Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

On neutrality and bias

(Note: from the "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard":  ..."you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proximity1 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC) 

Specifically, as examples of undue bias, I cite the following (lettered, A, B, etc.)

(A) Paragraph #1

 In the very first paragraph of the present article about "The Shakespeare Authorship Question, this page disparages the "question" itself, describing the entirety of alternatives to William Shakespeare as author as being, in the opinions of 

"all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians," "a fringe belief."

As an invitation to a novice reader to simply dismiss the topic right then and there, I could not imagine a more clearly non-neutral view.  Why would someone be moved to continue reading after such an opening paragraph?  

---

 (B)   In the page's "External Links," eight links are presented.  Each and every one of them is by, from, for and about the Stratfordian view of the Authorship Question.  A recent addition of a link to a site presenting one of the alternative views here was promptly deleted.

 How is this page doing on the "Neutrality" score-board?

Proximity1 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

How is it doing in terms of neutrality? Quite well: we neutrally describe what mainstream academia has to say on the subject. We don't create artificial balance by giving unnecessary prominence to a position that received almost universal rejection from qualified academics. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Quite well--says Ian. But can he find anyone authentically (not a "ringer") from the non-Stratfordian POV who'd agree with his opinion?

Question: Did a partisan of the Stratfordian viewpoint write or amend as-now-stands the opening paragraph?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Proximity1 (talk • contribs)

Indent your posts with colons and sign them with four tildes. What adherents of a fringe position think doesn't matter -- we stick with mainstream academia. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Ian, "Fringe position" circumstances apply, per the cited page, in an article about a mainstream"  idea.  That is not the case here. See below.  Your edits are hostile and unsupported by Wikipedia policy.  Proximity1 (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream"  idea.  The "Shakespeare Authorship Question," by its very character, cannot be about "a mainstream idea-- yet.Proximity1 (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Indent your posts using colons. The article is about mainstream academia's perception of the idea. Your accusations of hostility fail WP:Assume good faith, one of the founding principles of this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm disputing the the neutrality of the present article as it shows, in my opinion, clear and undue bias favoring a partisan view by using terms ("Fringe ideas") which seem to have for their intent to pre-emptorily dismiss the entire premise of the page itself as unworthy of serious consideration at all, and, as supposed support for that opinion, that the majority view means that a minority's opinion is ipso facto not deserving of presentation on fair and equal terms--even where the page topic itself is devoted to describing the majority/minority difference of opinion. Proximity1 (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

New comments go at the bottom. Read WP:FRINGE. If mainstream academia rejects an idea, such as geocentrism, young earth creationism, or non-"Stratfordian" authorship, then Wikipedia does not pretend the two ideas are equal. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ian; the article as it stands fully complies with NPOV. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

So do I have this right: neither of you (i.e. Mike C. and Ian T.) would object to a partisan Stratfordian drafting the presentation of the case, opinions and arguments of any and all of those who dispute the Stratfordian point of view for them and in place of them? Is that correct? Proximity1 (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Quit using spaces to indent, use colons. And it's not a good idea to use strawman arguments to try to make others out as using strawman arguments.

The article neutrally presents mainstream academia's assessment of the subject. By your admission, this idea is not accepted by mainstream academia, so there's no reason for the article to pretend that it receives more than fringe acceptance. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

In fact, the language of paragraph one of the article simply dismisses the entire pertinence of the page itself. It does not merely avoid some "pretense" of the degree of popular support, rather, it pressupposes that the extent of popular support--which it makes no effort to gage or estimate (when it comes to alternatives to William Shaksper)--is of no importance whatsoever since these views, described pre-emptorily as "fringe" before they are even expounded, aren't worthy of anyone's consideration. That is prior bias, that is the epitome of a non-neutral presentation of a controversial topic. That the topic is controversial is a given. In that, we can all agree. The point of the discussion here on the Talk-Page is this: Given that the topic is controversial, how and what does and should "neutrality" apply in the page's drafting and presentation. Your argument seems to be simple: this controversial issue deserves nothing at all in neutral treatment because it happens not to have "mainstream academia's" imprimitur. Under such a principle, we could readily eliminate all controversial pages which do not square with orthodox scholarship of the moment--and, of course, restore them as soon as the winds shift. But, in either case, the underlying facts of the matter remain unchanged: whether or not "mainstream academics" have it right or wrong, the Shakespeare Authorship Question remains an issue of historical fact, not just some consensus of popular opinion. Proximity1 (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you twisting my words because you can't honestly address the actual points or work within the site's policies and guidelines or because you just can't understand that Wikipedia articles summarize mainstream academic views on subjects? Do you not understand that Wikipedia determines matters of history by citing professionally published sources by scholars who happened to be trained to study and assess these facts? Do you not understand that the introductory paragraph is a summary of the rest of the article, which cites the sources for statements in the lede? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

'Controversial'. The topic, Shakespeare's identity, is not 'controversial'. The topic is hammered away at by a fringe lunatic bunch of controversialists, who raise questions that were long analysed, dismissed and buried ages ago, and no one listens to the hack mill's Wiederholungszwang anymore, and haven't for some decades. By 'no one' I mean competent readers and scholars of Shakespeare and his period, period.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Shaksper's identification as author of the literary work attributed to the title-page name "William Shake-speare" is, yes, as a simple matter of historical fact, past and present, "controversial." Thus, the article is entitled "Shakespeare Authorship Question." The premise is disparaged in the article's lede--as though written by someone who would just as soon discourage those who find this article from actually reading it. Proximity1 (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This talk page has 29 huge archives which have explored every angle, objection, fringe lunatic thesis, etc., that the de Verean et al., fantasists have come up with. What you are doing is rehashing bits and pieces of things since settled (and reverting back into the article a dopey website that looks clearly promotional since the author appears to use airhead clichés from the 19th century) by collegial discussion. I'd suggest you read the archives through from first to last before coming back. If you have, then, something fresh to say, then by all means return here.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Did a partisan of the Stratfordian viewpoint write or amend as-now-stands the opening paragraph? Proximity1 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This is from the archive:

"There are significant problems with this article, but the editors who hold a biased and unfavorable view of the subject have managed to have their position prevail. These editors have misconstrued what a fringe belief is in this area. They have mischaracterized the debate. Just because they have gotten away with it for so long is no reason it should continue."

I agree with that. "Just because they have gotten away with it for so long is no reason it should continue." Proximity1 (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: "Discussion of minority views" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Final_decision) "5) While all articles must be neutral, the nature of an article is often relevant to how extensively non-majority views should be discussed. For example, a minority or fringe view about a given subject might properly receive little weight in the main article on the subject but, if the view is notable, may receive greater attention in an article on the minority or fringe view itself. Even in the latter article, however, the degree of scholarly acceptance of the non-majority view should not be overstated. Passed 13 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)."

(cited) The foregoing has not been respected here. Proximity1 (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You're confusing attention with validity. Our articles on Young earth creationism and Geocentrism do not pretend that there's any validity to those ideas at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any further responses to Proximity1 on this talk page are needed unless they post something that might (judging by the talk page history) actually gain consensus. There is no reason to continue such an unproductive discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That was quick. And bizarre. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC) 74.75.126.58 (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC) There is a raging debate about authorship. Wikipedia is badly out of step with current scholarship. Trying to stamp out dissenting views is never the answer -Waldron Bates

Latest Additions re: Authorship

Unified field, and the anonymous editor who added material: This is going to have to be reverted. This is a Featured Article, and everything in it was added after much debate and careful consideration over many years. This new material is inserted without integration into the rest of the article, using sources that are debatable, and has other issues. Please bring up these changes on the Talk Page first before adding anything. One example: I see a personal blog as one of the sources (maybe more, but I haven't checked all): not acceptable as a reliable source. --Alan W (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

See? I didn't even have to do the reverting myself. I knew that this was completely out of tune with the rest of the article and that someone far more knowledgeable in this area than I would soon object. If you are serious about what you are trying to add, please do discuss it all on this talk page before proceeding. After thinking it over some more, I'm not even sure that the subject is entirely the same. No one doubts that Shakespeare collaborated with others on at least some of his plays. Determining who his collaborators were and who wrote what portions of the plays is not the same subject of inquiry as the "Shakespeare authorship question"—which I won't take the trouble to explain because it's already explained on the article page. --Alan W (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm just gonna park this in case he ever decides to get off my talkpage and bring his questions here. William Shakespeare's collaborations Tom Reedy (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. Just as I thought (but I didn't recall if it already existed), what Unified field seems to want to add material to is properly not this article but that one. --Alan W (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship

Scholarship has moved significantly over the past 20 years and that the view presented on wikipedia does not reflect the mainstream. alot of space is devoted to he devere and bacon authorship theories in particular are on the decline while scholarly and linguistic theories connecting marlowe are on the ascent. I footnote some 2017 studies. I would say the article is particularly biased in implying that computer linguistic studies reinforce the hypothesis that shakespeare wrote everything himself. I believe they suggest the opposite.

3) everything I wrote is meticulously footnoted and documented and presented in a fair and neutral manner.

4) if you delete my post in its entirety, you deny the wikipedia community an important resource, namely a summation of all Shakespeare works in chronological order and present the arguments relevant to each text. the chronological pattern is very important, because it highlights the earliest works are thought to be collaborations with Kyd, the next several tragedies are strongly attributed to Marlowe, then Shakespeare starts writing more on his own, and then as his business matures he delegates more to Middleton and Fletcher.

please restore my comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unified field (talk • contribs) 21:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Please take this to the SAQ talkpage. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈ 2a) some other aspects of the existing article which troubles me: it is written as if people are binary. pro-stratfordian or anti-stratfordian. that mindset made sense 20 years ago, but many scholars today are assuming multiple hands worked on each play, trying to parse out which phrases were edited by which co-author.

another thing which troubles me; the article seems more interested in advocacy than unencumbered analysis. so, for example, the article takes the standard argument that shakespeare lacked the education or background to write these works and attempts to turn it on its head, maintaining his fallability shows he was a likely candidate. i dont buy this argument for a minute, because the author of these plays had a level of erudition far from what could be obtained with a grammar school education. but mostly the article is written in a style of someone trying to defend a view at all costs rather than in a manner which suggests intellectual honesty.

I am sympathetic because it sounds like wikipedia is getting barraged with edits which overwhelm the editors. but may I humbly suggest you are getting so many edits because the article as written does not adequately cover the material, does not reflect recent scholarship, and is not open enough to divergent viewpoints.

also, I was not attempting to espouse anything new and radical. merely to summarize what I believe be to the scholarly consensus in a concise chronological chart format which does not presently exist. perhaps you wish to have separate columns presenting arguments for and against shakesperian authorship of each play. other readers are free to annotate this chart if I missed relevant arguments.

but simply deleting the chart (and other edits) cannot be the right answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unified field (talk • contribs) 00:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you understand what "Please take this to the SAQ talkpage" means? Tom Reedy (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

12:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)~ The condescending tone from Tom Reedy (in response to me and others on this talk page) seems inappropriate. I am a reader laboring hard in good faith to make Wikipedia better for all. I take your point that Shakespeare Authorship is technically different than collaboration. However, the contention is Shakespeare was largely an actor and businessman whose collaborative efforts were relatively minor in many plays. After the initial feedback from AW, I worked hard to integrate the article with meticulous documentation. These range from scholarly papers and published books to highly respected newspapers and periodicals. The current article has clear biases as noted above. My chart was merely a summation of current consensus and arguments. Surely a useful tool, not available elsewhere to my knowledge. if the chart is misplaced in SAQ, I am happy to relocate it or have you do so. If other Wikipedia readers disagree, they should be free to annotate as I previously suggested.

As Alan pointed out above, this page is a featured article, and as such is considered to be among the best Wikipedia articles. Such articles demand conformity with Wikipedia's editing standards, which includes reliable sourcing as determined by Wikipedia guidelines. Hardly any of the sources you used met those standards, and the ones that did were used to support original research. In any case, references to a blog promoting the fringe belief that Shakespeare was a front for Christopher Marlowe are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia.

In addition, as you should now know given that I posted it on your user talk page, this page has been the topic of an arbitration decision which requires that all edits meet certain standards at the peril of discretionary standards. I suggest you familiarize yourself with those standards and the history of this page before you make any more edits. Complaining about the "tone" of other editors will not advance your cause.

As to your edits, if they belonged anywhere, it would be on the William Shakespeare's collaborations page. You seem to have misunderstood the difference between the Shakespeare authorship question, which is a fringe belief that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the Shakespeare canon, with the issue of collaboration, which is a valid scholarly inquiry into how much of Shakespeare's works were collaborations with other writers. But given the deficiencies, some of which I have pointed out, I doubt your edits belong on that page, at least not without extensive revision to conform to Wikipedia standards.

I hope this helps. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This article has been challenged for lacking a neutral point of view

{subst:NPOVN-notice}} This article has generated controversy for years. It is wrong for one editor to stifle dissent. The article does present some alternative views but then summarily dismisses them without adequate consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.126.58 (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

'One editor?? Hey, hang on a tic. I thought there was/were a dozen of us stifling dys-sense? Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

On the possible editorial contributions of John Florio

I am surprised that there is no mention of the John Florio Shakespeare authorship theory in this article. The article seems incomplete without it. Peaceray (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the "Alternative candidates" section, the current mention of the Florios at List of Shakespeare authorship candidates seems reasonable. What makes him more important than the other "more than 80"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I would refer you to the following.

• Frampton, Saul (2013-07-12). "Who edited Shakespeare?". the Guardian. Retrieved 2017-08-17.
• Rasmussen, Eric (2017). "Who edited the Shakespeare First Folio?". Cahiers Élisabéthains. 93 (1). SAGE Publications: 70–76. doi:10.1177/0184767817697300. ISSN 0184-7678.
• Tassinari, Lamberto (2009). John Florio : the man who was Shakespeare. translated by William McCuaig. Montréal, QC: Giano Books. ISBN 2981035819. OCLC 751858343. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-source= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)
• Yates, Frances A. (1934). John Florio: The Life of an Italian in Shakespeare's England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. OCLC 610362236.

Both Frampton & Tassinari have a fair number of citations among the +"John Florio" editor sheakespeare - Google Search results. I think that that the hypothesis that Florio edited the First Folio is worthy of putting it to the test, but only a thorough lexical analysis would resolve this & any other attibution / contribution claims. Peaceray (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

While Florio's candidacy is mentioned in the main article about him and in the list article, the theory hasn't penetrated public awareness enough to draw any rebuttal from reliable academic sources, so it hasn't risen to the level of notability to be included in this article, just like most of the other 80-some-odd "candidates". Tom Reedy (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)