Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

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)

Stratfordian H.N. Gibson,author of the "Shakespeare Claimants"(which is frequently cited here) states,"With Marston's works there are no such difficulties.The introduction of the family motto[mediocra firma] makes it clear

that he had Bacon and no one else in mind, and his own echo of the lines in "Venus and Adonis" prove the same of the poem."(pp.63-64)."It may prove that Hall and Marston were the first proponents of the Baconian theory."(p.65)

You should really apologize to M. Darnay and to the readers whom you may,unintentionally no doubt, have mislead.Arthur Orton (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Charles. You must learn to avoid your quirks if you also wish to avoid recognition. Paul B (talk) 16:44, 21 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:[1]

" 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:[2]

" 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)

Tom, yet another DEFAMATORY comment from you. I did not suppress any information whatsoever. The point I was making concerned the testing of the paper ONLY. It had nothing to do with the type of paper. So far administrators seem content to let you and Nishidani and Paul Barlow get away with making defamatory comments and mounting personal attacks, not just on me but on others. But one day that will change, hopefully sooner rather than later.NinaGreen (talk)

Nina, why not sooner? Just FYI, your mentioning the term "defamatory" in every possible post does count as evidence, but not evidence that you've been defamed. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum In response to Hamiltonstone: So expect, think, or do. My language may or may not sound rhetorical but accurately reflects what has been going on, as proven in the record of deplorable and quite similar discussions. Whatever rationalizations you or anyone invent in support of defying the archiving rule, is of course an avoidance of having to respect it. (As in, "I'm not concealing the present dispute, it just looked like it should be stored out of sight right away.") Your confusing the words policy, rule, and guideline doesn't change the fact of Reedy archiving by fiat not consensus. Since you have been around a while, you know these conflicts are a repeat of wrong methods and manners perpetrated by Reedy and Nishidani before, in pursuit of instituting a given point of view. Since there is already documented history of the pattern, it cannot be successfully defended before third parties with excuses, avoidances, and rationalizations. Zweigenbaum The above response by Tom Reedy is off the first point of his violating the rule proscribing changing the archiving function by fiat. Consensus seems to be the method prescribed by Wikipedia. Personally I don't care what your post facto reason is; it is irrelevant; achieve what you want regarding the archiving cut-off time by consensus. That is the rule. You are not in charge of anything so far as I can tell and personal discretion isn't part of the archiving function. It is incredible that you have been carrying on like this for some time without being sanctioned. I take it I will have to appeal to authority on this issue, if such exists in the Wikipedia website.

Incidentally, to respond to the comment I did not "get here" until December 17, wrong. I began reading the site in November and began commenting in December. Is there a control issue implicit in this investigative penchant? One of the children once asked a policeman, "Have you ever been to a zoo? [Yes.] Why didn't you stay? Wouldn't they feed you?"

Returning to the sub-section's original subject, if the purpose of the section is to describe the history and features of the Shakespeare identity debate, the section should have a modified approach. I note that Dr. Barlow feels he knows what BE--Critical_Talk means, although the former's post facto language does not conform to the syntax of the latter's statement. The best course is for the writer to weigh in and amplify the statement. Please do.

Finally, I am in receipt of an accusation, false on its face, that "you have recently accused an editor (Tom Reedy) of creating 'a moral snakepit of prevarication that twists and skirts the guidelines for base partisan advantage.'" The actual statement is quoted here:

"They [guidelines regarding archiving] 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." There is no reference or inference to any individual in that sentence. Therefore it is incumbent upon Bishonen to withdraw the incorrectly stated charge and its mal-deduction, and perhaps explain how he/she has authority to sanction any other editor to begin with. Further warning, "Avoid discussing the motives of others; discuss their actions and edits. If you continue to flout wiki culture and wiki policy and guidelines in your comments, not to mention ordinary civility in discourse, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia."

By this standard Nishidani and Reedy might have been despatched some time ago, and the proof is in the dialogues with Ms Green and with a previous participant who evidently resigned or was driven out. But this must be left to a neutral party to decide, not me or a partisan editor, as Bishonen appears to be by the comments presented. The immediate solicitude for Reedy is a nice touch, under documented circumstances where others, both Oxfordian, have been typically "attacked". Really, is this the quality of ethics of which you all are capable? Surely you can do better. It constitutes an underground scandal, even subject matter for an article about fighting down and dirty defending Shakspere. C'est la Vie.76.102.211.42 (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"I take it I will have to appeal to authority on this issue, if such exists in the Wikipedia website."

I, for one, would be grateful if you did, instead of prating on incessantly. I recommend W:AN/I. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Sorry, your meaning is ambiguous. Did you mean you would be in a state of gratitude instead of a state of prating on incessantly? Or that you would be grateful if I appealed to authority instead of prating on incessantly in public about your unlawful and disagreeable actions? Must appeal to authority be the only alternative? Remember, veritas is our mutual goal and Vero nihil verius, Nothing truer than truth. Just a thought for the morning.98.248.218.84 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean it would be refreshing if you were able to clearly speak to the point without a skein of supercilious mendacious bloviation wrapped around every phrase. Heed, don't imitate, Polonius. Hardly any of us are as clever as we imagine ourselves to be. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum No one appointed you cop for others and rule-breaker for yourself. That double-standard is characteristic of the general state of the site, a biased takeover. Zweigenbaum (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"I note that Dr. Barlow feels he knows what BE--Critical_Talk means, although the former's post facto language does not conform to the syntax of the latter's statement." Er wot? I quoted his words exactly. If you are referring to my proposed 'correction' of his sentence, you can check that with BE Critical him/herself. I suspect s/he intended to write either "and would only give a brief mention to the mainstream POV" or "and would not give a thorough mention to the mainstream POV", but failed to complete the switch from one formulation to the other, leaving "and would only give a thorough mention to the mainstream POV". Alternatively the intention may have been to say "...and would only give a thorough mention to the non-mainstream POV", since the context was as follows: "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". "That argument" is Anti-Stratfordian, which is not "mainstream". But as I say, ask the author. Paul B (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks to Paul Barlow for notifying me of this. When I said "thorough mention of the mainstream POV," I just meant that it would take up enough space so the reader could know what it was. That would vary, for instance if you didn't have other articles about the mainstream POV, you'd have to explain more thoroughly. But if you had those articles, a paragraph might be plenty. The principle being that the reader has to thoroughly understand what the mainstream POV is, but you don't go into great detail about the mainstream POV in an article about a WP:FRINGE subject. But you'd never have the mainstream POV taking up most of the article. BTW, there might be arguments about POV forks, but why couldn't there be an article about Anti-Stratfordian Shakespeare authorship arguments? I am guessing here that there are more notable theories than can be comfortably covered in the current article, probably many of which would deserve their own articles under WP:NOTABILITY. If they had those articles, they would be about FRINGE subjects, and could cover the fringe arguments in detail without having the mainstream POV dominate the articles the way they must in the current article (since it's about the question in general). However, scanning the above, I should warn Zweigenbaum to slow down and stop accusing people and be civil. The way to get the least done around here is to go at it the way he is. He could be a valuable author, but he's headed for banning. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Mainly because of this decision that was made after a long and contentious process, which states that "Content forking should be done after a decent main article is written if and only if it is deemed necessary in light of WP:CFORK." Such a fork right now would be a POV fork to get around WP:FRINGE guidelines. Once the FA process is completed would be the time to discuss whether that or other content forks are necessary. All this squabbling is merely delaying that discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also the notable theories already have their own pages: Oxfordian theory, Marlovian theory, Baconian theory, and Derbyite theory of Shakespearean authorship, plus the Oxfordian theory has several satellite articles, as well as its own article template and category. How much coverage do the subgenres of a fringe theory need? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmph, looks like I didn't peruse far enough into the article, sry. You're already doing what I suggested and have other articles about the fringe views (and I assumed you weren't after a brief look because this whole discussion probably shouldn't be taking place if such articles exist). Thus this seems more like POV pushing. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your observation on the noticeboard, but I don't quite parse your meaning in the above comment. Do you mean that this article seems more like POV pushing or this particular talk page discussion? This is the only article concerning the authorship question written according to WP:FRINGE guidelines and using WP:RS sources with an effort to maintain a WP:NPOV. If you read the rest of them (and I'm not recommending it; hic sunt dracones), the differences in POVs is quite marked (not that they couldn't be made descriptive instead of WP:SOAPBOX; it's just that life's too short). Tom Reedy (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Aw shit man, never mind. I just now saw your edit summary. Cheers Be! Tom Reedy (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL cheers (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 09:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum In response to Be critical: if the accusations refer to patent injustices, they are pertinent. Playing nice in such an atmosphere is complicity. It has been like pulling teeth for the simplest concession to verifiable fact that is contrary to the overall conformity. Some prefer to call protest poor manners in order to pretextually eliminate the opposing view. This is wrong. Zweigenbaum (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help you in any case where you're right. But as far as I can tell, you're just trying to go against the site policies. However, you might as well forget it entirely and go away if you're not going to maintain a civil atmosphere and make this into a battleground. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Not to correct you in general but the civil atmosphere had disappeared long before I started reading this site. There was one stage, following Tom Reedy's arrival, after which thee was constant conflict and somebody was driven from the site on a majority rule basis apparently. There was another stage involving conflicts mainly between Ms Green and Reedy-Nisihdani. My misfortune is taking the minority position in a contentious issue, contentiously prosecuted in the one-sided article.

A productive atmosphere relies on mutual respect for verifiable fact. That is blatantly lacking when it comes to editing, i.e., what the public reads about the issue. Everything I have presented, and the content has been substantive--fact, logic, sources--has been stonewalled. This nullification is a betrayal of the very mandated function of the discussion page. It is unwholesome for a group of editors to single-mindedly pursue a questioned academic agenda by means of excluding opposing arguments and documentation that deserve recognition. Thus, I feel your judgment is somewhat unfair to me as an individual. I wouldn't fight if the terms of exchange weren't so uncivil and unjust. I will not abandon the truth because of petty abuse.98.207.240.11 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Alan's rewrite of bardolatry graf

I'm beginning a new section since the original one is becoming unwieldy. For discussion I'm posting below three different version of the section that Alan rewrote and numbering them for convenience so that we can all see what information is gained or lost by the different versions. At top is the current version; below that the rewrite that Nina did on 16 Dec and which was modified by Poujeaux on 6 Jan, and the last is how it looked before then.

1. The Shakespeare authorship question was first posed in the middle of the 19th century. By then, Bardolatry, the adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time, had become widespread and its expression often extreme. It was also noted, however, that Shakespeare's eminence seemed incongruous with his humble origins and obscure life, and some began to suspect that the man known as Shakespeare might not have written the works attributed to him, with the real author hiding behind the name. Thus began a controversy that, in the century and a half since then, has spawned a vast body of literature. More than 70 authorship candidates …
2. 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. 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 has spawned a vast body of literature, and more than 70 authorship candidates …
3. The basis for these theories can be traced to the 18th century, when, more than 150 years after his death, Shakespeare’s status was elevated to that of the greatest writer of all time, an adulation later disparaged as Bardolatry. To 19th-century Romantics, who believed that literature was essentially a medium for self-revelation, Shakespeare’s eminence seemed incongruous with his humble origins and obscure life, arousing suspicion that the Shakespeare attribution might be a deception. Public debate and a prolific body of literature dates from the mid-19th century, and numerous historical figures …

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Reedy (talk • contribs) 16:51, 13 January 2011

Well done to Poujeaux for "an adulation later disparaged as Bardolatry", taking that word out of a sentence which included "in the 18th century". I should really prefer to do without that word, which breathes all the eccentricity and venom of George Bernard Shaw. If it is to be included, could we please have a footnote giving its origin? Jean Marsden says in The Appropriation of Shakespeare (1991) that the word was coined by GBS in 1901. But I wonder if anyone here feels strongly that it's worth keeping? Moonraker2 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

All three proposals retain 'bardolatry', which confirms a consensus. I don't think the article can fulfil its aspirations to comprehensiveness without it, and the accompanying link page, which of course will in the course of time be much improved by further details. Shaw's term corresponded to Shakespearomanie, which German criticism in the 19th century had identified as a distinguishing characteristic of the Romantic period. Nishidani (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that in editing the paragraph no one went so far as to dispense with the word does not seem to me to be a consensus for keeping it. In any event, I'd be glad of any comments one way or another. In the mean time, I've run the first use of it to earth and will add a footnote to give it. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In adding a footnote I realized we have an article on bardolatry, and in view of that I can see the link is worth keeping. Curious that even the Bardolatry article itself had the origin of the word slightly wrong, but I have corrected it. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker2, your addition is WP:OR. You need to quote a secondary source saying that Shaw coined the phrase, not the actual work in which he coined it. I'll look through Schoenbaum; surely he says something about it. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A version to discuss:

The question of Shakespeare’s authorship was first posed in the mid-19th century, after his reputation had been elevated to that of the greatest writer of all time, often expressed in extravagant terms later disparaged as Bardolatry. His works also came to be read as personal expressions of the author’s philosophy and life, and his eminence appeared incongruous with his humble origins and obscure life, arousing suspicion that the Shakespeare attribution could be a deception to hide the name of the real author. In the intervening years the controversy has spawned a vast body of literature, and more than 70 authorship candidates …

Tom Reedy (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This version avoids a problem or two, and that's good; but I think it also introduces some. Here is a further revision (I know it is longer, but please bear with me, and I will explain):

The question of Shakespeare’s authorship was first posed in the mid-19th century, after his reputation had been elevated to that of the greatest writer of all time, and he was often adulated in extravagant terms later disparaged as Bardolatry. His works had also come to be read as personal expressions of the author’s philosophy and life, raising him to an eminence that appeared incongruous with his humble origins and obscure life. This aroused suspicion among some that Shakespeare was not the real author of the plays attributed to him, and that this attribution could have been a deception to hide the name of the real author. In the intervening years the controversy has spawned a vast body of literature, and more than 70 authorship candidates …

This suggested further change is more verbose, but I am leaving it this way deliberately for comparison here. I think it avoids certain awkwardnesses, e.g., "the Shakespeare attribution". That sounds like a technical term that I think will put off the average reader. Also, "his reputation … often expressed" suggests that his reputation was expressed in terms of Bardolatry, when it was the excessive adulation that was the Bardolatry.

Yes, more discussion will ensue, and I hope it will; that's the idea. --Alan W (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

On the matter of the secondary source, I've now cited the 'bardolatry' entry in the Oxford English Dictionary.

On the draft, I'm not sure about "in the mid-19th century, after his reputation had been elevated to that of the greatest writer of all time". Ben Jonson had some such idea, but are we talking here about a reputation among English-speaking people in general or among some narrower or wider group?

A small point, a short number such as seventy is surely better as a word than as figures? Moonraker2 (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Numbers greater than 10 should not be spelled out. I haven't had time to find a good cite, but I'll try tomorrow. Tom Reedy (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and i don't fully understand your question about Jonson. Tom Reedy (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My minor point on Ben Jonson was that the "greatest writer" notion began in the 17th century. My general point on 'reputation' was that there are reputations among different groups, so we need to specify which group we mean. Moonraker2 (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think these are good points, Moonraker, and worth discussing, though I don't agree with you about Jonson. There is a difference between the kind of praise one contemporary gives another (think Hollywood movie stars talking about their friends on television) and the kind of worshipful praise given long after an idol's passing. Jonson is himself a case in point, as elsewhere he could be very critical of his Stratford contemporary. Shakespeare idolatry was kicked up a notch or two, as Paul reminded me, by Garrick; it intensified in some ways with many of the Romantics; and by the middle of the 19th century had, as I see it, more properly assumed the shape of what Shaw would call Bardolatry. There may be some differences about the specifics of this timeline, but I think the sources will support what I am saying in general.

As for "which group", I do agree with you; but I'm not sure that the lead is the place to go into any of that in detail. The problem there is that if we aren't concise (and it may well be that what I suggested can be trimmed down; conciseness is not one of my strengths), then the lead ends up repeating nearly everything that follows, when it's supposed to be a relatively short introduction.

Oh, I meant to mention that I also like numbers (except for really large ones) as words. According to WP:Numbers#Numbers as figures or words, we could do it either way, but we must be consistent throughout. --Alan W (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker. re 18th century, the Romantic cult of the writer and bardolatry etc ('Well done to Poujeaux for "an adulation later disparaged as Bardolatry", taking that word out of a sentence which included "in the 18th century".'). I happened to find in an op shop bin three days ago a pertinent book on precisely this: Two quotes:

And yet by the middle of the eighteenth century, Shakespeare the universalo genius was becoming more important than Shakespeare the craftsman and businessman. The books and the theatres could all be seen in Lodnon, but bvardolaters increasingly wanted to go beyond the works to get close to the man. Eighteenth-century writers were developing a new interest in the importance of childhood, and they bwanted to see the places where the young genius was bornh, grew up, went to school, and fell in love. They wanted to touch the font where he was baptized and to visit the house of his darling Anne Hathaway.'(p.245)

'In one respect the Jubilee was unprecedented, Never before had a writer - any writer-been the object of such veneration, and never before had a poet or playwright been honoured with tour guides, souvenir trinkets, and songs. In another respect, thought, the pattern is strangely familiar: the mulberry tree had become a modern equivalent of the True Cross and, to the Straford pilgrims, Shakespeare was the secular equivalent of Christ., The faithful were determined to get their hands on a piece of history, and the less faithful were willing to provide as many pieces as the market would bear. Shakespeare's tree had been chopped up and turned into relics, hawked the way unscrupulous friatrs had sold sains' bones. There was even a hymnbook. In 1641, Shakespeare's friend (and sometime rival)Ben Jonson said he "lov'd the man, and (would) honour his memory, on this side idolatry." By the 1760s, England had crossed from this side of idolatry to the other. During his lifetime, Shakespeare had been appreciated. In the early eighteenth century, he had been admired, even adored. By the time of the Jubilee, Shakespeare was worshipped.' (pp.251-2)

The chapter (Worshipping Shakespeare) is replete with stuff on this, and the author, a Rutgers prof of English, an expert on Johnson. See Jack Lynch, Becoming Shakespeare: The Unlikely Afterlife that turned a provincial playwright into the bard.Walker and Company New York 2007. Nishidani (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Alex Pope's edit.

Alex, in reverting , you write:

Bias needs to be corrected. It's untrue that there is "no hard evidence" for anti-Stratfordian theories. Much of the "evidence" for Strafordians has been destroyed.~Alexpope

This appears to be contesting as 'untrue' what RS, as cited, affirm, and therefore constitutes an editor's WP:OR dismissal of an RS, on the grounds that what the RS is quoted as saying is untrue. See WP:V. I'd appreciate it if you self-reverted and discussed this here, rather that acting in a way that gives the appearance of provoking an edit-war.Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am of two minds here. On the one hand, it appears that Alexpope and Zweigenbaum see an opportunity here to edit unchallenged now that the SAQ is in arbitration and our attention is turned there, in which case their behaviour is useful in demonstrating to the committee what we're up against on a daily basis. On the other hand, we have a responsibility to those seeking information to give them a fair, balanced and unbiased treatment of the topic. I am reverting back one more time and if they revert back I will seek administrative help in the form of locking down the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not altogether happy about edits by Alex Pope being reverted en masse with the summary "restoring page; see talk page". I don't expect anyone to edit here unchallenged, but there surely needs to be some discussion of points of detail which are at issue. Alex Pope gave a careful explanation of why he preferred "Anti-Stratfordians also question how William Shakespeare of Stratford..." to "Anti-Stratfordians also find it incredible that William Shakespeare of Stratford..." and I broadly agreed with it. No specific reply was made in reverting this. The summary "restoring page; see talk page" also covers the deletion of a paragraph which had several citations, viz.:

Like most issues having to do with the debate over Shakespeare's authorship, documenting the history of the controversy is often contentious. There is no agreement, academic or otherwise, as to when the theory was first proposed or alluded to. By the mid-20th century, mainstream scholars identified the first possible allusions to doubts about Shakespearean authorship in certain 18th century satirical and allegorical works. Anti-stratfordian authorship researchers, however, believe that several 16th and 17th century Elizabethan works, including Ben Jonson's "Poet Ape" and Thomas Edward's "L'Envoy to Narcissus" (1595) , hint that the Shakespearean canon was being written by someone else.

I don't agree with all of this, it is not brilliant prose, "when the theory was first proposed" doesn't say which theory,and citations should be formatted to be consistent with the rest on the page, but it isn't all completely without merit. Shouldn't we consider what in it is disputed?

With another addition, "A more moderate view is that Elizabethan England was a police state in which secrecy was vital because of plots against Elizabeth's person or throne", that is hardly an unorthodox view, and I should have preferred to see it challenged by a {{Fact}} tag. Moving straight to deletion strikes me as unhelpful. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What is unhelpful is for an edit with contentious content (as you mentioned) to be added that was copied-and-pasted from History of the Shakespeare authorship question without bothering to conform the reference apparatus to that being used in the article (as you mentioned) and without discussion or talk page consensus by a drive-by editor to make a point while the topic is the subject of an ArbCom case. The main purpose for its composition months ago was to dispute the WP:RS-supported statement that Shakespeare's authorship was not seriously questioned for more than 200 years after his death. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah! You know what? I conflated that rewording with the rest of his edits. I've got no problem with changing it to "question" instead of "find it incredible". He has a point in his summary. My remark above does apply to the rest of that reversion, though. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Tom, I see you have put back in Alex Pope's "also question how", which I think is an improvement. In the reverting of AP's various edits, you unlinked baptism, which I linked (when I was correcting "birth") only because I have come across university students who do not know what it means. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Man, we do live in a secular age, don't we? I unlinked it because of Nikkimaria's point that common words shouldn't be linked. I'll change it back. (I wonder how long before we'll have to link "marriage"?) Tom Reedy (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I do broadly agree with Nikkimaria. I think marriage will be widely understood for a few years to come; Moonraker2 (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Mark Twain...favouring Bacon as the true author.

At this moment the text reads:

The American humorist Mark Twain, influenced by Greenwood,[155] revealed his anti-Stratfordian beliefs in Is Shakespeare Dead? (1909), favouring Bacon as the true author.[156]

Footnote 156 points to Shapiro. This sentence seems to do a disservice both to Twain and Shapiro. Twain states a few times in the essay that he does not favour anyone as the true author--only that he disfavours the Stratford man.

Would it be acceptable to remove "favouring" and substitute "arguing for" in the above sentence? I question whether a footnote is needed to support that Twain argued for Bacon. I do not think there is controversy in that statement.

Thank you,Fotoguzzi (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. How could Twain argue for Bacon without favouring him? He presents Baconian arguments in his book, stating that only Bacon had the qulifications, and the Shapiro material quotes some of his Baconian pronouncement. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose by "favourite" I think of "favourite, given all possible choices." I also suppose that the writer of the wikipedia sentence (and perhaps Shapiro) meant, "favourite, given two choices." The point of Twain's essay is that one of about five hundred people wrote the works, and that that person was not the Stratford man. Twain would have passionately "argued for" a Brontosaurus if that and the Stratford man were the only choices. I am sure that there were people who "argued for" Gerald Ford after the 1976 Republican primary elections who "favoured" Ronald Reagan. That is the only distinction I am trying to make."Fotoguzzi (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand your distinction. When Twain wrote the book Bacon was the only candidate that had been proposed with any seriousness. And he several times says he favours the Baconinans over the Strafordites, as he calls them.

I only believed Bacon wrote Shakespeare, whereas I knew Shakespeare didn't…. That faith, imposed upon me by self-interest in that ancient day, remains my faith to-day, and in it I find comfort, solace, peace, and neverfailing joy. (9-10)

And many more like that. I'm not married to the exact terminology, so a change from "favouring" to "arguing for" is a change without change of meaning, IMO. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

To me, "argued for" is unambiguous, while "favoured" has two meanings. Someone reading the article might think that Twain was a rabid Baconian, when (to me) he made pains to demonstrate that he was a deranged anti-Stratfordian who would "argue for" a Brontosaurus before he would accept the Stratford man. I will make the change--thank you.Fotoguzzi (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Actually, I did not realize that Shapiro had expended ten pages on the subject(!) I will look at this before making the change.Fotoguzzi (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't already, you also might want to read Twain's book about it. It's a short read-20 minutes or so. But as I said, unless anybody else has any objections, I'm OK with changing the wording (although experience shows that another editor will come along in six months or so and argue against it!). Cheers! Tom Reedy (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I only know of Is Shakespeare Dead? I recall reading something that was shorter, but it may have been an excerpt of Dead. Is there another book or essay or book-length essay?Fotoguzzi (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's what I was referring to. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary reverting by Tom Reedy

The two paragraphs beginning the Singularity of Shakespeare sub-section were RS sourced and referenced, but the the first of these has been repeatedly reverted--to be precise, deleted entirely, sentences and references alike. Although there were two prior discussions of the issue which I had made on the Discussion page, no other editor commented upon them in reply, including Reedy. Then the first paragraph disappeared. I found the culprit was Tom Reedy and ask him to explain saying nothing in discussion but reverting the first paragraph, contrary to rule after it was in place. The references are backed by RS. There are no apparent reasons, substantive or procedural for Reedy's action. For the good of the site, cease vandalism. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you restored an old series of affirmations dating back almost a year, which in the meantime have been shown to be, because dated, somewhat unreliable though sourced. (b) refuse to coordinate the formatting with that established for this article, creating a citational dissonance (c) introduce a word like 'bardology' which is apparently a word meaning discourse on or about Shakespeare, and quite distinct from bardolatry (See this first google result) (d) restored a text that in its sourced summarizes some viewpoints current in the 1950s and 1960s, ignoring, unlike the text you in turn deleted, what research has established in the following five decades. (e) you seem to ignore that almost all passages here have a long history of discussion, rest on intricate balancing of sources. (f) this is not quite the time, as the articles strives to meet the strictest criteria for FA pieces, which includes a 'stable text', to push through extensive challenges to patches of text without at least showing editors the courtesy of making first a proposal here so that it may be examined fairly and closely. As it is, we have an edit out of left field hitting the article at a very late stage, in a way that invites edit-warring. I'd be happy to discuss your proposal, if you reverted and presented it here so that all can comment on it.Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum

Do not understand your "happy to discuss your proposal" since you didn't when I wrote and entered it in some detail twice. The Stratfordian editing and reversions have gone on apace without any ecumenical discussion I have read, and I have followed it every few days. Thus there is a double-standard: I must discuss (and I did, twice, to no response); you need not. That is the underhanded method of killing the opposing research. Although you write as though the "latest" texts are more authoritative, in reality they are chosen, late or early, depending on whether you can hang your approach on them. If there is a long background of similar discussion getting repeated, under these terms it means you haven't been able to force it through successfully enough and persuade new editors, who have read otherwise and say so. Either certify RS texts or have none, but don't pick and choose what I can use, which amounts to none by your calculus. They are RS, meeting your own stated qualifications--academic, respectable press, qualified author--except you don't like what they say.98.207.240.11 (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The text you added contains a whole series of misrepresentations of evidence. For example you say that "mainstream authors" identified doubt in 18th century texts. This implies a consensus of the "mainstream" which is wholly untrue. As far as I am aware the authors you quote are merely providing a summary of evidence that has been used by anti-Statfordians. In any case they do not represent some sort of generic 'mainstream' view. Apart from the Learned Pig, which is expressly presented as a fantasy, the other sources in fact explicitly say that Shakespeare wrote the works. Indeed the footnoted source text (McMichael/Glenn p.56) states that "It seems that the first man to question Shakespeare's sole authorship of the plays was a certain 'Captain Goulding'" In fact the booklet was almost certainly not written by Goulding and the fact that Shakespeare was probably not "sole" author of some plays had been discussed many years before (as far back as Ravenscroft in 1687). In any case, not being the sole author is quite different from not being the author at all. Of course it is true that anti-Stratfordians have found hidden messages in Shakespeare's plays and in the works of other Tudor/Jacobean authors throughout the history of anti-Stratfordianism, but these are hidden. For example Ben Jonson explicitly says that William Shakespeare in the engraved picture is the author of the book, but anti-Statfordian choose to read this as a hidden statement of the opposite. The point is that the doubts were never read into these texts before anti-Stratfordianism began in the mid-nineteenth century. I have no problem adding that Anti-Strat writers find these hidden messages in Tudor/Jacobean literature, but there is no "controversy" beginning in this era, because there is no discussion. All the 18th century pamphlets are explicitly humorous, and the 'Goulding' text makes obvious completely absurd statements for comic effect. Modern reliable sources on this issue do not treat these as part of the history of SAQ. Paul B (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing arbitrary about my reversion; it was explained in my edit summary. You should include your complaints in your ArbCom testimony instead of continuing to insert undiscussed material for which you have no consensus. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Contradictory reasoning. My contribution regarding filling in the early history of doubt about the Stratfordian Shakspere figure was unremarked and unopposed for days, permitting me to enter RS material into the site. Silence is tacit consent. Your statements about consensus first and your edit not being arbitrary are non sequiturs. First I have not seen any of your edits prefaced by "Do I have consensus on this?", Thus, it is an understood railroad job, i.e., assuming a majority--not a consensus--whether or not it is stated and solicited. Second, when you edit-war, you assume it isn't, but when I restore the deleted material you conclude it is an edit-war. Note the contradiction. As for what I should submit to ArbCom, you are not authorized to advise. Conclusion: you're playing games. This is contrary to the mandating purpose of the site.98.207.240.11 (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Silence is tacit consent'? You ignore the follow-up 'ubi loqui debuit'. The silence of exhaustion, or the silence that just lets a buried argument, raised again and again, die a natural death. The Japanese speak of mokusatsu.Nishidani (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Incidentally, although I have repeated logged in the prompter says that I am not, so this will identify that I am the author of the statement that follows. In response to the above charge, you have discounted the sources and reasoning provided in my edit, on the basis that they were presented and rejected on some prior occasion. But your solution was not persuasive then evidently, as incorporated into the final product, given that the same exception to it is now occurring from a different participant. Hence, your attempt to associate me with a previous "rejection" (is there any reason to use the Japanese?) is itself a form of guilt by association. Specifically, your claim--that the edit contains a whole series of misrepresentation--fails by inspection. e.g., Emerson was mainstream and he said he could not marry the man and the work; Jonson really did make Shakspere out as a buffoon for assuming an otherwise laughable dignity, "not without mustard", etc. That is what they said, each in his own way, constituting dubiety, and they are RS by even your definition. So you attack me but not them also? Re-writing history won't do, and your generalizations do not stand up to actual quotation from the sources. Sorry about the 'bardology/bardolatry'. Terrible disrespect of Shaw's epithet there. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's fine within reason to express one's thoughts on the talk page, but when discussing edits to the article, it is best to rely on reliable sources. Other editors need to follow procedures that are based on policies. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who is the "you" being referred to here. Some of your comments appear to be replies to Nishidani, others refer to my remarks in this section. I said that the sources were misrepresented and are not in accord with more modern ones. I never said anything about Emerson, nor did anyone else in this section. He never denied that Shakespeare was Shakespeare, but he does belong to the era of "Doubt", so his views are relevant to some degree. Nevertheless, I don't understand how he relates to my comments which were about 16th-18th century material. Jonson's joke may or may not have referred to Shakespeare's coat of arms, but it is not an expression "doubt" about anything. It's a joke, quoted from Thomas Nashe. Neither Jonson nor Emerson are "RS" by either my definition or Wikipedia's definition. Please read WP:RS. Paul B (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum I agree other editors need to follow procedures that are based on policies. That would lead to a fair article. If the sources I mentioned in the edit are not RS, (preferred or unpreferred by other editors being a separate issue), please document and will revise.98.207.240.11 (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but you are making a substantial change to a section of the article that has been stable for some time. Accordingly it is up to you to provide reasons (based on policy) for why the previous text was unsuitable, and/or why the new text is an improvement. WP:TP explains how to indent comments. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum

Xover - here is the posting you could not find: > [3]. > Here is another > [4]. > And here was the first time it was brought up by another editor > [5]. The > material is accurate and properly sourced. It indicates that the assertions in the present article are not supported in the literature. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The second one is the same as the first one, with a typo fixed (unnecessarily, as we don't care about them on the talk page), and was an almost complete non sequiter in that discussion. The last one is the one you copied from Charles Darney. I don't know of any reliable sources who say the authorship question began before the mid-19th century, although they do say that anti-Stratfordians believe it by fanciful interpretations. And you need more than a book title for proper sourcing. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum In the effort to discredit what I was saying you state that I have quoted the same source twice. By 'another', I meant simply, here is another instance of a(n attempted) discussion before transfer to the article page, justifying the term discussion if followed by no comment. It did not have to do with a claim of providing two sources. But to take up your (mistakenly discrediting) point, both are the same, would there be something wrong with quoting the same reference twice? If you really want particular quotations, they can be supplied from that source. But in the course of discussion about a point, with individuals who are familiar with the historical sources, one of those (Gibson) whose thought bears on the point in question, I do not see that final footnotes are indicated by the discussion. If so, they will be provided. But here is a problem with my doing that. Since you have categorically cut out any appearance of contrary evidence, there seems to be no percentage in presenting a final detailed version for you to eliminate. When first entering this discussion in December I did go through the article making numerous changes in the direction of neutrality, virtually all of which work got wasted because you or an ally reverted that work. One phrasing you did retain because there was more pith in my expression than your own--but that is hardly an example of collaboration towards neutrality. It was more like presenting a jury evidence of co-operation that existed in the claim but not the neutrality.

If you "don't know any reliable sources" that provide evidence that "the authorship question" began before the 19th century, then you aren't able to read Marston and Barnefield. Their tributes (uniformly to Oxford/de Vere) are glaring evidence that the Shakespeare you are claiming was never in their minds as a question at all. Thus, retrospectively the or more properly our "question" of identity, one they themselves did not even consider as a question, has a foundation and an answer deep in the past, nearly contemporaneous with the subjects we have involved in the present dispute. What I am telling you, though I doubt it will be heard, is that you are ignoring primary and early evidence. But then again the presumptions upon which you and others operate require that that evidence be blanked or shunned, otherwise your points would be laughably discounted, for lack of foundation. (If you have ignored the actual foundational knowledge, the basis for the claim you do make will lack foundation.) If you did want to call Marston, Barnefield, Digges, Jonson, and others, fanciful interpretations instead of just my quotations of their words, then you have gone a long way towards detaching persuasive power from the very authorities you (at present mistakenly) use for your own position on the question. Without going into this at great length, a source you claim for your own position is the tribute entitled, "To the memory of my beloved, The Author Mr. William Shakespeare: And what he hath left us." It contains seventeen words in that title. On the 17th line of that tribute begins the sentence, "I, therefore will begin, Soule of the Age!" The writer then lists seventeen dramatists. The person addressed as "Shakespeare" is mentioned four times. Vere is a homonym of vier=four in German, a language familiar to Oxford and many of his educated readers. Seventeen is a cue to the 17th Earl of Oxford. If you think this formation of number cues is accidental or fanciful, see a doctor. It goesway beyond chance. Meres also mentions seventeen English dramatists versus sixteen ancient ones. This is asymetrical to the even listings elsewhere in his almanac. The cue is that there is one English dramatist listed twice. Which one? Oxford is listed first. Shakespeare so called is listed ninth. 1+9=10. 10 is orthographically almost identical to the Phoenician alphabet's IO, the Italian word for "I", but pronounced ee-oo, the enunciated initials for Earl of Oxford. Sorry again, if you think this asymmetry puzzle is fanciful. They put out whole books of such anagrammic puzzles and communicated with them. But you have to have a mind open enough to the past to comprehend what they were communicating. And it surely is not pat-pat cut-and-dried that the deceit or cover aspect of the puzzle was the truth. The truth was protected for the knowing. In the Meres symbology, Oxford (1) and Shakespeare (9) added up to Earl of Oxford, IO. Tell me if you seek to know the truth or to maintain a status quo that is fraught with error? If the former, you will have to change from being the arrogant fool to the humble seeker of who wrote these works. Then you will be my ally and I yours. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

...Shakespeare's eminence seemed incongruous with his humble origins and obscure life

(Perhaps this is not worthy of a New Section; feel free to blend it in with a previous topic.) The Stratfordians view the Anti-Stratfordian convention of calling the Stratford man something besides Shakespeare as a character assassination, but it does help to avoid confusing statements as above. A new reader would wonder how a man of eminence could be obscure. If the above were written, "Shakespeare's accomplishments seemed incongruous with his...," I believe few would confuse Shakespeare the achiever with Shakespeare the contender.Fotoguzzi (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not parsing your last sentence. Can you clarify? Tom Reedy (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I've discerned your objection. The use of the word "eminence" refers to his 18th century reputation as the Greatest Writer in the Entire Universe from the Creation, not his reputation during his life time. His obscurity consists of his biographical traces (besides the literary records and commentary, as noted in the main article). It was the dissonance between his reputation and what we knew of his biography that set the stage for the authorship question. If there is any way to phrase it more clearly, by all means lead on. But his "accomplishments" are quite distinct from his reputation, as they were all done while he was alive. It wasn't until later when the historical stage was set and England needed a National Poet that he became the Bard. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole sentence needs re-writing. The "It was also noted that..." is far too definite as the contention that his obscurity is incongruous is one of the points at issue and some would say Will was not that obscure anyway. What does the source say exactly? --Peter cohen (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the reason why there are so many quotations in the refs: the editors would work out a phrase, and then new editors would appear weeks or months later and question the wording. (Then other editors objected to the quotations on the grounds that they violated NPOV!) That particular phrase is cited to Shapiro, and it is a summary of a page and a half, so it is too long to include. If you go to the Google book page and search for "Schmucker", pgs 77-8 willl come up and you can read the material there. I don't like beginning a sentence with "It was noted" or its variations either and would welcome a revision. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Standards of evidence

I am not sure what the purpose of this section is. The gist seems to be that one group relies upon one set of data while another group uses another set. That kind of argument may be advisable in a case where one group uses the Bible to explain scientific observations while another group excludes the Bible, but to say that the two groups in this article have different sets of input seems nonsensical and confusing to a new reader.

If the standards section is somehow relevant, I do not think that anyone would argue that the Anti-Stratfordians have specialized in cyphers more than the Stratfordians, as the Stratfordians have conducted stylometric analyses more than the Anti-Stratfordians. (My understanding is that cyphering is more definitive of what the Baconians, Nevilleans, and to some extent the Oxfordians are engaged in. Some cryptographic allusions promoted by Anti-Stratfordians have been posited by Stratfordians.)

Perhaps my personal beef is with the word, "rely," even though it is used for both sides in this section. Words such as "emphasize," "specialize," or "concentrate on" would allow that either side was not leaning on one fact or narrow argument to the exclusion of all others.

Again, if this section is somehow necessary to the article, it seems to consider Anti-Stratfordians as the opposite of academic Shakespeareans and literary historians. Again, this is confusing to a new reader who would wonder what the Antis were studying if not Shakespeare and literary history. If the line read, "By contrast, mainstream academic Shakespeareans and literary historians...," I believe few would be confused or feel insulted.Fotoguzzi (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the handling of evidence is at the core of the debate, it is necessary to the article. That particular section introduces the two sections on anti-Strat and Strat evidence and give an overall assessment of the differences, i.e. Strats use historical evidence, which anti-Strats discount as evidence of a conspiracy (for one example). And for all oractical purposes, anti-Stratfordians are the opposite of Shakespeare scholars and literary historians. No Shakespeareans or textual scholars base an attribution on extracting biography from a fictional work, especially stage drama. Now if the author's biography is known, they certainly look for what could be biographical references (see Wells and Taylor Textual Companion (1987, 1997) p. 77), but they certainly don't base the attribution of the plays of Shakespeare on biographical readings. Anti-Strats do.

And the section, with its clear explanations of the differences, unconfuses new readers, not confuses them. The rest of the two sections goes on in detail, or as much detail as the article needs. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Fotoguzzi, I think what Mr. Reedy is trying to establish is that the questioned party has all the evidence and the questioning party has none, end of dispute. I "handle" the evidence exactly as a Stratfordian scholar would--does the information (linguistic, historical, or primary source) constitute clear and convincing evidence consistent with already established evidence, or at least does it form a basis for a working theory toward that clear and convincing evidence? Only by ignoring a tremendous amount of available evidence can the (Stratfordian) theory proposed by the defending party claim proof of their proposition. Hence there is an unfathomable difference between the parties, but that difference is not based upon their proving things differently,as asserted in the evidence section, but on one side insisting on the established bibliography favoring the established and possibly mistaken theory, while the questioning party considers that bibliography and its embedded assumptions subject to logical analysis. For example, Mr. Reedy and Stratfordians generally wish to discount the otherwise universal function of literary criticism, to adduce the life of the writer in understanding the writer's work. This is because there is NO correspondence between the life of the Stratfordian and the Shakespeare canon. The explanation you read above can be analyzed sentence by sentence in that context. Thus a comparison of the two approaches in the Wikipedia site would show contradictory gaps of the questioned (Stratfordian) party. Similarly, point and counterpoint style in the article has been outlawed by Mr. Reedy and his colleagues. The narrative becomes more and more strained under the light of logical analysis, i.e., how can Shakspere be Shake-Speare if he couldn't write his name on his will? Denial thus becomes the primary aspect of the Stratfordian contribution to the Wikipedia editing process. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible typo? ...the Bruton Vault at Williamburg.

The link points to Williamsburg. Is Williamburg a variant of Williamsburg?Fotoguzzi (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Good eye, F. It's a typo. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to cut candidate sections

Since each candidate has its own authorship article, I propose we dump the truncated treatments we have in the article and replace them with a sentence and "see also" links. The arguments can't be laid out in any type of comprehensive form, and if anybody wants to read about them they are all but a click away. It would shorten the article and get rid of its weakest section, IMO. What say you? Tom Reedy (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about Alternative candidates. I guess a shorter article would be better, so severely pruning that section is desirable. It would be good if the opening para could have some words to indicate why these four candidates are mentioned here, and the sentence on each needs to retain the key point of the case for that candidate, and perhaps when the candidature was proposed. Possibly the "see also" links could be incorporated something like this:

The candidate favoured by the Baconian theory is Sir Francis Bacon, lawyer, philosopher, essayist and scientist. The case for Bacon, first proposed in the mid-nineteenth century, relies upon historical and literary conjectures and cryptographical revelations found in the works that disclose his authorship.

Is that about the length you were thinking of? Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree, but doesn't this mean that the "Stratfordian" (urgh) view will appear to have too much prominence in the article vis-a-vis the (for example) Oxfordian? And that this will unleash yet more anti-Strat (ugh!) commentary in these parts? --GuillaumeTell 00:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well after all, the article is about the "Shakespeare authorship question", which is more about the arguments against Shakespeare than any particular candidate, plus the evidence that he did write the works. As to the candidates, why not just use the introductory graf and then furnish the links for more information? Or maybe just put them in the "see also" section?

What I'm getting at is that what we have now about the major candidates is not very good, so there's really no sense in trying to make it better since we don't really have the room and they have their own articles anyway. Distribute the pictures in the text above to give it some colour and maybe cut some of the text illustrations, most of which are redundant with the text anyway. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The "positive" claims made for the major candidates should be included, but we could roll them up into a single section which is discussed chronologically. That would either involve supplementing the history section, or removing stuff from the history bit to a separate candidates section. It would allow us to explain why for example, the Victorians were so keen on Bacon, but he isn't much fancied anymore. We could include the RS arguments for the candidate preferences along with the arguments that have been made by their supporters, which includes Looney's supposedly Comtean logic as replicated by Zweigenbaum above - you start by collating evidence of who the author should be and go from there. Paul B (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't we be getting into some awfully shaky ground there? I've heard several different underlying reasons for Bacon and Oxford's candidacies, from tying Baconian ciphers to the industrial revolution to Freud's search for a father figure (or something like, that; I'm sure I've got it botched), none of them with any real degree of acceptance in the scholarly community (who for the most part ignore all this anyway). There's no doubt they begin with the candidate—believe in Bacon? Look for legalisms. Believe in Oxford? Look for knowledge of the court and an aristocratic attitude. Believe in Marlowe? Look for evidence of a university education. And of course all of them left biographical information in the works. But that describes method (historical [as Chambers calls it] or biographical [as most moderns do]), not underlying the psychological reasons. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, saying what RSes say is not shaky ground. We don't have to agree with it, just report it. They are allowed to speculate. It would be encyclopedic if we had good sources on the historical context for the candidates. The Freud argument would be irrelevant here, since that's just a theory about his personal inclinations. I think the link beween Bacon and Victorian ideas about science is well established, but I know of no literature that historicises the popularity of Oxford. Looney's claims to be applying positivist methods are however documented by Shapiro. Paul B (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've yet to quite process this suggestion, so I reserve the right to change my mind, but my immediate gut feeling is to disagree with at least the extent of the proposal. The various candidate sections should, IMO, be a summary style overview of the candidate and the related authorship theory: essentially it should replicate the content of the lede of the article linked with {{main}}. Or rather, since those articles are in a deplorable state—and with little hope of improvement in the short term—this article should contain a summary style overview equivalent to what the lede of those articles should look like if improved to something approaching FA-quality. I do have concerns about the overall length of this article, but I'm not, currently, convinced that the sections mentioned here are the place to start pruning (modulo copy-editing and other general improvements of them, of course). --Xover (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this proposal. On the plus side, those bits are weak, and there are inconsistencies between them and the main article (eg the Oxford page does not make use use of the non-anagram from the book that doesn't mention Shakespeare!). On the minus side, it could be argued that the other candidates are an essential part of the argument, and we have to watch out for Tell's point of being accused of deleting anti-strat stuff. I'd certainly be happy with a reduction to a paragraph on each. Poujeaux (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

But again, if we don't have the space to do a very good job of it, why bother with more than a short mention and a main link, since it's going to be there anyway? I'd like to hear from some sane Oxfordians, Baconians, and Malovians on this, but I don't think any of them are speaking to me. BenJonson, JackofOz, Softlavender, Peter Farey, if any of you are lurking out there, would you mind weighing in on this? Tom Reedy (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well, some of them have recently been blocked! Poujeaux (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. They are all free as a bird. Paul B (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that depends on what your criteria are. If we're just in a vacuum arguing what would make the best article, the argument that when we can't do it right it's better to not do it at all would make sense. In the context of guidelines and practice for Wikipedia articles, we need to consider things like do we need to cover the major candidates to cover all relevant aspects of the topic (on which point one may disagree, of course)? If we're aiming to take the article to FAC, we need to consider what the criteria say and the reviewers are likely to expect. On the latter I would be cautious of speculating too specifically, or attaching too much weight to the speculations, but I would imagine—and I may very well be wrong on this!—that they would expect a treatment of the various claimants and that this treatment would need to be of a certain weight (“length”) and quality. The specific format of such a treatment is of course a different matter; for instance, I could easily imagine both the current format(-ish) as well as variant with a single section that discusses all the candidates. --Xover (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You make some good points, although I'm not too keen on trying to tailor an article to what as-yes-unknown reviewers will want. If we're going to keep the candidates, then I favour individual sections as we now have. I would prefer that they all be about the size length as the Marlowe section, and perhaps a one-graf explanation of the types of evidence used so that we might be able to include some of the material Paul thinks should be in there. Paul, would you mind drafting something suggestive of that content so we can see what you mean? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Things to do

Here are the todo items noted by Tom back on the 10th, with added points from Poujeaux, since the original thread has been archived. I've not restored any of the comments since off-topic and/or controversial stuff had been interspersed with the action items and the processing of them, and I didn't want to restore a too heavily edited version of people's comments. The original thread can be found in Archive 20.

1. Ref cleanup. Consistent format, complete bibliographic details.
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?
6. Repeated use of 'all' in sec 1.1.
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...

If we could try to keep this section of the talk page focussed on the todo list, and take any longer discussions or major changes to separate sections, that would be appreciated. --Xover (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some trivial consistency issues: In the wikitext, there are two paras which are split into two lines. I assume we want these joined (the lines are 'Since 1845, Bacon...' and 'Oxford's use of the "Shakespeare"...'). Also, the heading "Standards of evidence" is the only one which has spaces like "== Heading ==". Several headings are followed by no blank line, while others are different. I can attend to these items if worthwhile. Is "no blank line after a heading" what is wanted? Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Fix 'em to whatever is MOS, and thanks for pointing them out. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do (but it might not be for 24 hours or so since I will be occupied elsewhere).

This edit fixed a couple of spellings to UK, and added a template that British English is to be used (good!). However, it changed two quotations. Search the article for "a courtier, a lawyer, a traveller in Italy" (was "traveler") and for "with the humours of Sr John ffalstaff" (was "humors"). Should these two cases be changed back to the original? Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph in Shakespeare authorship question#Alternative candidates needs a citation; and unless the source makes a summary very like what we do in the article, we'll probably need several cites that all say almost all of it (i.e. we need to avoid the appearance of novel synthesis). --Xover (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got sources all the way back to Chambers that say it (using the exact term "conjectures", which I iimigaine is the only contentious word), but I thought since it was a summary it didn't need a cite. I'll pull one out sometime in the next few days. (Historical and biographical are really the same.) Tom Reedy (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)