simply serialized into flat text. Could the names perhaps be omitted or placed in parenthesis after the quote? Further reducing readability is the use of links inside the quotations. I see why they're there, but one should generally not link terms inside quotes (MOS:LINK#General points on linking style, bullet 4), in order to maintain readability. --Xover (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Xover do you think those should be converted into modern spelling? I've been doing that for literary works. Oh, and I didn't cite them because they're verbatim from official records and the source is given in the text. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the tenets of WP:V is “say where you read it”; the text gives the Stationer's register—a primary source, incidentally, so best not relied on even for this—and you probably didn't actually get it from that source but rather from some intermediary source, which is then what should be cited. In addition, the point of Verifiability is for the reader to be able to verify; and very few people have the opportunity to check the actual Stationer's register, so it would be good to give some source they can actually check. There is also the issue of interpretation and authenticity; it would be better to get register's entries through, say, Chambers, so that it is his interpretation rather than ours, of the accuracy and authenticity of the relevant record.
As for giving the quotes in modernized spelling, I'm generally not a fan of that for Elizabethan english: the meaning is sufficiently clear in the original, avoids the odd possibility of introducing inaccuracies in modernization, and the original adds a bit of purely stylistic flair that I'm partial to. My rule of thumb is to never translate or alter unless strictly needed. Iff a modernized version is to be used I would argue that we should have a citeable source specifically for the modernized version, as modernizing it ourselves would be original research (others would, I'm sure, disagree). --Xover (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Xover's points here.Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I could provide refs to Chambers or several other sources, but I prefer to use references that deal directly with the authorship question, namely those two cited in that section, Martin and Montague. I don't have those to hand at the moment, and they're in remote storage. I have called for them and I should have them sometime tomorrow or Saturday. Meanwhile I'll ransack a few other sources I have to hand and see if they can be used. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and furnish cites for the direct quotations from a scholarly source and add the authorship refs when I get the books. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Lack Of Organization In The SAQ Article

Those primarily responsible for the SAQ article, Tom Reedy and Nishidani, seem unable to appreciate how completely disorganized the article is. It goes back and forth between the current state of the authorship controversy and the historical aspect. Moreover the article strives to prove that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare canon. This distorts the focus of the entire article, which should be on the development and current status of the authorship controversy. The article should take as a given that it's the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment and the general public that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the canon, and focus on the issue potential readers of the article obviously want to know about, namely how did the controversy develop, what evidence is there for it, and what is its current status. I've made a number of edits in which I've attempted to address aspects of the lack of organization in the article, but they've all been instantly reverted by Tom Reedy and Nishidani before editors have had a chance to consider them in context to see how they address the organizational problems.NinaGreen (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina, please take a deep breath and then read WP:AGF. Your continued accusations against Tom and Nishidani amount to personal attacks and are quite disruptive, and counter to the goal of building the encyclopedia.
The usual way editing happens on Wikipedia (particularly on controversial articles) is to discuss changes (particularly controversial changes, such as deleting entire sections) on the talk page and to achieve consensus for them. To repeatedly delete or rearrange large swathes of the article to give “editors … a chance to consider them in context” is just plain disruptive behavior.
Please assume good faith on the part of the editors here, take as given that they are all here to help improve the encyclopedia, and on the talk page make specific and concrete suggestions for incremental changes, and be prepared that others will disagree. A measure of humility would serve you quite a lot better than your current, confrontational, approach. --Xover (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Xover, take a deep breath yourself :-), and notice that in every instance I have put my edits up for discussion on the Talk page. Take another deep breath :-), and consider that giving specific reasons why a Wikipedia article lacks organization is NOT a personal attack, nor does it have anything to do with 'assuming good faith' or 'humility'. Take and third deep breath :-), and consider that asking that potential edits be left in place long enough for editors and administrators of this page to consider their impact in context is about as far removed from 'disruptive behaviour' as anything could possibly be. The SAQ article is either unfocussed in terms of its primary objective (informing potential readers about the authorship controversy) or it isn't. The SAQ article is either disorganized, or it isn't. Those issues need to be considered objectively. I've looked at the SAQ article objectively, having had the advantage of not having been involved with it, and I can see that it needs serious and substantial improvement along both those lines, and that in the process the article could be considerably shortened by removing a lot of the redundancy in which it abounds.NinaGreen (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Lack of organization is a general complaint and not a specific suggestion for improvement (it is also quite a subjective question). Try to limit yourself to one specific and narrow issue at the time; explain why you feel it is problematic; and suggest concrete improvements that would remove the problem. Be prepared that other editors may disagree with you; and accept that their opinion is as valid as yours, and that even those that disagree with you do so honestly and with good reason. And when there is disagreement, unilaterally making changes to the article will only inflame the situation (your motivation for doing so is irrelevant, the result is disruptive). Expected practice on Wikipedia in these situations is propose the changes on the talk page first and to convince the other editors to your point of view (achieving consensus). Your accusations against Tom and Nishidani will pretty much just ensure that you will never be able to persuade them; and they are highly likely to prejudice your case with the other editors on this page. If you cannot persuade the other editors of the merits of your proposed changes you will not achieve much with the article, and attempts to edit against the consensus will only lead to conflict without achieving much of anything. --Xover (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Xover, as is evident elsewhere on this page, I've made SPECIFIC suggestions concerning the lack of organization, particularly with respect to the lede. Let's focus on the lede. My version of the lede eliminates a number of problems which I've identified in the current lede. Perhaps my version can still be improved upon. The best way to do that is to place my version in the article for a few days so that editors can (1) see how it increases the visual impact of the article and entices potential readers, rather than losing them in a welter of words as the current lede does, and (2) whether there is anything in the current lede which would not be better eliminated entirely OR placed elsewhere in the article. What's difficult about that? Nothing.NinaGreen (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, let's stay away form the lede for now. The lede should be a summary of the rest of the article, so it's probably the last part of it that one should tackle. It is also, by nature of summarization (that by definition paints with broad strokes), the most likely to be controversial. Rather, find some specific and manageable issue you see in the main article and propose a way to improve it. To “see how it increases the visual impact” is not needed; merely an explanation of what the problem is and how you propose to improve it. Your proposed changes will then turn out to be either uncontroversial, and the corresponding edits can be made without further ado, or other editors will disagree, and discussion will be needed with the goal of achieving consensus. Again, if you fail to convince the other editors of the merits of your proposed changes, you are highly unlikely to be able to effect any change in the article. --Xover (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Xover, no, let's not stay away from the lede. The lede sets the focus for the entire article. If the article is already written (as this one is) and is unfocussed and disorganized, then that problem can't be fixed by making the lede conform to an unfoccussed and disorganized article. The solution is to write a lede which clearly indicates where the article should be, and is, going, and then prune and rearrange the article to conform to the clear focus in the lede. My version of the lede is clear and focussed. Perhaps it can be improved upon. If so, I'd be interested in hearing how that can be done.NinaGreen (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is putting the cart before the horse. The lede summarizes the article; you cannot write the lede and then derive the article from it, or at least it would not be an efficient or productive way to go about it. If the article suffers from so many glaring errors as you imply, then surely there are more manageable and appropriate ones to start with than your fundamental and sweeping complaints about the lede? I would also suggest that you try to ask rather than assert: (almost) every editor on this page has more experience with editing Wikipedia and the project's practice and policy than you do, so asking them for their help—rather than assert that they are wrong and in violation of the policies—is far more likely to have a productive result. --Xover (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Xover, no, it is not putting the cart before the horse. The only way this lengthy and disorganized article will ever regain focus is to begin with a focussed lede, and prune and reorganize the article in conformity with it. Also, let's not confuse asking other editors for help with stating that other editors are in violation of Wikipedia policy when they ARE in violation of Wikipedia policy. The final paragraph of the lede IS in violation of Wikipedia policy. The cited sources don't support the statements made in it, and the latter consist of interpretation, synthesis and original research.NinaGreen (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina, I have now repeatedly asked you to focus on a single manageable (actionable) problem somewhere else than the lede, and explained why. Your response is to keep harping about the lede and the policy violations you see in other editors. I'm trying quite hard to help you here, but you appear to be refusing that help. If you are unwilling to conform yourself to the behavioural policies, guidelines, and expectations on Wikipedia I fear you will achieve very little except antagonize and frustrate other editors. So please try to work with us rather than this constant barrage to attempt to “win” over the other editors on this article. --Xover (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about trying to introduce changes into the article, especially the important lead. See my followup to your section about Bardolatry, which has produced a slight but so-far-unreverted change in the lead. Poujeaux (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina, I have told you that your proposed lede is much too short, per the section Length of the style guideline WP:LEDE.[1] You ignored that. This is a very long article, and even if your measures for shortening it were to gain consensus, which is not currently looking likely, it would still be a very long article. The lede needs to be far longer than your suggestion in order to cover the article and comply with the guideline. The current lede is about right, length-wise. Oh god I hate having to repeat myself all the time; life is too short. Please respond to what people say. It's not a discussion if there's no dialogue. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

Bishonen, if there's something important that's been LEFT OUT of my version of the lede, just tell me what it is. Don't just tell me the lede's too short, and that Wikipedia policy requires a long lede for a long article. What's missing? That's what I want to know.NinaGreen (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This one? I'll try, since you request it. Your version covers a) the history of the authorship question, b) the state of the authorship question today. I.e. it's all about the section "History of the authorship question", with its subsections. That's it. Obviously everything can't be explicated in the lede, but I think the following matters/sections, which your version doesn't allude to, need to be mentioned:

• That some anti-S's believe no one but a highly educated nobleman or court insider could have written the plays, and why. ("Anti-S thesis and argument")
• "Shakespeare's background/Shakespeare's education and literacy"
• "Historical evidence for Shakespeare's authorship"
• "Evidence for Shakespeare's authorship from his works"

(These things are all mentioned in the lede currently in place.)

Bishonen | talk 14:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

Are Freud And Mark Twain Still Alive And 'Campaigning' On The Authorship Controversy?

I drew attention to the problem with this paragraph in the lede earlier on this page, and my comment that the unidentified 'prominent public figures' should be identified so that readers could determine for themselves whether they can logically be included among the alleged 'They' who are campaigning. Tom then added Shapiro as a further reference for the first sentence below, and as anyone can see, virtually everyone whom Shapiro names on that page is dead, and can hardly be included among the alleged 'They' who are campaigning.

Despite the scholastic consensus,[13] a relatively small but highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters, including some prominent public figures,[14] have questioned the traditional authorship attribution.[15] They campaign through publications, organizations, online discussion groups, and conferences to gain public acceptance of the authorship question as a legitimate field of academic inquiry and to promote one or another of the various authorship candidates.[16]

Tom needs to explain exactly who among the 'prominent public figures' named by Nicholl and Shapiro (Tom's sources) actually is still alive and 'campaigning' on the authorship issue.

And as I indicated earlier, this paragraph should be deleted from the lede for two reasons. Firstly, it conflates the living with the dead, and secondly, it's an entire paragraph in the lede about a 'highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters' and 'some prominent public figures' who are never identified or dealt with in extenso later in the article, so what is this paragraph doing in the lede anyway, given the stated function of the lede in WP:LEDE?NinaGreen (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentences you refer to are summaries of some of the material in the section History of the authorship question. That's about as in extenso as it gets in this article. I trust you are able to make the connections between the summaries and the specifics. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina, you know perfectly well who the relevant living public figures are. Yiou are notr really asking for information. If you want to add sources naming specific figures you can. So what is the point of this. Again, it seems to be pure obstruction. Paul B (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I don't 'know perfectly well who the relevant living public figures are', NOR DO YOU. Tom has cited Nicholl and Shapiro as his sources for the names of these 'prominent public figures', and as I mentioned, most of the prominent persons cited in Shapiro are dead (I don't have a copy of Nicholl handy to check Nicholl's list). So could you and Tom please stop the refusal to provide sources, which constitutes Tendentious Editing, and name on this page all the 'prominent public figures' cited by both Nicholl and Shapiro so that all editors can see them? We can then eliminate those who are dead, and determine whether any of the still-living 'prominent public figures' cited by Nicholl and Shapiro are actually 'campaigning' on the authorship issue. If not, the paragraph can be deleted.NinaGreen (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that there is a link to the Nicholl article in the references, and he's merely partially quoting Shapiro:

What, aside from international fame, did Mark Twain, Helen Keller, Henry James, Sigmund Freud, Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles have in common? The answer is that they all believed that the plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare were really written by someone else.

The last time I checked, they were ALL dead (and let's not forget that that was Tom's sole source before I raised the issue earlier on this page). So why has Tom included them in the SAQ lede as alive and CAMPAIGNING on the authorship issue? The paragraph needs to be deleted.NinaGreen (talk)

Are you incapable of reading the entire article? "One could continue it through to the present day (Malcolm X, Enoch Powell, Derek Jacobi, Mark Rylance, Jim Jarmusch . . .)".

You're not doing yourself any favours by continuing your disruptive behaviour. You've alienated just about every editor who has tried to work with you by these hectoring and badgering tactics. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, the last time I checked, ascertaining the facts was not called 'hectoring and badgering tactics'. And the last time I checked, Malcolm X and Enoch Powell were also DEAD. So that leaves Sir Derek Jacobi, Mark Rylance and Jim Jarmusch, hardly an extensive list of 'prominent public figures'. I've never heard of Jim Jarmusch, and I suspect most people in the U.S. have never heard of Mark Rylance, by which I mean no disrespect to Mark Rylance. The point is that we're not talking Freud and Mark Twain here, names instantly recognizable to everyone, and whom everyone would automatically include in a list of 'prominent public figures' without saying 'Who's that?'. An even more important point is that none of your sources establishes that Sir Derek Jacobi, Mark Rylance and Jim Jarmusch is CAMPAIGNING 'through publications, organizations, online discussion groups, and conferences to gain public acceptance of the authorship question as a legitimate field of academic inquiry and to promote one or another of the various authorship candidates'. The entire paragraph is sleight of hand. When one really looks into the cited sources, they don't support anything in the paragraph. It's all interpretation, synthesis and original research, all of which is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. The paragraph should be deleted.NinaGreen (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Ascertaining the facts" involves reading past the introductory paragraph of an article, which you don't seem interested in doing. Don't expect any further response from me. You're a waste of valuable time. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina, you know that Jacobi wrote the preface to Great Oxford and the he and Rylance have collaborated on a play about the the issue. I'm surprised you have not heard of Jarmush. He's rather famous, but that's neither here nor there. There are, I'm sure, many famous people I've never heard of. My ignorance of them does not stop them being prominent public figures. I think the prominent signatories to the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt might reasonably be described as such too, particularlu those who made their signing an 'event'. Of course they are not the ones who are most active. It's the non-famous committed individuals like yourself who put the hours in. But the famous do lend support, make public statements etc. That's being part of campaigns. You know this. Paul B (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, actually I don't KNOW all these things. But leaving that aside, what's the point of trying to establish what I know or don't know? We're concerning with accurately sourcing things for a Wikipedia article. Where in Wikipedia policy does it state that if Nina Green knows something, it doesn't need to be accurately sourced in the SAQ article?NinaGreen (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mark Rylance is very well known (even to a pleb like me) and he can certainly be said to be actively campaigning. He is on several of the 'anti' websites. Poujeaux (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The complaint is a misprision based on a failure to understand the function of the historic present ('have questioned') referring to 'assortment of supporters', of which 'prominent public figures' is only a parenthetical subset. The second 'they' , in 'they campaign' (present tense) would normally be taken as referring to 'assortment of supporters', and not as governed by 'prominent public figures'. Thirdly, I gave three newspaper examples of 'campaign' being used recently of de Verean supporters (aside from the fact that one shouldn't be questioning what an RS like Shapiro says). It is not good practice to ignore an answer, and then harp on the original question, Nina.Nishidani (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, "have questioned" being the operative verb phrase here, which is indiscriminate as far as breath. God only knows what criticisms she could level at Shakespeare's grammar. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Paul, I don't 'know perfectly well who the relevant living public figures are', NOR DO YOU. Tom has cited Nicholl and Shapiro as his sources for the names of these 'prominent public figures', and as I mentioned, most of the prominent persons cited in Shapiro are dead (I don't have a copy of Nicholl handy to check Nicholl's list). So could you and Tom please stop the refusal to provide sources, which constitutes Tendentious Editing, and name on this page all the 'prominent public figures' cited by both Nicholl and Shapiro so that all editors can see them?"

This is exactly the same behaviour past Oxfordian editors exhibited and the reason why so many extended quotes accompany the references in the lede and other sections. The tactic of then selectively quoting the given reference is also a familiar example of disruptive and tendentious behaviour that I thought was ancient history on this page until the past few weeks. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, this is "exactly" why earlier editors challenged your statements! It's because, as in this instance, the sources you cite DON'T SUPPORT THE STATEMENTS YOU CITE THEM FOR! At most, the sources you cite support a few isolated words in whatever it is you've written. All the rest is your interpretation, synthesis and original research. When you start citing sources which actually fully support what you've written in the article, the challenges will stop. It's you that's the problem, not those challenging you.NinaGreen (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

My point stands. The paragraph is utter sleight of hand. Not a single thing in it is actually supported by any of the cited sources, and it is all interpretation, synthesis and original research. As if this weren't bad enough, no-one referred to in it, whether it be the 'prominent public figures' or the alleged 'relatively small but highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters' is ever identified, nor is the topic dealt with in extenso later in the article (where in the article do we hear in extenso of the alleged campaigning of Sir Derek Jacobi, Mark Rylance and Jim Jarmusch?). So what is a paragraph about them doing in the lede? But why do I ask? :-) I will merely be answered by more and more convoluted defences of the indefensible. Once something has been put into the SAQ article by Tom Reedy or Nishidani, no matter how poorly thought out, poorly written or poorly sourced, it's set in stone, and removing it is more difficult than taking down the Berlin Wall. As for the 'historical present', balderdash. It's poor and confusing writing, not the 'historical present'.NinaGreen (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to use so many words, or to post so often. Just find one of the egregious errors of which you complain and use simple language to explain the problem in a new section (that is, explain the problem that you see in some text currently in the article—there should be no need to mention other editors). Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I have explained the problems with the final paragraph of the lede clearly and succinctly many times over, and if anyone were actually listening, the paragraph would have been deleted long ago.NinaGreen (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Another point which could and should be made is that the Nicholl citation is merely a book review of Contested Will, and logically Shapiro should be cited, not Nicholl, for anything found in Contested Will. If Nicholl goes beyond what can be found in Shapiro, then one has to look very carefully at those additional comments to determine whether they should be cited in the SAQ article, considering that Nicholl is a journalist, not someone with a Ph.D. in Elizabethan literature or someone who teaches Shakespeare courses at a university.NinaGreen (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Why The Duplication?

Can someone please tell me why the entire History of the Authorship Question section in the SAQ article cannot be deleted from the SAQ article and incorporated in the separate Wikipedia article History of the Shakespeare Authorship Question?NinaGreen (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion is not appropriate since there has to be due mention here, see WP:SUMMARY. Naturally an article on the SAQ needs to outline the history since that is crucial to the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina, some months ago, Katherine Duncan-Jones, one of the world's leading authorities on Shakespeare and his age, spoke of supporters of de Vere's candidacy 'currently carpet-bombing Wikipedia.' If you can't make your points lucidly, to the evidence, there is little point in persisting in this mode. I am absolutely convinced you believe you are right. I am also convinced you are unable to understand what your interlocutors are saying, and the result is a cameo of the whole 160 years interaction between the schools of conspiracy, and mainstream scholarship, which has listened, analyses and replied, to no effect. Scholarship works consensually, despite the deep divides in its interpretative ranks. I see no evidence that you are listening to what is being said. I think enough is enough. Nishidani (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are overstating the case. If you were to argue that the section is almost as long as the separate 'Main article', and that it should be reduced, and suggest particular parts of it that could be moved into the other article, I think you might have a valid point and we could discuss it. Poujeaux (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

My question remains unanswered. Xover has suggested on the Peer Review page (copied elsewhere on this page) that the very lengthy History of the Authorship section in the SAQ article should be deleted in its entirety. There is another separate Wikipedia article entitled History of the Shakespeare Authorship Question. Why the duplication?NinaGreen (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

One problem with having two pages which cover the same ground is that one of them can be edited and improved (or not, as the case may be) without the other being changed. History of the Shakespeare authorship question should, surely, be the definitive page for the history. I should think all that is needed at Shakespeare authorship question is a summary, with a link above it. Moonraker2 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've edited my PR comments (diff) to clarify that I am referring to the Evidence for Shakespeare's authorship section (section 3 in the current article) and not History of the authorship question (section 4 in the current article). Mea culpa.
Incidentally Nina, I think this is exemplary of why the communication on this page is not proceeding more smoothly. You have a tendency to just grab whatever “evidence” and “support” that you can for whatever point you're currently trying to argue, rather than actually carefully read what others are saying. Granted I'd slipped up and used the wrong section number in my PR comments, but to guard against that very possibility I'd started by specifying the section name; and even without the name the argument put forward should have made clear which section I was referring to. Further you claim your “question remains unanswered”, but that is obviously inaccurate: Poujeaux did answer it above. He also asked for specific suggestions on how to address the issue—just deleting it outright would not be appropriate, as Johnuniq explained—but instead of responding to this request you just grabbed the next argument you could find that seemed to support your case.
In short, I see very little effort to work with the other editors here, and quite a lot of effort put into getting your own way.
And when you exhibit so little apparent willingness to work with the other editors, my willingness to make an extra effort to accommodate you is entirely absent: I have far more productive uses of my time on Wikipedia than to go round and round, endlessly, with someone who shows no signs of wanting to collaborate. --Xover (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Xover, rather than just admit you made an error which mislead me and doubtless mislead others, you then go on to find fault with me for having been mislead(!), and avoid the real issue, which is that there is a obvious and entirely unnecessary duplication. There is absolutely no need for two extremely lengthy and detailed expositions of the history of the Shakespeare authorship controversy in Wikipedia, one a separate article, and the other a very lengthy section in the SAQ article. The latter needs to be merged into the former. Let's get on with doing something productive, i.e. merging the latter into the former.NinaGreen (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

One good reason is that the History of the Shakespeare authorship question is a trashy article, more or less in the same blobby state of ill-organized patchworks of raw material, which, to shape to a minimum level of acceptability, would require months of work. It is not a reduplication, but a very different approach and emphasis, with decidedly different content. Of course, one could simply erase the present content, or shift it to the talk page, and dump the History as it is outlined in this article, there, and you would have a pretty fine survey. Whatever, if a move is made, it effectively means that, with the expiry of a full year of single-minded effort to make this article acceptable, its authors and collaborators would be asked, before this article is completed, to jump over and do the same on a contiguous page, where they would be obliged to meld the two histories, in a potentially conflictual editing atmosphere.

I think one has to be (a) orderly (b) patient (c) and not ask editors of proven dedication to take on simultaneously an excessive load of work, while they are committed to see that the primary article meets the exacting criteria of FA. So far I think we have, as opposed to last year, sufficient help now to tackle in succession, after this, the History article, the Oxfordian theory article, the candidate articles, including revamping the de Vere article. Life is short, this is a volunteer business, and I'm rather worried of us asking, short of the FA process, Tom in particular to take on the extra task of ironing out the History article. I'm not per se opposed to some move like this. I just think we are not close enough to FA submission to determine whether the outcome of an FA examination rides on the length of that section. For as Xover admits, it is a fine piece of crafted scholarship, and should not be dislocated, and plastered into a lousy mishmash of a page, except for reasons of sterm procedural necessity. Of course, on could argue for the reverse, namely obliterating the History of the Shakespeare authorship question page and just keeping the whole subject here. I personally dislike the tendency to fork, make subpages and proliferate articles on wikipedia. It speaks more of personal editorial battles for control, rather than respect for the reader or the subject.Nishidani (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, you raise some good points. The bottom line is that there should not be two lengthy sections in Wikipedia on the same topic, one an independent article and one a very lengthy section in the SAQ article. As you suggest, one solution would be to delete the independent article and move the lengthy section in the SAQ article over to replace it. Could we not all have a close look at the two 'historical' accounts to see whether that's feasible, and then try to reach consensus on that point?NinaGreen (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As remarked, the only grounds for querying this section were that the text as a whole might exceed the optimal limits for FA articles. The other article hasn't even got off the ground. To castrate this of its testicular splendour, and relocate it on a mutilated page is a severe measure, which would require particular surgical labour to restore to anatomical decency. We are still in the area of technical hypothesis: Xover has a good deal of experience in this regard. But I would be reluctant to move in that direction until further neutral input from FA authorities is forthcoming. In the meantime, I think that the best procedure is to suspend calls for drastic surgery (being just fresh from reading Gabriel Weston's Direct Red) and get back to the point-by-point recension of what experts say FA review will require. This issue can be left to the last minute, once a consensus has been obtained as to the adequacy of the whole article in terms of FA criteria. Those reviewers who have been generous enough to make detailed lists of points that need to be ironed out have found so far that each and every specific query has been met with by a ready and reedy response, in terms of adjusting particulars. In short, this point is valid, but, I think, preocedurally premature, and would only distract eyes from the nittygritty of line by line analysis for style, format, neutrality and reference adequacy.Nishidani (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this article is already written. The time to implement any substantial rewrites or reorganisation of the article is long past, especially given the praise it has garnered from independent reviewers. No justification exists for any major editing. The purpose of the peer review is to discover any glaring defects. Neither the history section nor the extended notes were singled out by independent reviewers, and only one reviewer, Xover, mentioned its length. If it went to FA review today I would bet on its acceptance. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, re 'the praise it has garnered from independent reviewers'. How many independent reviewers have praised the article, and where are their comments to be found? I realize you've put a lot of work in on the article, but I don't think it's appropriate to foreclose further editing on the basis that it has been praised by a handful of unnamed independent reviewers.NinaGreen (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is probably not going to prove to be a popular comment around here, but I just read through the History of the Authorship section in the SAQ article and had the distinct impression I was rereading Shapiro's Contested Will, which I read a month or so ago. Is there any point in rehashing Shapiro's book in this section of the SAQ article? Would it not be preferable to refer to the fact that all this material on the history of the authorship controversy can be found in Contested Will?NinaGreen (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not just blank all Wikipedia articles and replace them with lists of books where the information can be found? Tom Reedy (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, the problem is that I felt I was reading Shapiro when I read this section of the SAQ article. There are a lot of different citations in that section of the article, not just citations from Shapiro, but nonetheless reading that section gave me the feeling that I was reading Shapiro. There just might be too much similarity between the two.NinaGreen (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is how you feel a problem for anybody but you? It's certainly no concern for the editors of this article, whose consideration should be for those looking for information about the subject. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, it's called plagiarism.NinaGreen (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to fill the page with outdents.

Plagiarism is not proved by your feelings or anyone else's. I know you're exploring any avenue possible to squelch this article from attaining FA, but your charges of plagiarism are probably the most ridiculous tactic you've come up with so far. Plenty of plagiarism software programs are available on the internet at no charge; I've used them myself in attribution studies. If you think we plagiarised the history or any other section, you need to do the required work and offer up more than your "feelings" as evidence, but I can tell you right now you're wasting your time as usual. Try not to waste ours. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, stop attributing motives to me. I read the history section in the SAQ article and was struck by how much it resembled Shapiro's Contested Will which I had read for the first time recently. No-one reading a Wikipedia article should get that impression. I have not said or implied that there was any deliberate plagiarism, but sometimes it is possible to incorporate too much of an author's work.NinaGreen (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone help with this? When I tried to view the edit history of History of the Shakespeare authorship question to see who contributed to that article, I couldn't get past the last 50 edits.NinaGreen (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, historically there was no reduplication. It was created on March 7 by Smatprt as a POV fork to retain, conserve or isolate a version of this section of the SAQ article against the sort of radical revision towards NPOV that we had begun to undertake. It has only 57 edits to it, is replete with misleading, outdated or false information, and has no visible raison d'etre other than as furnishing a POV redoubt. The lead is pure nonsense. Paul Barlow did several edits, if I recall, to try and rid the page of the Wilmot furphy, which Smatprt was fond of. The history of SAQ can be summed up very briefly, since the whole subject tends to simply repeat positions made a hundred years ago. The more I examine that page, the more I tend to think that we should follow our original remit which, if I recall, was not to fork off pages, but unify them into one or two. At the time, forks were a tactical commonplace, and ScienceApologist asked that we put an end to the practice. I suggest the page is useless. If there is anything significant there which is not here, then make a list for considering its return to the mother article, the one we are editing here.Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The SAQ article contains 7 links to other 'main' articles. The SAQ article repeats much of the information contained in these 7 'main' articles. The History of the Authorship section in the SAQ article is about the same length as the alleged 'main' article on the History of the Shakespeare Authorship. All this duplication makes no sense. Decisions need to be made about what belongs where.NinaGreen (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC procedure

I have posted a notice on Nina's talk page asking her to cease her disruptive behaviour and to conform her participation to Wikipedia policies and procedures. WP:RFC/USER procedure requires that at least two editors contact an RfC/U candidate on their talk page about their behaviour before filing a case. If any other editor feels the same as I do about this, I'd appreciate your input there. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would, but I don't think I should. I posted a comment in the preceding section independently of your note here, and though it is coincidence, it doesn't look like it.)Nishidani (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have put a comment on her page but I do not think an RFC process is appropriate because (a) she is quite a new user and (b) the disruptive behaviour (in the last few days) have been on the talk page not the article page. Poujeaux (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether an RfC process is appropriate will be determined by her response, which is completely up to her. She has been an editor for seven months, and she has been directed to the appropriate Wikipages to learn policies and guidelines several times, nor is this the first time she has been asked to mend her behaviour. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

All my comments on this Talk page concern improvements to the SAQ article, and when I made any edits (all of which were instantly reverted) I placed them for discussion on the Talk page. The untrue allegation of 'disruptive behaviour' constitutes a personal ad hominem attack, contrary to Wikipedia policy.NinaGreen (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The expression "her disruptive behaviour" must be defamatory. A double standard is being applied here, under which constructive criticism by Nina Green is "disruptive" but personal abuse directed at her is not. Moonraker2 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It is commendable to support other editors, however it is not appropriate to do so without referring to specific incidents to justify your comments. In particular, it is not advisable to use loaded terms like "defamatory", and it is not acceptable to claim that personal abuse has been directed at an editor without any evidence—do not make serious claims like that without at least linking to a discussion that attempts to support the claims. Searching this current talk page shows three editors have referred to "disruptive behaviour", and have explained what they meant (i.e. the particular behaviour was outlined); if you are going to suggest abuse has occurred, you must specify what you are talking about. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, please provide links to those three instances of alleged 'disruptive behaviour' in which 'the particular behaviour was outlined'. I have not engaged in anything which can in any way be characterized as 'disruptive behaviour', and to do so is indeed defamatory. You have now repeated the defamation without providing links to the instances to which you yourself refer.NinaGreen (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand your comment: Moonraker2 implied that editors have directed personal abuse at you; my reply states that serious claims like that need at least a link with some attempted support (directing personal abuse at an editor is totally prohibited; an unjustified claim of abuse is in itself abuse). It is completely in accord with procedures here to use neutral language to assert that actions taken by an editor are disruptive (as just stated, some justification is required). We need to see whether Moonraker2's claim of personal abuse is a reference to someone using neutral language to describe actions taken by an editor, or whether actual abuse has occurred. In anticipation that the claim might have involved the word "disruptive", I searched this talk page for that term, and confirmed what I reported just above. On a purely factual basis, your claim that I have "repeated the defamation" is false, even if "defamation" were an appropriate term. It would be a very good idea to read the loaded terms link that I provided above before continuing. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, let's be very clear. To falsely accuse anyone of 'disruptive behaviour' is defamation, and you have now repeated the defamation twice.NinaGreen (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The word "defamatory", is not a "loaded term", it has a precise meaning which I understand rather well. I might respectfully point out that where some of us live defamation is a criminal offence, which should make it rather hard to justify. I see no one has replied to what I said about a double standard. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not All Authorship Theories Postulate A Conspiracy

This statement in the SAQ article isn't supported by the facts or the cited footnotes:

and they all postulate some type of conspiracy to protect the author's true identity, a conspiracy that also explains why no documentary evidence exists for any other candidate and why the historical records confirm Shakespeare's authorship.[21]

Footnote 21:

Love 2002, p. 198; Wadsworth 1958, p. 6: "Paradoxically, the sceptics invariably substitute for the easily explained lack of evidence concerning William Shakespeare, the more troublesome picture of a vast conspiracy of silence about the 'real author', with a total lack of historical evidence for the existence of this 'real author' explained on the grounds of a secret pact, kept inviolate by a numerous and varied group of collaborators."; Shapiro 2010, p. 255 (225): "Some suppose that only Shakespeare and the real author were in the know. At the other extreme are those who believe that it was an open secret, so widely shared that it wasn't worth mentioning."

Nelson (2004), p. 153:

Unfortunately there are almost as many answers to this question as there are Oxfordians, and each has his own account of the historical circumstances presumed to lie behind the "authorship question". One prominent Oxfordian thinks, for example, that only two men, Oxford himself and William Shakespeare, knew that Oxford was the real author; another thinks it was an "open secret", known to all but spoken by none. Between the absolutely closed and the absolutely open "secret" lie indefinitely numerous and varied possibilities.

Both Shapiro and Nelson mention two Oxfordian views, one that only Oxford and Shakespeare of Stratford knew, another than it was an "open secret". Neither is a 'conspiracy'.

I'm not familiar with the 'conspiracy' theories for the 50+ different candidates, nor, I suspect, is any editor of this page, and I strongly doubt that 'conspiracy' theories have been mentioned in connection with the overwhelming majority of them. Wadsworth's statement that there is 'invariably' a 'vast conspiracy of silence' in connection with every authorship candidate is contradicted by Shapiro and Nelson. The Wadsworth citation should be deleted, and the statement in the article amended to reflect the reality as stated by Shapiro and Nelson. I'd do it myself, but I know my edit would be instantly reverted.NinaGreen (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:V. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, we all know about WP:V, but the issue is not WP:V because all three sources, Wadsworth, Shapiro and Nelson are WP:V. The issue is that it is the responsibility of editors of this page to present the most accurate information. When a source such as Wadsworth, which is half a century old, is shown by Nelson and Shapiro to be misleading and inaccurate, it's the responsibility of editors of this page to drop Wadsworth and add Nelson so as to present accurate information to readers of the SAQ article.NinaGreen (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The most accurate information is not necessarily just what two most recent authors say here. Wadsworth was summing up the state of the art for some 50 candidates, including de Vere in 1958. It happens to be the position showcased by the Shakespeare Oxford Society as witness the following: 'Austin, the writer/producer of the much-watched The Shakespeare Mystery segment of PBS’s Frontline, aptly summed up the Shakespeare authorship problem in an article that accompanied the original broadcast in 1989: “Those who believe de Vere was Shakespeare must accept an improbable hoax, a conspiracy of silence involving, among others, Queen Elizabeth herself. Those who side with the Stratford man must believe in miracles.” Shakespeare Oxford Society. Altrocchi in 2003 was still speaking of a monstrous conspiracy. Bevington in his two books (2005, 2010) still speaks of a 'theory of a widespread conspiracy of silence', and many other recent sources could be adduced to show that scholars accept as position not far from Wadsworth's.

One could of course write 'They generally' 'They have generally'. or something else. But the fact that many Oxfordians have learnt to step round arguments that have demolished their general view (stigma of print) and individualize their positions today, does not mean the historical verdict of scholars completely at home in the bulk of the literature is errant. Nishidani (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, Wadsworth's generalization was never true. That doesn't affect WP:V, but it does affect the responsibility which rests on editors of this page. This is merely one instance of a lack of neutrality which permeates the SAQ article. Editors WANT to make a particular statement because it makes proponents of the authorship controversy look bad, so they cherry-pick sources which confirm that statement, even though much more recent and equally if not more reliable sources contradict those cherry-picked sources. It is impossible to assume good faith when this sort of thing permeates the SAQ article, and in fact both you ('this ideological mania') and Tom ('a crank theory') have admitted bias. Your bias also shows up in the phrase' 'the fact that many Oxfordians have learnt to step round arguments', in which you accuse Oxfordians like me of having 'learnt to step around' the alleged conspiracy theory held by Oxfordians when in fact I have never subscribed to any conspiracy theory concerning the authorship since I began researching it in 1988. You and Tom do not assume good faith on the part of any proponent of the authorship theory, yet you want others to assume good faith on your part in the face of your own admitted bias and in the face of biased statements on your part on this Talk page such as the one I've just noted. In sum, the Wadsworth generalization was never true of all authorship theories or of all who subscribed to any particular authorship theory, and it should be deleted from the SAQ article along with the false statement in the SAQ article which it purports to support. I'd delete it myself, but I know my edit would be instantly reverted.NinaGreen (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful for you to name an authorship theory that doesn't include some type of conspiracy to suppress the identity of the true author. Not that we need it; the statement is amply cited according to Wikipedia standards, which is—the last I checked—the site of this article we are trying to write. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, this is yet another example of Tendentious Editing on your part in your refusal to provide sources or to support the sources you've cited in the SAQ article. You or Nishidani put the statement in the SAQ article, you or Nishidani sourced it to Wadsworth, a book which is more than half a century old. It is up to you to establish that Wadsworth's statement covers the broad generalization concerning the current state of the authorship controversy today for which you are citing him. That's what the Wikipedia policy on Tendentious Editing requires.NinaGreen (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina you are operating under a misunderstanding of what tendentious editing is, as well as what the responsibilities of an editor are. I suggest you finally take the advice that has been given to you and read out the Wikipedia polices and procedures, beginning with those links in the Welcome section of your talk page.

Tom, please stop your incessant scolding and false allegations. I have read the relevant policy on tendentious editing and it directly supports what I have said, namely that you cannot require other editors to search for sources to support text that you have added. The policy in questions states that you are engaging in Tendentious Editing when:

You demand that other editors search for sources to support text that you added

The relevant policy goes on to state that:

Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it.

NinaGreen (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you a cite for anything; you are claiming that the refs don't support the statement, which is incorrect, as I added the quotation from Love (2002) in response to your complaint (the ref was already there, but you obviously either had not consulted it or didn't have access to the source, which can be read on Google books or the Amazon preview). If you have any further problem with it, I encourage you to take it to the proper noticeboard, in this case, WP:RS/N, and stop crapping up the talk page with your repetitious posts.

Last night I added the quotation from the Love (2002) ref that was already cited for that statement. It is sufficient for WP:V and your accusations of tendentious editing (which are becoming very tiresome) are baseless. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, it is NOT sufficient for WP:V because the sources you cite are contradictory. Shapiro (2010) (whom you cite) contradicts Love (2002), as does Nelson (2004), whom you don't cite, but should cite. Thus, the statement you have added to the article is supported by two older sources, one more than half a century old and one almost a decade old, and contradicted by two more recent sources. No statement in a Wikipedia article should be sourced to sources which contradict each other. The statement you've made in the article thus constitutes WP:OR original research, and needs to be amended to reflect the fact that the sources contradict each other on the point in question, with the more recent sources not supporting the statement. And in any case the Wadsworth citation from 1958 should be deleted, as it cannot in any way possibly represent the current state of the authorship controversy.NinaGreen (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And please stop outdenting for every post and don't break up another user's text; post in chronological order, You have been asked to do this several times now. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, please refer me to the Wikipedia policy which restricts the number of outdents I can use (and, incidentally, to the number you can use as well). As for 'breaking up another user's text', I didn't deliberately do that. There was an edit conflict, and my comment ended up in the wrong place, and I then moved it. That will add to the total number of edits I've made today, and doubtless be grounds for more scolding from you on the number of edits I've made. Do you never tire of scolding on the most trivial points? It's been constant for weeks now, and it needs to stop.NinaGreen (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep the layout clear: Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out, using standard indentation and formatting conventions. Avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions. Talk pages with a good signal-to-noise ratio are more likely to attract continued participation. See Talk page layout. I suggest you read the whole page more than once. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, you're off topic. There's nothing on that page which limits the number of outdents, and in my view my outdents help to keep the layout clear. You use them yourself. In fact I learned how to use them from you.NinaGreen (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks,Nina, for your patience and common sense.It is sad that Nishidami and Tom believe this article is merely a long running exercise of their megalomania.

Take this recent gem from Nishi."The most accurate information is not necessarily just what two most recent authors say here. Wadsworth was summing up the state of the art for some 50 candidates, including de Vere in 1958." Where does Nishi get off claiming(a) that Wordsworth ever read the Bibliotheca Anti-Stratfordiana(the only source for the 49 authorship figure)and(b) then followed its references to fifty candidates(many confined to brief monographs or,sometimes,mere letters to the editor.I know.I spent three years of my spare time at Columbia doing exactly what Nishidami fantastically asserts that Wordsworth did Does Wordsworth even claim to have based his work on the Bibliotheca? Certainly Nishi isn't.He and Tom didn't even cite it in their bibliography and I gave them most of a year before weighing in on this.

Nishidani has willfully invented numerous discussions involving conspiracy theory in places where it would have been physically impossible to print such and which he certainly

never attempted to read.Apologize,Nishi,confession is good for the soul.And promise us you are going to stop Tendentiously Editing.Charles Darnay (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I'm just wondering why Bacon, Oxford and (the mind boggles) Marlowe all have a Wikipedia page explaining that each was the true author of Shakespeare's plays, but there is apparently no such page for Derby. If nobody these days thinks that Derby and/or his clique is worth a separate WP page on the SAQ, why not knock references to him off this page - the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates already includes him along with Sir Thomas Bodley, John Donne, Elizabeth I of England and Queen Victoria (oh, no, sorry, she wrote In Memoriam)?

If there really are people who think that he is a respectable candidate, how about a link to William_Stanley,_6th_Earl_of_Derby#Shakespearean_authorship_question to correspond with the links to the SAQ pages of the other three? --GuillaumeTell 00:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Either way would work for me. I don't remember why we added Derby; probably just to put in another aristocrat with circumstances similar to Oxford in terms of travel, playing companies, family connections, and play writing evidence. Derby does have a few web sites, but you hardly ever read about him. His was the first candidacy I ever heard about, in 1980. I was viewing a picture of him in the National Gallery when a tall, angular, gray-haired man with a strange gleam in his eye tried to strike up a conversation about how Derby was the True Author of Shakespeare's works. I just nodded, mumbled "Is that right?" and slowly backed away. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

One problem was that, since these are fringe theories, promoted in the main by people with no historical understanding or formal training in the disciplines of Elizabethan historical research, mentioning them on the candidates own pages tends to turn neat biographies, using serious scholarship, into pages full of speculative nonsense. Look at Sir Henry Neville, one of the most recent candidates. It is devoured by the theory, and the actual life is swallowed up by James and Rubenstein's speculations. Generally, if there is a significant amount of fringe material, not taken seriously by academia, on an historical person, I think it should be dumped on a subpage, if only to withhold from readers the eyesore of amateurish divagations and irrelevancy.

With Derby, he may be prone to anglocentric bias here, since the theory apparently had greater influence on the Continent than it did here, though Dover Wilson found something of profit in LeFranc's work. None of these are respectable candidates, and their fortunes wax and wane. Bacon was huge, and then was demolished by Robertson, and never revived. This page has to comprehend the main candidates historically proposed, and not be caught up in WP:Recentism. If one shifted Derby to his page, it would destablize it. I am for retaining these four, I'd add Neville were not space a real problem, to show the variety over time. But I think the suggestion useful, and, like Tom, could go either way if it came to a vote, depending on arguments.Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, you wrote:

One problem was that, since these are fringe theories, promoted in the main by people with no historical understanding or formal training in the disciplines of Elizabethan historical research, mentioning them on the candidates own pages tends to turn neat biographies, using serious scholarship, into pages full of speculative nonsense. Look at Sir Henry Neville, one of the most recent candidates. It is devoured by the theory, and the actual life is swallowed up by James and Rubenstein's speculations.

This comment demonstrates the bias on your part ('this ideological mania') which leads you to make statement after statement on this Talk page which fails to assume good faith on anyone's part WP:ASG. How many editors of this page, who have taken upon themselves the refutation of authorship theories, have 'historical understanding or formal training in the disciplines of Elizabethan historical research'? I would guess there is no editor of the SAQ article who has such training. So if those who have taken it upon themselves to refute the authorship theories have no such training, why the gratuitously snide comment about those who promote the theories? This is the sort of thing that makes this Talk page a battleground. Secondly, you couldn't have picked a more unfortunate example, since Bill Rubenstein is a historian who teaches at a university.NinaGreen (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina it would be helpful if you would stay on topic within a section instead of continuing to go off on the perceived bias of the editors.

And FYI. Rubenstein's specialty isn't English Renaissance or Elizabethan history or literature, nor does he meet the specious qualifications you argued for in the past, "the field in which they have a Ph.D., has to be the literature of the Elizabethan and early Jacobean period." When it comes to authorship he's just as at sea as all the other speculators. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, bias IS the topic, in this instance evidenced by the refusal on Nishidani's part to attribute good faith to any proponent of the authorship controversy, and also evidenced by Nishidani's biased requirement that those who are proponents of the authorship controversy must have 'historical understanding or formal training in the disciplines of Elizabethan historical research' while those who oppose the controversy, such as you and Nishidani, do not need to have that formal training. And speaking of staying on topic, you have taken up Nishidani's biased point about the need for training in 'Elizabethan historical research', and have tried to turn it into a discussion of training in Elizabethan literature, a completely different topic from the one Nishidani brought up. You might try staying on topic yourself before scolding others. And speaking of staying on topic, do we really need to know that you're 'canning salsa today', and that your laptop is on the counter?NinaGreen (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the topic is Stanley's presence in the article. You have turned it into another repetitious attack on another editor, which seems to be your only purpose in commenting in this section. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidami continually repeats nearly exactly the same verbal tics,as you do your self ,Tom,involving "facts" on which you both have repeatedly been corrected.The best way to stop this would by ceasing to publiish the same erroneous statements and the same tired verbal gymnastics.Charles Darnay (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way the Stanley section is terrible but quite up to Nishidani's consistently muddled editorial standards.Example:E.A.Honigmann is cited as the source for the MSND being performed at the Stanley-Vere Wedding.It was Sir Sydney Lee(a pseudonym of Solomon Levey) who first promulgated this extremely arguable hypothesis about 1895.It was to Lefranc's great credit that he provided in both Engllsh and French(1921-1950) numerous pictorial demonstrations of the theory from contemporary prints.These were received with universal commendation, as no such "lunatic" assessment oof anti-Stratfordianisn then widely existed among the better educated classes,contrary to the historically false claims which you and Nishidani have published in this discussion.Charles Darnay (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, if the topic was Stanley's presence in the article, why didn't you scold Nishidani for his off-topic comments? To ask the question is to answer it.NinaGreen (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no particular reason why Derby does not have his own authorship page. It's just that no-one has created one. Wikipedia works that way. Only one person is responsible for the fact that Bacon has his own authorship page. It's very difficult to understand why Derby has so few 'fans' these days. He was big in the mid-twentieth century. He is also the only candidate who has been supported by a major scholar of Renaissance literature - Abel Lefranc. It's very difficult for an 'outsider' to understand why Oxford is so popular these days given the very obvious dating problems. Clearly de Vere inspires an emotional attachment that Stanley cannot. I think he still counts as one of the major candidates because of the substantial literature about him. However, it appears to be true that there are few supporters out there in web-land - at least none committed enough to argue on Stan's behalf here. The Derby page was almost wholly ignored until I greatly expanded it a little while back. I would willingly move the authorship material to "Derbyite theory" page. Paul B (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead and created the Derbyite theory of Shakespearean authorship page. I don't know about the title. For consistency it should end in "ian", as in Baconian, Marlovian and Oxfordian, but somehow "Derbyean" (Derbyian?, Derbyan?) just doesn't sound right. I think it's the I sound after the Y. Anyhow, it appears to be the standard term [2]. Paul B (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice job, Paul. I added a few links. If anybody's interested the Baconian theory needs an overhaul to get back up to GA status. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Google Books links

I'm… ambivalent… about the Google Books links. For one thing, as far as I know, links to Google Books are not stable; they can go invalid at any time. For another, we're giving preferment to one commercial actor by linking to Google Books rather than some other service. And finally they're redundant with the automatically generated Special:Booksources from ISBN, DOI, or other identifiers. I don't generally mind linking to online material as an aide to the reader, but here I feel the problems outweigh the benefits. On the other hand, I know this has been discussed in various relevant venues; and while, I believe, there has been some considerable fuss expended on this, I believe the conclusion in various FACs was that there is no actual rule against it. My gut feeling is that a FAC review may end up noting this—with some reviewers against including them—but it would not actually be prejudicial to achieving FA. Trawling the recent FACs may give you a firmer grasp of what the current consensus on this is (my own opinion is formed by a random and shallow sampling, so not to be relied too heavily on). --Xover (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Those links are furnished for the convenience of the reader, and all of them are pared down to the basic address sans any search terms, as required by Wikipedia when using external links. A lot of those books don't have ISBNs (I think the Booksources ISBN system is quite clumsy and complicated anyway, but that's just MHO). I haven't heard any complaints about the instability of Goggle addresses any more than I have of the instability of Wikipedia's, so I can't respond to that. Neither of them are comparable to GeoCities or AOL, and are not likely to be, but stranger things have happened. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support the links. If they are kept to the basic page address, they do seem pretty stable. I don't see any preferential treatment of Google books: we link to them so much from Wikipedia pages simply because Google's collection is much better than any other web resource for books. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations lacking publication dates

The Kathman cites lack a year of publication, which leads to oddities like referring to them as "Kathman (1), David" etc. Can not actual publication dates for these be found? For instance, all three of the referenced web pages have a Last-Modified HTTP header value of "24 December 2010", which, lacking better information, would be an appropriate publication date to use. The cites would then be to "Kathman 2010a", "Kathman 2010b" etc. --Xover (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See [3] and [4]: "For web-only sources with no publication date you should include a "Retrieved" date instead, in case the webpage changes in the future. For example: Retrieved 2008-07-15." Tom Reedy (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of editorial insertions in source names

In the article there are several instances of editorial insertions in the citations: “Baldwin, T[homas] W[hitfield]”, “Churchill, R[eginald] C[harles]”, and even “Gibson, H[enry] N[orman] (2005) [1962]”. While I understand the motivation of being clear, I think these are confusing and unaestethic. Unless there is some actual doubt as to the author of the work in question, we should just give the name of the author in the form suggested by practice (e.g. E.K. Chambers and S. Schoenbaum, but Harold Bloom and Andrew Gurr); or at a pinch, if one feels very strongly about this, give the bibliographic details exactly as given in the work. The editorial insertions seems to try to do both, and then failing at either. The date of original publication should, IMO, be spelled out as suggested in the template documentation, so that we don't give two years immediately next to one another with no explanation. For the Gibson mentioned above, that would be something like |origdate=First published 1962. --Xover (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Both the LoC and the British Library practise some type of initial expansion for their catalogue sytems. I'm OK with losing them, though, not having any strong feelings on the subject. IMO all we really need is the author, title, date of publication, and journal name, if any. Any semi-competent person should be able to find a source with those three bits of information. But I'm not the arbitrator of those standards. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Section 3 (Evidence for Shakespeare's authorship)

(Just thinking aloud.) Xover argued at the Peer Review page that this section could or should be cut. Tom and Nishidani argued against. Might there be a third way? Remove section 3 more or less as it stands to its "Main article" own page, as Xover suggested, but leave a very short summary in the SAQ article - a sequence of bullet points, even? I'm not sure that I'm competent to reduce it in that way, but I could have a go if anyone thinks there's any merit in the suggestion. --GuillaumeTell 16:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, that section is half the topic and follows the WP:FRINGE guidelines for articles dedicated to fringe topics, which is why I oppose it and don't understand why its presence is a problem. I think moving it to its own article would constitute a POV fork myself. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I do not see why it should be cut. The article should present both sides of the argument.

However, I notice a bias in the section headings. On the one side we have "Arguments against Shakespeare's authorship", and on the other we have "Evidence for Shakespeare's authorship". Is that NPOV? Poujeaux (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. The "arguments" are specifically against the evidence of Shakespeare's authorship, and are the basis for all alternative authorship cases. The evidence is not an argument, except in its use to counter the anti-Stratforidan arguments. What would you substitute? (I'm canning salsa today and have my laptop on the counter, so I'll be online for a while.) Tom Reedy (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I dunno neither. But I feel that the section headings as they stand create a perception of bias, by implying that one side only has 'arguments' and no real evidence, whereas the other side has solid historical evidence (of course, this may be true!). I wonder whether, in the interests of being squeaky-clean on the NPOV front, the same wording should be used in each heading. But I can't think of anything other than 'evidence' or 'arguments', and I expect you would not agree with either of these. Poujeaux (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ref cleanup?

Xover, what is the purpose of expanding the refs to take up more lines? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Readabiliity of the wikicode, and thus easier to find errors or missing data. It doesn't contribute to the length of the article in any relevant way, so I can't imagine it'll be a problem; but if you feel strongly about it I can collapse it to single lines again once I'm done going through them. I'd prefer to stick to the multi-line format while working through them though, simply because it makes the job easier. --Xover (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I've got no strong feelings either way; we want the best format possible. My only concern is to keep them in alphabetical order easily, for which I move the last name file to the beginning when I insert another ref. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wadsworth Reference Should Be Deleted For Everything But The History Section

The Wadsworth reference, which dates from 1958, should be deleted from everything but the History of the Authorship section of the SAQ article. There is nothing in Wadsworth which can possibly reflect the current state of the authorship controversy, and the citation of him so many times in the SAQ article is a primary cause of the confusion which permeates the article concerning whether a statement pertains to now, or more than a half century ago.NinaGreen (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you open a case up at WP:RS/N and cite some type of policy besides your own opinion. If you're not willing to do that, then please withhold any more commentary about it. It just creates a wall of text that gets in the way of productive editing. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, the fact that Wadsworth is a work more than half a century old is a FACT. It is not 'my opinion. Why have you cited Wadsworth time and again in the SAQ article as a source for statements in which you purport to be describing the CURRENT state of the authorship controversy? If there is no CURRENT source which you can cite for those statements, you should delete them because in that case they obviously constitute original research on your part.NinaGreen (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, → WP:RS/N. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Something this obvious, citing a source more than half a century old purportedly to support statements concerning the CURRENT state of the authorship controversy, should not require taking up other editors' time on WP:RS/N. This is an excellent example of your constant engaging in Wikilawyering to avoid having to deal with substantive issues.NinaGreen (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So you don't understand the term "Wikilawyering" any more than you do "tendentious editing". Tom Reedy (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, you'll say anything to avoid dealing with the substantive issue. This has happened time and time again on this Talk page. I raise a substantive point which would improve the SAQ article, you talk around it endlessly, raising quibble after quibble and irrelevancy after irrelevancy, and the substantive point gets dropped.NinaGreen (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it has not been dropped; it has been answered. Your complaint has no substance. The citation of Wadsworth is justified in the statements he is used for, and the statement about every SAQ theory containing a conspiracy is correct and amply sourced. It is tiresome having to repeat the same answers over and over and it is tiresome that you keep repeating the same complaints. It is unproductive and disruptive to the talk page. It is all of a piece with your endless arguing over NOPV and your accusations of being defamed when the character of your repetitious and disruptive postings are pointed out to you.

If you have a complaint about another editor, go to the proper dispute resolution noticeboard and make your case. If you have a problem with content in this article, go to the proper dispute resolution noticeboard and make your case. You have no special privileges at Wikipedia and it would be best for everybody concerned if you began editing according to the policies and regulations. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, the substantive issue has NOT been answered. Firstly, the citation of a source which is more than half a century old for a broad generalization concerning the CURRENT state of the authorship controversy is original research WP:OR on your part. Nothing said half a century ago can possibly apply to the a generalization concerning the CURRENT state of the authorship controversy. If you don't wish me to repeat myself, stop repeating YOURSELF and deal with the substantive issue. It is a simple matter to delete the Wadsworth (1958) citation since the Love (2002) citation covers your contention. Why are there multiple citations for everything in this article anyway? That's another whole issue in itself. It seems to be that you wish to drive every negative point home in spades so you don't merely cite one source which covers the point, but instead cite source after source, each one more negative than the last. Secondly, as I've pointed out, you've also cited Shapiro (2010) for the same point, and Shapiro says NOTHING about conspiracy. In fact he says quite the opposite -- only two people involved, or an 'open secret', neither of which is a conspiracy. Wikipedia policy does not permit contradictory :::To repeat my earlier point. Wadsworth summed up a century of speculation, most of which is being recycled in the contemporary fringe literature. He read more widely in those fringe sources than most authorities on the issue to this day. He is still frequently cited in contemporary sources (I haven't Shapiro with me, but anyone can check). The repeated request that it be removed smacks of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. The article surveys the whole field historically, not just what Shapiro says (and yet earlier you complained there was a Shapiro bias here). You cannot say, in one thread, there's too much Shapiro here, and the next minute, complain, we only need Shapiro here, without giving the impression you are using sources selectively, and tactically.Nishidani (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, it does not in the least smack of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, which is just Wikilawyering on your part. There is real confusion throughout the SAQ article in terms of statements which pretend to represent the current state of the authorship controversy but which instead conflate the HISTORY of the controversy with the CURRENT situation. I've already identified two of them on this Talk page, but there are more. You exhibit a lack of understanding of this problem when you state that 'the article surveys the whole field historically'. That's clearly wrong. The statements and generalizations in the MAIN BODY of the article should portray the current state of the authorship controversy and be sourced to the most current references possible, while the HISTORY OF THE AUTHORSHIP section should deal with the historical aspect. Wadsworth (1958) belongs only in the HISTORY OF THE AUTHORSHIP SECTION. The SAQ article could be vastly improved if you would take cognizance of the confusion between the historical and current situation which runs throughout the article, and make the appropriate changes (or let me make them if you feel disinclined to do it yourself.

Also, please try to pay attention to what I actually say, and not put false statements into my mouth. I did not state that there was a 'Shapiro bias' in the SAQ article. I said that the History of the Authorship section of the SAQ article makes so much use of Shapiro's actual work that it verges on plagiarism, not necessarily intentional plagiarism, but plagiarism nonetheless.

Also, you wrote:

[Wadsworth] is still frequently cited in contemporary sources (I haven't Shapiro with me, but anyone can check).

I just did check, and Shapiro doesn't include Wadsworth in the index of his book. You state that Wadsworth 'is still frequently cited in contemporary sources'. Such as? NinaGreen (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Until you calm down and quit posting every other minute I'm not responding any further. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, you post within SECONDS of my posting anything. Perhaps you YOURSELF could 'calm down and quit posting every other minute'. But it's certainly a useful ploy in terms of avoiding the substantive issue.NinaGreen (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to post three times before I finally was successful, all of them blocked by an edit conflict. This is not a newsgroup, where you can expect answers within minutes.

And FYI McCrea cites Wadsworth, as does Schoenbaum. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For Chrissake Nina. Don't keep hairsplitting to pick up scoring points when a simple, quiet sober google would tell you the point you are tempted to make is (a) not worth making and (2) if made, only wastes editors' time, already under stress from a year of dedication to this article, to which, be it noted, you are not supplying any new insights or sources from RS, but simply nitpicking in an unproductively POV and harping manner. I got sick of typing after justv excerping a few of the following examples of Wadsworth being cited recently.

1. Roland Mushat Frye, Shakespeare: the art of the dramatist,2005
2. Rajeev Shridhar Patke Robert Lumsden, (eds.) Institutions in cultures: theory and practice, 1996 (Still the most useful account of the controversies over Shakespearian authorship is that of Frank W. Wadsworth.The Poacher from Stratford).
3. Michael Warren, Shakespeare: life, language, and linguistics, textual studies, and the canon : an annotated bibliography of Shakespeare studies, 1623-2000, 2002
4. Scott McCrea, The case for Shakespeare: the end of the authorship question, 2005
5. Marjorie B. Garber, Shakespeare's ghost writers: literature as uncanny causality. 1987
6. Ralph Berry, Michelle Lee, Graham Bradshaw (eds) Shakespearean Criticism: Excerpts from the Criticism of William Shakespeare,1999
7. Samuel Schoenbaum, Shakespeare's lives, 1991
8. Jean I. Marsden, The Appropriation of Shakespeare: post-Renaissance reconstructions, 1991
9. Marjorie B. Garber Profiling Shakespeare 2008
10. Michael Keevak, Sexual Shakespeare: forgery, authorship, portraiture, 2001
11. K. K. Ruthven, Faking literature, 2001
12. Juliet Dusinberre (ed.) As You Like It, Simon & Schuster, 1984
13. Folger Library Series, The e Tragedy of Richart the Third,1992
14. Folger Library ed.Henry V, Simon & Schuster, 1988
15. John Andrew, William Shakespeare: His work, Scribner, 1985
16. Northrop Frye, The Harper handbook to literature, 1997
17. Paul Aron Mysteries in history: from prehistory to the present, 2005
18. Marilyn Randall Pragmatic plagiarism: authorship, profit, and power, 2001

I can see all the ways one can begin to challenge this, and burden us with a humongous new thread. Don't please. This is already repeating the waste of time caused by your demand that Tom provide examples of the use of 'lunatic fringe', which he provided to no effect.Nishidani (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, would this be an example of the 'Google scholarship' Tom recently derided on this page? This sort of 'Google scholarship' is as useless in this case as it was in the 'lunatic fringe' case because it omits context. In this case, the context is the problem I've drawn attention to in the SAQ article that Wadsworth is cited as an authority for the CURRENT status of a particular aspect of the authorship controversy which is an absurdity when a book is more than half a century old. Thus, simply citing references to Wadsworth as you've done above proves nothing unless you provide context which demonstrates that these books cite Wadsworth as an authority on the CURRENT state of the authorship controversy. This is merely another example of Wikilawyering.NinaGreen (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You left out the anti-Oxfordian book Nina (or was it Zweigenbaum? No matter.) brought up a while back, Spearing the Wild Blue Boar (2009), by Frederick A. Keller, who cites the very same Wadsworth quote as we do in the lede (258-9). Tom Reedy (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer Nina's "substantive" points from above:

“Nothing said half a century ago can possibly apply to the a generalization concerning the CURRENT state of the authorship controversy.”

You’re wrong; it tells us that the opinion of the Shakespeare establishment hasn’t changed.

Tom, you're once again demonstrating that you don't understand the purpose of the SAQ article. In the main body of the article, the purpose is to provide Wikipedia readers with the CURRENT state of the controversy. The historical section of the SAQ article is intended to deal with the status of the authorship controversy IN THE PAST. If you could get that simple point straight, the SAQ article would not be as confusing as it is.NinaGreen (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

“Why are there multiple citations for everything in this article anyway? That's another whole issue in itself. It seems to be that you wish to drive every negative point home in spades so you don't merely cite one source which covers the point, but instead cite source after source, each one more negative than the last.”

Because your predecessor (both temporally and stylistically) challenged every source as being “cherry-picked” so yes, citing source after source is meant to drive home the point that the references supporting the statement are not outliers, but indeed are the considered consensus opinions of the Shakespeare establishment. And they are not negative; they are factual (although I suppose those terms are synonymous to Oxfordians).

Tom, I have no predecessor. I'm me. Stop trying to link me with any other editor. But thanks for admitting that the citation of multiple sources is entirely unnecessary and redundant. Choose the best one for each point you're trying to make and DELETE the rest. It will vastly improve the article, and shorten it to boot. No Wikipedia article should contain almost more footnotes than text.NinaGreen (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

“Secondly, (I think you probably mean "thirdly", but let that pass) as I've pointed out, you've also cited Shapiro (2010) for the same point, and Shapiro says NOTHING about conspiracy. In fact he says quite the opposite -- only two people involved, or an 'open secret', neither of which is a conspiracy.”

I thought you said you’d read Shapiro? I suppose if your comprehension of Shapiro is like your comprehension of your claimed reading of policy, one can’t be too surprised at your statement. Because in fact, if you go to the page cited, THE SENTENCES PRECEDING THE QUOTATION IN THE ARTICLE SAY:

“Those who question Shakespeare’s authorship of the plays never get around to explaining how the alleged conspiracy worked. There’s little agreement and even less detail about this conspiracy, despite how much depends on it, so it’s not an easy argument to challenge.”

So your statement that “Shapiro says NOTHING about conspiracy” is wrong, in spades. And why, pray tell, did you make such an erroneous statement? Because you didn’t look up the page given and you demand that everybody else do your work for you—SOP for you on this page.

No, it's not wrong in the slightest. As is blindingly obvious, I was referring to the sentence from Shapiro you cited in your footnote. If you want to cite some other sentence, go ahead, and I'll deal with it once you've cited it. Don't expect me to deal with sentences you HAVEN'T cited in your footnote!NinaGreen (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Now since that section wasn’t quoted in the cite, the reason it was put in had to be for some other reason, since the other refs sufficiently establish that all anti-Strat theories use a conspiracy theory. What was it? Why, it must have something to do with what was actually quoted!!! And what was in the Shapiro quote? The wide variation between the theories!!! So what part of the statement was the Shapiro cite given to support???? Let’s read the statement again and take a wild guess:

“they all postulate some type of conspiracy to protect the author's true identity, a conspiracy that also explains why no documentary evidence exists for any other candidate and why the historical records confirm Shakespeare's authorship.”

Why, my guess is the phrase “SOME TYPE” as in “some type of conspiracy”!!! That has to be it!!! His quote talks about the wide variation of the conspiracy theories, so it’s there to support “some type”!!! Now that you know how this works, maybe next time you can actually pull the book off the shelf and read the page cited!!! (What a novel concept, huh?) Then, is you think you can duplicate the exercise I outlined above, try to match one part with the other part. If you need help, maybe ask a few friends. Maybe somebody on the list-serv group you run will be able to figure it out. BUT STOP WASTING OUR TIME HERE!!!

Tom, it's you who are wasting our time. Do you really expect the average Wikipedia reader to parse these obscurities? Who are you writing the SAQ article for anyway?NinaGreen (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope my explication has been helpful.

Oh, one more point:

“Wikipedia policy does not permit contradictory sources to be cited in support of a statement.”

Please direct us to where you found that policy gem. My bet (going by experience) is that you made it up. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Gladly. It's in WP:OR:

Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments.

If Wikipedia policy insists that statements in an article should not rely on 'inconsistent passages' it stands to reason that relying on inconsistent sources is equally verboten. And please note that statements in an article should not rely on 'passing comments'. I'd be willing to wager from what I've seen that a number of the sources you've cited in the SAQ article rely on passing comments. That's the very definition of 'cherry-picking' of sources.NinaGreen (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be yet another tactic used by your predecessor. I urge you to read all the cited references, which one would think you would have done before beginning yet another tedious section about alleged editorial malfeasance. If you had done so at the beginning of this section it would have saved us all another impenetrable wall of type. (I'll not midpost further, in accordance to Johnuniq's request, and this will be the last I say on this particular matter.)Tom Reedy (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote:

That would be yet another tactic used by your predecessor.

This is another ad hominem attack as well as a violation of WP:AGF. I have no predecessor. I am an editor in my own right, with no link to any predecessor. Please desist from your repetition of this ad hominem attack.

You have deliberately refused to respond to the fact that you are clearly in violation of WP:OR:

Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments.

As I've indicated above, the passages you've cited in Love (2002) and Wadsworth (1958) are inconsistent with the passage you've cited in Shapiro 2010.

20:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the following an accurate summary of the issue? If not, please provide a concise update.

The Wadsworth reference is from 1958 which predates current SAQ sources. Wadsworth should therefore be deleted from everything but the history section.

Shapiro says nothing about the conspiracy, and his cite should be removed.

The history section verges on plagiarism because it uses too much of Shapiro's work.

This discussion is exploring too much, with insufficient details. Give one or two examples of text in the article which should be changed, and explain why. Arguing in general terms about whether it is logically possible to use a 1958 reference is not productive. It would be highly desirable to focus on one issue at a time (either, one small section of the article, or one article-wide issue—don't discuss Wadsworth and Shapiro unless it is in connection with a single point). To remove a Wadsworth reference, we would need to show that it is not justified for the referenced statement.

Regarding whether too many sources are used: The history of this talk page has numerous examples of people disputing statements in the article, so the use of multiple sources is highly desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, you wrote:

This discussion is exploring too much, with insufficient details. Give one or two examples of text in the article which should be changed, and explain why.

Are you being deliberately ingenuous, or have you just not been paying attention? I've done just that, and the reason everything has piled up as you noted above is that Tom Reedy and Nishidani have stonewalled and talked around every legitimate point I've brought up. Get Tom and Nishidani to deal with the legitimate points brought up if you want the problem resolved.NinaGreen (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Shapiro says Nothing about conspiracy. 'Nina Green

When asked by the Wall Street Journal's Alexandra Alter about why the SAQ debate was still alive, Shapiro said recently, and it is what you would call a current scholarly generalization, Nina:

It may have something to do with what it means to live in a culture saturated by memoir and shaped by an Internet in which conspiracy theory really thrives.' Wall Street Journal, 9 April 2010.

Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishi, be fair, Nina was clearly talking about the book. But the Google books link is useful here. Click on it and search for 'conspiracy' and it comes up 21 times (including "Twain also suspected that Milton became involved in the Shakespeare conspiracy", "the justices also made clear that they believed that the case before them was essentially a conspiracy theory", "Conspiracy theorists chalked up another victory..." and the one Tom mentioned above). I am not a big fan of the C word - it is usually used to denigrate a theory one disagrees with. Poujeaux (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that Nishidani's comment is off-topic. I was not only speaking of Shapiro's book, as I said earlier on this page (like Bishonen, I hate having to repeat myself), as is blindingly obvious, I was speaking of the precise sentence from Shapiro quoted by Tom in the footnote, which is inconsistent with the sentences quoted in the same footnote from Love (2002) and Wadsworth (1958), and is therefore a clear violation of WP:OR, also quoted above, a point which Tom and Nishidani refuse to address.NinaGreen (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

But wouldn't it be nice if someone showed Nina how to use Goggle? It would save us all a lot of time not having to do it for her. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, another of your ad hominem attacks intended to disparage me, and in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. In fact it's difficult to find a single comment of yours on this entire Talk page in which I am mentioned in which you do not indulge in an ad hominem attack on me, which administrators deign not to notice.NinaGreen (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Threading

Would anyone mind if we stick to normal talk page procedures and make posts strictly chronological (oldest on the bottom) and normally indented? If anyone accidentally posts in the middle of someone else's response, I would like to refactor the discussion and move all the new posts to the bottom. I, and presumably others, would like to follow discussions later, and the above is too confusing (I had to go the history and look at the diffs to see what had happened). Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In principle that's a good idea, but often there is more than one discussion going on at the same time, so users add their comments where they think they will be most intelligible. In general, I'm not sure it would be a good idea to rearrange the posts after the event, because some of them would be taken out of their context. Where someone "accidentally posts in the middle of someone else's response" then I do agree with fixing that. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, however the above section (and several before) illustrate a significant problem. Presumably the two people initially involved can readily work out who-said-what at the moment, but it is difficult for a third party. More problematic is the fact that there is now no useful way anyone could add to the discussion. Suppose I wanted to comment on one of the replies: where would I put my reply, and what indent would I use? I think the result would be even more impenetrable for other readers. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh god I hate having to repeat myself all the time. Bishonen | talk 18:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Of course the threading is a mess because other editors and administrators continue to allow Tom and Nishidani to stonewall every legitimate issue for the improvement of the article I raise and to litter every comment they make with ad hominem attacks on me to many of which I'm forced to respond because if I DON'T RESPOND, then the statements made in these ad hominem attacks are allowed to accumulate until Tom takes them as 'facts' and tries to initiate Wikipedia actions to have me banned from editing.NinaGreen (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Things to do

The article is progressing nicely and thanks to all the editors who have pitched in. There are still a few points remaining to be settled before nominating it for featured status.

1. Ref cleanup. Xover, do you need help with that? Can you explain what need to be done?
   1. (see comment below) --Xover (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
2. Use of the terms “Stratfordian” and “anti-Stratfordian”. Should this be noted in the text just as a fact of the SAQ jargon that has evolved instead of being in a note?
3. One-sentence paragraphs. I think I've got them all but they should be checked again and edited if any are found.
4. Embedded links—first use only. Dupes needs to be de-linked.
5. Section titles: "arguments" vs. "evidence". Any suggestions? Or is this a problem?

Anything else?

And please don't bring up any POV or RS complaints. Those have been discussed to death with apparently no complainant thinking them serious enough to take it to the appropriate noticeboard. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikilawyering.NinaGreen (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

6. Repeated use of 'all' in sec 1.1. These are strong claims and hard to justify. More detail below. Poujeaux (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Poujeaux thanks for finding the dupes. Is that all of them? Tom Reedy (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly not! I have done Stratford, and just done First Folio, and will try to do all systematically. Poujeaux (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

7. Consistent use of italics. I think all play titles, books, journals should be in italics and I have fixed some. But what about Shakespeare's Sonnets, or TV programmes... Poujeaux (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

When Shakespeare's Sonnets refers to the publication itself, then it is italicised; otherwise no. TV programme titles are italicised. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ref cleanup The ref cleanup is mainly about adding missing bibliographic details, linking authors/publishers/presses, and making sure the formatting is consistent (e.g. the short refs are sometimes missing the terminating full stop). I'm planning to do the lot of them, but there's no particular reason (except the obvious potential edit conflicts and toestepping) someone else can't chip in. I'll likely do them in batches semi-offline, so if anyone notes here that they intend to have a go I can post a warning here before starting a batch. Incidentally, there's bound to be some detail of it that someone will take issue with (e.g. like the Shapiro ref problems with two editions discussed way below here, or the single-line vs. multi-line wikisource issue elsewhere), which I'm prepared to clean up afterwards as consensus dictates; but it'll be much easier to do with a consistent starting point. --Xover (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have tools to efficiently massage text, and can do grunt work accurately. So, please say if you want something like all 'harvnb' changed to 'Harvnb' (or vice versa), or all citations split the way you did for the first few, or all the US page numbers removed from the Shapiro cites (I would make a table for the talk page comparing the UK/US numbers since that information is valuable). I haven't yet had a chance to carefully inspect the citations, but I think one job was to put the fields in a standard order? If such an order can be specified, I could do that. The fields were in an order to assist keeping the citations in alpha order which seems desirable, but the title could be put first, at least temporarily, if that is helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

More disorganization and POV complaints

Nishidani made this comment earlier on this Talk page:

article surveys the whole field historically

As mentioned earlier, this confusion about the purpose of the SAQ article needs to be addressed as a high priority item. The article goes back and forth between the CURRENT state of the authorship controversy (which is clearly what Wikipedia readers will be interested in) and its HISTORICAL aspects without clearly distinguishing between the two, despite the fact that there is a lengthy History of the Authorship section in the SAQ article and despite the fact that there is an entirely separate main article linked to the SAQ article whose stated purpose IS to deal with the HISTORICAL aspects (History of the Shakespeare Authorship). This repetitiveness, lack of clear focus, and disorganization is one of the most significant problems with the SAQ article, and it absolutely needs to be addressed as a high priority (like Bishonen, Oh how I hate repeating myself!). As things stand, the article merely contributes to a proliferation of confusing duplication on Wikipedia, and in no way benefits either Wikipedia itself or Wikipedia readers in so doing.NinaGreen (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina I have specifically asked that the section above be kept clear of anything save specific suggestions of what needs to be done. Please respect my request. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Currency of Wadsworth reference, and common features of authorship theories

This paragraph requires sourcing in compliance with WP:OR, which reads: 'Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments'.

Anti-Stratfordian arguments share several characteristics.[20] They all attempt to disqualify William Shakespeare as the author due to perceived inadequacies in his education or biography;[21] they all offer supporting arguments for a more acceptable substitute candidate; and they all postulate some type of conspiracy to protect the author's true identity, a conspiracy that also explains why no documentary evidence exists for any other candidate and why the historical records confirm Shakespeare's authorship.[22]

As I mentioned in an earlier discussion on this Talk page (which I can't now locate in the archives - any help with that would be appreciated), it's original research and in violation of the Wikipedia policy quoted above to attempt to pass off Wadsworth (cited in footnote 20) as an acceptable source for a broad generalization of this nature since this statement applies to the CURRENT state of the authorship controversy, and Wadsworth wrote more than a half century ago when many of the CURRENT authorship candidates had never even been proposed. To cite Wadsworth as the sole authority on the alleged shared characteristics of authorship candidates who were entirely unknown to him is obviously original research, and a logical absurdity to boot.

Footnote 21 is a reference to a footnote in Matus, and thus also violates WP:OR which states that a source, particularly for a broad generalization of this nature, cannot be to a 'passing comment'.

Footnote 22 also violates the same policy in sourcing to inconsistent passages, as has been explained in detail earlier on this page.

If the shared characteristics actually DO constitute shared characteristics COMMON TO EVERY SINGLE AUTHORSHIP THEORY, as the statement in the SAQ article alleges, then there must be a WP:RS source out there which can replace these cited sources, none of which meets WP:OR criteria in terms of the policy quoted above.NinaGreen (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom has twice moved this from the list of things to do and has incorporated into it an ad hominem attack in the use of the word 'Complaints' in the heading. It is an legitimate item stating the grounds on which an entire paragraph violates WP:OR. It is thus appropriate that it be addressed, and included in the To Do list. Under what Wikipedia policy is Tom authorized to remove a legitimate issue requiring attention from the To Do list, and to incorporate an ad hominem attack into the new title he has given the section?NinaGreen (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Get a consensus of editors to agree with you and we will add it to the list. You have brought this up several times, with no other editor supporting your complaints. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to try and wade through the incomprehensible archives of this page. And the SAQ is (thankfully) not my field. As an outsider, my initial reaction is that Nina's suggestion, that there needs to be a more recent citation for the "shared characteristics" claim, is a reasonable one. The concern re footnote 21 appears unfounded. A footnote is not the same thing as a passing comment. Our concern is reliable sourcing of reliable research, not whether it is in the body text or elsewhere in a source. As to the later comments: Nina, Tom has the support of several editors in his approach to the article and the talk page; if those editors don't like it, I expect they'll chime in. I for one have no issue with it at this stage. As I said, I'm not re-reading the whole sorry mess above, but I have been monitoring it in general terms, and he appears to be remaining on the right track. Yes, his language sometimes sounds like he is trying to WP:OWN this page, but my reading each time has usually been that he is trying to defend a reasonable position based on WP policies and consensus. I have jumped in and commented on the rare occasions when I think he hasn't been doing so (as re Wadsworth, in this case), but otherwise, I can assure you that he and Nishindani are not the only editors supporting the general approach: in my case, silence has been consent. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone, thanks for supporting the suggestion that 'there needs to be a more recent citation for the "shared characteristics" claim. Maybe now we'll finally get somewhere on this issue.NinaGreen (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

@NinaGreen: If you are unhappy with the section title "More OR complaints", please just change it. Headings should be short and neutral, perhaps "OR in overview"? At any rate, the "Things to do" section should be kept short and free from back-and-forth, particularly back-and-forth about issues that have been previously discussed. Regarding the issue: Do you think the text is actually wrong? Or just inadequately sourced? Do you have a suggestion for new wording? Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, why don't you tell Tom Reedy to just leave my posting alone and not move them to new sections and rename them in insulting terms, rather than ragging on me? There is no Wikipedia policy which authorizes him to do so, as you well know.NinaGreen (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy where precise rules cover every situation. This "More OR complaints" section is already 5K characters which clearly shows that it would be unhelpful to include it in a "to do" list. There is no actual problem: we are each free to raise issues regarding the article; if a discussion concludes something needs to be fixed, an item can be added to the "to do" section (if not already fixed). It is best to focus on improving the article rather than worrying about which section on the talk page contains a discussion about possible OR in the overview. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so how about lending your voice to the suggestion that this particularly OR complaint is a valid one, and that the problem needs to be addressed forthwith, rather than wasting space on this page defending Tom?NinaGreen (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Cites already added. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the up-to-date cites - Nina, I'm not sure if I've lost the thread here, but the complaint as I understood it was not about OR: it was a cite that was too old to support the claim in a high quality WP article - which Tom has addressed. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Nina's main complaint is with the use of the word "all" three times in this paragraph. These are very strong claims. Let's look at them one at a time:

1. "They all attempt to disqualify William Shakespeare as the author due to perceived inadequacies in his education or biography;" I don't know if this is true but I suspect it would be possible to find one that didn't (a challenge for you Nina!). Whether it's true or not, the cite from 1958 can't really be used to support "all" since so many of the cases have come up since then.

2. "they all offer supporting arguments for a more acceptable substitute candidate;" This one has no refs and is demonstrably false, see for example http://doubtaboutwill.org/declaration, so I suggest this is deleted.

3. "they all postulate some type of conspiracy to protect the author's true identity," disputed by Nina here. Again Wadsworth (1958) shouldn't be used. Love and Shapiro don't seem to claim "all". Nishidani says one could use "They generally". Again I suspect that "all" is not true - I suspect that some just ignore the question of how it actually worked.

I propose deleting 2 and using "generally" or "most" for 1 and 3. Poujeaux (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a good beginning before attempting to discover the truth through research would be to read through the cites given and see if they justify the statements as per WP:V.

As to (2) above, it is self-evident that any theory seeking to replace Shakespeare for another candidate would ... well, attempt to replace Shakespeare with another candidate. The Dec-o'-Doubt concerns itself only with trying to establish through popular vote that good reasons exist to doubt Will of Stratford's qualifications, IOW it relates to (1) above, not (2), and takes no stand on who the True Author is, but all involved have their favourite pretender.

Whether "all" is literally true or not is beside the point; the refs I added use that language. If an RS somewhere says "all but a few" or "most", I don't know it, but I certainly would be willing to conform to that language. And I would be hard-pressed to find an anti-Stratfordian theory that posits William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom is right in the sense that if the references say "all", then we are simply following the references. However, the phrase "they all" is in any case redundant, as the whole sentence begins by saying that the arguments "share several characteristics", so it is in any case explicit. In order to be slightly less emphatic - and to avoid sidetracking enthusiastic editors on a mission to find an exception that can then be used to argue the toss here - I have copyedited the sentence with the effect of removing the repeated "all"s. I don't see a problem with Wadsworth being used alongside other references if Wadsworth's scholarship remains significant, though it would not have been sufficient on its own (as I commented yesterday). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Very Solomonic solution, which we should have been able to arrive at if our heads had been clearer. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Wadsworth has now been supplemented with up-to-date references, and the language has been revised to remove the explicit suggestion that "all" authorship doubters have exactly the same features in common. Can we now archive this bit of the discussion? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm happy with your version, removing all the alls. Poujeaux (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Cowell Manuscript

I've changed the wording from 'exposed it to be a forgery' to 'claimed it to be a forgery' since Shapiro's findings are merely a claim, and he has not produced any definitive proof. In particular his 'evidence' concerning the use of the word 'unromantic' is highly questionable since the word was used by Swift, according to the OED, in 1731, almost a century before the Cowell manuscript. From the OED:

1731 Swift Let. to Gay & Duchess of Queensberry 28 Aug., I own it is a base, unromantick spirit in me.

NinaGreen (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't use OR to disallow a statement. Shapiro states flatly that it is a forgery, but I have changed it to the more scholarly hedge "likely". Tom Reedy (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Shapiro provides no definitive evidence that it is a forgery, merely speculation, and in particular his claim concerning the currency of the word 'unromantic' is entirely indefensible. How can Shapiro know that a word was 'not yet in currency' in 1805 when the OED gives an example of its use by Swift in 1731? Moreover tests of the paper have already been conducted, as Shapiro himself admits elsewhere (although strangely not in Contested Will!), and the paper has been found to be of a type produced circa 1805. At the very least, Shapiro's statements concerning the testing of the paper not found in Contested Will need to be included in the SAQ article. Accepting Shapiro's claim as a fact in the SAQ article without including a citation to his statements re the testing of the paper constitutes original research WP:OR or suppression of relevant evidence or more likely both.NinaGreen (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina, if you will read the pages cited, it is not limited to Shapiro, it also includes Wright, which is why it is attributed to "recent findings" instead of a person. A claim is an assertion without evidence, and both Shapiro and Wright offered up evidence, and Shapiro's statement that it is a forgery has been echoed by several scholarly reviewers who find his evidence to be probative. All of your objections above are not sufficient grounds to delete a statement supported by a reliable source. Do not remove reliably cited material. Articles on written on what the sources say, not whether we like or dislike what they say. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(1)

Nishidani, Wadsworth's generalization was never true

Tom (Oh how, like Bishonen, I hate repeating myself) you need to cite Shapiro's article in which he says he had the paper tested and it tested to the correct period. You can't just cite Shapiro's account in Contested Will, which omits any mention of his having had the paper tested. They're both WP:RS, and in a sense they're contradictory and unclear, thus violating the policy I quoted earlier on this page from WP:OR.NinaGreen (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(2)

Shapiro's findings are merely a claim, and he has not produced any definitive proof. In particular his 'evidence' concerning the use of the word 'unromantic' is highly questionable

See what you are doing Nina? You are judging RS by your personal research, claiming the peer-reviewed book content cited is not 'true', 'inadequate' or false and then, at a second remove, using a variety of claims about wiki policy to suppress, elide or get removed material that disagrees with your own belief or rresearch about the subject. You have done this so often, here and on the de Vere page, that people tend to overlook the fact that such personal challenging of RS are not within any editor's remit.Nishidani (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Nishidani, I'm not judging it by my own personal standard. There is an accepted standard within the scholarly community for declaring manuscripts forgeries. Shapiro himself has admitted in another article that the paper tests to the correct period. He has also admitted in that same article that he has not conducted further tests. That article should be cited in the SAQ article, rather than merely citing his statements in Contested Will (which is what I said above, if you'd read it more carefully).NinaGreen (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to read Shapiro, so I am prepared to be corrected, but Tom Reedy appears correct above in his explanation of how WP policy applies regarding the citations. I have no idea what the discussion about "unromantic" is about, but Nina Green in this case does appear to be engaging in her own research rather than using a WP:RS to raise questions about something that (I assume) is evidence presented in a reliable source currently cited in the WP article. The WP article must reflect the evidence in the reliable sources. My reading as an outsider is that the current text does this. On that basis I would support Tom Reedy's reversion just undertaken. (Incidentally, I agree with Nina that the history section is too long and full of too much detail). hamiltonstone (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone, I'm not engaging in my own research. The SAQ article only cites what Shapiro says in Contested Will. It should also cite what he says in his article, which includes the fact that he had the paper tested and it tests to the correct time period. You wrote:

The WP article must reflect the evidence in the reliable sources.

Yes, and there are two reliable sources, both by Shapiro, containing differing accounts, and Tom Reedy has only cited one of them. He needs to cite the other.NinaGreen (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My comment about OR was directed to the argument about "unromantic", as I thought the structure of my para made clear. Going back to your point about Shapiro: the SAQ article says this: "recent findings have exposed it as a likely forgery probably designed to revive Bacon's flagging popularity in the face of Oxford's ascendancy". If that accurately relfects Shapiro's conclusion (and that of scholars cited in Shapiro), and if there are not significant scholarly sources contradicting it, then it does not matter what the details are. The level of detail you are talking about would further expand an already overlong section - to no effect, if the scholars in question have concluded it is "likely a forgery". (Whether that is what Shapiro says in the book in question, I will leave to those reading it). hamiltonstone (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone, I'm suggesting two things. The first is that the SAQ article should reflect what's in the Wikipedia article on James Wilmot:

The authenticity of Cowell's "Reflections", accepted by Shakespearean scholars for many years, was challenged in 2002/3 by John Rollett, Daniel Wright and Alan H. Nelson. Rollett's investigations revealed that no records exist of either Cowell or of an Ipswich Philosophic Society or its alleged president, Arthur Cobbold, in 1805. Reporting on Rollett's findings, Wright suggested that a Bacon supporter might have forged the manuscript and added it to the archive of Edwin Durning-Lawrence, a leading supporter of Bacon's authorship. However Wright asserted that prior to declaring the manuscript a forgery, it was vital that the paper be dated by an expert.[4] James S. Shapiro has since suggested that anachronisms in the text imply that the document is a forgery.[2][5] However, Shapiro had the paper tested by Peter Bower, an expert in paper history analysis, who stated that the paper is of a type which first appeared in the mid-1790s, and that the pages on which the manuscript was written were probably made not long after that.[6]

Footnote 6 refers to Shapiro's article in the Times Literary Supplement, March 26, 2010, pp. 14-15.

I don't think the SAQ article should hide the fact that Shapiro himself has partly established, by having the paper tested by Peter Bower, that the manuscript is NOT a forgery. That's not original research. That's merely reporting what Shapiro himself did and said.

The second point, about the DNB citation of the use of 'unromantic' in 1731, also reflects what Shapiro himself has said. On p. 12 of Contested Will, Shapiro writes:

The word "unromantic" in the same sentence should have tipped me off, though there was a recorded instance of its use before 1800, it wasn't yet in currency at the time Cowell was supposedly writing [=1805].

The Wikipedia policy I quoted earlier [WP:OR} states that sources shouldn't be used if they're 'unclear or inconsistent', which Shapiro clearly is because the OED is a far more reliable source WP:RS in the case of historical word usage than Shapiro is, and for Shapiro to state that the OED says the word was in use in 1731 but he (Shapiro) says it wasn't, is about as 'unclear or inconsistent' as it gets.

Incidentally, before I could finish making an edit to this message to incorporate the actual wording of the WP:OR section, Tom jumped in with the two edits below. If anyone wants to know why the threading on this page is such a mess is that not a NANOSECOND goes by after I've posted anything (and often before I've finished making any necessary edits to it) before TOM JUMPS IN WITH HIS OWN POSTING, thus messing up the threading. tom is thus one of the principal causes of the very problem he wants to take me to some dispute resolution site about. How ironic. If it weren't so sad, it would be funny.NinaGreen (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)NinaGreen (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have not read the Shapiro source nor do I have access to it. Most forgeries use period paper, usually a blank sheet cut out from a book. If that is all the new information in the source, I hardly see how it is relevant, unless Shapiro or someone else specifically says it contradicts his conclusion in his book.

IMO the last sentence you quoted from the Cowell article should be deleted. It's obviously included to hint at a conclusion that has not been made. And your reasoning above is WP:OR. see synthesis. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost, all of this appears to be too much detail for the article on the SAQ. It appears to involve expanding a section that should be being shrunk. Second, this article should not reflect the text in another WP article: it should reflect the best use of the reliable sources for the prupose of this subject (SAQ). Those points aside, Nina's comment "...Shapiro himself has partly established, by having the paper tested by Peter Bower, that the manuscript is NOT a forgery" is completely wrong. All it established was the age of the paper. That need not affect the conclusion that the evidence on balance indicates that something is (or probably is) a forgery. There doesn't appear to be an inherent inconsistency there. Nina may have a point re the "unromantic" thing, if it is absolutely clear that these are two contradictory reliable sources, but since it all seems to relate to detail that shouldn't be in the article anyway, I'm not sure what the practical effect of this might be. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not our job to point out in a Wikipedia article that the OED contradicts one part (not by any means the main argument) of Shapiro's case for forgery. And I agree it's too much detail for this article anyway, which is a description, not a debate. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom wrote:

It is not our job to point out in a Wikipedia article that the OED contradicts one part etc.

No, it is not the job of the SAQ article to point out contradictions in sources. But it IS the job of the SAQ article NOT to CITE a source (Shapiro, 2010) when that source is 'unclear and inconsistent' on a particular point because to do so contravenes WP:OR. Thus, when Shapiro cites the OED, the most reliable source on the history of word usage, and then in the next breath contradicts the OED, the SAQ should not cite Shapiro on that point because Shapiro is 'unclear and inconsistent'. Similarly, when Shapiro refers in one source (Contested Will, 2010) to Wright, who states that the paper must be tested to prove whether the MS is a forgery, and Shapiro in another source (his TLS article) says he has HAD the paper tested and it tests to the correct period, these two sources are again 'unclear and inconsistent', and the SAQ article shouldn't cite one of these two Shapiro sources and deliberately ignore the other. There seems to be a real desire on the part of editors to jump on the 'forgery' bandwagon here, citing Shapiro, but Wikipedia policy says this is not appropriate because Shapiro is unclear and inconsistent, as I've demonstrated. There is no requirement that the SAQ article make ANY statement on the forgery issue, and unless a source can be found which is clear and consistent on the forgery issue, there shouldn't be any statement about forgery in the SAQ article. The Wikipedia article on James Wilmot article covers the topic.NinaGreen (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not editing; this is trying to win an argument by using newsgroup rhetoric that pays no attention to anything but scoring points by any means whatsoever.

It is policy that determines content, not an individual editor's opinion about what should and shouldn't be in an article. If this article is to reflect the current state of the authorship field, it can hardly leave out the major authorship discovery that overturned an 80-year-old belief and that comprised the entire prologue of the major work of 2010 dealing with authorship. There is nothing unclear or inconsistent about Shapiro's narration of the Wilmot forgery or his conclusion or his method. Stitching together three different sources to make it appear that Shapiro has refuted his own conclusions is disingenuous WP:OR and stretches Wikipedia policy into incoherency. Tom Reedy (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, that is precisely the point, and the SAQ article takes little if any cognizance of WP:OR:

Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments.

The discussion of the Cowell manuscript has focussed the spotlight on this policy. It is not original research for editors to examine the statements in a source to determine whether the statements in that source are unclear or inconsistent, or whether a particular point is made merely in passing and is not a fully developed argument. What I've seen repeatedly on this Talk page is recourse to WP:RS and the argument that it doesn't matter whether a statement in a source is true so long as it's verifiable. I have no quarrel with that policy whatsoever, but it is very important to note that WP:RS is balanced by the above-quoted policy in WP:OR. Editors cannot cite sources (or makes statements in the SAQ article based on sources) in which the point under consideration is 'unclear or inconsistent' in the source, or in which the statement is a mere 'passing comment' in the source. Many of the cited sources in the SAQ article need to be re-examined in light of this policy, including the statements in the SAQ article concerning the Cowell manuscript.

You wrote:

Stitching together three different sources to make it appear that Shapiro has refuted his own conclusions is disingenuous WP:OR and stretches Wikipedia policy into incoherency.

No, that is precisely what the WP:OR policy quoted above REQUIRES editors of the SAQ article to do.NinaGreen (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no source conflict re "unromantic". I have just confirmed from the URL to the Google preview that on p.12 of Contested Will, Shapiro writes:

The word "unromantic" in the same sentence should have tipped me off; though there was a recorded instance of its use before 1800, it wasn't yet in currency at the time Cowell was supposedly writing.

Obviously Shapiro found the earlier instance recorded by the OED (he acknowledged it in the above quoted text). Shapiro does not explain how he knows that the word "wasn't yet in currency", but he is the reliable source, and there is no source with a contradiction. An editor claiming that "unromantic" was in currency cannot overrule Shapiro's conclusion.

There is also no problem about the paper testing. If Shapiro previously wrote about that testing, clearly he was aware of it in Contested Will where he declares the manuscript to be a forgery. Editors cannot overrule Shapiro's conclusion by pointing to what is claimed to be an inconsistency (particularly when the author had obviously taken the paper test into account). Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, you didn't need to retype the sentence from Shapiro. I provided it earlier in this discussion, where I also pointed out that for Shapiro to state that the OED records an instance in 1731 and then in the next breath to state that the word 'wasn't yet in currency' in 1805 is 'unclear and inconsistent' because Shapiro is noting the evidence provided by the acknowledged highest authority on historical word usage and then denying that evidence on his own unsupported authority, and for editors of this page to cite Shapiro under those circumstances is in violation of WP:OR.

As for the paper testing, the wording of the statement in the SAQ article claims that all recent 'findings' have proved that the Cowell MS is a forgery whereas Shapiro's article in the TLS states that the paper testing established the opposite, i.e. that the paper was of the correct period, disproving forgery.

You wrote:

Editors cannot overrule Shapiro's conclusion by pointing to what is claimed to be an inconsistency (particularly when the author had obviously taken the paper test into account).

That is precisely what the policy quoted above requires editors to do, i.e. refrain from citing a source when there is a clear inconsistency. The policy does not require that editors 'overrule' Shapiro, but it does require that they take note of inconsistencies in Shapiro and refrain from citing him when there are obvious inconsistencies.NinaGreen (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting story. So in his 2010 book, Shapiro (a) omits any mention of the fact that the paper was found to be genuine (b) gives the impression that he discovered that it was a forgery when in fact this was found by a physicist (Rollett) he doesn't mention, at least 7 years previously. It makes one wonder if Shapiro is a RS! Poujeaux (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I find "exposed it as a likely forgery" rather comical. Tom added what he called 'the more scholarly hedge "likely"', but that isn't suggested in the one source relied on, and to my way of thinking a document can hardly be "exposed" as a likely forgery, any more than a man can be exposed as a likely murderer. If "recent findings" refers to Wright as well as Shapiro, that should surely be cited? Moonraker2 (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Shapiro's conclusion is based on the overwhelming direction of the evidence, including the fact that there was no such society as the one to which the paper was supposed to have been delivered and no such person as the author! No-one disputes that the forgery is very good. How else would it have deceived scholars for so long? Period paper was very very easy to obtain at the time the forgery was made. The use of the word 'unromantic' is accurately discussed by Shapiro. The expression "in currency' means a word that people would commonly use rather than an obsure or idiosyncratic coinage. Indidentally, Shapiro does mention Wright and Rollett's priority, but only in an admittedly obscure footnote. In the main text he does give the impression that it was his own discovery. Of course he may well have discovered it independently, and only become aware of Wright and Rollett's article later. But that's neither here nor there. The evidence of forgery was accepted by both anti-Stratfordians and Stratfordians! And yet Nina still wants to contest it. Also, it was Shapiro himself who published the information about the study on the paper, not anyone else, so it's a bit rich to suggest he somehow hid it! That was in his detailed articles in the TLS. The book just gives a summary. Paul B (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul do you have that article? Tom Reedy (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What, the TLS article? It's in the uni library. I can pop over and get it. Paul B (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Poujeaux, you can read about Rollett's investigation here. He was the one who discovered that the Ipswich Society didn't exist at that time nor could he find any documentary evidence that Cowell ever existed, nor of the purported president of the society. He alerted Dan Wright, who examined the document and announced plans to have the paper and ink analysed and dated and the hand examined by a paleographer. This was in 2003, and whether he did in fact follow through I don't know, because he never published anything about it. Both Rollett and Wright stopped short of calling it a definite forgery, as well they should have.

Shapiro used internal evidence from the paper to declare it a forgery. Far from depending on the use of the word "romantic", he instead noted the anachronistic discussion of facts about Shakespeare's life that had not been discovered or published at the purported time the document was written. As far as dating the paper, I haven't read the TLS source, so I don't know if that was done before or after the publication of the book. In any case, it has no bearing on whether the paper is a forgery. If the paper had dated to the mid- or late-19th century, that would certainly prove it a forgery, but it cannot be proof it wasn't a forgery, since forgers usually try to use old paper and have even been known to make their own ink according to period recipes.

Tl; dr: Shapiro definitely called it a forgery; his claim has been accepted by several Shakespearean reviewers knowledgeable of the historical facts that Shapiro bases his claim on, and the paper dating cannot prove it to be genuine. and yes, Shapiro, as one of the most respected academic Shakespeareans of our day, is certainly a reliable source. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now had an opportunity to read Shapiro's TLS article, and one part should be quoted here.

But Bower also noted that this was drawing paper, not writing paper, and that he knew of no instances where someone would use paper of this type and thickness for writing out a long lecture. So while it was possible to find old paper, the forger must have hoped that nobody, a century or so later, would have been able to tell that it was the wrong sort of paper. Ink and handwriting analysis, which have not yet been conducted, may well cast additional light on the forgery.

So once we hear the rest of the story, it puts a different light on the dating of the paper and how it affects the case for forgery. Instead of contradicting the rest of the evidence for forgery, it in fact supports it. Why that information has been withheld from this discussion we can only guess. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, it also puts a different light on your original research earlier on this page when you wrote:

Period paper was very very easy to obtain at the time the forgery was made.

Obviously your original research on how easy paper of the right type was to obtain was flat-out wrong. But do we hear a word of that from you? No? Secondly, whether the paper was art paper or other paper, the point is that the paper tested to the correct period, and thus cannot be used as evidence FOR forgery. It is evidence AGAINST forgery. Moreover Shapiro himself states that 'Ink and handwriting analysis, which have not yet been conducted, may well cast additional light on the forgery'.NinaGreen (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I said that, not Tom. It happens to be true. The usual technique is to cut out spare sheets from the back of old books, diaries etc. I have a copy of Hogarth's prints published in the 1760s in this very room. It has two empty pages at the back. I could cut them out right now and write a letter purporting to be from Wilmot to Burke stating that he has discovered a cache of manuscript plays written by Oxford which are so witless he has burned them to preserve the Earl's reputation (Wilmot was always burning evidence of course). If I can do that now, consider how easy it was back then, when old books were more freely available and libraries had almost no security to speak of. Yes, it was easy. What is notable here is how you try to deflect evidence of your own blatant misrepresentation of sources by inventing spurious criticisms of other editors. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to mince words, but what it puts a different light on is the motive of an editor who would withhold information in order to score a point. That is the very definition of tendentious. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, whoever said it, it turned out to be completely false in terms of the Cowell MS, which is not written on the type of paper you alleged was 'very very easy to obtain'. Yet we heard nothing from you on that point. No admission that you were flat-out wrong in terms of the Cowell MS, even though you got the article for Tom from your university library.NinaGreen (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina, this is baloney. I said nothing about a 'type' of paper, just that period paper was easy to obtain. It is period paper. It was easy to obtain. You are making up the claim that a particular type of paper was mentioned. It was not. Drawing paper was easy to obtain. Writing paper was easy to obtain. Probably pink paper with pictures of teddy bears on it was not. So what? Paul B (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, give up on the 'withholding of information' nonsense. My point was that the paper tested to the correct period and thus was evidence AGAINST forgery, which it is, despite your best efforts to muddy the point by trying to claim that paper which tests to the correct period is evidence FOR forgery(!).NinaGreen (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's evidence for forgery because it is an inappropriate type of paper for the purpose according to the expert. Of course there was no law against using drawing paper for lectures, so it's not proof, but evidence is one thing, and proof is something else. Paul B (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, stop engaging in original research. Bower merely said, in response to a question from Shapiro, 'that he knew of no instances where someone would use paper of this type and thickness for writing out a long lecture'. The fact remains, which is the point I was making, that the paper tested to the CORRECT PERIOD, and that FACT can in no way be construed per se as evidence FOR forgery, irrespective of what type of paper it is, the type of paper being an entirely different point. There is thus evidence which might raise the possibility that the MS is a forgery (all of it 'negative evidence'), and there is evidence which suggests that it is NOT a forgery (and this is the only 'positive' evidence, i.e. an actual 'finding' by an expert, rather than a failure to find something, as with Rollett's failure to find mention of Cowell or the Ipswich Philosophical Society). According to WP:OR a source should not be cited when the source makes statements which are unclear or inconsistent, which Shapiro's statements certainly are in flatly claiming the MS to be a forgery when the expert HE HIMSELF HIRED established a specific FACT suggesting that the MS is NOT a forgery, and in citing the OED use of 'unromantic' by Swift and then contradicting the OED by claiming the word was 'not yet current' in 1805.NinaGreen (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is pathetic. The source says it, not me. Shapiro says it, based on Bower's statrements. No-ne except you says it is evidence of authenticity. You are engaging in OR and are ignoring the overwhelming evidence compiled by all the researchers who have looked at this. Any forger who hopes to succeed would use easily obtainerd period paper. You are just repeating youself ad nauseaum and ignoring ALL the other evidence. There is no point in discussing this with you futher. You are incapable of rational debate. Paul B (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you continue to engage in WP:OR by weighing the evidence and concluding that it's 'overwhelming', and by telling us how easy it would have been for a forger to obtain the necessary period paper. That is NOT your job as an editor. And stop the personal attacks. You are in violation of Wikipedia policy.NinaGreen (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've revised the statement in the SAQ article to reflect all that can legitimately be said on the subject without engaging in original research in violation of WP:OR, and added a ref to the Shapiro TLS article. The statement now reads:

However recent investigations have raised questions concerning the authenticity of the manuscript.

Shapiro's statements are unclear and inconsistent, and do not give credit where credit is due (to John Rollett in particular), and thus should not be used in compliance with WP:OR cited many times earlier on this page, nor does the SAQ article give proper credit to John Rollett, who was the first to raise questions concerning the Cowell MS.NinaGreen (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not acceptable. The evidence is overwhelming. Shapiro's credit giving or lack of it is utterly irrelevant. You are using the fact that he skimps on credit for the first person to identify it as a forgery as a reason to try to deny that it is a forgery!! Paul B (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, your comment that 'the evidence is overwhelming' is clearly WP:OR, and in violation of Wikipedia policy. It is not an editor's job to determine whether evidence is or is not 'overwhelming'. That's WP:OR. It an editor's job to determine whether a source contains unclear or inconsistent statements, which the two Shapiro sources definitely do, and then to state only what can legitimately be stated concerning the situation in the SAQ article. I've reverted your edit.NinaGreen (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What is overwhelming is the editorial consensus of the editors of this page that the source is RS and the summary in the article is accurate. The WP:RS source unequivocally states that the Cowell MS is a forgery. The article cannot and should not delineate every detail of the case, which for the most part can be found summarised in the Wilmot article. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, the issue is not whether the source is WP:RS. The issue is whether WP:OR applies. I've not seen any evidence that you understand the significance and importance of WP:OR in terms of editors of this page NOT citing sources which contain unclear or inconsistent statements. I've demonstrated that the two Shapiro sources DO contain unclear and inconsistent statements, with Shapiro citing and then refuting the OED (the most impeccable WP:RS source on historical usage of words which can be found), and also citing and refuting his own expert on the FACT that the paper dates to the correct period and is thus evidence AGAINST forgery.NinaGreen (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The main issue here is that the consensus of the editors don't go agree with your rather inventive interpretations of both the source and policy. A major edit cannot be based on an inaccurate and tendentious summary of a source. Your unwillingness to edit collegiality (or even to follow conventional talk page formatting conventions after being asked several times) is a major source of disruption on this page and this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, drop it with the defamatory 'major source of disruption' statements and the incessant personal attacks generally. The reason nothing gets accomplished on this page is that you, a biased editor by your own admission ('a wacky theory'), want to control, and DO control, every syllable in the SAQ article. As for the policy, it says what it says, and I have not interpreted it in any way, 'inventive' or otherwise. WP:OR does not permit the type of editing you've done consistently throughout the SAQ article, cherry-picking passing statements by authors and statements which are unclear or inconsistent with other reliable sources and then invoking the WP:RS statement that it doesn't matter whether something is true so long as it's verifiable. No wonder you're uncomfortable with my introduction of WP:OR into the debate because WP:OR balances WP:RS by stating that if there are unclear or inconsistent statements in a reliable source or among reliable sources, or if there's merely a passing mention of something in a reliable source, you CAN'T CITE IT. As in this case, with the Cowell MS. Given the lack of clarity and the inconsistency in the two Shapiro refs, the most that can legitimately be stated in the SAQ article is what I put in my recent edit, that investigations have raised doubts concerning the authenticity of the Cowell MS. To state more is to violate WP:ORNinaGreen (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina, I don't think any of us are happy with the tone of debate in this section, but I agree with Tom and Paul B about how the article is summarising the reliable source on this (based on comments from all parties in the course of the above exchange, I am proceeding on the basis that everyone agrees Shapiro is RS). Unless there is a reliable source of more-or-less equal stature that explicitly argues against the "likely forgery" conclusion, the article should reflect the conclusion of Shapiro. Maybe it would help if I tried to explain the reason that some editors are levelling a charge against Nina of WP:OR. Let's use the example of the OED and "unromantic", since that seems to have caused some contention. Let us say that the OED reports the usage of the word as occurring in 1731 (or whenever). Citing that at WP would not be OR per se. BUT, for a WP editor to use that information to then argue against a conclusion reached in an RS is WP:OR. This is because an editor is then applying published evidence to form a new argument about the credibility of a source. If you wanted to claim that the OED evidence raised an issue with Shapiro, you would need a scholar to have looked at the OED, concluded that there was a discrepency between, say, Shapiro and the OED, and then have published their view (ie. that there was a discrepency) in a reliable source. Then, and only then, could we use that evidence to modify what would be summarised at WP from Shapiro. I hope this explanation clarifies rather than obfuscates - it wasn't easy to set out. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone, I appreciate your weighing in and trying to sort things out here, but as I said earlier, the issue is not whether Shapiro is WP:RS. The issue is how WP:OR affects reliable sources. It's no wonder it's a novel point here because the way in which WP:OR affects reliable sources has been completely ignored in the writing of the SAQ article. WP:OR says that a reliable source may, in certain instances and on certain topics, contain unclear or inconsistent statements or statements which are merely a passing mention of something and do not constitute a well-developed argument covering the point. In such instances, the reliable source can't be cited for those statements or points. That's the case with Shapiro when he himself (not me) states that there is a recorded instance of the use of the word 'unromantic' prior to its use in the Cowell MS, and then goes on to contradict the OED (to which he's clearly referring since it's the uber-source for all historical records of word usage) by saying that the word 'unromantic' was 'not yet current' in 1805 when the Cowell MS was written. This inconsistency in Shapiro's statements, in which he himself quotes the most reliable known source on a particular point and then contradicts that reliable source is a prime example of what WP:OR means when it says that even if a source is reliable, it can't be cited on points on which it makes statements which are unclear or inconsistent. You mention above that there would need to be some independent scholar who has noted the discrepancy between Shapiro's statement that there is a recorded usage of 'unromantic' prior to the writing of the Cowell MS and Shapiro's statement that the word 'unromantic' was 'not yet current' at the time of the writing of the Cowell MS, but WP:OR states that that is the job of Wikipedia editors. If they note a discrepancy of that sort, i.e. inconsistent statements, in a reliable source, they must refrain from citing the reliable source on that point, although the reliable source can certainly be cited on points for which no such discrepancy exists.NinaGreen (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read my explanation above. I still think it shows why you are wrong on this point, and, having read you post above, I still think you have the wrong end of the stick on this. It does not matter whether Shapiro quotes the OED: for the WP article to use language that implies there is a contradiction / doubt of any sort, there must be another reliable source directly addressing the point. The fact that the OED lists a 1731 usage, even if Shapiro notes this, is not enough by itself. We would need a published RS saying something like "Shapiro's conclusion blah blah is apparently contradicted by the OED's entry that says blah blah". We cannot join those dots ourselves, because that would disregard the reliability ascribed to Shapiro's scholarship that is given by his work's status as a published reliable source. I don't know how I can make this clearer. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone, I'm not wrong on this point. If I were wrong, WP:OR would be redundant. Wikipedia policy allows editors to make judgments about whether there are inconsistent statements on a particular point in a source which is otherwise a reliable source, and when such inconsistencies are found, Wikipedia editors cannot cite the source in question on that particular point, reliable as the source might be. There is no requirement in WP:OR that some outside scholar or some other reliable source has to address the inconsistency. Wikipedia editors are allowed to spot it for themselves and must then refrain from citing the source on that particular point. You wrote: 'We cannot join those dots ourselves'. On the contrary, WP:OR says we editors CAN and MUST 'join those dots ourselves'. The clear purpose of WP:OR is to prevent Wikipedia editors from citing otherwise reliable sources on points on which it's self evident to anyone reading the source that it's NOT reliable because of inconsistencies or unclear statements on a particular point, or because the source makes only a passing mention of a point without fully developing an argument on it. Considering the endless hectoring about Wikipedia policy that's gone on on this Talk page, it's surprising that WP:OR is new to editors of the page and has never been cited before.NinaGreen (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:OR/N instead of repeating your arguments ad infinitum. I'm sure the uninvolved editors there will give your policy interpretation the attention it deserves. You don't have editorial consensus on this and you're not likely to get it by incessantly repeating the same thing over and over. Please read this, especially the paragraph headed "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people." Tom Reedy (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, drop the this nonsense. You've ignored that key line in WP:OR throughout the SAQ article. No matter how inconsistent two sources are, you've frequently cited them both for the same point. Similarly, no matter how passing a mention is given to a point in a reliable source, you cherry-pick it, and cite it in the SAQ article. In both cases, you're completely ignoring that key sentence in WP:OR because it doesn't suit your purposes.NinaGreen (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nina Please don't exaggerate: WP:OR would not be redundant: one line within the entire policy would be. Look, I don't have Shapiro, but I'm not seeing evidence presented above as enough to invoke the relevant section of WP:OR: the evidence that would be needed would be of the type I have already described. I presume Shapiro is making a scholarly assessment based on a range of evidence including the OED (itself a tertiary source on which I doubt Shapiro would exclusively rely, but that it is another matter). Of course, it is also possible that I have misrepresented the arguments of other editors here when I have tried to clarify the argument about the application of OR here, in which csae I apologise. Let me conclude by returning to the broader issue, and my final comment on this: as I understand the original source (ie. based on the talk page and WP article), any suggestion that the WP text should be expanded is wrong - it should be being shortened; and as far as I can see, whatever issues editors might be able to identify, the basic conclusion stated by Shapiro, unless contradicted by a scholarly source of similar stature, should stand. I am out of here (post-edit conflict PS: Tom's suggestion might be the right one: raise it at WP:OR/N). hamiltonstone (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone, you wrote:

Nina Please don't exaggerate: WP:OR would not be redundant: one line within the entire policy would be.

And that's of course exactly what I meant. That line in WP:OR would be redundant unless it means what it clearly says, that Wikipedia editors should not cite a source as authority for a particular point when they can see that the statements on a PARTICULAR POINT in an otherwise reliable source are unclear or inconsistent, or are merely a passing mention of something. It amazes me that I'm having to explain such a basic and commonsense policy to experienced Wikipedia editors (and explain it over and over to boot!).

You also wrote:

I presume Shapiro is making a scholarly assessment based on a range of evidence

That's not the issue we're talking about. The issue we're talking about is Shapiro inconsistent statements in which he says the OED cites an occurrence of the word 'unromantic' prior to 1805, and then says the word 'unromantic' was 'not yet current' in 1805. How much more inconsistent can one get? This example fits that one line in WP:OR policy to a 'T'.

You also wrote:

any suggestion that the WP text should be expanded is wrong - it should be being shortened

I'm not certain what you mean by 'the WP text', but if you mean the text on the Cowell MS should be shortened, not lengthened, I agree completely, and my edit did just that (until Paul twice reverted it).NinaGreen (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, you are missing the main point, which you did not comment on, and that is that you don't have an editorial consensus supporting your interpretation. Now since a consensus cannot override Wikipedia policy, you need to take your argument to the proper noticeboard and give it a hearing. Why you refuse to do so is a mystery to me, because if your argument is correct, it will be a cinch to overturn the editorial consensus on this talk page. Until you open a discussion at WP:OR/N, like hamiltonstone I'm out of here. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Claims of OR are not correct

The argument that OR precludes a certain statement (that a document is a forgery) is not correct. The argument is:

• The source (Shapiro 2010) declares a document to be a forgery. The source makes several points about how the forgery is detected, and notes The word "unromantic" ... should have tipped me off ... though there was a recorded instance of its use before 1800, it wasn't yet in currency at the time [that the document was supposed to have been written].
• An editor points out that the OED states that "unromantic" was first used in 1731. The editor interprets that as an "inconsistency" in the source (the claimed inconsistency is that the source acknowledges the word was used before 1800, but then makes an assertion based on the word's lack of "currency").
• The previous "inconsistency" point is not correct because (1) the "unromantic" usage was only the thing that should have tipped off the author—the forgery claim does not rest on whether or not "unromantic" was not in currency; (2) the author reached his conclusion after acknowledging the earlier usage, so it is original research for an editor to say that the author was mistaken about the word's currency.
• WP:OR#Using sources says that statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments, or on passages open to multiple interpretations. None of these points apply to the statement in question (that the document is a forgery). The source is very clear and emphasizes the point; the source admits only one interpretation. Finally, the source is consistent: it does not rely on the "unromantic" usage, but merely regards it as something that should have tipped off the author; further, the source acknowledges that the word was first used earlier than the document. It is not an editor's role to contradict the source's conclusion that the word was not in currency (and it would not matter even if the source were wrong on that point).

The OR noticeboard is the place to discuss whether WP:OR applies in this situation. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Shapiro refs and cites

The Shapiro book was published simultaneously in the UK and the US in two very different editions (the U.S. edition uses much cheaper paper and crams more type on the page and uses an uncopyrightable image for its cover, plus its list price was higher). Since the pagination varies, I took the UK version as having priority by listing it first (on the same principle that we use British English in the article), with the US in parenthesis following. I don't know what problems the ISBN number is causing, but I thought I'd explain the set-up we used now, which was done for the convenience of readers in both countries. If there's any better way to solve the problem or if there's a Wikipedia policy that addresses that, we can change it. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is this citation:

• Shapiro, James (2010), Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, UK edition: Faber and Faber (US edition: Simon & Schuster), ISBN 978-0-571-23576-6 (978-1-4165-4162-2), retrieved 17 Dec 2010 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

If you click the link for the ISBN numbers you see that it is broken; I could see no clean way to have two ISBNs. Sorry about my edit; I was going to ask here first, but then thought it easier to "fix" the citation rather than to explain my intention. The problem with my removing the UK ISBN is that cites like "Shapiro 2010, pp. 238 (209–10)" are not effective. Johnuniq (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that any of the ISBNs are effective. The DOIs are, but when I click on the ISBNs I get taken to teh page and hitting the search button just reloads the page.

ISBNs are optional anyway, aren't they? The Shapiro cites have to show both page numbers, otherwise readers are going to be scratching their heads trying to find the passages cited. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for help here. If there's no way to solve this then I recommend we use only the UK ISBN, since the title link goes to the US version. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As I see the other discussion has provided too, the road to hell is paved with good intentions: the main point of WP:V is say where you read it, everything else is detail. In this case, we could happily have cited from both editions alternate times, so long as both editions appeared in the Sources section (it'd be confusing, and we should avoid it, but we certainly could have). The ISBN, then, is actually the critical piece of information, because it's what allows us to distinguish between the two. The problem of getting a different edition than what is actually cited in the article will be pagination and possible undocumented differences between editions. For instance, this is why we should specify the precise editions (1st, 2nd, etc.) used; otherwise spelling corrections, mistakes fixed, etc. could cause the cite to fail verification.
IOW, we should pick one edition (I suggest the UK version), cite to that (with ISBN!), and give only the page numbers for that edition. The US edition can be placed in Further reading or the Talk page with a note about the page numbers issue.
And it's good that you brought this issue up, as it's something I would have otherwise have had to tackle while going through the refs. --Xover (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There are 60 refs like this:

<ref>{{Harvnb|Shapiro|2010|pp=238 (209–10).}}</ref>

One approach would be to include the UK citation and the US citation separately, and replace the above with something like:

<ref>{{Harvnb|Shapiro|2010uk|pp=238.}} {{Harvnb|Shapiro|2010us|pp=209–10.}}</ref>

Pretty ugly! I'm only mentioning this to cover all possibilities. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This came about because Tom used the US, I the UK, edition, while we codrafted the article from ground up. Tom then devised the combination to make it accessible to a global readership, since the page gaps are notable in these two editions. I don't think he or I care one way or another. All we need to know is what reviewing FA editors would prefer. If that can be ascertained, one will adopt the suggestion and adjust. It does seem though fair to give both versions. Wikipedia is a global, decentered encyclopedia and priviliging one edition or another amounts to choosing which nation's publishing industry you wish to back. Systemic bias :)Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I care very much that the refs cite both versions so that readers on both sides of the pond can check them, and I think it's important. Both are first editions; the layout is different because they were published simultaneously by two different houses (there are some slight textual differences also, but none that are of concern). The method we have now is very convenient. I propose we de-link the ISBN numbers from where ever it is they go when you click on them (when I click on them they go to the explanation age, and reclicking on the number just reloads the page; perhaps it's because I use Mozilla.) I'll try to find a work-around later today. And if any edition should be privileged, it should be the UK edition, since the article privileges British English as per some kind of Wikipedia convention. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

One other thought: if we go with only one set of page numbers, sometime in the future some well-meaning editor is going to go "Huh?" and start a project to "correct" all the cites. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, you need to click on them, then scroll down the page and you can get a whole load of useful stuff eg the google link, amazon, and lots of other databases. It's a fairly trivial point, someone just needs to figure out how to hack the code to allow two ISBNS for shapiro. I tried and failed. Poujeaux (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks! That must be the new thing I learn today. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Bardolatry and the authorship question

This article is mostly very well written, and it is immediately obvious that an enormous amount of work has gone into it, mostly with excellent results. I won't comment at length, as I'm sure most relevant criticisms have already been made in the peer review. I do have one or two points to make about wording that bothers me. I have a special interest in the English Romantic period, and what I'm about to point out doesn't sound quite right to me. In the lead, it is stated:

Scholars contend that the controversy has its origins in Bardolatry, the adulation of Shakespeare in the 18th century as the greatest writer of all time.

While not entirely false, to put it this way is misleading. Bardolatry existed for over half a century before anyone thought of questioning Shakespeare's authorship. I think the next sentence gets closer to the matter:

Shakespeare's eminence seemed incongruous with his humble origins and obscure life, arousing suspicion that the Shakespeare attribution might be a deception.

I can't imagine that the scholars cited really mean to contend explicitly that Bardolatry caused the emergence of the anti-Stratfordians, which is what the wording "had its origins in" seems to suggest. Rather, as the philosophers might say, Bardolatry was one of the necessary conditions for the emergence of the authorship question; but it was certainly not a sufficient condition. One might as well claim that ice cream had its origins in the heat of summer.

Another point is that, while Bardolatry might have begun in the 18th century, it did not blossom fully until the 19th, so in a space as constricted as the lead, that is the century that should be mentioned.

So I think that this passage should be reworded. I may eventually take a crack at it myself. But I want to post this here first, partly because I see that this article is not yet quite stable (to put it mildly, in light of all the contentions in progress) and is being worked over very seriously and thoroughly by those who have a much more solid grounding in the source material than I do. In fact, any changes might be better made by someone who does have that grounding.

Also, I see that this idea has been expressed much better in the section "Precursors of Doubt", so that might be a good reference point for any alterations made to the lead. --Alan W (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

By all means take a shot at it. You might want to float your idea on the talk page and get some input before pasting it on the main page. The main problem writing a lede is constructing a compact sentence that includes all the nuances. It approaches poetry, IMO, because when it's done right every word counts with all surplusage eschewed, as a famous anti-Stratfordian once wrote. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree about the ideal nature of a lead/lede. I've been wrestling with this kind of thing elsewhere on Wikipedia in the past couple of months. A lead should encapsulate the essence of what follows, but in far fewer words. Very late in this part of the world, but I will mull this over and try to come up with something in the next couple of days or so. Meanwhile, keep up your own good work! (By the way, I can't say I catch the "surplusage" allusion. Ah, wait, I've got it: Mark Twain! [My hunch has now been confirmed by Google.]) Regards, Alan W (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a fresh perspective is exactly what is called for, as was proved today/yesterday? by hamiltonstone. Cheers! Tom Reedy (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alan, and thanks for chipping in here. I'll grant that I'm not sufficiently deeply versed in the topic to make an authoritative assertion here, but I'd like to suggest you keep in mind that this relatively direct link (which can be read as alleging a causative link) from Bardolatry to Authorship is a common formulation from the various sources that discuss the topic. What immediately springs to mind is S. Schoenbaum's Shakespeare's Lives—but I'm fairly certain I've read similar elsewhere—that uses wording substantially similar to what's in this article (IIRC, it's been a while). Logically I agree with you that this link is necessary but not sufficient, but without looking into this specifically my inclination is that this merely reflects the sources. However, do, please, go ahead and have a stab at this: I'm not here intending to present an argument against, merely providing a warning that it's possible (but not certain) there's a reason above the editor's momentary choice of wording for the current formulation. Tom or Nishidani, who have read extensively in the relevant sources, can possibly chime in to correct me on this if I misrecall this or have read too few sources to accurately reflect the field. --Xover (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Alan, thanks for your helpful comments. Note that this question was raised just a week ago by Nina Green here. There was also a phrase about early 19th century romantics thinking literature was about self-revelation which I deleted. I think that Bardolatry should not be in the lead. My view is that even if it is true (and you have expressed significant doubt), it is not such an essential part of the subject that it needs to go in the lead. I proposed a shorter version. Please do post your revised proposal here. Poujeaux (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

'Scholars contend that the controversy has its origins in Bardolatry, the adulation of Shakespeare in the 18th century as the greatest writer of all time.'

The only thing I find really troublesome there is 'the greatest writer of all time.' English writers, though Ben Jonson is the exception, were at the time hailing his English genius surely, Shakespeare as the finest writer of the English tradition. 'has its origins in' is meant to be understood, as 'developed against the backdrop of bardolatry'. I look forward to Alan's suggestions, since the phrase we have might be misconstrued, but bardolatry is there in good part because the very long and intricate revision history of the play highlighted, and then weeded out, much about Keats, Wordsworth, Coleridge and others many of whom were cited for the proposition that Shakespeare's works were an allegory of his life, and the sonnets a key to unlocking his heart. In the FA revision nearly all of this has disappeared, and we have just Shapiro's summary judgement. It's one of the problems in editing here that the text comes out of intense negotiations over material that, in turn, is subsequently elided and substituted. The theory did arise against the backdrop of the entwined phenomena of bardolatry and Romantic myths of the poet as self-dramatiser. He is the greatest, poets dramatise themselves, we have no knowledge of Shakespeare's life that would link him to the material he wrote, ergo we must find the real Shakespeare in the works. That is the logic that made many from Emerson to Henry James exposulate on the great mystery, which isn't a mystery if one does not have in one's cultural expectations that combination of belief in biographical allegory and overadulation common to the 19th century. Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's fair to say that Bardolatry has been closely linked to the emergence of the controversy by several authors. It's a specifically Victorian variant, as epitomised by Carlyle, so the fact that the phenomenon has its origins in the 18th century is not important. I don't think we can say whether Bardoloatry was just a necessary or a sufficient condition. In any case "bardolatry" is just a simple word for a complex range of related views and attitudes. To say that "Bardolatry existed for over half a century before anyone thought of questioning Shakespeare's authorship" is to imply that it is a single idea that came into being fully formed. The type that leads to doubts is the type you get when you read Ruskin quoting Shakespeare, in which he creates the impression that Bill's a Biblical prophet. While it's true that Wordsworth said that Shakespeare unlocked his heart in his sonnets, he also said they were worse than a puzzle-peg, whatever that means. German critics, who, after all, essentially invented the concept of the "romantic", may be more pertinent. However, all we need in the lede is a short account of the conditions in which the Great Doubt emerged, and the term boardolatry pretty well sums that up. Paul B (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The tipping point of Bardolatry is considered to be marked by Johnson's 1765 edition and Garrick's 1769 Stratford Jubilee (about which someone needs to create an article). No matter what the range of opinions, I'm interested in reading what Alan comes up with. We need a fresh perspective that might improve the article; we're all suffering cabin fever by now. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Tipping point, yes, but Garrick does not treat Shakespeare as a sage. Consider the following, written by Coventry Patmore about Macbeth: "Whenever Shakspere [sic] has elsewhere embodied superstitions, he has treated them as direct and unalterable facts of human nature; and this he has done because he was too profound a philosopher to be capable of regarding genuine superstition as the product of random spectra of the fancy, having absolute darkness for the prime condition of their being, instead of seeing in it rather the zodiacal light of truth, the concomitant of the uprising, and of the setting of the truth, and a partaker in its essence. Again, Shakspere has in this very play devoted a considerable space to the purpose of suggesting the self-same trait of character now under discussion, and this he appears to have done with the express intent of guarding against a mistake, the probability of the occurrence of which he foresaw, but which, for reasons connected with the construction of the play, he could not hope otherwise to obviate." That was written in 1849. It's this kind of commentary that leads directly to Delia Bacon. You would never find Johnson or Garrick writing stuff like that. Patmore's Shakespeare is a 'philosopher' with a message to impart. If we read his work rightly will will correctly interpret the message. I think we should drop the reference to the 18th century in the intro. It's just confusing. Paul B (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think Garrick proves my point. The other essay certainly calls him a phiosopher, but goes on to say we read insights from him with "leisure and delight". It's very different from the laboured bombast of Patmore, in which Shakespeare carefully prepares his half-hidden message "guarding against mistake". The 18th century essay retains elements of Milton's Shakespeare - the 'untutored' natural genius who just flowed with creative energy: "as a poet, therefore, Shakespeare did not need books, and in no instance where he needed them as a phiosopher or historian does he appear ignorant of what they teach". His 'philosophy' here is the Enlightement conception of general knowledge. Of course there are links to what Patmore says - the oration is transitional. My point was that it is the "full blown" mid-19th century form of Bardolatry that gives rise to Doubt, not the type represented by Garrick's effusions or this anonymous writer. What I am saying is "OR", of course, but I'm not suggesting it be included in the article, just that we drop the words '18th century'. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope all this yammer hasn't scared Alan away. We should really learn to brook our comments. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm still here, though a bit stunned, I confess. I just left a note on Xover's talk page (the only one in this crowd with whom I've worked before, if only briefly) mentioning that I entered this arena with some trepidation. It's like stepping onto a minefield, and you never know when the bullets will start flying overhead. I think I'm bleeding already, though I feel that it is from friendly fire, as I take this explosion of collegial debate as a kind of welcome. Thank you. Little did I know what I would set off! I'm more used to working in the quiet backwaters of Wikipedia.

I don't intend to do anything major here. But if, as in cases like this, I can raise a point or two worth raising, and make a small edit here and there to smooth out some rough spots, I'll be happy to lend a hand. I will say that I'm impressed by the collective learning I see around me, as well as the dedication to Shakespeare and the topic at hand. It's humbling to be in this company, and I don't know, really, how much I can add. All I have to offer is some knowledge of the Romantic period. I also know Shakespeare a little (compared to most of you, I'm sure), and have read some of the criticism, particularly that written in the Romantic period.

These are good comments. Right now, I will say that I have no intention of trying to remove Bardolatry from the SAQ picture. But, and I think that Paul B was getting at this, Bardolatry is not just one thing, operating at a fixed intensity, that sprang into being all at once. As I recall, our Wikipedia article on it is a good one, and we can let that tease out the nuances for those who are interested.

Another point raised has to do with, as someone has put it, the Romantic idea that authors reveal themselves in their work. That statement alone is so fraught with ambiguity I hardly know what to make of it. Furthermore, "the Romantics", even those of a given nationality, did not all think alike. Yes, "self-revelation" is a major theme of the writing of that time (and long afterward), but it emerges in very different ways. Neither did they all think alike regarding what authors of previous ages would have revealed in their works. We have to make distinctions, at least implicitly. There is the self entering into a literary work unconsciously; there is overtly autobiographical writing; and then there is, what I sense is especially important here, the attempt to hide the real self, combined with a covert real-self-revelation in some kind of cipher in the literary text. All "self-revelation", yet all really different, if often overlapping, things.

In the end, we have to consider what the average Wikipedia reader would understand from reading about "Bardolatry" and "self-revelation" according to "the Romantics".

Now I am going to go and attempt to recoup my energy and try to recall what I was intending to do here in the first place. :-) Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've taken a shot at it. I understand that it still might not be exactly what is wanted, and I will understand if further editing needs to be done. To me, after having read all the rest of the article in the past few days, what I've said makes what is to come clearer to the average reader looking to get the gist of the controversy. And I have tried to bring that paragraph in line with what is said later, in "Precursors of Doubt". I have had to remove one Shapiro citation, where he makes what I think is a misleading statement that may read better when seen in context. (I'll have to read that book one day; it's obviously made quite a splash.) Nishidani, I have not meant to ignore your comment about "greatest writer of all time", but I thought it best to leave that in place, at least for now. After all, to many Bardolaters, I think he was considered the greatest writer of all time, even though I'm sure they never read possible contenders for that title who wrote in languages few in the Western world understood. Judgments were more ethnocentric in those days. I am interested to see where all this is heading, and I will certainly stay tuned. Regards, Alan W (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about article scope and focus

This response below was posted at the Neutrality Notice Board. It sheds new light on the content standstill, as I am under the impression this Wikipedia article was about the Stradfordian/ anti-Stratfordian theories question. Now, according to this editor, it appears the article is actually about the debate between them, and not their content at all? Is this quotation by a previously uninvolved editor an accurate assessment of everyone else's understanding:

“Remember that the article is about the debate. It's not about, say, Anti-Stratfordian authorship argument. If it were, then properly it would be mostly about that argument, and would only give a thorough mention to the mainstream POV. It wouldn't go into more detail than necessary to outline that POV. But what you have here is Shakespeare Authorship Question, which would naturally explore the question from the standpoint of the entire field, and thus give most WP:WEIGHT to mainstream sources. So do you see how the focus of the article has influenced the way it's written, and how it must be written on WP? "Leviathan references" means, "huge." BE——Critical__Talk 05:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Having operated under a certain assumption about the site's subject, i.e., that this, or any, debate about a controversy has to include the content of the contending positions, I think clarification on this point would be helpful to all involved. The outline of the debate would look differently from what is there now.Zweigenbaum (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think he meant to say "and would only give a brief mention to the mainstream POV", not "and would only give a thorough mention to the mainstream POV", which makes no sense. Just a copy-editing slip. But apart from that, BE-Critical correctly summarises Wikipedia policy, IMO. Paul B (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he pretty much nails WP:WEIGHT policy. How it would change the article as it now stands I have no clue, because he's essentially explaining to Zweigenbaum why it looks the way it does now and why more mainstream sources are used than anti-Strat sources.

And Zweigenbaum, in response to your question about why the page is archived every 5 days, it's because the repetitive posts fill the page up more quickly and make it hard to keep up with the discussions. From 2002 to Decemeber 2010 15 and 1/2 archives were filled, about two a year on average. Since late December 2010, the time you and Nina got here, we've filled up three and 1/2 archives.

The bot only archives the threads if there have been no responses within the past 5 days, and they are readily available to read by clicking on the archive link above. There is even a "search" feature that you can use to find a particular post using key words. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum

Mr. Reedy, it appears to me that you are misinterpreting Wiki policy to further your own agenda, i.e., snuffing opposition to your article via a quick burial for recent contrary exchanges. I "got here" in November, so you will be hard-pressed to justify the volume issue by scapegoating what I have written since then. As far as the exchanges between you and Nina Green, I hope you'll learn to be happy together, because she doesn't seem particularly intimidated by the company in the room. But on the assumption you may not be aware of the Wikipedia policy-concern about auto-archiving:[5]

" It is difficult to say exactly when a discussion "ends" and when it is ongoing. Given that archived discussions are immutable, archiving a discussion effectively ends that particular discussion."

There appears to be on-going work on this issue. That is why Wikipedia provided this note on the same instruction page:[6]

" Note: Make sure to establish consensus before setting up MiszaBot or ClueBot III on a talk page other than a user talk page."

Can you confirm that a consensus was established to set up this automatic archiving bot in the first place? It was just the opposite, from my observation. Speeding up the archive process is ad hoc if done by an individual participant under such conditions, and it leads the disinterested observer to the inevitable conclusion that individual has a self-serving motive in doing so and will have a ready but insubstantial pretext if questioned.

Given these rules, it would be required and appropriate to GAIN CONSENSUS before changing the automatic period from 30 days down to an inexplicably quick 5 days. Otherwise it might appear--tell us if this is an egregiously false charge--that you are trying to cut off discussion - the anticipation of which the page quoted above warns in plain language, "archiving a discussion effectively ends that particular discussion". I agree that there are length issues at times, but in such a case, discusants can use common sense and material can be manually archived, can it not?

In the meantime, so as to "make sure to establish consensus before setting up MiszaBot or ClueBot III on a talk page other than a user talk page," I respectfully request you restore the auto archiving back to 30 days in accordance with rule until there is a consensus to change it. Zweigenbaum (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

My comment: we have to be practical; this discussion page is already impossibly long; discussion here is pretty regular, so setting the archive bot to archive after 5 days of inactivity seems pretty conservative at this page. And as Tom notes, those pages aren't hidden, and are searcheable. I think it should stay as it is. Something that would help, though, is if editors used accurate descriptive section headings, and confined discussion udner a heading to that heading subject. That makes threading easier, participation easier, and archiving easier. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Let's just follow the rules, shall we? They were written to create a common denominator for equitable communication, which is presently lacking, leaving a moral snakepit of prevarication that twists and skirts the guidelines for base partisan advantage. While I appreciate the input of Hamiltonstone, third parties were not addressed in my previous post, and I repeat to Tom Reedy, "Can you confirm that a consensus was established to set up this automatic archiving bot in the first place?" ["Make sure to establish consensus before setting up MiszaBot or ClueBot III on a talk page other than a user talk page.] If no consensus, the default rules apply. Participants might agree to be brief. This is more probable without the cuts and slights shown so far. If Mr. Reedy does not take responsibility for his actions and refuses comment, it simply perpetuates the poisonous atmosphere introduced by his methods since entry into this site last December. Kindly clear the air and revert your improper action. This would be one way to demonstrate good faith. Zweigenbaum (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an article talk page, Zweigenbaum, so any editor can weigh in to the discussion. I have the advantage of having been historically uninvolved in this article, so have a more distanced perspective, which can be useful. The use of bot-generated archiving is widespread, but if it wasn't explicitly discussed before, then I certainly would have suported it, and support it now. Incidentially, you say "Let's just follow the rules", but if by rules you mean what is usually meant here - policy - then, the page in question isn't policy I believe (though it is certainly generally a useful guideline). The accusations that appear to be being made against Tom Reedy by Zweigenbaum (eg. "which is presently lacking, leaving a moral snakepit of prevarication that twists and skirts the guidelines for base partisan advantage") look like a level of attack that I would normally expect to be taken up at ANI, but I will leave that to Tom I think. This page is bad enough already: can everyone please tone things down a little? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Zwiegenbaum, nobody is hiding any arguments. I speeded it up on 30 Dec when the page got unmanageably large and slowed it back down on 3 Jan when things got a bit calmer in order not to lose the lede discussion too soon, but then speeded it up again on 5 Jan when the page got heavy again. If you don't think an argument is finished it's a simple matter to begin a new section and try to get other editors to respond. You also might want to read the same discussion I pointed Nina to, except you might want to concentrate on the material that begins with the heading "You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of 'suppressing information', 'censorship' or 'denying facts'." Tom Reedy (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And as far as I can tell from your editing history, you began posting under your user name 17 Dec. I don't know when or if you posted under an IP address. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, Tom, this definition of tendentious editing sounds just like you! Wasn't it you who accused me of 'suppressing information' earlier today on this Talk page? And you're now presuming to lecture another editor on the subject of tendentious editing?NinaGreen (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You still are suppressing information in your argument against Shapiro's conclusion of forgery. I do not suppress information. That's the difference between us. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Paul and Nina, stop reverting each other, please. Nina, you made a WP:BOLD change. That's all right so far, but if it's reverted, as it was, you are not supposed to re-revert, but to discuss on the talkpage per WP:BRD. Your change will be accepted if and only if you can gain consensus for it. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

Bishonen, I made a change and put my new version up for discussion on the Talk page. Paul reverted my edit without discussion. Your comment should be directed at Paul. He had no right to do that.NinaGreen (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Where? I wasn't able to find anything like that on this page, and I doubt anybody else was, either. Are you referring to the statement you made at the very end of the huge section "Cowell manuscript", and at the very end of your longish post there? Please try to put yourself in other editors' shoes before you expect them to locate that. (I found it now by performing a search of the page.) I'm sure you're doing your best to make your comments possible to find, but it's not working. May I suggest this way of "putting up a new version":

1. Start a new section with an informative header.
2. State that you have made a change in the article, giving a diff so that people can find it, or, if you have trouble with diffs despite my advice here, say where in the article the change is and quote the whole of it. That's "putting up" a new version on Talk without wasting too much of other editors' lives. Then they will be able to read and discuss your version without digging it out of the History, which is a messy business at the best of times (especially if somebody else has already changed what you wrote). And yes, he had the right to do that. If you had started a (findable) discussion of your particular change, and had gotten consensus for your version, I would happily have instated that version myself. In the meantime, there was nothing wrong with Paul restoring the original version. Once, that is. I'm not happy with him reverting you twice, that's why I told you both to stop reverting. Now do please explain how egregiously I have misunderstood policy and how much better than me you know what it really says. I always look forward to that part. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

Bishonen, I can certainly follow your suggestion about putting up a new section in future, but Paul certainly knew where the new version was, and so did Tom. As for 'gaining consensus' for any edit of mine, please let's try to ground ourselves in the real world here. Neither Tom Reedy, nor Nishidani, nor Paul Barlow will EVER agree to any substantive edit of mine, and they pound on any suggested edit of mine so hard and so furiously as soon as I mention it that no other editor wants to have to deal with them. You know as well as I do what's going on here. And why do you ignore Tom and Nishidani and Paul's defamatory comments and relentless personal attacks on me while fussing over whether I should or should not have reverted Paul's revert of my edit? And why do you ignore Paul's weighing of evidence in contravention of WP:OR in the comment to his revert, while taking me to task for reverting Paul's revert?

I'm glad you're not happy with Paul reverting my edit twice. Neither am I.

You wrote:

Now do please explain how egregiously I have misunderstood policy and how much better than me you know what it really says. I always look forward to that part.

I'm glad to see you're developing a sense of humour. :-)NinaGreen (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)