Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

Cite needed

Re Tom's edit query if a cite is needed for this:-

Contemporary comments and textual and stylistic studies indicate that the author of these works is compatible with the known biography of William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.

I would agree with him that it isn't, but, as Xover originally remarked, it may be queried by FAC reviewers. It is (a) self-evident to those familiar with the material (b) sums up what is laid out in detail below in the text, and (c) it is admitted by sceptics (Rubenstein and Brenda James) that the chronology of the plays and the life of Shakespeare make the best fit in overlapping closely, and this constitutes the strongest difficulty (for them) for anti-Stratfordians, who have consistently failed to produce anything like a strong case interlocking the evidence for the plays, and the evidence about the author. I vaguely recall, among the several thousand pages read on this subject over the last year, that one of our RS made the same point, and I am thinking of Elliott and Valenza. If it is queried as undocumented, I'll reread their papers. But it seems to be unnecessarily pedantic to require a cite for a summary of material already sourced in detail.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Since Peter Farey has objected to that phrasing, (How do "...stylistic studies indicate that the author of these works is compatible with the known biography of William Shakespeare"?))I suppose we may have, in lieu of a specific source underwriting the claim, to rephrase it according to sources. Truncating the phrase, as Peter has, makes it look as though 'stylistic studies' is the only subject and not 'contemporary comments'. He has a point since stylistic studies cannot show that 'the author' is compatible with the known biography of WS.' W£hat is required is that two elements be separately sourced (contemporary comments+ textual/stylistic studies). Textual studies just show the negative, i.e., that Shakesperare is no one else.

In sum, the First Folio informs us that the playwright William Shakespeare hailed from Stratford-upon-Avon, spent part of his life in Stratford and part in London, served under both Elizabeth and James, belonged to the same fellowship of players as John Heminges and Henry Condell, and was one of twenty-six principal actors of the company which first performed his own plays. Moreover, the First Folio tells us that Shakespeare had a limited education (he knew some Latin and less Greek), was a friend of Ben Jonson, was at least an acquaintance of Leonard Digges (also of James Mabbe and Hugh Holland), was buried at Stratford where a funeral monument was erected in his honor, and, finally, was the subject of a eulogy by the poet William Basse, who placed Shakespeare in the company of, but thought him finally superior to, Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser, and Francis Beaumont.Nelson 2004, p. 156 (check)

What Nelson is saying here implicitly is that the William Shakespeare explicitly identified as the playwright of the plays in 1623 by his distinguished contemporaries is compatible, in terms of the details about him provided by the First Folio, with the William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon whose paper trail tells us he lived in Stratford and London, served under Elizabeth and James, was one of the player in a troupe with Heminges and Condell, as a principal actor, and was buried under a funeral monument in Stratford acclaiming his wisdom and artistry. Nelson uses the word 'entirely incompatible' immediately after this statement for the Earl of Oxford, which in normal prose means he thinks the two records The First Folio and the independent paper trail of WS of Stratford are 'compatible'. Elliott and Valenza make a similar point ('By the light of the documents, Shakespeare looks much more like the Stratford man than the Earl of Oxford.'Elliott & Valenza 2004, p. 394)

As to the stylistic point Peter takes exception to, the most sophisticated computerised analysis, which hitherto has resisted all technical challenges by competent scholars, says this of Marlowe.

‘In passing, it is important to note that although one Marlowe block is much closer to Shakespeare than Bacon or Oxford, Marlowe is not a credible Shakespeare match. Marlowe One is in the same city or county with Shakespeare, not the same ballpark; Marlowe Two is in the same county or state. The closest of seven Marlowe plays might be on the same continent or planet; the other six are in different galaxies, some too distant to compute. Taken individually, most of Marlowe's works are indeed very distant from Shakespeare. When Marlowe's works are taken as a group, however, the odds that Shakespeare could have strayed by chance so persistently and so extravagantly far from his customary boundaries are far lower than the odds of getting hit by lightning or winning the Irish Sweepstakes. Fortunately, we have more than 100,000 words of Marlowe's writing to compare with Shakespeare. The law of large numbers kicks in much more conclusively for him than for Oxford or Bacon, who each have about 3,000 words of poems to test. It buries Marlowe's claim in an ocean of rejections, and despite his having one arguable near-miss, leaves him on a more distant galaxy than Oxford or Bacon. Ellliott & Valenza 2004, p. 355 (check)

Elliott and Valenza's work specifically says with regard to internal stylometric evidence that:

A handy, comfortably geocentric way to visualize the idea of comparative probability distance is to start with a ballpark and work out. All of Shakespeare's core-baseline 3,000-word poem blocks and plays, and 95% of his 3,000-word play verse blocks, would fit into the ballpark, most of them in the infield. Ninety-five to ninety-eight percent of shorter Shakespeare verse blocks would also fit into the ballpark, most of them in the infield. For every order of magnitude difference from Shakespeare's profile-boundary block for poems or play verse, the Shakespeare distance would increase a notch: ballpark, city, county, state, country, continent, planet, moon, outer planets, solar system, galaxy, and another galaxy.Elliott & Valenza 2004, p. 351

I.e., there is an internally consistent authorial identity, a Shakespeare, whose style coheres and is markedly distinct from all of the other tested candidates. This evidence does not point to WS of Stratford. It simple says that whoever wrote Shakespeare cannot be any of the 'alternative candidates' examples of whose writing survives.Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing in the maintext, and behind Tom's drafted remarks for which a citation is being requested. I think (a) Nelson's point is absolutely clear on this, the known facts about WS of Stratford are compatible with the remarks made about the playwright by his various contemporaries in the First Folio. (2) modern internal stylistic tests exclude every other candidate, and affirm a distinctive unitarian author for most of the works. How this is negotiated, by rewriting slightly or insisting on a source for what is a summary statement amply evidenced in the main body of the text, I leave to others.

It is certainly not helpful, at this late date, to fuss overly about what is a quibble, resolvable by splitting the sentence into two parts, with two sources (Nelson and Elliott/Valenza). Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the ref we need is in McCrea. I'll try to find it sometime today. I doubt FAC reviewers are going to jump this article to the head of the line, so we'll resolve it in plenty of time.

We might want to change "style" to "content", referring to the grammar school references and the dearth of ostentatious classical references, although to my mind Spurgeon's and Clemen's imagery studies certainly make the case. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter had a point, as usual. Unfortunately the last edit I just reverted was completely pointless, except if it was meant to create facts on the ground (edit-warring) to undermine article stability and imperil the FAC request. Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Ben Jonson's 'Why is Shapiro cited for what Ogburn supposedly said? This is like hiring the pope to talk about evolution', as you should know from repeated statements over the last year, we cited fringe sources via mainstream academic sources for this article.Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As you should know, "Nishidani," I got so revolted by your pettiness many months ago that I have found better things to do than beat my head against the concrete wall of your brains. You are simply playing an interminable game of "we make the rules and the definitions, so don't bother us with news of a difference." Your use of terms like "fringe" and "mainstream academic" is little better than a hoax. You removed all the references from the page to other academic forums that would have disproved your indefensible use of terminology, and revealed that "mainstream academic" journals and sources do and have published materials relevant to the authorship question, and sometimes directly on it, which do not support the future of your illusion. --BenJonson (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's more like citing Dawkins on what creationists say. Paul B (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, stylistic studies do not tell us that anything about the "biography" of Shakespeare in one sense. They don't tell us that he was married to a woman called Anne and had three children. They tell us that the works fit the span of his known working life and his education. I think that's all that needs to be said. Paul B (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The text in the 20:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC) version reads: Contemporary comments and textual studies indicate that the author of these works is consistent with what is known of the life of William Shakespeare.

That wording is not quite right (an author cannot be consistent with what is known). Perhaps changing "author" to "authorship" would work? Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right to question that sentence, Johnuniq. Another case of comparing unlike things. Maybe:

Contemporary comments and textual studies indicate that what may be inferred of the author of these works is consistent with what is known of the life of William Shakespeare.

--Alan W (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Let me check some sources and see exactly how they present it. Since it hasn't been flagged at FAC yet, we can mull this over and come up with a well-thought-out solution. (And pardon me for not being as quick to respond as usual; I've had a lot going on in the past few weeks.) Tom Reedy (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll get this done today. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, Tom. I think that does it. (BTW, don't you ever sleep? It must be awfully late over there. :-) --Alan W (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

??? I'm an hour behind you. Where do you think I am? Tom Reedy (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternate section titles

In an attempt to address Nikkimaria's concerns at FAC, I've tried an alternate set of section titles. These are decidedly unpoetic, but then that was a thrust of her concern. They also ruthlessly avoid including the words “Shakespeare” and “Authorship” in the headings, as these are always implied from context in this article. These are somewhat boring in the same way passive voice tends to be boring, but then that is somewhat the point: the headings should be a bit dry and factual rather than fun and poetic. Anyways, take a look at them in the link above—particularly how this looks in the Table of Contents—and chime in on whether that would be a good way to address the concerns. --Xover (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that perhaps you're being a bit too academic using such jargon as "alternate attribution" (which should be "alternative") and "internal evidence" instead of the more specific "against Shakespeare's authorship" and "from the works". I can see taking the duplicated phrases out in the sub-headings, even though it leaves it a bit terse IMO. Why not ask Nikkimaria exactly which titles and subtitles she meant as too "poetic"? They seem merely descriptive to me, even literally so, which I think is more suited for a general audience instead of those intimately familiar with the academic literature scene. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Completely incidental, but you may want to reread that passive voice article you linked if you feel passive voice is boring. For example, your sentence that states "as these are always implied" has a passive voice clause. Sorry, I'm always afraid Geoffrey Pullum will kidnap me in the night if I say bad things about passive voice.Kaiguy (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting what you say about the passive voice and Geoffrey Pullum (someone else I now want to read, thanks to a hint by a Wikipedian), Kaiguy. But at this time that topic will not be discussed by me any further. :-) Tom, I think you are right in that we don't want to sound too dried out and technical. But I also think that some of Xover's suggested changes are good and might be seriously considered. As I've said before, I don't like "Rise of Bardolatry and Precursors of Doubt". I think "Bardolatry and Doubt" is a distinct improvement. There are a few other changes we might want to consider as well. Just my two cents, or tuppence, or however you say it in Britain these days. --Alan W (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "Bardolatry and early doubt"? Tom Reedy (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that would do fine. (And, yes, lowercase except for the initial cap; you've reminded me of the Wikipedia header style. Old habits die hard.) --Alan W (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Comparison

Current headings	Proposed headings
1 Overview	1 Overview
2 Case against Shakespeare's authorship	2 Case for alternative attribution
2.1 Shakespeare's background	2.1 Background
2.2 Shakespeare's education and literacy	2.2 Education and literacy
2.3 Shakespeare's name as a pseudonym	2.3 Name as a pseudonym
2.4 Missing documentary evidence	2.4 Missing documentary evidence
2.5 Shakespeare's death	2.5 Death
3 Case for Shakespeare's authorship	3 Traditional attribution
3.1 Historical evidence for Shakespeare's authorship	3.1 Historical evidence
3.2 Personal testimonies by contemporaries	3.2 Contemporary testimony
3.3 Recognition by other playwrights and writers	3.3 Recognition by peers
3.4 Death of Shakespeare	3.4 Death
3.5 Evidence for Shakespeare's authorship from his works	3.5 Internal evidence
4 History of the authorship question	4 History
4.1 Rise of bardolatry and precursors of doubt	4.1 Bardolatry and early doubt
4.2 Open dissent and the first alternative candidate	4.2 First alternative candidate
4.3 Search for proof	4.3 Search for proof
4.4 Other candidates emerge	4.4 Other candidates emerge
4.5 Authorship in the mainstream media	4.5 In mainstream media
5 Alternative candidates	5 Alternative candidates
5.1 Sir Francis Bacon	5.1 Sir Francis Bacon
5.2 Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford	5.2 Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford
5.3 Christopher Marlowe	5.3 Christopher Marlowe
5.4 William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby	5.4 William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby
6 Footnotes	6 Footnotes
7 References	7 References
8 External links	8 External links

Discussion

The above table compares the current and proposed headings. The proposals include the comments above ("Case for alternative attribution" and "Bardolatry and early doubt") and two changes that I suggest ("Name as pseudonym" changed to "Name as a pseudonym", and "In the mainstream media" changed to "In mainstream media"). I think the proposals are good, except that I would try not changing the headings for sections 2 and 3. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed the proposal includes two identical headings ("Death"). I'm not sure of guidelines on that, but identical headings should be avoided since a link with an anchor like #Death would link only to the first occurrence. There does not seem to be a good way to avoid that. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The first thing I see is that "Case against Shakespeare's authorship" is not equivalent to "Case for alternative attribution". This article is about the "Shakespeare authorship question", i.e the various arguments against Shakespeare's authorship, not the cases for others' authorship. More later, but it appears to me that a radical reworking of the headers is not called for by the FAC commentary. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in here: I actually agree with Johnuniq that the headings for sections 2 and 3 should not be changed, as those are good examples of instances in which it makes more sense to partially replicate the title than to exclude it. It would likely also make sense to have "Shakespeare's background" instead of simply "Background", or to choose a different word altogether. I like the revised 2.2-2.4 titles, although you might consider "Lack of" instead of "Missing", depending on the nuances of what you're trying to convey. "Death" doesn't really make sense, but neither do the originals in that case - you need something entirely different for those two, not sure what. 3-3.2 are great. I'm still not sure that "Recognition" is the right word, but the revised title is better than the original. "Internal evidence" isn't entirely clear - maybe "Evidence in the works" or the canon, or "Internal textual evidence"? Should keep "Rise" in 4.1 for clarity, otherwise fine. Everything else looks fine in the revised version. Hope that helps! Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria: when you say that "the headings for sections 2 and 3 should not be changed," do you mean just 2 and 3, or all the subheadings under them as well? With a few exceptions, I would be happy leaving all the headings and subheadings alone. For example, "mainstream media" for me doesn't suggest the same thing as "the mainstream media," though that might be another case of personal preference that is hard to explain. Another problem is "Recognition by peers". I think it begs the question of who were Shakespeare's peers in the first place. Some anti-Stratfordians seem to doubt that Shakespeare was a playwright at all (I think of Alden Brooks arguing that he was merely a play "broker"). It makes clear immediately who the peers were according to Stratfordians if we leave in "other playwrights and writers". And I agree with Tom that talking of "attribution" smacks of academic jargon. (In addition to his other reason for leaving those headers alone.) These words would likely not spark the same immediate recognition in the general reader as in those who have already thought long about the SAQ.

I would also argue against restoring "Rise of" to "Bardolatry and early doubt". (I've made it clear elsewhere that that is one case where I am uncomfortable with the way it is now.) That leads to the unintentional ambiguity of reading the header as "Rise of bardolatry and [rise of] early doubt". "Rise of early doubt" makes little sense, as the reader would soon grasp, but we would want to avoid that suggestion rather than risk the reader's fumbling around with what is really meant.

I do think you make a good point, Nikkimaria, about "Shakespeare's death" (and "Death of Shakespeare"). Readers might think, What about his death? Is this a biography? But we know that the reason for these sections is not simply to describe the circumstances of his death. Better would be something like "Argument for [against] Shakespeare's authorship based on circumstances associated with his death". Only it wouldn't be better, if only because this is much too long for a section header! But it would be good if we could convey that in fewer words. --Alan W (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant just the level-2 headings 2 and 3, not the subheadings thereof. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the ones considered to be most problematic according to the comments. Unless something is really misleading, I think we're creating more of a problem instead of solving one. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Although it solves part of the problem, I can't help thinking (and, yes, here I go again) that "Memorials to Shakespeare and his will" sounds too much like "Memorials to Shakespeare and to his will". Is it just me? Is my imagination running wild? If anyone thinks so, please feel free to say it. Other opinions are welcome. The important thing is to anticipate now, as best we can, the way new readers of this page will understand these headings at first glance. --Alan W (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Just saw your latest revision of this heading, Tom. In itself, I'd say it is excellent and completely avoids the problem that made me so uneasy. The only thing that gives me pause regarding "Shakespeare's death—a different perspective" is of an entirely different nature. It is the anti-Stratfordians' perspective about Shakespeare's death that is "different". Here you apply that adjective to the Stratfordians' perspective on his death. --Alan W (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Tom's edits have resolved the headings issue. The "different perspective" is just a side effect of the fact that the article already has a section on Shakespeare's death, and the second section presents a different perspective. While anything can be improved, I don't see a problem that needs attention. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the slightly longer versions of the section headings are clearer, particularly for the casual non-expert reader. Not quite convinced by 'different perspective' though. Poujeaux (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"another perspective"? "the academic perspective"? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if you make the first one "Shakespeare's Death—another perspective" and then the second one "Shakespeare's Death—traditional perspective" (or maybe, as you say, Tom, "academic perspective"), that will straighten this out. How does that sound? --Alan W (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it works. You can't have "another perspective" when you haven't had the first perspective. I think that the headings are fine as they stand. My three ha'pence (as we say in the Old World). --GuillaumeTell 11:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it proper to write either 'another . .', or 'alternative . .', or 'academic ...', or 'traditional' in the second, where we are dealing with the standard perspective of historians, and there is the alternative interpretation of the meaning of the 'circumstances' surrounding his death in the fringe literature. I suggest standard perspective. It's that embraced by all academics, that affirmed by tradition, and is not 'alternative' to anything. The alternative is in the fringe dissenting opinion. 'Shakespeare's death' for the first is fine, if one needs to be specific: 'The crcumstances of Shakespeare's (his) death.' Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Signatures

I have added the spellings of the six signatures in the image box. However, I can't find an "m" character with a mark across it nor can I find a "p" with a mark through the stem. If anybody knows how to do that please let me know.

Also I originally put the spellings in quotation marks but then changed to italics. Are there any Wiki protocols that forbid doing this? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't help with the characters, however I don't think any more is needed. If p-with-bar had a meaning in English, there would be a character for it (which I can't find). If there is reason to believe the marks on m and p would have had a meaning to Shakespeare, I suppose we should try harder, but the marks just look like flourishes in a signature to my untrained eye. I think the italic spellings you added look good and are helpful, and I'm unaware of any WP:MOS rule that would affect the unusual usage in this case. Quotes would look ugly. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The barred "p" was a common breviograph (also brevigraph), standing for "par", "per", "pre", and "pro", depending on the shape of the bar. A tilde over a letter stood for a missing letter, as in "Willm" (with a ~ over the "m") to mean "William". Back in the old days when everybody used WordPerfect it was very easy to do. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info (hmm, those two articles should be merged).

The p-with-bar is shown in this pdf where it is described ("A751" is the hex value of the Unicode character, and the following character is the p-with-bar which will not be rendered correctly unless your browser uses some special font):

A751 ꝑ LATIN SMALL LETTER P WITH STROKE THROUGH DESCENDER

There may be weird html tricks (like at Overline) that would allow some browsers to show a representation of the wanted characters, but I doubt it would be very satisfactory. So the only solution (I think) may be to incorporate the spellings into the image. But then we would be back to having fuzzy and hard-to-read text in the image. To investigate a non-image solution, we could ask at WP:VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If I knew how to merge the two articles I would do it. I can't see the character in this browser (Firefox). I'll work on an image incorporating the spellings below each signature in the next few days.It's not a pressing concern, I don't think, so it shouldn't hold up the FAC. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternative candidates

An FAC reviewer asked for a brief explanation why the four people at Alternative candidates were chosen. Tom has added the following:

More than 75 historical figures have been nominated at one time or another as the true author of the Shakespeare canon, some less seriously than others. However, only four have attracted more than an insignificant number of followers.

I can see this argument from both sides: a brief statement would be helpful, yet a complaint of "unsourced" is now in our future. Anyway, working with the text, why not:

More than 75 historical figures have been nominated as the true author of the Shakespeare canon, however only Bacon, Oxford, Marlowe, and Derby have attracted a significant number of followers.

I would prefer that the names be in alphabetical order ("Bacon, Derby, Marlowe, and Oxford" as in the lead), and that the candidates be presented in that order. Having them in "logical" order is not particularly useful, and really requires explanation (but we are not going to add something like "candidates in order of historical importance"). Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch doesn't care if it's sourced, but if it comes up I think it would be self-evident. Meanwhile I'll look for a source.

Since there are only four candidates, almost any order will do as long as there's some logic behind it. Historical order is as useful as alphabetical order, IMO. I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. I do think we need at least two sentences, though. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In the lead, we say that "more than 70 authorship candidates have been proposed". This is sourced to Gross. Then the main four are sourced to Shapiro and McCrea. Surely these can be our sources in this section as well, with perhaps some others added to drive home the point that Bacon, Marlowe, Oxford, and Derby are the alternative candidates who have received the most attention. I might also suggest that in the lead we change "70" to "75". I can't imagine that you, Tom, wouldn't be able to work out the citations of sources in this "Alternative candidates" section, given what you know about this topic.

Perhaps Johnuniq's change of "more than an insignificant" to "a significant" is preferable, but otherwise I would stick with your original sentences, Tom. --Alan W (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The very title of Gibson's book states it: "The Shakespeare Claimants: A Critical Survey of the Four Principal Theories concerning the Authorship of the Shakespearean Plays." The fantastic four are listed as a group on pp.98, 182, 280. Paul B (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine-tuning

Does Archbishop of Canterbury in the Standard account of S's death require a link. We editors all recognise this kind of thing offhand of course, but would the average high-school reader in the US, or Iceland, or Patagonia or Szechuan province twig what office/person this refers to? Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about secondary education in Iceland, Patagonia, or Szechuan, but—and as an American I am ashamed to say it—I'm afraid that the average U.S. high-school reader would need the link, given the deplorable state of public education in this country right now. Sometimes I'm inclined to think that Archbishop alone would need the link. And when I read the above I was inclined to think that twig needs a link. :-) (But I looked it up, and now I know. You'll make a Cockney of me yet. Or would it be, as Wiktionary as it, an Irishman or Scotsman?)

recommended reading, as part of your coarsework for cockneydom. Anthony Burgess, The Doctor is Sick ! Cheers Alan Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Another thought, with tongue removed from cheek: looking on the bright side, I'd say that to an extent we ourselves as Wikipedians are compensating for some of the shortcomings of public education. The curious high-school student reads this article, clicks on the link, and in a few minutes is that much less undereducated. --Alan W (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the link would be a good idea. But should it link to George Abbott, who was the Cantuar Archbishop in 1616? --GuillaumeTell 17:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, this editor Will-Tell you unabashedly! . .but . .now, I see George Abbot assumed his office in 1612, and de Vere died in 1604 so there might be objections from some quarters, butt, oh, the devil take the hindmost, be bold, Guillemate, and go ahead. If Tom disagrees, we can report him to A/I.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Argument from silence

This method of arguing from an absence of evidence, common to almost all anti-Stratfordian theories, is known as argumentum ex silentio, or argument from silence.

That actually happens to be one of the key arguments of mainstream scholars. I think it worth discussing whether its removal harms the text or not. 99% of the fringe literature consists in the working endorsement of this idea, i.e., that no evidence is evidence for something else, that a disappointment in our expectations justifies the infinite inferences we can make from an historical record that is, like much of early history, extremely patchy. Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As it happens, I've felt rather unhappy about that section for a while, for the reasions given by Brian. I do not think we should be undermining Anti-Strat arguments in the process of giving them. If we are to include the point that this is an argument from silence, it should be in the pro-Strat section. Paul B (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I actually raised this question back here but got no support. On the other hand, it seems to me that Xover has now overdone the pruning - I'd be quite happy to see Dekker and co back in the article but in a less prominent position. --GuillaumeTell 22:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice antimetabole, Paul, but I could see the reader getting a bit confused by the end of the sentence. I hope that the bit of editing I did there and in the following sentence (joining them) has clarified the flow of thought. --Alan W (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, guys; I've been busy building a fence and a shed.

What we've run into is the inherent weakness in the method of anti-Stratfordian argumentation, that is, unless you leave out context, hedge it round with qualifications, set up anachronistic expectations, and make ad hominem arguments about Will of Stratford's hometown, the case sounds ridiculous, and a bald recitation of the points and unadorned description of the methods of debate sound as if you're arguing against it. I hate including refutations against the authorship arguments and methodology instead of merely describing them and then laying out the evidence for Shakespeare, but I suppose there's nothing to be done about it. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nish, if it was simply “one of the key arguments of mainstream scholars” this would be an easy call: it would belong in the mainstram section and would be inappropriate in the argument for section. However, the problem is that it's not there for that reason; it's there because it is descriptive of the method of argument employed by the various theories and as such carries relevant informational content where it is. I'm fairly well convinced that it raises concerns not because it is not factual or because it is inappropriately placed, but because as a fact it makes it obvious how flawed the method of argument is and this triggers fairly deeply ingrained responses along the lines of “fair and balanced”: we're used to every journalistic piece giving each side equal space and being treated equally, and for gods sakes don't point out that the emperor has no clothes. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think we've now become overly sensitive to the possibility that the Authorship position might be offended, which is hampering our ability to reason clearly and dispasionately about such matters.
On the other hand, the long list of names included was a problem from a pure copy-editing perspective, and the rest of it, while entirely appropriate in itself, was not important enough to fight to retain if it creates an impression (well-founded or not) of editorializing. I approached it from a pure “prune mercilessly” perspective: there was nothing wrong with it per se, but it wasn't strictly needed. However, as Brian hasn't yet replied to my comment we don't yet know whether I'd understood the problem he was seeing correctly, and thus whether the pruning actually addresses it. My suggestion would be to wait for further comment from him and make further changes (or reverting) in light of that.
PS. Tom, you may recall I've even argued that we could leave out all the argument for Shakespeare because a bald description of the Authorship question does not strictly require answer; its merits are clear without it. --Xover (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to try to neutrally and dispassionately describe the anti-Stratfordian theories (which was our—Nishidani's and mine—original goal), a similar description of the Stratfordian argument is appropriate and called for. Not doing so would result in a less-than-complete treatment of the topic.

My fear is that the article will degenerate into a mass of euphemisms in an effort to appease every objection. The substitution of "attempt" for "conspiracy" is one such example, which I have tried to ameliorate for the sake of accuracy (anytime adjectives are larded on is a sign that the correct word is not being used). Tom Reedy (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

U.K. and U.S.

To take our minds off agonies elsewhere, can we discuss the dots in U.K. and U.S. that start the Footnotes section. I believe WP:Manual of Style (abbreviations) is the guideline, but in typical wimpish fashion it is frustratingly useless on this issue. However, I think it is suggesting that "UK" is correct, while "U.S." is goodish. The issue has raged for years, but I see that a November 2010 discussion on the talk page shows strong support for "US" (because the Chicago MoS has apparently changed to "US"). That discussion also supports my belief that consensus says "UK" is correct while "U.K." is not.

My feeling is that we should change "U.K." to "UK" and "U.S." to "US" in all locations. If we don't, we need to change "UK" and "US" where they occur, which is in the Contested Will citation. Apart from the footnote header, there are three occurrences of "U.S." and no occurrences of "U.K.". Problem: One of the "U.S." occurrences is in an article title in the link Frontline so that must not be changed. OTOH I can see a case for arguing that none of this matters, and we may as well leave it as is (but I would change the "UK" and "US" in the Contested Will citation). I am just raising this for consideration, and am happy with any outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

My view is that, whichever way the consensus goes regarding dots/periods/full stops, we must be consistent throughout. But probably I did not have to be so explicit, as you imply as much, Johnuniq. I will add, though, that "UK" along with "U.S." would not seem right to me. I say one way or the other for both. (Again, I think we are in agreement that far, but since you raised the question....) --Alan W (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Topic index to talk page archives

I don't know who requested this, but I stumbled upon it whilst researching the archives, and it may be useful to others: SAQ archive index. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Attacks on the page

The Oxfordian Methinx today completely messed up the page, most egregiously fooling around with the candidate image by designating Shakespeare as a certain Lalevee, and changing 4 to 5 here. It was declared by one Oxfordian off-wiki that trouble was in the works. Random evidence suggests that the intention is to win a victory out of what some take to have been the jaws of defeat (the Arbcom decision) by ensuring that serious wiki editors of the page will be compelled to revert what is a desultory but consistent series of comments or edits by a variety of people, newbies or otherwise, turning up to give the impression of instability. Perhaps such behaviour should be met with a rapid application of sanctions, particularly, in cases where the editor's work is patently destructive, as here. Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Methink's edits were childish vandalism, and sadly indicative of the mentality of many advocates of the "theory". I hope that the obvious attempts to destabilise the page will be seen for what they are and treated with the dismissiveness they deserve. I don't get the "Lalevee" joke, if it was one. Paul B (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's not be rash. The edit of the image [1] was by an IP editor who seems to have been on a general, trivial vandalism spree; the temporal proximity to Methinx may well be incidental (see their earlier edits). Methinx' own logged-in edits appear at least debatable to me, for the most part. Isn't this one a clear improvement, for instance? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: since I have the impression the quick revert was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction based more on the IP vandalism than on Methinx' own edits, I've reinstated the latter – not necessarily to endorse their content, but as a matter of procedural fairness, as a basis for further discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I thought the IP newby's edit pattern odd in that context. It is true that I made an inference. Methinx is online editing, and while he examines the page an IP, just registered, runs rampage and then jumps on Shakespeare, Methinx edits at 10.40 and 10.55, and the IP sandwiches in his silly point at 10.46. Note Methinx must have noticed this, but did not revert the manifest inaccuracy, which one would expect were he serious, even as an Oxfordian, about the page.

As to 'Proponents believe that their candidate is the more plausible author,' modified to 'Proponents for other candidates', one has seen this gaming of the language, which is quite subtle, all too frequently not to catch the POV. The first phrasing, crafted by Tom, has it that the proponents we are dealing with are those asserting alternative candidates to the traditional author Shakespeare. The rephrasing insinuates that, Shakespeare of Stratford is (a) a candidate (whch the mainstream scholarship doesn't maintain) and (b) that mainstream scholarship is a grouping of scholars who propose Shakespeare of Stratford as their candidate. As per the recent attempt to challenge '(is the )argument, ' which we have in the lead, by suggesting the Oxfordian default term controversy, the point is to engineer terms in such a way that a fringe theory with no foothold in the world of academic controversies, constitutes a controversy, which it only is in the eyes of its beholders. Scholars don't think of Shakespeare as a candidate, or propose him as such, because they don't view this as a controversy.

Methinks thinks in that edit, that Shakespeare is a candidate proposed by academia, which is exactly the point the anonymous IP made, and which, despite its flagrant silliness, Methinx did not challenge.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I like two of the edits, but here's the deal, Fut. Perf.: To be procedurally fair, you must have a procedure, and we've tried to adhere to that procedure throughout. The language has been carefully calibrated as a result of discussion here on the talk page, and any clumsiness in the prose is there because it fulfills other purposes than good writing. Any edits—especially to the lede—should be discussed on the talk page first. Methinx is one of the SPA drive-by editors whose edits were put into evidence at the arbitration. Evidently he has waited until this article is up for FA before turning up to edit the page. The timing is not conducive to a warm welcome, which explains Nishidani's reaction. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I examined all of the edits Methinx made quite closely before reverting, keeping in mind the year and a half of discussions (which are echoed here), and evaluating them in terms of what has been decided on. Not a 'knee-jerk' reaction (though I admit I keep in mind the link Tom made to a comment by BenJonson that the page will be attacked). While a good deal of recent copyediting has been straight to page, most editors in the last six months have been quite particular about making suggestions on this talk page, explaining proposed edits when we are dealing with language and the weighing of POV. I would have no problem with Methinx's proposals being placed here for evaluation by the many editors who have worked long months fine-tuning the article, but it seems unfair to them to see such a succession of (to me) improbable adjustments restored directly to the page, representing the work of someone who's just popped up and rarely edits wiki.Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, what "link Tom made to a comment by BenJonson"? I'm missing something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This yesterday at the FAC. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits. Here are the edits with the summaries for discussion, but IMO we're taking too much time trying to appease every faction, although if delay is the object, it is certainly working.

EDIT 1

ORIGINAL: Although the idea has attracted much public interest, all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief lacking in hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims.

METHINX: Although all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief lacking in hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims, the idea has attracted much public interest.

EDIT SUMMARY: Inverted sentence to place emphasis where it belongs. If it were not for the public interest, there would be no need for this page.

EDIT 2

ORIGINAL: … more than 70 authorship candidates have been proposed, including Francis Bacon, the Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe, and the Earl of Oxford.

METHINX: … more than 70 authorship candidates have been proposed, although the top three continue to be Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, and Christopher Marlowe.

EDIT SUMMARY: Edited to place emphasis where it belongs. The top three are more important than the rest. There's no hard evidence that Derby wrote anything.

EDIT 3

ORIGINAL: Proponents believe that their candidate is the more plausible author, arguing that William Shakespeare …

METHINX: Proponents for other candidates argue that William Shakespeare …

EDIT SUMMARY: Tightening syntax, elminating redundancy.

EDIT 4

ORIGINAL: The arguments presented by anti-Stratfordians—a collective term for adherents of the various alternate-authorship theories—share several characteristics. They attempt to …

METHINX: Arguments presented by anti-Stratfordians attempt to …

EDIT SUMMARY: Removed definition of the term "anti-Stratfordians" as it's self-explanatory.

My comments: Edit 1: The original follows the WP:FRINGE guidelines of explaining the topic and then making clear the academic consensus.

Edit 2: Derby was added after a discussion, although I wouldn't mind cutting him. The hard evidence for Derby writing plays is the same as for Oxford: a contemporary comment, although Oxford's poems survive.

Edit 3: The redundancy is in the subject, "proponents", and the verb, "believe", but substituting "argue" for "believe" would lead to another redundancy, two uses of the same verb in the sentence. The use of the term "other" has been discussed by Nishidani; a more accurate term would be "alternative".

Edit 4: The definition was taken from a note and added to the text after discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said that of Methink's edits were vandalism. I didn't realise that the "Lalevee" edit was from someone else. Of course as the honorary Derbyite present I would be opposed to his removal. He was a significant candidate, and the only one to attact a major scholar of the period. McCrea in 2005 says "as an anti-Stratfordian suspect Derby is just about perfect", giving various reasons. The fact that his creative efforts do not survive means "there is no inconvenient paper trail that can be compared to the Works", unlike masterpieces such as Oxford's "Were I a king". He still has followers. There's even a play about him touring the continent. He's always been bigger in continental Europe, never popular in the US (or U.S.). The word "anti-Stratfordian" is certainly not self-explanatory. It's known to us all here of course, but to someone new to the topic, I really doubt it would be obvious what it means. Edit 3 seems OK to me. Paul B (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit 3 would be OK if it were changed to "Proponents for alternative candidates argue that William Shakespeare …" or "Supporters of alternative candidates argue that William Shakespeare …" As it is written, "Proponents for other candidates argue that William Shakespeare …" implies that Shakespeare is merely "another candidate". Subtle framing, but it's there. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

and that's true too. Paul B (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Were missing a party to this discussion. Why is Methinx not discussing his own edits? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

one can't expect speedy response from someone who has made 13 edits in three years. Paul B (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading this section makes me think that some of the earlier comments have been withdrawn, so my thoughts may be redundant, but here they are: Editors must be very careful when reverting edits, and should not use edit summaries or talk page comments that suggest vandalism was involved unless clear examples of WP:VAND are involved (inserting gibberish; unexplained and apparently arbitrary deletions). I checked each of the recent edits and none of them qualify for a "vandal" label. An edit summary reverted many of the edits and referred to an "attack", and this talk page section uses that term. While frustration with unwelcome edits is understandable, it is completely wrong to label them as an "attack": there is no evidence for that, and if the edits were shown at any noticeboard, independent editors would immediately reject such a label. There needs to be a reason beyond IDONTLIKEIT to revert such edits.

Re the interlaced edits by an IP and Methinx: the simple explanation is undoubtedly that Methinx had no idea that the IP had edited. Nishidani's comment that Methinx must have noticed the IP edit is not correct—the reverse is likely: Methinx was just working their way through part of the article, and there would be no reason for them to notice what happened in a corner at the top of the page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, quite an over-reaction, almost verging on paranoia, and one that plays into the hands of the other side. Poujeaux (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Florio Crollalanza was deleted

Hello everybody. I see that you are in the middle of attacks to the page... so i hope I won't disturb too much.

Some months ago i read the Crollalanza's paragraph on this page, and today i discover it was deleted, first the paragraph, and later even the name of Crollalanza disappeared. Since this hypothesis is well referenced and on the web there are many discussions about that ([see here]...), so this part should be in the page, even if the hypotesis is not about an English man. In addition, if this could be false (nobody can prove that it's true), the same is for all the other theories. Only one is the true, and maybe it's not even in this page. So let's leave space to the more important ones. If you think that Crollalanza should be on another article, a reference must be here as it is for the other candidates. The part i re-inserted is the following, (i hope that other racism will not delete it again):

During the 20s of the last century, in Sicily was discovered "I secondi frutti", a collection of proverbs. It was noticed that many of those proverbs were present in some Shakespeare's plays; the author of the book was Michelangelo (Michel Agnolo) Florio Crollalanza.

Further, in Messina was found another play, whose title is, in messinese dialect, "Troppu trafficu pi nenti" literally "Too much ado for nothing". This play is about 50 years older than 'Much ado for nothing'. Since then, Santi Paladino and others started to investigate about the relationship between Shakespeare and Florio Crollalanza, trying to understand if they met each other, or maybe Shakespeare met at least somebody else of the family of Michelangelo, maybe his cousin John Florio, or even if they were the same person.

The coincidences starts from the names. Since his father was from Jewish origin, Michelangelo used also the surname of his mother, Guglielma Crollalanza. Now, the English (and masculine) for Guglielma is William, so the name could be a translation. According to another hypothesis, William has been chosen because it was the name of a dead cousin. But more interesting is the surname, Crollalanza, that could be the perfect translation of Shakespeare: crolla lanza means 'shakes speare' (in modern Italian: scrolla lancia). Michelangelo had to escape from Sicily, and later from Italy, because he was Calvinist, and on that period started a persecution for the adherents of this and other religions, considered heretical. So a pseudonym could protect him from an easier identification.

One of the supporters of the hypothesis that Shakespeare was Michelangelo Florio Crollalanza has been Professor Martino Iuvara, whose ideas became famous after an interview published on The Times on 2000. Iuvara wrote to the Queen Elizabeth II and to Tony Blair asking access to some archives in England, but he did not have a permission for that. He declared in another interview:

[Michelangelo Crollalanza] Studied Latin, Greek and history [...]. But at the age of 15 he had to escape with his family to Veneto, because of his Calvinist ideas [...]. Michelangelo lived in the palace of Othello, a gentleman from Venice who killed his own wife Desdemona because of jealousy, some years before. [...] in Milan he felt in love with a countess, Giulietta, who was kidnapped by the Spanish Governor [...]. Giulietta committed suicide, then Michelangelo went to England [...] So I suspect that nobody, in England, had the courage to give access to his library [...]. This would reveal his real identity. I understand the reaction of English people. It would be like somebody would tell us, unexpectedly, that Dante was [...] Spanish.

— Professor Martino Iuvara. The complete interview, in Italian

Other hypothesis support that Shakespeare was a cousin of Michelangelo, John Florio, as does Lamberto Tassinari, professor of literature in the University of Montreal.

As the British historian Frances Yates hypothesizes, it is also possible that Shakespeare just met with some member of the Florio Crollalanza family (John Florio), and collaborated with him for his many plays set in Italy, so that he could describe precisely the places, culture and laws of this country, while the name is just a coincidence.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.137.170 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 16 March 2011

Bref. You failed to read the page link to List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, which would have taken you to Michelangelo Florio. Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There are over 70 candidates, so this page can only mention those that reliable sources report as being the most notable. As Nishidani somewhat plainly states, the text Main article: List of Shakespeare authorship candidates immediately under the "Alternative candidates" heading will have to suffice for other candidates. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)