Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

Sir Thomas More Manuscript??

While looking through this article, and I found often asserted on "both sides" that manuscript evidence of Shakespeare does not survive, save for the six (or fewer) signatures. Has not the famous "Hand D" in Sir Thomas More been traditionally attributed to Shakespeare for some time now? I am not pushing this as conclusive for the whole debate, but nowhere in the article is this discussed, while most every other piece of writing attributed or speculatively attributed is at least mentioned. Or am I severely mistaken about the whole affair of that play? (If so, I would very much appreciate knowing now, I have done academic work on Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More in particular). The very recent New Cambridge Guide to Shakespeare has an article in which the play is used an object lesson in how Shakespeare's work reached print, indicating that at least some critical consensus still attributes the play to the man of the signatures.--Artimaean (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We have had this point raised before (Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_26#Sir_Thomas_More_fragment). You're are right, but it's just not an issue that is very often raised in the literature on the topic. With the rare exception of Titherley, anti-Strats don't mention it, and mainstream critics of anti-Strat arguments don't usually bring it up. We have to stick to what sources say. Of course if you can find a source that discusses it, it may be wort noting.Paul B (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

New York Times survey

There has been objection to an earlier revision I made to this page which stated:

"However, a substantial minority of Shakespeare professors feel that there is or may be good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon."

the source referenced can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/education/edlife/22shakespeare-survey.html?_r=1

The methodology used in conducting that poll was also contained in that source and is reproduced here for ease of reference :

'"The Times survey of professors of Shakespeare was conducted March 5 through 29 from a random sample of four-year American colleges and universities offering a degree in English literature, drawn from a 2005 College Board survey of postsecondary institutions.

From each institution, the professor currently teaching a course on Shakespeare, or the professor who had most recently or most frequently taught one, was selected to take part. They were identified by checking schedules online or by contacting deans. These professors were sent e-mail invitations with a Web address for the online questionnaire. If a survey respondent completed the questionnaire more than once or was not part of the sample, responses were not included in the results.

Of the 1,340 institutions in the College Board data set, a random sample of 637 was drawn. Shakespeare professors were identified at 556, and 265 completed the questionnaire.

In theory, in 19 of 20 cases, overall results based on such samples will differ by no more than five percentage points in either direction from what would have been obtained by seeking out professors of Shakespeare at all American colleges and universities.

In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey of opinion may introduce other sources of error into the poll. Variation in the wording and order of questions, for example, may lead to somewhat different results."'

The statement is independent and references a reliable source. It is neutral as to a particular view of authorship but provides evidence of the level of scepticism within academia, whilst acknowledging the minority nature of that scepticism.

My understanding is that the views expressed on wikipedia should be unbiased, accurate and supported. Would other editors please explain how they feel my proposed edit violates these principles or wikipedia's other codes.

Wightknightuk (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think what's stunning is the way you've misrepresented the source. However, as you may be an arts grad and unfamiliar with statistics, let me demonstrate.....

• There was over 50% rate of return which was good, but....
• 94% disapproved of the theory, including 32% who said it was a waste of time. Only 5% said it was worthy of further consideration. That's 13 people.
• The survey itself says "In theory, in 19 of 20 cases, overall results based on such samples will differ by no more than five percentage points in either direction from what would have been obtained by seeking out professors of Shakespeare at all American colleges and universities." Five percentage points. Only 5% expressed approval for the theory. That's within the margin of error.

So what your text ought to say is "out of a survey of 556 professors teaching a shakespeare course at a higher education institute, only 13 of the 265 who responded said that the theory had merit. This result falls within the 5% error rate that such surveys typically have, and the result should not be taken as typical of college professors of Shakespeare as a whole without further investigation."

Statistics are a bitch. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Let us not make any assumptions about what skills any particular editor might bring to the table.

You have correctly highlighted that there is a number of ways of interpreting data. First and foremost, can we agree that as an independent survey of Shakespeare professors by a reputable source, this survey is worthy of being referenced?

Secondly, a major element of debate is whether or not the SAQ itself merits academic debate. (The irony of the volume of the debate on the subject is irrelevant for these purposes). The question therefore is the extent to which recognised (impartial) Shakespeare professors regard the issue of authorship as one which is credible from the point of view of academic enquiry.

Are we able to agree those two points, in which case we might look towards a form of words which fairly and accurately reflects the current status of the debate.

wightknight 14:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed over and over and over for many years, both here and on the talk page of the main Shakespeare article (e.g. Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive_20#RfC:_Is_note_.22e.22_relevant). The NYT survey is deeply flawed. The expression "Shakespeare professors" implies that the persons surveyed were experts on Shakespeare, but there is no evidence that this was the case at all (they were arbitrarily chosen). There is clear probability of selection bias and the phrasing of the question was (probably deliberately) ambiguous - designed to confuse mainstream attribution debate with fringe alternate-author scenarios. Humm, sounds familiar.... Paul B (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference to the alternative post. However, the deep level of debate over the issue does no more than evidence the intensity of emotion within certain camps. It is perfectly reasonably for any camp to express a view over evidence supporting one view or another but for one group to suppress evidence from Wikipedia seems entirely inappropriate.

I would submit that the survey should be referenced, probably within the main body of the page rather than in the lead, with a summary of its findings that fairly represents the position as it relates to the SAQ. Any concerns about the survey should be reserved to the footnotes in the way that criticisms of surveys are generally dealt with on Wikipedia.

Are able to agree that is an appropriate framework to move this forward? If so, then we could look constructively at alternative forms of words.

wightknight 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

1. The survey is referenced in the article, and in context.
2. As has been pointed out by Elen of the Roads above, using one part of the survey out of context and casting it in your own words does not justify claiming that "a substantial minority of Shakespeare professors" believes anything, much less that the SAQ is not a fringe theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

[Tom Reedy] Thank you for your very useful contribution on this point. I acknowledge that there are difficulties with the interpretation of statistics and much of what [Elen of the Roads] has said is pertinent. However, we are somewhat talking at crossed purposes.

The Survey is strong testimony that the relevant academic community has little regard for this issue and it establishes that the prevailing view (by some margin) is the Stratfordian orthodoxy. The survey might even be said to demonstrate a lack of interest rather than a particular viewpoint.

However, it is equally the case that the survey is evidence that there is a significant minority of Shakespearean academics who would regard themselves as agnostic, sceptical or open-minded on the authorship issue. The Survey is not evidence that any particular non-orthodox view is anything other than a fringe view. However, it is evidence that the Authorship Question itself, and the preparedness to subject the question to academic study, has become an area of minority interest within the academic mainstream.

I have addressed this issue [[1]] but I will not repost in full here for fear of breaching etiquette, which is certainly not my intention. I have also addressed in particular the issues concerning the post regarding the status of the question as being itself 'fringe' and so that discussion is relevant to that debate also.

Of particular relevance, however:

"It is suggested that the Shakespeare Authorship Question, the issue of whether or not William of Stratford was the principal author of the plays attributed to him, has moved from a fringe issue to a minority one. How can we verify that proposition? I would suggest there are three tests that one should properly apply: 1. Is there a significant population within the relevant academic community who consider the issue to be one that merits academic study? 2. Is the issue in fact one that commands or has commanded the attention of such academic study? 3. Is the issue one which has generated research by members of the relevant academic community?"

and

"However, we can also find good evidence of the Authorship Question being examined by more mainstream members of the academic community, for example: “The Truth About William Shakespeare: Fact, Fiction, and Modern Biographies” by David Ellis, Professor of English Literature at the University of Kent at Canterbury. Ellis’s book addresses directly the question of authorship and the academic processes used in Shakespeare biography. Of course, from a mainstream perspective the most significant work must be Shapiro’s “Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?" - James Shapiro, Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University.

Shapiro’s book is an oft quoted source that aims to challenge theories oppositional to the Shakespearean orthodoxy. However, the existence of such a detailed book, directly addressed to the issue at end, is strong evidence that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is being treated as a subject of interest to the established academic community. People no longer write books to prove that the earth is round, there is no need and no-one would buy them. Shapiro felt the need to address the Authorship Question by conducting new research on the point and publishing his findings for an eager public. This is a vital and ongoing debate to which, paradoxically, the works of the Stratfordian scholars are providing credibility.

This is consistent with the area being recognised as one which merits academic attention."

very respectfully.

Wightknightuk (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ellis’s book addresses directly the question of authorship

And you know this how?

And it doesn't make any difference what your criteria are for judging that the SAQ is a minority, not a fringe, topic in academe. I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:OR to learn why we don't impose our own views on what academe thinks or doesn't think. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, my comments were not WP:OR and I have observed with interest the treatment of WP:RS as it relates to this article. In assessing what is or is not 'fringe' I have referenced the established definitions on WP, albeit that they provide room for equivocation.

The weight of evidence, supported by the reliable sources as outlined above, amply demonstrates to any reasonably minded person that the authorship question is treated as a credible area of enquiry by a minority of the relevant academic community.

It is always open to any sub-set of the larger interpretive community to apply more limiting criteria for the purpose of excluding information unsympathetic to their general perspective. However, there is a duty on that interpretive community to take proper account of the reasonably held views of other academics and the misuse of pejorative words like 'fringe' is a political act which offends against WP:NPOV.

Let me once again be clear. My point is not that any particular viewpoint has become minority, nor even that to believe that Shakespeare of Stratford did not write the canon is minority. Rather, the reasonably held view amongst academics that it is legitimate to enquire into the Authorship Question is a minority viewpoint and it is improper that it should be grouped together with less credible theories as 'fringe' for the purpose of strengthening the Stratfordian position.

Wightknightuk (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

So you haven't actually read David's book, have you?

Allow me to be clear: if you want the article to reflect that the SAQ is not a fringe theory among academics, you need to find an academic source that states that. We are not questioning that the topic has or has not entered academic discourse—it obviously has—but whether it is considered a fringe theory among academic Shakespeareans. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that it is considered to be a fringe theory among academics, not a minority view. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding David Ellis's book, it has only been published in the last few days and I have not yet read it. The subject matter has been identified by his publisher (who also publish on behalf of Shapiro, so I presume they can be regarded as reliable), as previously referenced. To quote:

"How can biographies of Shakespeare continue to appear when so little is known about him? And when what is known has been in the public domain for so long? Why have the majority of the biographies published in the last decade been written by distinguished Shakespeareans who ought to know better? To solve this puzzle, David Ellis looks at the methods that Shakespeare's biographers have used to hide their lack of knowledge. At the same time, by exploring efforts to write a life of Shakespeare along traditional lines, it asks what kind of animal 'biography' really is and how it should be written."

As I have previously stated, this is a treatment of the methodologies used in assessing the authorship of the Shakespeare canon. On the face of it, the book would appear to be somewhat critical of recent Stratfordian scholarship. No doubt it will find itself with an appropriate reference in this article in due course.

In any case, you are failing properly to distinguish between the SAQ as a fringe 'theory' and the SAQ as a fringe 'field of study'. In order to obtain a conviction for murder, one does not require the confession of the defendant if there is first hand evidence of him committing the very act of which he stands charged. It is not necessary that the Stratfordian establishment need admit that they are treating the SAQ as a subject of serious academic enquiry if we have direct evidence that is what they are doing.

Wightknightuk (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

>As I have previously stated, this is a treatment of the methodologies used in assessing the authorship of the Shakespeare canon.

Not exactly. You wrote "However, we can also find good evidence of the Authorship Question being examined by more mainstream members of the academic community, for example: “The Truth About William Shakespeare: Fact, Fiction, and Modern Biographies” by David Ellis, Professor of English Literature at the University of Kent at Canterbury. Ellis’s book addresses directly the question of authorship and the academic processes used in Shakespeare biography." Without having read it, you clearly believe the book relates to the SAQ, but I can assure you it doesn't. I have no doubt that anti-Stratfordians will shortly be trying to draft him as a Shakespeare doubter, the way they tried to do with Graham Holderness.

You seem to have a bad habit of hasty reading. First you claim that the the NYTimes survey proves that the SAQ is a minority view in academe; then you complain that the survey is not in the article; next you give Ellis' book as an example of the SAQ being an accepted academic topic, and now you misrepresent your own statement and clearly have not read the policy articles I linked to. I suggest you read those before you come back here and wave your hands again so you'll have at least a glimmer of understanding of what I'm referring to. Here they are in case you forgot: WP:RS and WP:OR.

I'll also quote you the entire section I referenced above: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors" (emphasis mine). If you don't understand how that relates to this discussion, don't hesitate to ask questions. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, very sadly, you are unable to read the comments of my posts without imputing to them characteristics that are reflective of your own standpoint on the authorship position. You seem unprepared to engage with the substance of the argument and repeat your previous statements in a self-serving way. The tone of your texts has become abusive and you are at risk of infringing the very policies that you complain others have not observed in the past.

You may not appreciate the subtlety of the point, but here is a review of the Ellis book which summarises positively the subject matter which it addresses: "Ellis ... takes on the spate of biographies of Shakespeare in recent decades. With incisive scholarship and wit, he demonstrates that most have been written in the absence of credible evidence: authors infer details of Shakespeare’s life and beliefs from information about the times, unverifiable anecdotes and jokes, sometimes even the sheer lack of evidence (e.g., Shakespeare must have been “discrete” and “concealing” because his name seldom appeared in the public records). Ellis reminds us that Shakespeare left no letters, journals, or diaries and that contemporary accounts of him are few: the last significant document about the man surfaced a century ago. ... One of the biographers Ellis skewers is Stephen Greenblatt, in whose popular Will in the World, Ellis argues, supposition typically starts as speculation but shifts to accepted truth as the book progresses. VERDICT Non-academics and academics alike should pick this it up; it’s a sleeper and strongly recommended." Greenblatt's book is an enquiry into the methodology of Shakespearean biography, a fundamental component of the SAQ. The orthodox position survives because it is unchallenged by credible authorities. By highlighting the weakness of certain Stratfordian scholarship that has previously been held up as being beyond reproach, Ellis makes an important contribution to the SAQ. (We don't need to wait for one of the existing (approved) Stratfordian establishment figures to say it - we have it in black and white).

What you have also repeatedly ignored is the subtle distinction between what we might call the SAQ Theory and the SAQ Problem. I appreciate that it presents an editor with a dilemma, if they are approaching the subject from a particular perspective. If one has no axe to grind, it is a relatively straightforward intellectual exercise to draw a distinction between the 'alternative theory' on the one hand and the general 'field of enquiry' on the other.

Wightknightuk (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have ignored nothing; you obviously have a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem. Why you are continuing to harp on Ellis is beyond me; we're not reviewing a book here. You stated it was about the SAQ without, apparently, even reading a review, much less the book; I corrected you. When you decide to argue on topic, I'm sure you'll let us know. Carry on with your hand-waving if it amuses you. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Argue is not a transitive verb.

You say "Why you are continuing to harp on (sic) Ellis is beyond me". Sadly you do not seem to appreciate the importance of interpretive theory and its role in the canonisation of authors and ideologies.

When you say "we're not reviewing a book here", I suppose you are giving that as a reason that any of Ellis's views should not be appropriately included in this article, undermining as they do not merely an individual Stratfordian author but rather methodologies of Stratfordian authorship.

The conduct identified by Ellis in his book is exactly the same kind of sophistry that appears to be taking place in relation to this article. Are you even now able to consider an alternative means of expression that is accommodating of a more neutral position?

Wightknightuk (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"Argue" is both transitive and intransitive. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"harp on" Phrasal Verb: To talk or write about to an excessive and tedious degree; dwell on. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

As above, the statement in the Lead: "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims" is supported by a number of references. The last of these references states:

Gibson 2005, p. 30: "...most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp..."

It is submitted that the quotation does not support the statement to which it purports to relate. If anything, it does the opposite. By saying "most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp" the quotation implies that there are other great Shakespearean scholars who are not in the Stratfordian camp. Saying that most of type A are to be found in category X (where X is one category and Y is a category of all things that exclude X) is not to make any comment at all about the quality or nature of category Y.

For these purposes I do not question the integrity of the author or suggest that the quotation is not relevant to the article overall. However, the reference does not support the statement to which it relates.

It could be deleted or moved to support a different point in the article. The header could be amended to reflect this nuance. Or my view could simply be ignored.

What would be the consensus view on the best way to deal with this reference? Wightknightuk (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The reference should not be judged by the small extract shown in the footnote. Instead, the actual source needs to be read. Nevertheless, it may be of interest to know that the extracts have been reduced from previous versions. For example, the version at 3 March 2011 read "...most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp; but too much must not be made of this fact, for many of them display comparatively little interest in the controversy with which we are dealing ... they accept the orthodox view mainly because it is orthodox. The Stratfordians can, however, legitimately claim that almost all the great Elizabethan scholars who have interested themselves in the controversy have been on their side." Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

ooks

Tom Reedy: I think you misunderstood. The other guy was criticizing your grammar by claiming that you used "argue" incorrectly. I was pointing out that his complaint was invalid, since argue can correctly be used as a transitive verb, as in "argue the point." I was also trying to make two larger points, 1) that if he thinks he's such an expert on grammar but isn't, what else is he wrong about, and 2) I wanted to express support for the great job you're doing in arguing with this guy, since I wouldn't have the patience for it. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understood (or thought I did!). That's why I added the "harp on" definition: he thought I had made another grammatical error when in actuality he just wasn't familiar with the term. So far he's an expert on Shakespeare, Early Modern attribution studies, grammar, critical theory, Wikipedia policy (even though he's a novice), and he has the super power of understanding books he hasn't read. Typical Oxfordian, IOW. And thanks for the kind words. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It is very helpful that you have reproduced a larger extract. However, I am not sure that this helps the case, in fact, I suggest it does the opposite.

In assessing relevance I believe we are examining whether or not the referenced quotation supports the statement: “all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims"

“...most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp” I have addressed the problems with this above.

“but too much must not be made of this fact, for many of them display comparatively little interest in the controversy with which we are dealing” This is prima facie evidence that those Shakespearean scholars who identify themselves on either side of the SAQ debate, whether Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian, are themselves in the minority.

“many ... accept the orthodox view mainly because it is orthodox." This is evidence that the orthodox view is largely unchallenged and the mainstream of Shakespearean scholarship does not concern itself with the SAQ.

“The Stratfordians can, however, legitimately claim that almost all the great Elizabethan scholars who have interested themselves in the controversy have been on their side.” This is evidence that the greater weight of scholarship, indeed almost all scholarship, has been with the Stratfordian camp. However, it relates only to the scholars who have themselves been interested in the SAQ which the quotation suggests to be a relatively small number.

So what the quotation is actually saying is that the SAQ is a minority interest. Of those scholars who have addressed it most have been in the Stratfordian camp. It makes no assertion about the status of the ‘anti-Stratfordian’ camp that could not equally be applied to the Stratfordian camp.

Although at first glance the text may appear to support the referenced statement, on examination it is clear that it would be misleading to make that statement without significant qualification. Perhaps the quotation could be better used elsewhere in the article? Wightknightuk (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"Of those scholars who have addressed it most have been in the Stratfordian camp. It makes no assertion about the status of the ‘anti-Stratfordian’ camp that could not equally be applied to the Stratfordian camp." This is a spectacular non sequitur. The anti-Strafordian camp is overwhemingly staffed with amateurs, not scholars. Gibson is one of many writers who are quoted to give support to the statement made. Yes, the phrase "most of the great Shakespearean scholars" might seem to imply that at least some have been of the other camp. Howeever, Gibson names no "great Shakespearean scholar" who has been of the other camp. I suspect he's just being a typical cultural historian - avoiding making absolutist assertions. Since he names no significant Shakespeare scholar with anti-Strat views we can't extrapolate from his phrasing the "fact" that there is some unknown unnamed scholar somewhere. It's just about possible that he is referring to Abel Lefranc, a scholar of the first rank and an expert on the period - but not a specialist on Shakespeare. Yes, SAQ is a minority interest, but that's not why scholars ignore it. They ignore it because its proponents' methods fly in the face of scholarly norms. Most simply reject it out hand because it doesn't even begin to "talk to" scholars in a way that makes sense to them. That point is made in some of the other quotations in the collection used here. Paul B (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question : Defining the question

I proposed an edit to this page as follows :

"The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the sole author of the works attributed to him."

The current version The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him is problematic, since it excludes the possibility of co-authorship and limits the nature of the question.

Defining the SAQ in this way is not neutral since it narrows the terms of debate to those who are Stratfordians or non-Stratfordians.

I would submit that the more general statement I have proposed reflects more accurately the field of study without supporting any particular viewpoint over another.

I would be obliged by the contributions of other editors on this point.

Wightknightuk (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely on purely technical grounds your sentence doesn't really belong here. We know that Shakespeare was not the sole author of a number of the works in the Shakespeare canon: Pericles, Prince of Tyre, The Two Noble Kinsmen, etc. Even Macbeth as we have it is widely thought to include some material by Thomas Middleton. These textual questions, though, are nothing to do with the SAQ, which relates to the theory that, well, Will of Stratford didn't write the plays; Oxford/Bacon/The Man in the Moon did. Has anyone actually proposed, in a reliable source, the point of view you seem to be hinting towards - that Will of Stratford co-wrote them in collaboration with A.N Other? Or that they were produced by some committee somewhere? If not, this viewpoint is intriguing but hardly seems worthy of mention here. Moreschi (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is precisely about the debate between "Stratfordians or non-Stratfordians". Of course there are other, more "conventional" or mainstream, debates about authorship. We cover those in Shakespeare Apocrypha, Shakespeare's collaborations and in articles on specific plays and poems. The sentence you propose wont do, IMO, for several reasons. One is that some anti-Strat theories do involve Shakespeare as part author, adaptor or editor of the plays, so it's not really crucial to the definition of the SAQ. Another reason is that mixing up attribution issues with anti-Stratism just creates total confusion about the function of the article. The last is simplest. The article is not about co-authorship or debates about attribution. According to WP:LEDE the opening section should summarise the actual content of the article, not introduce material that is not addressed in it. Paul B (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Colleagues, I am writing respectfully and without a particular axe to grind. Neither do I bear the same scars I have observed from reading the reports of previous adjudications. You have my sympathies! However, I will with some reluctance proceed upon a path towards civilised consensus. Since you appear to have addressed your responses as the choir from a single church, I shall respond to your comments in totem rather than on an individual basis. I trust that will prove helpful to the resolution of this point.

You say on the one hand: "This article is precisely about the debate between "Stratfordians or non-Stratfordians". For that reason you suggest that the SAQ concerns itself with the idea that "Will of Stratford didn't write the plays". However, you go on to say that some anti-Strat theories do involve Shakespeare as part author, adaptor or editor of the plays. As it is currently drafted therefore, the statement you have as an introduction to this page is misleading.

By way of accommodation, taking into account the points you have raised, may I propose the following: "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the principal author of the works attributed to him."

A final note before signing off. In commenting on my edit it was said that "the point of view you seem to be hinting towards - that Will of Stratford co-wrote them in collaboration with A.N Other". That is incorrect. I have no agenda or axe to grind. I come to this debate from a position of neutrality and in the hope that I might assist in the process of allowing the SAQ to be represented on Wikipedia with accuracy and neutrality.

wightknight 14:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Your proposed change still treads on the toes of Shakespeare collaborations. Again: not all the material in the Shakespeare canon is even thought to be principally by Shakespeare. Take Pericles, for example, or Edward III. Moreschi (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you have not resolved your previous contradiction. My statement did not refer to the authorship of any individual work but rather to the canon as a whole. Given that "certain anti-Strat theories do involve Shakespeare as part author, adaptor or editor of the plays" I would respectfully submit that my statement more accurately (and with more neutrality) reflects the current position.

Respectfully, I would invite you to read again and reconsider your position.

wightknight 15:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What you describe is simply not what the article is about. The point I was making when I mentioned that WS is sometimes included as a (minor) contributor to trhe works in SAQ theories is that his part involvement in authorship is not what defines SAQ. Almost all mainstream writers believe he contributed to some plays but was not their main author and also some (a small minorty) of anti-Strats believe he may have contributed in some ways, but that's not what defines the difference between the two positions, so that's not what the article is about. Your proposal is simply misleading and confuses the issue. Paul B (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, respectfully, the distinction I have made is subtle but important.

This article is introduced by the statement that: "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him". You have variously acknowledged that, as to part of those works, there is agreement that third parties contributed to various works, although disagreements about the extent of those contributions and those issues are properly addresses elsewhere.

However, your statement implies that the Stratfordian position is that Shakespeare wrote the entirety of the works currently attributed to him by mainstream academia. That is not correct. The amendment I have proposed does not undermine the Stratfordian position in any way, it does not 'tread on the toes' of the co-authorship debate but rather leaves room for that interpretation also.

I would submit, humbly and respectfully, that the statement: "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the principal author of the works attributed to him."

is a more accurate and less misleading description of the subject matter at hand.

I invite you to re-consider, without first dismissing the amendment as tainted because it may have been written by someone who holds views different to your own.

wightknight 16:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You can repeat yourself as often as you like, but you have already been answered. Your statement changes the meaning utterly, and it is an obvious stalking horse for obfuscating the issue by introducing mainstream arguments about attribution and collaboration, thus making the fringe theories seem linked to the mainstream. Paul B (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fringe vs Minority

I have read with dismay the sad history of this page which reflects poorly on many and informs greatly on the debate in general.

I do not wish to advance any particular view or theory but I wish to make an observation regarding the use of the terms fringe and minority.

It is true that certain groups might reasonably be regarded as 'fringe'. It might be reasonable that the Oxfordian view is regarded as 'fringe' but that is not a question I wish to address.

My point is rather that the subject itself, the idea that Shakespeare may not have been the sole author of the Shakespeare Canon, has gained sufficient ground that the question itself must reasonably be regarded as having reached minority status, even where there is no consensus that the views of any particular group represent more than a fringe view.

Would editors agree that summary to be a neutral consensus of the current state of the SAQ ?

wightknight 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? The view that Shakespeare did not write all of the Shakespeare canon is not fringe, it is mainstream. We cover this at Shakespeare collaborations. That topic, however, has nothing to do with this. The article is specifically about the theories that proclaim that Will of Stratford did not write the plays, period. You are going off-topic and are at the wrong talkpage. Moreschi (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What you are saying is a bit like complaining that the article on The Holocaust does not include discussion of the Great Fire of Chicago, which was described as a holocaust at the time [2], along with other events that have been described as holocausts. It's not even a minority view that Shakespeare did not write every word in the canon. It's the majority view . Paul B (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I was not proposing a particular edit I hesitate from continuing further debate on this talk page. I am surprised at the unyielding reception to these comments which were intended as a helpful means of moving towards consensus by the use of appropriate terminology. I think that references in particular to the holocaust on this Talk Page are particularly unhelpful.

Let me put forward a modified statement for comment. Are you able to agree that:

"The idea that Shakespeare may not have been the principal author of the Shakespeare Canon, has gained sufficient ground that the question itself must reasonably be regarded as having reached minority status. Whereas, there is no consensus that the views of any particular alternative author represent more than a fringe view."

wightknight 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No. What RS can you point to that say that non-Stratfordian theories are, even collectively, any more than fringe views? Moreschi (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I mean, one person might believe that no Jews at all died in the Holocaust, and another might believe that 100 million died, but that doesn't mean that their views have any greater merit collectively than they would individually. Moreschi (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Further reference to jews and the holocaust is objectionable and offensive. Kindly desist.

Under Wikipedia's guidance on Fringe theories it is stated that:

Shortcuts:WP:FRINGE/PS WP:PSCI "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views."

This clearly contrasts the pseudoscientific with the academic and suggests that views from the academic community should not generally be regarded as fringe. I cited a reference to a New York Times survey identifying that a significant minority of academics believe that the authorship of the Shakespeare canon is a legitimate field of enquiry. A fringe theory is one where the view that contradicts the mainstream is not of an equal calibre.

The issue here is not Stratford v Oxford (or any other doubtful fellow) but rather certainty against reasonable doubt. The doubters now number a significant minority of academics specialising in that field. Whilst it is not mainstream, and whilst contradictory views are not mainstream, the field of study itself rises above the level of 'fringe'.

wightknight 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The NYT survey is worthless as evidence. That's not an academic source and the "survey" was largely arbitrary. In order to to demonstrate significant academic interest you would have to show that there are articles in mainstream publications in which this is debated by acedemics among academics. Your proposed sentences are deeply deeply misleading. ("The idea that Shakespeare may not have been the principal author of the Shakespeare Canon, has gained sufficient ground that the question itself must reasonably be regarded as having reached minority status. Whereas, there is no consensus that the views of any particular alternative author represent more than a fringe view.") That's outright false. pure and simple. The notion that Shakespeare may not have been the principal author of the canon has not gained anything like "minority status" among specialist scholars. Paul B (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And the survey is worthless because statistically, 13 people (5%) is within the margin of error of the survey, and cannot be related back to the population. There isn't a result to report back on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We disagree over the definition of Fringe vs Minority and I believe my own interpretation is more in keeping with Wikipedia's stated policies than your own. The NYT Survey is not an academic text. Not all sources on Wikipedia are academic texts. It is an independent text from a reliable source. Different groups may have different views on its interpretation. It may not be perfect as to its form but it is, so far as I am aware, the most significant survey of its kind that anyone has yet tried to undertake.

However, refusal to acknowledge the existence of this survey, and effectively suppressing its existence from the public consciousness, is a significant disservice to Wikipedia and presents a partial picture to the public at large.

Do you not agree that the appropriate route is for the source to be referenced in the main article and for concerns about it to be included within relevant footnotes?

Respectfully,

wightknight 16:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps, if the survey actually gave the results you think it did. I think it's fairly clear that consensus is against your proposed changes, so perhaps you would prefer to drop it at this point. The actual academic credibility of the SAQ is an academic question that should be resolved using academic sources; this doesn't qualify. Moreschi (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I rather feel that I have gatecrashed someone's private garden party! The response I have so far received is out of keeping with Wikipedia's stated intentions and I am deeply concerned at the refusal to recognise a piece of independent research because it shows findings that are anti-Stratfordian. (There is much else that is published on the page that is less well-referenced). I believe that conduct should be challenged.

The appropriate way to proceed is to publish, to reference and to qualify. Agreeing a form of words about what the survey means is another matter. Attempting to conceal information from the public is intellectually disingenuous.

I invite you to re-consider how this discussion might better proceed towards consensus.

Respectfully,

wightknight 17:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It has long been recognised that newspapers are not good sources for academic topics. Even 'serious' newspapers sensationalise and often misrepresent scholarship. Newspaper reports are typically considered highly inadequate sources for scientific matters, for example. Of course if the report is of an entirely uncontroversial matter it may well be acceptable, as newspapers are at last accessible and convenient. But for anything controversial the standard view for some time now has been that the general press is not a proper source for content. If you look at the Reliable sources board when these matters come up you will see that this is a view commonly expressed. The flaws in the NYT survey are blindingly obvious to anyone who has any familiarity with the subject. incidentially "professors of Shakespeare" means nothing in this context since Niederkorn states that this means anyone who teaches Shakespeare in public or private colleges. Shakespeare is standard fare taught by any drama or eng-lit teacher who may have no specialist knowledge of the period. Paul B (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As you must well appreciate, the relevance of this Survey is that it establishes the (minority) level of validation that the Authorship Question has gained. Your criticisms and opinions about the Survey remain valid and the proper thing to do would be to express them as caveats or footnotes to the referenced survey.

Refusing even to permit the acknowledgement of the existence of the survey invites metaphorical comparisons that are unbecoming to civilised discourse.

wightknight 20:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wightknightuk (talk • contribs)

As I have pointed out above, the survey is referenced in the article, and in context. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Engagement vs Acknowledgment

I have made efforts to engage constructively and in a civilised manner but so far I have been disappointed that the editors who appear to control this page are not prepared to countenance even the most innocuous and well-intended of amendments. Unfortunately, my limited experience bears out the warnings I received from third parties before making any contribution at all and demonstrates that lessons have not been learned following the earlier findings of the Arbitration Committee, which concluded unanimously that:

"The collaborative editing environment on Shakespeare authorship question has been dysfunctional for several years. A series of editors have behaved poorly, some of whom are no longer active. The problems are demonstrated by the fact that Talk:Shakespeare authorship question has 21 archive pages. Extensive and lively talkpage discussion on an article may sometimes reflect active, productive collaborative editing by engaged and knowledgeable editors happily working together—but not in this case. Rather, these talkpage archives reflect a miserable history of talkpage misuse and disruption, fully consistent with the troubled history of the article itself."

Notwithstanding that I am a new participant to this article, might I respectfully suggest three possible solutions:

(1) An improvement in engagement to allow the Page to reflect more accurately the state of the SAQ, albeit with due prominence and indeed pre-eminence to the Stratfordian position and the fringe nature of certain oppositional voices. (2) An acknowledgment in the Lead that the Page has been developed and maintained by Stratfordians and that the views of other interest groups have not substantially been taking into account in the publication of this article. (3) The provision of an appropriate 'walled-garden' within the article, including a relevant caveat or health-warning, such that other interests might have the opportunity to be properly represented without undue influence. Whereas the majority of the page would represent only the Stratfordian perspective, the 'walled-garden' might be an acceptable form of equivocation that would reflect the current state of flux within the SAQ community.

My preference would be for option 1, which best reflects the traditions of Wikipedia and its stated policies and principles. However, I am mindful of the troubled history and cautious of what might be achievable.

With respect and courtesy, I welcome the views of all editors of this page.

wightknight 17:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What a load of baloney. You are just attempting to mislead readers and alter text in exactly the same way that other editors have in the past, and so, of course, you have had the same replies (of course we have every reason to suspect you may be an old editor reappearing under a new moniker). Your account came into existence solely to make these edits, so it is unsurprising that you repeat the mantras that you have no doubt read on Oxfordian websites. You are of course at liberty to take your complaints to any relevant board. The quotation you repeat refers to the editing atrmosphere that the current restrictions were put in place to overcome. It led to the banning of several Oxfordian editors, not a single "Stratfordian" one. Paul B (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you for your courteous response. I think you have ably identified yourself as partisan in this debate.

I registered this account, my first and only account, because my research in this area encouraged me to become involved. I have no axe to grind. I owe no loyalty to any particular group. I am, however, keen to see the question properly represented and at the moment it is not being so represented.

Respectfully, whilst you suggest that I am attempting to 'mislead readers' it is the current editors who are determined to conceal relevant material to the extent that it is inconsistent with the Stratfordian position. I have approached you in a respectful and I have been met by derision and discourtesy. That has been a great disappointment.

Since you have encouraged me to escalate this matter to a 'relevant board' then that must properly be my next course of action.

wightknight 20:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am of couse a "partisan" of the mainstream view - since that is what the policy of the encyclopedia requires us to be, while also representing minority and fringe views with what is referred to as "due weight". I openly admit that I personally consider the anti-Strat view to be preposterous. The more I learn, the more ridiculous it seems. However, I also find it fascinating and am fully committed to its proper representation. You are probably unaware that Tom Reedy and myself have created more articles on anti-Strat writers and theories than all the Oxfordians, Baconians and Marlovians put together. As for concealing "relevant material", we could fill a library with all the anti-Strat arguments that have been put forward over the years, along with the rebuttals of them. It's impossible to find a "systematic" method to decide which arguments to mention and which to omit. We have to be concise and we have to portray the mainstream view as more prominent than the fringe theory. Them's the rules, as Louis VIV famously said before he disappeared from history when he realised he had become Louis minus I through excess of overdramatised faux-politesse. Paul B (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion on drafting style

From the point of view of brevity and elegance, rather than saying in the Lead:

“about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him”

would it not be preferable to say:

“about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the Shakespeare [Canon]”

I suggest this might be helpful because the Shakespeare Canon is already a well understood term and has an existing definition on Wikipedia which might be of assistance to anyone coming to the subject for the first time. (I have no strong view on whether Canon should be a capitalised term or not).

Wightknightuk (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no "elegance" in your proposed sentence, with its confusing repetition of "Shakespeare". As for "brevity", you are replacing 17 words with 15. Hardly a significant improvement if it reduces clarity. I kind-of see your point, since over the years various works have been attributed to him which are generally not accepted as canonical, but I still think clarity of communication trumps pedantic precision if the latter is actually more confusing. We are not drafting laws, we are writing encyclopedic prose. Readers are not looking for loopholes, they are looking for useful information. Paul B (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Although the term is used throughout the article, I think using "Shakespeare canon" would lend a bit of subliminal confusion to the lede definition sentence, since the term implicitly assumes Shakespeare's authorship. It also wrecks the metre of the sentence, but that is not really an important consideration in an encyclopedia article.

And how exactly is this a helpful edit, anyway? Jesus, are we gonna have to go through this entire bullshit again? Every word of this article has been discussed, argued over, and vetted by more editors than probably any other article on Wikipedia saving the Israel/Palestine pages. Yet every time a new anti-Stratfordian shows up with such frivolous and unsubstantial edits as this one, along with a lot of double-talk about his or her highest and purest motives, we're supposed to go through the entire charade again. Really?

I'll tell you this, Wightknightuk: the tactics of attrition, distraction, and frivolous dispute resolution actions kept this article in the ghetto for years until just a over a year ago. They won't work anymore, so you might as well bring on your best substantive ideas—if you have any—quickly and directly and stop all this fiddle-farting around.

I also have a question: If anti-Strats are so concerned about the state of the authorship articles on Wikipedia, why in heaven's name don't they work on the other articles and get them in acceptable shape? The Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship is barely coherent. The Baconian theory article reads as if it were written as a kindergarten class project. The Ogburn articles, both père and fils, are in disgraceful shape, all the more so for their status as Oxfordian saints. Yet for some reason every anti-Strat editor believes that the way to begin their Wiki career is by "improving" a controversial Featured article in order "to progress [the article] towards neutrality by a process of discussion and conciliation". Can you answer that? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And just BTW, the term "canon" would not link to Shakespeare attribution studies. It would link to a section in that article. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Every anti-Strat editor, Tom? Peter Farey (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Every new one, anyway! Glad to hear from you, Peter. Cheers! Tom Reedy (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul B states: "over the years various works have been attributed to (Shakespeare) which are generally not accepted as canonical". The phrase "works attributed to him" is therefore misleading without significant qualification. The better way of dealing with the issue is to use an established and well-recognised term.

Paul B states: "Readers ... are looking for useful information". Providing a link to the relevant section in the article on Shakespeare attribution studies would be helpful to the interested reader in this regard.

I do not see that the use of the term Shakespeare Canon, which is a commonly understood term in wide academic and non-academic usage would lead to "subliminal confusion to the lede definition sentence, since the term implicitly assumes Shakespeare's authorship". Wightknightuk (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"Shakespeare authorship question is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so."

"WP:BB" Wightknightuk (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What would be the point of such a change? I agree with the others that "canon" is unnecessary confusion because any link to Shakespeare attribution studies in a definiton of "Shakespeare authorship question" is misleading—it suggests there is some connection between the meaning of SAQ and the question of which plays involved collaborative authorship. The wording "wrote the works attributed to him" is accurate, clear, succinct, and good writing—exactly what is needed, particularly in the first sentence. While many readers would understand "canon", it is unnecessary jargon that would misdirect readers. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Shakespeare Apocrypha is a group of plays and poems that have sometimes been attributed to William Shakespeare" according to the definition on Wikipedia.

The current definition of "works attributed to him" includes the Apocrypha. The Shakespeare Canon does not. The current definition is inaccurate. The suggested alternative is accurate and also benefits from providing a helpful reference for the interested reader.

The term "Shakespeare canon" otherwise appears 12 times within the body of the article and has therefore been treated as an accepted term when it has been used by one of a number of approved editors.

Wightknightuk (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an exercise in pole-vaulting over a rat turd.

The Shakespeare Apocrypha is a part of several anti-Strat theories and therefore changing the term would make the definition inaccurate. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think perhaps you have misunderstood the point. The current definition of "the works attributed to (Shakespeare)" is incorrect because "works attributed to (Shakespeare)" is an identifiable class that includes a subset (the Shakespeare Apocrypha) with which the Shakespeare authorship question does not concern itself.

It may be helpful to understand the matter thus: there is a class A that contains two mutually exclusive sub-sets, X and Y. When one is making a reference to sub-set X and describing it by reference to the generic class A one is incorrectly imputing to that class the qualities of the other sub-set Y.

In other words: the works attributed to Shakespeare is a generic term which comprises two mutually exclusive sub-classes: (a) the Shakespeare Canon (the works generally accepted as having been written by Shakespeare); and (b) the Shakespeare Apocrypha (the works attributed to him but generally accepted as not having been written by Shakespeare.

To say the Shakespeare Authorship Question is concerned with (a) and (b) above is incorrect.

Allow me to provide a longer quotation from the Wikipedia article on the Shakespeare Apocrypha to assist:

"The Shakespeare Apocrypha is a group of plays and poems that have sometimes been attributed to William Shakespeare, but whose attribution is questionable for various reasons. The issue is separate from the debate on Shakespearean authorship, which addresses the authorship of the works traditionally attributed to Shakespeare."

The current version: “about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him” is clearly inaccurate.

Would you prefer: “about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him” which is at least accurate, albeit a little more unwieldy. It is an expression that seems to have been accepted as a means of describing the Shakespeare Authorship Question in the Wikipedia article on the Shakespeare Apocrypha.

Since the term "Shakespeare Canon" is used extensively elsewhere within the article I would suggest that the best alternative is: "about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the Shakespeare Canon”.

What is the consensus? Wightknightuk (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are the one who has missed the point. The reference to the SAQ in the apocrypha article is to distinguish the topics, not to say that the SAQ does not include the apocrypha. The SAQ is about the Shakespeare works being written by another, hidden author, and several SAQ theories discuss the apocrypha in those terms. The apocrypha is a group of plays that have been attributed to Shakespeare on questionable grounds. The distinction between the two topics is not difficult to grasp.

And I believe the consensus is quite clear. You have my permission to move on to another non-issue. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Your point is unclear.

At the moment the statement:

"about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him"

in fact means

"about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him, including the the Shakespeare Canon (the works generally accepted as having been written by Shakespeare) and the Shakespeare Apocrypha (the works attributed to him but generally accepted as not having been written by Shakespeare)".

That does not seem an accurate representation of the Shakespeare Authorship Question. Or are you in fact suggesting that the Shakespeare Authorship Question addresses itself to who wrote the Shakespeare Apocrypha? I would suggest it does not. the word "apocrypha" does not even appear in the article.

The statement is inaccurate and should be corrected. Which of the proposed alternatives do you prefer?

Wightknightuk (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Is your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT strategy deliberate? It makes no difference whether the article mentions the apocrypha or not. The phrase "works attributed to him" is all-inclusive for a reason. Surely, as a person who is attempting to reform the no-doubt many rhetorical and factual errors of this page, you are aware of the various SAQ theories that discuss the apocrypha, such as Sabrina Feldman and Dennis McCarthy's theories. These theories are not discussed in this general article, mainly because they are minor and have received little, if any, academic attention. But anti-Strats, as blind as they are to the obvious, are nit-pickers when it comes to "Stratfordian" facts and even more so when it touches their favorite candidate, and I can guarantee you that replacing the phrase with a specific term will result in yet further useless objections and debate.

And we are not buying a vacuum cleaner from a door-to-door salesman, so you can spare us the false dilemma closing technique, clever as it undoubtedly was when Moses first used it.

You have been given several valid reasons for the use of the present diction, and the consensus of the regular editors of this page is clear. I suggest you move away from this particular detail. Any further discussion along the same lines is blatant talk page abuse and a waste of time. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is after all in the present tense. It refers to the works attributed to him, not to all the works that have ever been attributed to him. Complicating the issue will just produce confusion. Anti-Strats are also fond of adding the works of other authors to their particular darling's creative canon. Should we also add a phrase noting that it's not just the Shakespeare canon that's at issue? I don't see this as useful. At the moment the sentence is clear and it allows for the variety of theories to be represented. Paul B (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Shakespeare Apocrypha is referred to in the SAQ by the anti-Stratfordians as evidence that the attribution of a work is not conclusively determinative of its authorship. It is not mainstream to either the Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian position that the person who wrote the Shakespeare Canon also wrote the Apocrypha.

I am sure that the illogicality of the current wording was unintentional, nonetheless I have identified the problem clearly enough and no logical argument has been presented in rebuttal. I have presented two alternative forms of words and despite the fact that Paul B acknowledged that "I kind-of see your point, since over the years various works have been attributed to him which are generally not accepted as canonical" there has been no other attempt to improve upon what is already there.

You say that "the consensus of the regular editors of this page is clear". However, I have so far only seen responses from two such regular editors, one of whom acknowledged there was an issue to address. I am not familiar with [Pater Farey] but his comment was not antagonistic to my proposal.

I think it takes more than two editors to establish a consensus. Does anyone else have a perspective on this? Wightknightuk (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of good points made here by Wightknightuk over the last several days. Am I allowed to say that, or would this be considered talk page abuse? DeVereGuy (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You can say it, but it doesn't help us much. Endorsement isn't a contribution. Paul B (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought you were looking for a consensus? Although I appreciate Tom Reedy's point about "regular editors" seems to suggest that in this crowd of equals some are more equal than others. I presume it is understood that on WP everyone speaks with an equal voice?

In any case, clearly this is not about 'votes' but rather achieving a consensus, an appreciably more challenging exercise!

I genuinely feel there is an unintentional error that would benefit from correction. Paul B seems to have acknowledged at least that there might be an issue. I have made two suggestions. Does anyone have another alternative?

Wightknightuk (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely you are intelligent enough to understand my comment. It's not that difficult. I was asking for a real contribution, not an empty endorsement of "good points" which are not even specified. How does that help? Peter Farey, by the way, is a leading Marlovian and is the principal author of the Marlovian theory page. On your main point, of course attribution does not prove authorship. Many works have been misattributed. A fair number of witty pronouncements never spoken by him have been attributed to Winston Churchill, for example. That is a fact. I don't think this fact has ever been used as evidence that his speeches were all ghost written. However, I don't deny that the misattribution of works to WS has been used as an argument by anti-Strats. The problem is that your proposed changes do not improve clarity or logic. You appear to be the only person who considers the current wording to be illogical. Paul B (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

[Paul Barlow] would you mind clarifying whom you are addressing, please. I presume DeVere Guy?

DeVere guy, perhaps you could clarify which version you prefer:

1. “about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him”

2. "about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the Shakespeare Canon”

3. “about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him”

Or is there a better form of words?

Wightknightuk (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I was addressing you, Wightknightuk. When a comment is inset directly under another, it is assumed to be a response to it. Paul B (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, thank you for your response. You will see that your "Endorsement isn't a contribution" comment was made directly beneath DeVere Guy's post. Your next comment ".. I was asking for a real contribution .." naturally appeared to relate to that conversation.

Yes, I find your arguments remarkably easy to follow.

Thank you for your response to my query. Wightknightuk (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

How about learning how to indent your response beneath the appropriate post? As super intelligent as you are, it seems that you would have figured that out by now. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears then that you don't find my comments easy to follow after all. The "endorsement" comment was a reply to DeVereGuy. The "real contribution" comment was a reply to you, since your own remark "I thought you were looking for a consensus" could only reasonably be construed as a reply to mine (you referred to Tom in the third person), containing an implicit complaint that I was dismissing DeVereGuy's views. Paul B (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Returning to the matter at hand, you don't seem to have addressed the issue:

"I said: It is not mainstream to either the Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian position that the person who wrote the Shakespeare Canon also wrote the Apocrypha. No-one appears to have disagreed with that."

Paul B acknowledged that "I kind-of see your point, since over the years various works have been attributed to him which are generally not accepted as canonical" and "DeVere Guy" also posted in support.

If it is your contention either that Stratfordians believe Shakespeare wrote the Apocrypha, or that anti-Stratfordians hold that view, then I may alter my position. Is that what you are saying?

[Tom Reedy] As a newcomer I would be delighted to receive any advice on etiquette from more seasoned hands. Feel at liberty to point me in the right direction and I will do my best to oblige.

Wightknightuk (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Indented line

4.5 Authorship in the mainstream media

I note that the following has been added to section 4.5 'Authorship in the mainstream media':

"Also, in September, the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust project "60 Minutes with Shakespeare" was published on a Web page containing extensive audio and transcripts from sixty scholars, who served as significant rebuke in anticipation of the film's popularity. The speakers selected were well-known for venue leadership and defense of the Stratfordian position, including the Prince of Wales, president of the Royal Shakespeare Company, Stanley Wells, honorary president of Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, and Stephen Fry, celebrated British actor."

Should this not read "September 2011" instead of simply September?

I am not sure it is accurate to call all sixty of the participants scholars, although clearly some are. Would not "scholars and other celebrities" or "scholars and other notable individuals supportive of the Stratfordian position" be more accurate?

It it in fact accurate to say that: "The speakers selected were well-known for venue leadership and defense of the Stratfordian position"? I am not sure that 'venue leadership is a clearly understood term. Should this be clarified and or referenced?

I do not believe that all had a previous association with the Stratfordian position (certainly this appears to have been Stephen Fry's first major pronouncement on the subject). Would it not be safer to exclude that reference?

I am somewhat cautious of simply editing or deleting posts on the main page. Could one or more of the established editors please advise here on how best to proceed?

Wightknightuk (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The film, as it turned out, was spectacularly unpopular. This is essentially trivia. It might be worth a sentence, but not a paragraph. And what exactly does "who served as significant rebuke" mean? Is that English? Paul B (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul if you're gonna include that sentence then it needs to be followed by the "she said" component: the Coalition's mirror response. I really don't see the point in having the material—a minor hiccup—on this page anyway; it rightly belongs on the film's page. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If the response is notable and citable maybe. I think the fact that it is an entry into "internet wars" actually is significant. Paul B (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I know the SBT got their knickers all in a wad about the movie, but that certainly is not the first time they've responded to anti-Strat claims, and it pretty much went the same way the movie did: sunk without a trace. (It also had a buttload of errors, which is not surprising since academics really don't know squat about the SAQ. I had hoped that Shapiro's book would have drawn their attention, because there really are some worthwhile avenues to explore, but after a brief flash it appears that they went back to ignoring it.) Oh well, I've lived in the ghetto this long, I suppose I'll die in it. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)