Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

A modest proposal

I can see that unless we come to an agreement we're all going to be spinning our wheels editing this article and getting nowhere. Since it's distressingly evident that the quality of the edits is not going to get any better, I've given up on trying to get this article up to feature quality, and now I only want to make sure the Stratfordian argument is not distorted. So I propose that we agree to Strat and anti-Strat boundaries. I'll agree not to tinker with anti-Strat edits except for the history section (because obviously no one here but me knows any anti-Strat history except for the Oxfordism part), and anti-Strats keep out of the Strat edits. IOW, instead of trying to "correct" my errors, you are free to rebut them all you like in your section, and I'll do the same.

So how about it? Can we make a deal?

While I agree with the basic principal, I think we need to do our best to keep each other honest (for want of a better word). I would suggest that, rather than trying to gaze into a crystal ball to "guess" what each other might consider "controversial" before making every single edit, why don't we make a gentleman's agreement to:

• a) In the cases where we know the other side is going to object, we discuss those edits prior to posting - as was deemed the procedure by the Wiki administrators who have given us "final warnings".
• b) In the case where we honestly don't think the other side is going to object, we go ahead and add material - but with this caveat: If after posting something, the other side does object, then the poster will self-revert and discuss at talk in order to seek consensus wording.

I think that this approach might at least be worth a try and will live up to the spirit of the wiki administrator's instructions.Smatprt (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to try anything. One problem might be that I'm not a good judge on what I think you might object to, and I think I've discovered one reason, at least: your profession. Actors are much more sensitive than the average person, at least I've been told. Several times you've come up with reasons fro objecting that I never thought of.

Another item is that going by your comments about Old Moonraker, you seem to be the type of person who likes peace. The last couple of months you and I have really gotten into it and when all the dust settled we ended up with a really good product. I must remind you of the cuckoo clock story in The Third Man.

So I take it now that Strats will edit Strat material and anti-Strats their material? Or a reasonable facsimile thereof. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also AlexPope has put error-ridden and unreferenced material into the Strat argument, which I intend to delete unless he or someone else moves it to another section. I've also restored relevant and referenced material that was deleted by an anonymous poster, although by style of the comment it may have been AlexPope. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Also would someone please archive this page? It is getting too unwieldy. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Very funny recent "spoof" edit. Now I assume you will self-revert. Smatprt (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to make a point to the anonymous poster who keeps deleting my edit. He's not the arbiter of what's relevant to the Strat argument, especially if the argument is referenced. That particular fact (that biographical material found in the works can be found for James and Essex, as well as other aristocrats) is one that has a long history. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I got it! But both an admin (the one who warned us) and I (at your request) have left messages on his talk page - and in your recent email you called it a spoof edit - so I think the point has been made. Considering the scrutiny this page is receiving from administrators, you should probably self revert as quickly as possible. I don't think the Wiki admin is in a joking mood right now. And the anon has been warned by the same admin, so it's time to restore the material. Thanks, Smatprt (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I did so. So are you saying I can add back my edit? Cos I'm not looking to get blocked. (I hardly ever check other people's talk pages unless I'm having a conversation with them.)Tom Reedy (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-reverting (reverting your own edit) is not a problem. Just put "self-revert" in the edit summary and no administrator will take offense. It's reverting other editor's work (valid or not) that has come under scrutiny here. Smatprt (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a self-revert. I was asking about restoring my edit, which I did. (It seems we're having some communication problems.) Tom Reedy (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive page?

Wikipedia recommends archiving talk pages at 50 topics or 32kb. We have 44 and 205kb. It also says we need to reach a consensus to archive. I recommend we archive everything on the page except for the last topic, "A modest proposal," so new editors can learn how we're supposed to edit the page. Or perhaps we should put up a read-only topic outlining the procedure? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Afasmit (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidents in the play back-and-forths

I'm not involved in this, but my guess is that the IP user mostly takes offense with "which renders the method worthless as far as attributing authorship." This is the opinion of Kathman and undoubtedly many others but can only be stated if the number and quality of incidents are generally accepted to be comparable, not just if there are also some incidents that fit other aristocrats' lives. The Oxforidan argument probably is is that for de Vere the "co-incidents" just keep piling up. Afasmit (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what he (or she) takes offense at (and we don't know because he doesn't communicate on the talk page as per protocol), he has no business removing properly sourced information from the rebuttal paragraph, as he's not the arbiter of what can or cannot be used as a rebuttal. He also has a history of vandal edits.

And yes, that is the point of the material, to show that biographical parallels from the plays can be made to fit anybody, and that therefore the method (called the "biographical fallacy") is worthless as far as identifying an author from the works. It is a standard orthodox response to Oxfordian biography-hunting, and as such is a valid part of this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess my take on this, and what I find controversial about the precise wording of the edit(s) under discussion, is:

• Biographical parallels are not the only evidence being offered for any of the candidates, so to call "their methods" unorthodox is inaccurate. "Some of their methods" would be more accurate. Also, some mainstream scholars also use biographical parallels regarding Shakespeare (the Hamnet/Hamlet material, the Warwickshire native as evidenced by certain lines and characters, etc.) so to say that this is unorthodox actually applies to both camps.

• All candidates use this approach (including mainstream), so to apply it to any single candidate would be selective and not live up to NPOV.

• All candidates do, in fact, use historical evidence (Derby - accounts of penning plays, Bacon - word and phrases found in his book, Oxford - his players frequenting the Boar's head, his lease on Blackfriars, etc.) so to say that authorship doubters do not use historical evidence is also incorrect.

I think there is some wording that will solve these problems, but we just haven't hit on it yet. Perhaps we can all suggest some wording to address this? Smatprt (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're looking at the wrong edit. I'm talking about the edits 205.172.16.103 keeps reverting, not the lede. Anti-Stratfordians do not use the same type of evidence orthodox literary historians do to attribute the works to Shakespeare. (Stratfordian parallels some of them purport to find in the works are not used as proof of authorship; those who do so already accept the authorship of SoS.) Both Looney and Ogburn rely on biographical parallels to identify Oxford; in fact, Looney sets out his "tests" based solely on biographical clues found in the plays and poems. Orthodox academics use the title pages, the historical records identifying SoS as the author, and contemporary testimony, all types of evidence that doesn't exist for any other candidate. But that's really beside my point.

The edits 205.172.16.103 keeps reverting (which I intend to restore since you have warned him once and an administrator has warned him twice now) are documented and referenced arguments that have been made against the biographical methodology for a long time. What he or you or even I or anybody else thinks about them is irrelevant; they are a documented argument responding to the material in the Oxfordian argument. They can be rebutted, but not removed simply because you say they're wrong. Do you understand what I'm saying?

The flip side of that would be if I removed all the material linking Oxford's biography to the canon simply because I disagreed with it. That's not the correct way to respond. The correct way to respond is exactly what I'm doing: adding relevant edits that explain the orthodox argument.

Are we on the same page here? Tom Reedy (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The main problem we've got is that we keep plowing the same ground over and over, instead of improving the article. These edits are the equivalent of vandalism, since they've already been discussed, and tracking and fixing them is like trying to row a leaky boat while baling at the same time. Can we move on now? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My point was that "which renders the method invalid" seems to represent an inescapable conclusion from the previous argument, rather than the opinion of Kathman et al. Say that a researcher finds a 100 situations in an anonymous work that seem to match up with a particular author's life. Of course, by chance there are many people for whom a few incidents match their life as well. The latter does not invalidate the researcher's theory that the work is written by the author he matched up. I'm obviously not saying that the case for Oxford is that clear, but I don't think you can make a blanket statement that finding coincidences with someones life is an invalid method in authorship research. For that reason, I've changed "which renders" to "and therefore consider". Afasmit (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Because I am fairly new to this discussion, I have just visited the section of the Wikipedia guidelines that we should be following regarding the first four paragraphs, to wit: The lead section (also known as the introduction or the lead) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

The second paragraph in the Shakespeare Authorship Question lead does not follow these guidelines. It does not encourage the reader to read the whole article -- quite the opposite. It contemptuously dismisses any scholars who doubt the traditional view. This sweeping condemnation does not distinguish between the various non-Stratfordian scholars. I have read some of the Baconian scholarship (resting heavily on finding the name "Bacon" variously spelled in various works), and I have read the rebuttal of it by the Friedmans "Shakespeare Ciphers Examined." I agree with the conclusion that the Baconian methodology is unconvincing and of questionable merit. But the Friedmans did leave open the door for other kinds of encryptions that would meet certain criteria. The Oxfordians have accumulated considerable evidence since Bacon was first proposed as the hidden author, but many Baconians still sincerely believe in their guy.

The second paragraph also violates the principles of Wikkipedia by asserting as fact that which is still open to question (for example, that the First Folio refers to the Stratford resident, whereas it is ambiguous as to who is meant by "Swan of Avon" ) That is one of the points disputed later in the article, so it should be moved to that later section. The tone of the second paragraph is argumentative and confrontational -- quite unlike all the other entries in Wikkipedia that give an objective summary without making ad hominem attacks. So please examine the first four paragraphs with an open mind, as we would expect a serious inquirer to have, and do not belittle the work of others just because you disagree with them. Alexpope (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to read the article on begging the question, because that is what you are doing. The lead as it stands does exactly what it is supposed to do. And the Stratfordians have refuted every single claim of the Oxfordians since Oxford was first proposed as the hidden author, but many Oxfordians still sincerely believe in their guy. I suggest you spend your time trying to improve the anti-Stratfordian argument instead of trying to convince others of your subjective POV. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There you go again, in your patronizing and unscholarly manner. I did follow your link to "begging the question" (although I already know what it means). "Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. Begging the question is related to circular argument" and that is certainly what YOU are doing -- assuming that all of the doubters are wrong and ignoring the refutations they make of your Stratfordian arguments. Other fallacies you commit are sweeping generalization, ad hominem (you are REALLY stuck on that one!) questionable assumption, questionable comparison, straw man, and poisoning the well. You are right about one thing, however, and that is that trying to conduct a reasonable discussion with someone who has a closed mind is a waste of time. I only hope that other, more reasonable editors, will read what I have to say and rewrite the lead so that it explains what the "authorship question" is all about before trying to discredit any comments about it. Alexpope —Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Date of playwright's death

I am writing a response to the section that I plan to insert below the anti-Stratfordian points. Do I post it on the talk page before I post it on the page? It will be a day or so before I'm done. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC

Please do post it first on the talk page. Thanks, and Happy Groundhog day! 71.104.161.33 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Price section

That's a good start, Smatprt, but it's kinda vague and reads more like a book review and there's too much editorializing ("legitimizes the authorship question"). You need more hard statements and evidence along with page cites. I'd take a run at it myself, but I'm staying away from your material as per our agreement. Anyway, we've got lots of time and I have no doubt it'll shape up. Did you ever approach her about writing it? I can send you her e-mail if you want it. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

She did, then I reworked it to conform to wiki policy. You are right about the editorializing, so I just changed something I had added - changing "legitimizes" to "approaches". I can ask her to provide some additional hard statements and evidence.Smatprt (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got lots of non-Wikipedia things to do today, but I'll e-mail you with a few suggestions later. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes in lede

I don't like the list in the lede. There are only four items, not enough to have a list, and it is unsightly and breaks up the visual unity of the lede. Also "attributed by mainstream scholars" implies they are the only ones who do so and that they weren't attributed before they began studying Shakespeare. The works were attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford long before he was the object of study by scholars or anybody else. It would be more accurate to say "attributed by his contemporaries," not that I'm suggesting that change.

And I thought we were going to discuss changes in the article on the talk page before posting them? The lede is pretty much a finished product and frankly I'm tired of revisiting it. It's accurate and fairly well written as it was. This constant tweaking gives the overall impression of jockeying for slight advantage and delays more substantive changes in the article that are needed more. So in the interest of avoiding another tedious back-and-forth (I dare not say ed-t w-r), I'm asking you to self revert. Tom Reedy (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading the material I see that what you added is even more controversial than I ascertained at first glance. I'm going to insist that you revert all the changes and discuss them on the talk page if you feel like you need to keep them. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem - let's discuss the changes you consider controversial (See what I mean about crystal ball gazing? I didn't think trying to achieve NPOV would be controversial). One side note, though - no article or section is ever "finished" here on WP. There will always be ways to improve them. That's the wiki way. Besides, I never agreed that any section was complete. As the article grows and is reworked, the lead, especially, is going to change to reflect that. But to the issue at hand - why don't you start, and explain what you consider controversial about the tweaks to the lede? (Hey - I think the system may work!)Smatprt (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the lede is going to change with the article, but the article hasn't changed enough to warrant a change in the lede. A list, especially in the lede, is hardly ever a good idea unless the topic lends itself to one and the number of items is unwieldy, such as if we decided to list every claimant that has been seriously proposed. I would think that five items would be the least number for a list. Your "over the last 230 years" is not necessary because the topic sentence already covers the amount of time, and it's too much detail for the added bulk of the sentence. "Only a handful" is the same type of redundant information: the information is conveyed by the comparison of the number of candidates that have been nominated and the relatively few names enumerated. And the "some" addition is inaccurate. Whether you agree that some or all of the anti-Strat methods are valid, what we're talking about is the orthodox academics opinion of them, not your opinion, and their consensus opinion is that they all are invalid (and it is clear that it is their opinion, so the POV problems are nonexistent). Not one argument I know is accepted.

I think we need to agree what a lede is for. To me, it's not a place to make specific arguments, but more a place to generalize on the nature of the arguments. As to the addition in line 129, I don't care about that one; fire away. Those types of "evidence" are only limited by your imagination. "There are no records of Shakspit ever wearing shoes, nor did anybody ever mention shoes in connection with Shakspyr, therefore he was a shoeless yahoo." You're welcome to put as many of those as you want in the article. It only indicates lack of evidence for your argument.

I do think that once we get the paper trail argument in place and get some type of shape to the anti-Strat argument, that we'll need to change the lede to the same pattern as the Strat section: generalizations of the main types of objections to Shakespeare's authorship. But right now it's still a work in progress. Let's put in the work and then we can recast the lede. Otherwise we're spending all our time rewriting the same part. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare's literacy

I'm posting this into that section later today after enough time has gone by for comment:

The anti-Stratfordian claim that “all dramatists of the time wrote a fluent hand” is incorrect and shows little knowledge of the subject. The hand of Thomas Heywood, one of the most prolific playwrights of the era, is described as “abominable” and “the least legible” of all extant dramatists’ hands of the era. Other notable writers of the era who had what today would be considered illegible hands include Philip Massinger, described as “awkward and untidy”, Sir Thomas Overbury, “barely decipherable scratches”, Michael Drayton, “untidy and loosely written”, Thomas Dekker, “scratchy”, Thomas Nashe, “scrappiness . . . numerous blots . . . generally legible . . .ill-defined”, and Robert Southwell, “fairly legible”. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a well known cliche that the more one writes the less legible one's handwriting tends to get. Children's handwriting is generally very legible, because letters are formed carefully. Doctor's prescriptions are notoriously inclined to be illegible. My own handwriting gets more and more illegible each year. People who write a lot develop shorthand tics and elisions. I don't see a problem adding the material you have listed here, since the concept of 'fluent' is being used in a contradictory way in the text - as if it were interchangable with both 'easily readable' and 'practiced'. The most 'fluid' and practiced handwriting is often a barely legible scrawl. Paul B (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Most anti-Strats seem to think that English secretary is illegible, and their counter examples to Shakespeare run to Italic hands. To them, beautiful=fluent and educated. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the construction of the first sentence and would not agree to its inclusion. (I also disagree with the use of "all" in the anti-strat section and will change that to make it less POV - there is no such thing as "all" - how could anyone ever know that??). Specifically, the "shows little knowledge of the subject" is just a pointless dig at the other camp. This is the kind of thing I've mentioned before. And its stating an opinion as fact - who is to say what any claim "shows" - it could show lots of things. Smatprt (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the second claim, "shows little knowledge," derives from the first fact: the cliam is incorrect. How would you rewrite it? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you've changed "all" to "many." What kind of an argument is that? Should my topic sentence be, "Although the anti-Stratfordian claim that 'many dramatists of the time wrote a fluent hand”' many didn't."? Doesn't sound like much of an argument to me, although I grant it is made by some. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right - it's not much of an argument. (I didn't add it and didn't catch the "all" until you raised it here. Anti-Strat or Strat - no one can use "all" here on Wiki cuz it just ain't possible to know!) I'll probably end up deleting it if no one objects. Hopefully tonight I can devote a little time. Back to my day job now. Smatprt (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor internal inconsistency: no hand-written Shakespeare playscripts

What about Sir Thomas More? Allowing that there is a danger of using a circular argument here, with handwriting similarity being used as one of the supports for the identification, but aren't there also enough stylistic elements pointing to the authorship to allow the possibility that these fragments do indeed form a “hand-written Shakespeare playscript”? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's still a theory with no true consensus among mainstream scholars, some of whom argue that hand d is Webster, among others. Also, as I recall, some mainsteam scholar have noted that the paleographic case for hand D cannot be made, because a control sample of Shakespeare's handwriting, sufficient to make an identification, does not exist. Smatprt (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a theory with broad consensual support among Shakespeare academics, but of course not from anti-Stratfordians. But that's what this entire article is about, no? And the paleographic case has been made, but the identification of the fragment as Shakespeare's doesn't depend on the paleographic case, and it originally was made on stylistic grounds. The Webster suggestion was disproved long ago, although glancing at the More article I see it isn't included there. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Date of playwright's death edit

I plan to add this edit to the said section following the Barkstead material:

Orthodox scholars point out that Sobran has simply misread Barkstead’s poem, the last stanza of which is a comparison of Barkstead’s poem to Shakespeare’s "Venus and Adonis", and mistaken the grammar, which refers to Shakespeare’s “song,” the poem written 14 years earlier than Barkstead’s, in the past tense, not Shakespeare himself.( McCrea, 180. ) This context is obvious when the rest of the stanza is included:

But stay, my Muse, in thine own confines keep,

and wage not war with so dear loved a neighbor,

But having sung thy day song, rest and sleep,

preserve thy small fame and his greater favor:

His song was worthy merit (Shakespeare he)

sung the fair blossom, thou the withered tree.

Laurel is due to him, his art and wit

hath purchased it, Cypress thy brow will fit.

As can readily be seen with the context restored, Barkstead compares his poem about Venus and Adonis (“my Muse”) with Shakespeare’s, saying that his poetry sung “the withered tree” while Shakespeare’s “sung the fair blossom”, and that Shakespeare deserves laurel, the emblem of victory or poetic superiority, but Barkstead, the lesser poet, deserves only cypress in comparison. (Ross, Terry, and David Kathman. “Shakespeare and Barkstead.”)

Any discussion? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And "Laurel is due to him" can easily be read to strongly suggest his is still alive to receive it. Have we resolved the issue of footnoting the website (I've been away)? Paul B (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested the simple form of Last name, first name. Name of work (date), page number. I'm sure when we get close to completion (not anytime soon) we'll need to rework the notes for consistency. Right now very few of the Ogburn or Looney refs have page numbers. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and get back to you tonight on this. I do have a real job and am hip deep in union negotiations. I do find some of your wording controversial in that it editorializes (this context is obvious, as can readily be seen) - stuff like that. I also don't agree with using the Kathman website as a reliable source. Surely you can find a better source since you keep mentioning orthodox scholars (in the plural). But to be clear, I consider the website controversial as a RS and do not agree to have it used unless we can form a consensus. Smatprt (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

According to all I've studied about Wikipedia reliable sources, Kathman certainly qualifies. I believe Paul set out the reasons why it does also. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the sentence relevant to Kathman's Web site: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Since his circumstances are exactly that, his site qualifies as an RS. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My objection still stands so lets continue to discuss this. But as you can see by the wording "may, in some circumstances" is somewhat grey. I've been down this route with the RS board before, and they tend to want a fair amount of publishing, as well as see it established that the source in question is an established expert in the specific area being referenced. I have my doubts that Kathman is an expert in every area that his blog comments on. Also, having 5 or 6 pages in someone else's book is a far cry from posting hundreds of pages on a personal blog. And I repeat my comment that you mention "scholars" (plural) so it would seem to me that if the information is valid and is to represent mainstream consensus, that there would be far better references available to you for just about any argument being made.

In terms of Kathman's expertise, as far as the Authorship quesiton goes, according to his "Who Am I" section [[1]], he wrote the one very short chapter in Wells book and that appears to be it. His expertise appears more to be writing bio entries and " two chapters (on "Players, Livery Companies, and Apprentices" and "Innyard Playhouses") forthcoming in the Oxford Handbook on Theatre History, edited by Richard Dutton, and an article ("Alice Layston and the Cross Keys") forthcoming in Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England." That hardly makes him an acknowledged expert in the various topics covered on his blog. His true expertise, rather, seems to be "livery companies, apprenticeship, and places other than playhouses (such as inns and taverns) where plays were performed in sixteenth-century London". Smatprt (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Your argument about whether Kathman is a fair representation of the scholarly consensus is specious; it could be made against every source I cite. After all, how do you know that McCrea or Bate or Matus represents the consensus? Have you taken a poll? It is enough that none of the anti-Stratfordian references represent the scholarly consensus--proof enough that almost any source opposing them does.

Your recitation of Kathman's credentials is woefully incomplete. Let's cite the entire thing instead of "one short chapter".

"Specifically on authorship-related matters -- in addition to maintaining the Shakespeare Authorship page with Terry Ross -- I wrote a chapter called 'The Question of Authorship' for the volume Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide (2003), edited by Stanley Wells and Lena Cowen Orlin; in April 2001 I was the co-leader (with Jonathan Hope) of a seminar on 'Theory and Methodology in Authorship and Attribution Studies' at the World Shakespeare Congress in Valencia, Spain; and I have discussed Shakespeare and the authorship question in newspapers and on radio, including the BBC and National Public Radio." In addition to that, I'm sure you know that he has even been published in Oxfordian journals, most lately in The Oxfordian. His opinion is sought out precisely because he represents the scholarly consensus.

I would not agree that his opinion represents scholarly consensus, and find nothing to support that assertion. His standards are quite different and he makes blanket statements without couching them in the neutral terms that real scholars employ. That is my main problem with him. Having "discussed" the issue on the radio or in newspaper interviews, co-leading a seminar, or being published in a non-peer reviewed journal would make me a RS, as I have done all of the same!Smatprt (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

How about the fact that academics routinely recommend his Web site--in both books and on the Web--as a good s0urce for the academic consensus? And your argument is specious: whether he couches his language in neutral terms has nothing do to with him being a reliable source. By that definition all anti-Stratfordian material would be unusable. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As you know, there is a paltry amount of orthodox refutations of the literally thousands of anti-Stratfordian books and web sites because of the very reason we cite in the second paragraph of this article: they don't pay much attention to it.

I know no such thing - in fact there are numerous orthodox scholars who have indeed reputed the issue - Wells, Matus, Schoenbaum, etc. and they are indeed RS. Wells even published a point by point rebuttal (rebutted in tern by Mark Rylance.Smatprt (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction: you willfully know no such thing. there are literally thousands of anti-Stratfordian books. I daresay there are not a dozen books refuting them. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I say let's take it to whatever Wikipedia board that determines what an RS is and let them decide. After all, the only reason someone like Ogburn is allowed is because authorship is a fringe theory with little academic support and Wikipedia has special rules for fringe theory references. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No - Ogburn wrote a huge book published by a third-party publishing house, reviewed by mainstream press, and commented on by academics worldwide. This is in contrast to the numerous self-published websites and non-peer reviewed newsletters that are not RS and are not used in this article. Smatprt (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the concept of WP:RS at all. The fact that Ogburn wrote a "huge book" published by a "third party publishing house" is almost entirely irrelevant, as is the fact that it has been "commented on by academics worldwide". This is true of numerous unreliable sources. Mein Kampf is a huge book published by a third party publishing house and commented upon by academics worldwide. That does not make it a reliable source about anything except for its author's opinion. Ogburn is simply a source for the content of a fringe theory. It is not a "reliable source" in the normal Wikipedia sense. Ogburn can't be quoted on non-Oxfordian related matters, for example. Kathman, in contrast, can be a reliable source because he is an expert, and his expertise is attested by his publication in the academic press. That is the crucial test. I should add that one of the things I find most problematic about your editing is the fact you know very well that you are keeping out legitimate arguments - that you actively try to exclude arguments of the other side by wikilawyering. We should all be concerned accurately to present the range of viewpoints. Paul B (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He's right; apparently you really don't understand it. All books are "published by a third-party publishing house", and reviews by the mainstream press count for nothing in the academic world. And the Web page http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/tempest/kositsky-stritmatter%20Tempest%20Table.htm that you use is not a peer-reviewed source (neither for that matter is the Critical Survey issue you cite; they were all picked by the editor and not a blind peer jury). Tom Reedy (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should raise this on the relevant noticeboard. Paul B (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the Ross-Kathman Web site, I agree. I don't care about the two I brought up. Kathman is referenced by McCrea and recommended by James Shapiro's upcoming book on authorship. Matus and Bate were published before the site was put up, but Matus recommends it on his Web site, http://willyshakes.com/allshakes.htm. And of course the fact that Stanley Wells edited the book Dave's authorship essay appears in, Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide, published by the Oxford University Press, should be credentials enough. So let's do it and not waste a lot of time getting bogged down in this discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have posted an opinion request here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Shakespeare_authorship_question_source Tom Reedy (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I must say that I agree with Tom Reedy, Kathman and Ross on this one. I think Joe Sobran simply misread the Barkstead poem. So I'd like to propose that the Barkstead material be deleted. The section is still strong without it. Schoenbaum (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean everything I prove wrong will be taken down? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just kidding! But rest assured every point in this article will be met with a robust rebuttal so that a neutral reader will have all the information in context. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So are you going to take it down or leave it up? Cos if you're going to leave it up, I want to post my (modified) edit. If you take it down, I'll abandon it (but we still need to establish that Kathman is a reliable source, and so far it appears on the way to acceptance). Tom Reedy (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree with Schoenbaum on this so let me yank it down, now. I still think it's an interesting argument, but once we get to dealing with the size issue we'll need to cut some stuff anyhow, so this might as well go. Smatprt (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth's death edit

Another edit:

That Shakespeare didn’t eulogize Queen Elizabeth’s death in 1603 is a strange argument, because all alternate candidates—Bacon, Oxford, Marlowe, Derby—were alive when she died, so the real anti-Stratfordian question would be why they didn’t eulogize her death. Regardless, Shakespeare’s neglect was hardly unique: in one of the few such eulogies, Englandes Mourning Garment, Henry Chettle reproaches contemporary poets for their neglect of the queen’s death, including Chapman, Jonson, Shakespeare, Drayton, Dekker, and Marston, none of whom bothered to remark on her passing.(ref Greg, W.W. Pastoral Poetry and Pastoral Drama (1906), 115. ref)

I put the ref in parentheses so it would show on the discussion page. I'd like to have some feedback on the previous two edits as well as this one. Otherwise, silence after a reasonable period of time lends consent, or so I've been told. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would not agree to the first sentence - that is more editorializing. This isn't about whether nobleman wrote poems to eulogize the dead queen - it's about why Shakespeare didn't.

And please don't be so much of a Rushy Rubin on these edits. I do have a real job so waiting a few days on any potential edit is not much to ask. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So when you state your objections, is it OK to go ahead and insert the material with the contested section deleted or rewritten? I'm not so much worried about getting them in quickly as I am worried about forgetting them if they stay out there for comment too long. I like to move on and tend to neglect what I did a week ago. Nonetheless, don't worry about it; I know there's more to life than editing this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure - if you want to post this, I would have no problem:

"In response to the debate over Shakespeare's lack of a eulogy over the death of Queen Elizabeth, orthodox scholars note that Shakespeare’s neglect was hardly unique: in one of the few such eulogies, Englandes Mourning Garment, Henry Chettle reproaches contemporary poets for their neglect of the queen’s death, including Chapman, Jonson, Shakespeare, Drayton, Dekker, and Marston, none of whom bothered to remark on her passing.(ref Greg, W.W. Pastoral Poetry and Pastoral Drama (1906), 115. ref)Smatprt (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm posting a slightly modified version. Let me know if you have any objections. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

History/Group Theory

I recall you mentioning that you were going to expand the history to cover the group theory popularity of the mid-late 20th century. I'd be interested to see what you come up with, as I am not finding a lot of information about it. Smatprt (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

To tell you the truth I haven't done much on it. That's one problem with having to go back-and-forth on edits: I tend to forget what I was working on before. I also intend to make some suggestions to you on the Price material, but again, time is an issue. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous items

While you're deleting, how about moving this from the first graf of "Criticism of mainstream view"?

In addition, they do not believe Shakespeare of Stratford and the author shared the exact same name, noting that, according to Stratfordian scholar Sir Edmund K. Chambers, not one of Shakespeare of Stratford's six known signatures was actually spelled “Shakespeare” (I.E., Shaksp, Shakspe, Shaksper, Shakspere, Shakspere and Shakspeare).[41]

This is already addressed in much the same form in the "Shakspere" vs. "Shakespeare" section under "Terminology", and also glancingly in the Shakespeare's literacy section. Maybe we should combine all the information into one section instead of having it scattered about? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, this sentence needs expansion and/or explanation: "Researchers also cite one contemporary document that strongly implies that Shakespeare, the Globe shareholder, was dead prior to 1616, when Shakespeare of Stratford died.[162]" As it stands it's meaningless. (I'm pretty sure this is one you want to delete rather than spend time on.) Tom Reedy (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Sobran non-argument from "Date of playwright's death" section:

Joseph Sobran, in Alias Shakespeare, noted that the title, “Shake-speares Sonnets,” is not what one expects from a living author, and suggests a complete body of work, with no more sonnets expected from the author.

Again, what kind of argument is that? Is there any way you could add Sobran's reasoning? Or do you mean to say, "Joseph Sobran, in Alias Shakespeare, noted that the work, “Shake-speares Sonnets,” is not what one expects from a living author because of the scandalous material"? Because as it stands it's pretty much a non sequitur. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I don't think it's a non sequitur as written, but if you'd like clarification of Sobran's reasoning, I'm willing to change it to the following:

Joseph Sobran, in Alias Shakespeare, notes that the title, “Shake-speares Sonnets,” is not what one expects from a living author. He points out that it "has a kind of finality," implying a complete body of work, i.e, all of Shakespeare's Sonnets, with no more sonnets by him expected. "Otherwise," Sobran says, "the publisher might have called the collection 'Sonnets, by William Shakespeare.'" [Alias Shakespeare, Page 145]

Schoenbaum (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see with that is it is so subjective. How does Sobran know what title one expects of a living author? What's the difference between Shakes-speare's Sonnets and The Workes of Bejamin Jonson? You could make the case that both of them have "a kind of finality," but neither of them imply that the author is dead. And the 1640 edition is titled Poems: Written by Wil. Shake-speare, Gent. Does that imply the author is still alive?

If you consider that a strong argument, go ahead and keep it. But it's weak as a three-day-old tea bag. Sobran's language tries to suggest, "kind of", "might have", and it's the type of language one uses when he has no real evidence.

But it's your section, keep it by all means. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a bit. And all those "might haves" start to remind one of most of Shakespeare's biographers.Smatprt (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

While we are on minor tweaks, this sentence needs some help as it is currently quite POV: "Most Shakespeare academics pay little attention to the topic and dismiss the theories of anti-Stratfordians because of their unorthodox standards of scholarship and lack of supporting historical evidence". Right now it reads/implies that it is an undisputed fact that Anti-Strats use unorthodox standards and lack supporting historical evidence, instead of acknowledging that this is the opinion of most academics (valid or not). It also implies that "all" the standards used are unorthodox. May I suggest: "Most Shakespeare academics assert that anti-Stratfordians lack supporting historical evidence, and consider most of their standards of scholarship unorthodox. As a result they pay little attention to the topic and dismiss the all anti-Stratfordian theories." (I note that even Kathman hedges on this one, saying "nearly all the methods" (page 621). I imagine he is aware of Price's work, for example, which follows many standard methods and cites historical evidence to support her conclusions.) Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this? "Most Shakespeare academics pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories. They say most anti-Stratfordian scholarship fails to meet orthodox standards and lacks supporting historical evidence." It has the virtue of being more compact also. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's better than mine. And compact is good! Smatprt (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, is there an official list and explanation of these so-called "standards" of orthodox scholarship? Or is this just a case of some evidence pointing to the Stratford man, while other evidence contradicts that evidence, and orthodox scholars choose to label the evidence supporting their view as "standard," and evidence contradicting their view as non-standard? Thanks. Schoenbaum (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a case of training in scholastic methodology. Almost every Stratfordian rebuttal complains of anti-Stratfordians using double standards--that is, one set of criteria for Shakespeare and another for whatever candidate they have. Literary scholars use title pages, historical records, contemporary testimony, evolution of literary styles, etc. to attribute works to authors. The same standards are used for Shakespeare as are used to attribute works to Greene, Lyly, Marlowe, Milton, Jonson, et al. The idea that you can read backwards from a work and identify the author from the characteristics gleaned from that work is known as the biographical fallacy, a New Historicist term.

"This fallacy is widespread in Shakespeare studies, true enough, but the business of wrenching passages out of dramatic context as evidence of the playwright’s personal beliefs usually reveals more about the critic than about Shakespeare." Robert S. Miola, review of The Quest For Shakespeare: The Bard of Avon and the Church of Rome, by Joseph Pearce. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

New Historicist Stephen Greenblatt is quoted in Harvard Magazine (Sept-Oct 2004) as saying that "...the process of writing the book [Will in the World] ... has made me respect that preposterous fantasy [the authorship controversy] ... rather more than when I began ... because I have now taken several years of hard work and 40 years of serious academic training to grapple with the difficulty of making the connections meaningful and compelling between the life of this writer and the works that he produced." So Greenblatt can say it, but if I say it I'm violating a standard? It think it's clear that what you call "standards" are really just traditions, and not standards at all. I'd like to propose that the word "standard" be dropped from Smatprt's proposed change above, leaving "Most Shakespeare academics assert that anti-Stratfordians lack supporting historical evidence, and consider most of their scholarship unorthodox. ..." Schoenbaum (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You're mixing apples and oranges and trying to convince me it's champagne.

You can say it all you want, but it's not the way literary historians attribute works to their authors, which is what we are talking about here. And whether you say it or Greenblatt says it, you're both guilty of anachronistically reading Shakespeare's works out of context to his times and indulging in the same fallacy. You won't see me quote Greenblatt and you won't see very many Shakespeareans quote him, either, especially not in an article such as this.

And no, I don't go along with your proposal. The standards I am talking about are those used for attribution, not for biography. Shakespeare studies have been going on for so long and so many people who have written about him that it's relatively easy to find a Stratfordian to agree with you on almost any point, but I doubt you'll find any who assign the works to him based on a biographical reading of the works. The way the sentence reads is the scholastic consensus, it's used correctly and it's correctly referenced. Perhaps if you spent more time making your argument stronger you wouldn't feel it necessary to change mine. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Kathman source opinion summary

So far, the opinion request on whether Terry Ross and David Kathman’s Shakespeare Authorship Page can be used as a reliable source has resulted in comments by five uninvolved editors. Four of them, Dlabtot, Crum375, Verbal, and Abecedare, say it is an acceptable source. One of them, Jayjg, says it is not, but he wants to delete the Shakespeare authorship question page completely because it’s a fringe theory.

It appears to me the consensus is to use it (although I doubt it will be a major stand-alone source). Tom Reedy (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

While I tend to agree (at this point), the comment period is still open so let's see if we get any other feedback. I do note that several of those have said if used, Kathman needs to be attributed ("according to David Kathman, blah, blah, blah") or ("Kathman asserts that..."). I am glad that say that you doubt that it will be a major stand-alone source, and of course, if you have a better source for the same material, then it won't be needed anyhow - which was also noted by one of the above commentators.Smatprt (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never thought it would be a major source; I just want to avoid any future arguments about it and I want to avoid the charge of WP:OR because of putting together several sources. That's what he does, so I can point to him rather than cite two disparate sources to make a point.

I understand - although two published sources are still preferable to one SFP source (that's not me speaking, that's wiki). Smatprt (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How long is the comment period; do you know? Tom Reedy (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No set time - it's kind of as long as relatively new comments keep popping up. If it dies down in the next few days then it will probably be over. Unless someone makes some really off the wall statement, I have no intention of adding anything more. Smatprt (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

In another section, Kathman's expertise on the authorship question is given thus:

[Your recitation of Kathman's credentials is woefully incomplete. Let's cite the entire thing instead of "one short chapter".

"Specifically on authorship-related matters -- in addition to maintaining the Shakespeare Authorship page with Terry Ross -- I wrote a chapter called 'The Question of Authorship' for the volume Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide (2003), edited by Stanley Wells and Lena Cowen Orlin; in April 2001 I was the co-leader (with Jonathan Hope) of a seminar on 'Theory and Methodology in Authorship and Attribution Studies' at the World Shakespeare Congress in Valencia, Spain; and I have discussed Shakespeare and the authorship question in newspapers and on radio, including the BBC and National Public Radio." In addition to that, I'm sure you know that he has even been published in Oxfordian journals, most lately in The Oxfordian. His opinion is sought out precisely because he represents the scholarly consensus.]

The article in the Oxfordian was specifically presented as ONE ORTHODOX view, which was refuted in its entirety in that same issue by Stephanie Hughes, former editor of the OXFORDIAN, representing the OXFORDIAN viewpoint. To call Kathman's opinion a "scholarly consensus" implies that all other scholars agree with him -- not so. (Isn't Diana Price a scholar? And Mark Anderson?)

Also, this article is supposed to explain the AUTHORSHIP QUESTION, not the ossified tradition. For Wikkipedia to belittle the seminal work by Charlton Ogburn, Jr., as being a "fringe theory" simply reveals an ignorance of the whole issue, and a blind refusal to recognize original thinking in a scholar whose knowledge of all Shakespeare's work is manifest in his book "The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth and the Reality." His extensive bibliography also indicates that he has studied every candidate proposed up to the time of his writing, weighing the pros and cons, drawing sensible conclusions. Anyone who disparages Ogburn should be required to read his whole book before attacking it. And Mr.Kathman should own up to being a fierce partisan Stratfordian with a very limited background in the authorship question and no authority whatsoever to speak for all scholars. alexpope Preceding undated comment added 09:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Obviously the 6% of Shakesepare professors who said there was cause for doubt and the 11% who qualified their doubt with "possibly" are not represented by Kathman. Saying that anyone represents the "consensus" of Shakespeare scholars is not an accurate statement. Heck, even Wells and Vickers disagree on things. Smatprt (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

FTFY Will you please learn the rudiments of posting to the discussion page! Tom Reedy (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Are we about ready to pack it in on the Kathman source? There's been no new commentators for a while nor any movement in the opinions of those independent editors who have opined.

I'd like to recap for myself what was said by the editors there. I hope to do that tonight after rehearsal (Jungle Book with 70 elementary and middle schoolers - thank god I am only producing... Smatprt (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And BTW Smatprt: Is there any chance you could let me know where Stanley Wells has made a point-by-point rebuttal of anti-Stratfordism? No such source has been used in this article, and I don't know of one. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here ya go, Tom. Let me know if it does not work and I'll double check it: http://www.shakespeare.org.uk/content/view/820/625/ Smatprt (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You call that a "point-by-point" rebuttal that I can use as a source? You've got to be kidding. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it's not more in depth, but he addresses the key points and does it quite compactly - which is something I thought you were striving for. No matter. Smatprt (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Death of playwright edit

Rebuttal to first section (refs in parenthesis, some page numbers missing):

Orthodox Shakespeareans respond that while the Sonnets dedication is generally regarded as cryptic and subject to many interpretations, the term “begetter” was consistently used to mean author in the literature of the day.(ref Foster,Donald. "Master W. H., R. I. P." PMLA 102 (1987) 42-54. /ref) Nor was the term “ever-living” used to mean the author was necessarily dead. Donald Foster points out that it appears most frequently in Renaissance texts as a conventional epithet for God rather than in eulogies, and anti-Stratfordian researcher John Rollett found the phrase used to describe Queen Elizabeth eight years before her death.(ref Foster, #; Covell, William. Polimanteia (1595), reprinted in Alexander B. Grosart’s Elizabethan England in Gentle and Simple Life, p. 34, available at http://books.google.com/books?id=HhODWyNC_k4C&dq. /ref) In comparison with the other four dedications and three stationer's prefaces that the publisher, Thomas Thorpe, wrote, and in the light of the contemporary practice, Foster believes that the largely formulaic dedication translates in modern English to “The well-wishing adventurer, T[homas] T[horpe], in setting forth wisheth to the only begetter of these ensuing sonnets, Master W. H., all happiness and that eternity promised by our ever-living poet.” Given all this and the propensity of the printer George Eld for misprints, Foster asserts that the most likely explanation for “Master W. H.” is that it is a misprint for “Master W. S.” or “W. Sh.” He also notes that in the secretary hand used at the time, majuscule S can be easily misread as H, or vice versa.(ref Foster, #. /ref)

To the claim that “no living author would have wanted such embarrassing poems to appear in print during his lifetime,” Richard Barnfield was a prolific Elizabethan sonneteer who published overtly homosexual poetry in the same volume containing a panegyric on Queen Elizabeth and dedicated to William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby without censure.(ref Cynthia, with certain Sonnets, and the legend of Cassandra, available at http://books.google.com/books?id=GzAJAAAAQAAJ&pg . /ref) Tom Reedy (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than copying the whole thing, I added in attribution to Foster in two places in para 1 so we understand this is still his opinion and not an undisputed fact (even among mainstream). With those attributions, I have no problem with the addition. Smatprt (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm still working on it. It's going to be Monday before I get back the computer that has his paper on it. So far here's what it'll look like without the refs visible:

Orthodox Shakespeareans respond that while the Sonnets dedication is generally regarded as cryptic and subject to many interpretations, the term “begetter” was consistently used to mean author in the literature of the day. Nor was the term “ever-living” used to mean the author was necessarily dead. Donald Foster points out that it appears most frequently in Renaissance texts as a conventional epithet for God rather than in eulogies, and anti-Stratfordian researcher John Rollett found the phrase used to describe Queen Elizabeth eight years before her death. In comparison with the other four dedications and three stationer's prefaces that the publisher, Thomas Thorpe, wrote, and in the light of the contemporary practice, Foster translates the largely formulaic dedication into modern English as “The well-wishing adventurer, T[homas] T[horpe], in setting forth wisheth to the only begetter of these ensuing sonnets, Master W. H., all happiness and that eternity promised by our ever-living poet.” Given all this and the propensity of the printer George Eld for misprints, Foster asserts that the most likely explanation for “Master W. H.” is that it is a misprint for “Master W. S.” or “W. Sh.”, noting that in the secretary hand used at the time, majuscule S can be easily misread as H, or vice versa.

To the claim that “no living author would have wanted such embarrassing poems to appear in print during his lifetime,” Richard Barnfield was a prolific Elizabethan sonneteer who published overtly homosexual poetry in the same volume containing a panegyric on Queen Elizabeth and dedicated to William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby without censure. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, in response to your proposed rebuttal, I've redrafted the first paragraph of this section to take some of your points into account. I'd like to propose that it be changed to the following:

"Many authorship researchers believe the actual playwright was dead by 1609, the year Shake-speare's Sonnets appeared with a dedication referring to "our ever-living poet" [157]. They note that deities were referred to as “ever-living,” or on rare occasions the monarch, but otherwise only those who had died and become immortal through their works [158]. Shakespeare himself used the phrase in this context in Henry VI, Part 1, describing the dead Henry V as "[t]hat ever living man of memory" (4.3.51). Joseph Sobran, in Alias Shakespeare, notes that the finality of the title, "Shake-speares Sonnets," suggests a complete body of work, with no more sonnets expected from this author. Even some orthodox scholars agree that the author wasn't involved in their publication [citation needed]. The initials under the dedication are those of the publisher, Thomas Thorpe, not the author. Their subject matter is scandalous, depicting an adulterous love triangle among the poet, fair youth and dark lady, and possible homoeroticism. It's unlikely that the alleged chief dramatist of the King's Men, at the height of his supposed fame under James I in 1609, would have wanted such embarrassing poems in print [159]. Yet no record shows that William of Stratford, who sued his neighbors over paltry sums, ever objected [160]. In addition, some sonnets suggest that their author was older than the Stratford man (#2, #22, #37, #62, #66, #73, #138), and possibly approaching death."

This version renders most of your proposed rebuttal irrelevant. Also, pleased note that Foster's conjecture that "Mr. W.H." is a typo, and your claim that "begetter" meant author, tend to support the idea that the author was uninvolved in the publication, possibly because he was dead. A living author would not have dedicated the work to himself, referring to himself in the third person. That being the case, it seems to me it should be up to anti-Strats to decide whether to include these points. My view is that they add nothing of value, and should be omitted to save space. 71.104.161.33 (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Schoenbaum (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your second sentence, "They note that deities were referred to as “ever-living,” or on rare occasions the monarch, but otherwise only those who had died and become immortal through their works [158]." is not correct. You're trying to combine anti-Stratfordian claims with Stratfordian rebuttals in order to head off the objections, which smacks of OR. That "ever-living" most often referred to the deity was pointed out by Foster, who did the actual research instead of relying on a dictionary definition (which definition I'd like to see in the note instead of just a reference). You can duplicate that research by going to LION and searching for the phrase in the literature of the time. The phrase was rarely used for anything other than that, and it being used to refer to a famous dead person is limited to that one example from 1H6 as far as I know, unless you can come up with more examples.

Here ya go - and it's about a famous dead poet to boot!: "A comment upon the two tales of our ancient, renovvned, and ever-living poet Sr. Jeffray Chavcer, Knight. Who, for his rich fancy, pregnant invention, and present composure, deserved the countenance of a prince, and his laureat honour. The miller's tale and The wife of Bath. Addressed and published by special authority, London, Printed by W. Godbid, and are to be sold by Peter Dring at the Sun in the Poultrey neer the Rose-Tavern, 1665 Smatprt (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course I was hoping for one from Elizabethan/Jacobean times instead of the Restoration era, but I realize the anachronistic nature of anti-Stratfordism extends into its search for evidence too, so I have no problems with your addition as it stands. In fact, I consider it strengthening my side of the argument. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned Fosters work as within the "Renaissance" period, which I always thought was 14th-17th centuries. But no matter, Sonnets 1609, Folio 1623, 3rd Folio 1664, this quote 1665 - calling it anachronistic is a bit of a stretch.Smatprt (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The words "even" and "agree" are editorial in referring to orthodox scholars; they're surmising, since there is no clear evidence one way or the other whether the author was involved in the publishing. And it's unclear to me why Foster's misprint theory (which has broad support, including Bate) would imply that the author had nothing to do with the publication. He covers that in the essay, which is available at HLAS, in case you want to read it. That the term "begetter" meant "author" in the literature of the time is unquestionable. What would you have it mean?

I've already said the "finality" argument from Sobran are very weak and do your cause no good, as is any argument from absence of evidence, and in fact if this is the strongest evidence you have for the playwright being dead by 1609, I seriously question why you're putting it in, especially since it's relevant only to Oxford. Of course you're free to put whatever edits you like in the article, but as I have said before, each point will be rebutted in accordance with Wikipedia policy, which I have already quoted to Smatprt. It's not up to one side or the other what goes into the article. Conversely, whatever you decide to delete from the article won't, of course, be rebutted. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are my revised edits for that section:

Orthodox Shakespeareans respond that while the Sonnets dedication is generally regarded as cryptic and subject to many interpretations, the term "begetter” was consistently used to mean "author" in Renaissance book dedications. Nor did the term “ever-living” mandate that the person being described was dead. Donald Foster points out that it appears most frequently in Renaissance texts as a conventional epithet for eternal God rather than in eulogies, and anti-Stratfordian researcher John Rollett found the phrase used to describe Queen Elizabeth eight years before her death. In comparison with the other four dedications and three stationer's prefaces that the publisher, Thomas Thorpe, wrote, and in the light of the contemporary practice, Foster translates the largely formulaic dedication in modern English as “The well-wishing adventurer, T[homas] T[horpe], in setting forth wisheth to the only author of these ensuing sonnets, Master W. H., all happiness and that eternity promised by our ever-living Lord.” Given this and the propensity of the printer George Eld for misprints and the fact that the dedication asks for no patronage, several scholars assert that the most likely explanation is that “Master W. H.” is a misprint for “Master W. S.” or “W. Sh.”, abbreviations of the author’s name, William Shakespeare. Foster also notes that in the secretary hand used at the time, majuscule S can be easily misread as H, or vice versa.

Bate also points out that the 1609 quarto was not the first publication claiming to be Shakespeare’s sonnets. Another collection of sonnets and poems, The Passionate Pilgrim, had a decade earlier been misrepresented as Shakespeare’s, but in fact had several authors. Thorpe’s choice of title and the prefatory claim that Shakespeare was the “only begetter” reassured buyers that the sonnets were all authentic Shakespeare.

To the claim that “no living author would have wanted such embarrassing poems to appear in print during his lifetime,” Richard Barnfield was a prolific Elizabethan sonneteer who published overtly homosexual poetry in the same volume containing a panegyric on Queen Elizabeth and dedicated to William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby without censure.

Tom Reedy (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the (hopefully) final edit. As you can see, answering anti-Stratfordian claims is much more detailed than making them, and the rebuttals get quite unwieldy after a while, but it's the only way to effectively rebut all the various claims made so carelessly without a full understanding of the subject.

Orthodox Shakespeareans respond that while the Sonnets dedication is generally regarded as cryptic and subject to many interpretations, the term "begetter” was consistently used to mean "author" in Renaissance book dedications. Nor did the term “ever-living” mean that the person being described was dead. Donald Foster points out that it appears most frequently in Renaissance texts as a conventional epithet for eternal God rather than in eulogies, and anti-Stratfordian researcher John Rollett found the phrase used to describe Queen Elizabeth eight years before her death. In comparison with the other dedications and prefaces that the publisher, Thomas Thorpe, wrote, and in the light of the contemporary practice, Foster translates the largely formulaic dedication in modern English as “The well-wishing adventurer, T[homas] T[horpe], in setting forth, wisheth to the only author of these ensuing sonnets, Master W. H., all happiness and that eternity promised by our ever-living Lord.” Along with the propensity of the printer George Eld for misprints, several scholars assert that the most likely explanation is that “Master W. H.” is a misprint for “Master W. S.” or “W. Sh.”, abbreviations of the author’s name, William Shakespeare. Foster also notes that in the secretary hand used at the time, majuscule S can be easily misread as H, or vice versa.

Bate also points out that the 1609 quarto was not the first publication claiming to be Shakespeare’s sonnets. An earlier poetry anthology, The Passionate Pilgrim (1599), was misrepresented as being written entirely by Shakespeare, but in fact included poems from several authors. Thorpe’s choice of title and the prefatory claim that Shakespeare was the “only begetter” reassured buyers that the sonnets were all authentic Shakespeare. An expanded version of The Passionate Pilgrim was published in 1612, again with Shakespeare’s name on the title page, but his name was removed from unsold copies after a protest from Thomas Heywood, whose poems had been pirated for the edition and who said in his Apology for Actors (1612) that Shakespeare was "much offended" with the publisher for making "so bold with his name", proving that the author was very much alive at the time.

To the claim that “no living author would have wanted such embarrassing poems to appear in print during his lifetime,” Richard Barnfield was a prolific Elizabethan sonneteer who published overtly homosexual poetry in the same volume containing a panegyric on Queen Elizabeth and dedicated to William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby without censure. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In looking thru Sobran, I found that the reference does not cover this line about "no living author". I'm not sure who added it but it appears to be OR (at least for now) so I've deleted it. Sobran makes no such claim that I can find. Smatprt (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I thought for sure it was part of Sobran's discussion of the issue there, but I can't find it now either. Must have been somewhere else. Thanks for taking it down for now. Schoenbaum (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I trimmed the addition to the "Death of Playwright" section. It was simply too long a response as it was and would violate wp:undue undue weight being given to Foster. His theory is rather new and has not been embraced by the scholarly "consensus", many of whom still believe the W.H. actually stands for somebody other than a W.S. misprint. Also trimmed some stuff that wasn't really on point. most of all, though, is you need to recognize that this is the article on the issue and main theories and that they should maintain the majority of article space. Shakespeare has his own entire article and many others. Undue weight also applies to the article itself. The mainstream view has oodles of space here on Wikipedia. Please don't drown the article with overly long rebuttals. It's just not appropriate in this article. Smatprt (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smatprt on this point. Foster's conjecture is not the mainstream view. It, and the other speculative material deleted, should not be given undue weight in this article. Schoenbaum (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

the type of evidence used by literary historians that is lacking for any other alternative candidate

Smatprt, you need to revert your deletion as per protocol above that directs us to discuss contentious changes before making them.

I can't find exactly when it was first added, but IIRC, it was moved up from some material further down (but I may be misremembering something else). Anyway, what's so POV about it? It's true, there are no title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, or official records for Oxford, Bacon, Marlowe, or any other alternate candidate, and the statement is quite clearly made in the references cited. The edit has been there since the 23rd, you say, so why are you just now offering a complaint? With every anti-Stratfordian editor here continuously returning to that same paragraph of the introduction, I'm beginning to suspect some type of collusion. I hope I'm wrong, but you nor any of the other editors have made any substantive edits to the anti-Stratfordian material in some time, but all of you seem to be nit-picking that one paragraph in the introduction.

I think you recall correctly - that is was moved up from the body of the article (without discussion or consensus, by the way). And thus the problem. You already say in the 2nd line of the paragraph that the antiStrats "lack supporting historical evidence". This is said as a summary for what appears later - which is proper lead style. But to repeat that information and then begin to make an argument (saying certain evidence is lacking for any other candidate) in the lead, that is what is not appropriate. You have raised similar objections recently. For example, you have not supported changes in paragraph 1 for the same reason - saying that I was adding arguments into the lead that belong in the article body, instead of sticking to summary stye for the lead. I'm asking you to recognize that this is the same. It's also repetitive to say in line two that antiSrats "lack supporting historical evidence", then in the same paragraph to state "the type of evidence used by literary historians that is lacking for any other alternative candidate". This is repetitive and a waste of space and this kind of detail, if needed at all, should be in the article body, and stated as an opinion attributed to someone, not as an undisputed fact. Then, of course, it should be rebutted with examples of anti-Strats who do, in fact, use historical data and contemporary comments in building their cases, and also a rebuttal that notes various Strat biographers who have made assumptions and speculations based on slip-shod standards of their own.

As to this last point, I refer you to WP:Fringe, most particularly this section, which states, ". . . within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations." Tom Reedy (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I also want to revisit "the ongoing debate, first recorded in the early 18th century" from the first sentence. I don't know of any debate that was recorded then, even including the unreliable Wilmot material. Nobody was debating it. The most you have is a few obvious jokes and satires that are interpreted to be questioning of Shakespeare's authorship, not a debate by any stretch. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You asked for sources ages ago on this and I provided them, but I'm happy to consider a word tweak if it's "debate" you are having problems with. And Wilmont may be unreliable, but as you keep saying in relation to other sections, it does not matter if you or I agree with it as long as the cite is reliable. See the problem with that argument now? It's like saying Shakespeare was born on April 23rd - there are plenty of biographers who printed it, so strictly speaking, it would be reliable. This is where common sense has to come into play. The same with "interpretations" - your camp has been "interpreting" Groatsworth for 300 years. It's cited in the main Shakespeare article as "He was well enough known in London by then to be attacked in print by the playwright Robert Greene" - stated as fact, when you know darn well that it's "interpretation". (And there are mainstream scholars who have other interps concerning Groatsworth - and these typically go completely unmentioned in modern Shakespeare bios).

And no - there is no collusion going on. I have not planned any strategy with other editors. The problem is that the lead is and has been controversial since the edit warring of mid-January. And for the last week or more we've been arguing about Kathman. I am returning to the lead to address unresolved issues from that edit war. As you know I've been extremely busy so that fact that I am finally returning to it now should not be suspect. As for the others, I can't speak for their motivation, but I can only guess that as newish editors, they are simply starting at the beginning of the article and moving down from there.Smatprt (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see your point about repetitive information. However, I want to make it clear exactly what type of historical evidence we're talking about that Strats use that anti-Strats don't, to explain the exact nature of the unorthodox methods used by anti-Strats, so I'll jiggle a rewrite to do so that should take care of it. And I see no use of title pages, contemporary testimony or official records anti-Stratfordians. Perhaps you could point that out for me?

A minor but I think crucial point on the "conventional dating" you changed to "Stratfordian dating": The terms "Stratfordian" and "anti-Stratfordian" are terms peculiar to the authorship debate. The dating of the plays was not done by scholars who were involved in the debate, and so that distinction should be made when discussing the play dating. In other parts of the article we use "orthodox" and "unorthodox" interchangeably for Strat and anti-Strat, so I'll agree to change the adjective to that, but I want to make it clear that the dating is not something that was done by authorship debaters.

Sometimes it appears to me that we're arguing about the shape of the table. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I made an edit along the lines that I said, but I don't like it much, and the main reason is that the front part of the graf is more about the methods anti-Strats use that Strats complain about and the last part is about the evidence used to support Stratford Shakespeare. The difference is subtle but comes out clearly when trying to move information from one part to another. If you insist on changing the graf becuase of repetition, I'm OK with it as it is but I'd much rather see the original version. If it's repetitive it's not all that noticeable.

We'll talk abut Wilmot in a couple of months. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes to lede

Smatprt, once more you have failed to discuss your proposed changes before making them. Please comply with the agreed-upon protocol before we descend again into edit-warring.

I'll have more to say about the changes later today, but for right now, this sentence has absolutely nothing to do with attribution: "Authorship doubters believe that centuries of Shakespeare biographers have suspended orthodox methods and criteria to weave inadmissible evidence into their histories of the Stratford man." This article is not about biography; it's about attribution. And what exactly is a "century of Shakespeare biographers"? The next sentence is also unnecessarily prolix in an attempt to be flashy (as is the first), but if that's the style you want to use, it's OK by me. Did you write it? Tom Reedy (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, it's Shakespeare's biographers who have made (and more to the point, defended) the traditional attribution. It's Matus and Wells and Schoenbaum, etc. who have used their WS biographies to attack doubters and their theories. And it's Price who went after them and called them on it. The first line is a valid summary of one of the key statements made by Price - and you seem to forget that the lead is to summarize the article. Quite frankly, it's also needed to balance the fact that you have inappropriately used the lead to bring these attacks on doubters into the article instead of focussing on rebuttal and history of the question itself. And is the second line any more prolix than you repeating the attacks on doubters methods once again in para 4? The more you attach the messenger, the more these attacks will need to be rebutted.Smatprt (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, this artcile is about attribution, not biography. It's literary scholars (including Shakespeareans), not biographers, who defend the traditional attribution and who criticize the scholarly methods used by anti-Stratfordians. And attacking the theories is not the same as attacking the people who hold those theories. I'm sorry you seem to think that every attack on an unscholarly theory equals a character attack. That confusion seems to be endemic with anti-Strats.

It's the attacking the people that I have problems with. Rebutting the theories is expected, but grouping all doubters together and then attacking the group is simply not needed.Smatprt (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As to bringing in "attacks on doubters . . . instead of focusing on rebuttal and history of the question," I am following the guidelines at WP:FRINGE, which states ". . . within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations." I suggest you familiarize yourself with that article, because I intend to hold this article up to that standard, even if I have to seek an opinion on every edit. This article has been a slanted recruiting tool since its inception, and that is going to change.

Again - referring the reader to "more accepted ideas" is exactly what you should be doing and is far different than grouping all the doubters together and then repeatedly attacking their "standards".

You still haven't answered why you made major changes in the lede without discussion, and you changed the wording of the sentences "Most Shakespeare academics pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories. They say most anti-Stratfordian scholarship fails to meet orthodox standards and lacks supporting historical evidence" that you explicitly agreed to on Feb. 5. Once again, you revisit sections that we have hammered out and make unneeded changes with no notice or discussion. Nor have you responded to my requests for comment on the Death of a playwright edits that I have proposed or the topics Schoenbaum and I have been discussing. Yet somehow you have the time to make sweeping changes (or consult with someone to write them for you, because I think I recognize that style) in the lede without discussing them on the talk page first. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have consulted with no one and no one is writing "for me". Again with the accusations??Smatprt (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, enough with the accusations - allow me to make a proposal that will put us back on firm ground and provide a starting point. The lead has been unstable since the edit warring and sockpuppetry that began in mid-January. I suggest we go back to the last stable version prior to all that nastiness and let that provide a starting point for all of us. I then suggest we look very closely at the definition for leads provided by Wikipedia at wp:lead. This version, last edited by Tom on Jan 5[[2]], was in place prior to all the warring and sock disruption:

• "The Shakespeare authorship question is the ongoing debate, first recorded in the early 18th century, about whether the works attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually written by another writer, or group of writers. Those who question the traditional attribution believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name used by the author (or authors) to keep the writer's true identity secret. Among the numerous candidates that have been proposed, major nominees include Edward de Vere, (17th Earl of Oxford), who, since first being proposed in the 1920s, has attracted the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley (6th Earl of Derby).

Mainstream scholars support the traditional attribution of the Shakespearean canon to William Shakespeare of Stratford-Up-on-Avon and question the validity of the entire subject of the authorship question. Mainstream researchers assert that Shakespeare of Stratford is identified by his fellow actors through references in the First Folio, by his fellow playwright Ben Jonson, and by official records and contemporary poets and historians. Additional evidence cited to support the mainstream view include Shakespeare's grave monument in Stratford.

Authorship doubters assert that the actor/businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford did not have the life experience necessary to create the body of work attributed to him, and that the personal attributes inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man. Another challenge raised by authorship researchers against the mainstream view is the extensive education evident in Shakespeare's works, including an enormous vocabulary of approximately 29,000 different words. Authorship doubters question whether a commoner from a small 16th-century country town, with no known education or personal library, could become so highly expert in such varied topics as translating foreign languages, courtly pastimes and politics, Greek and Latin mythology, legal knowledge, and recent discoveries in science, medicine and astronomy.

Mainstream scholars reject these arguments and all of the proposed alternative candidates. In spite of this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academicians."

If we start here, and have a thorough discussion about changes to the lead, perhaps we can form a true consensus (as per wp:consensus) and avoid the back and forth of late. As this was probably the last true "consensus version", I am willing to try this approach - this time with the participation of as many regular editors (on both sides) as possible. It shouldn't just be Tom and I determining what is consensus and what is not. Smatprt (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And I suggest you go back to the last version before you made the changes, as you have been instructed. You made some changes to the lede on Feb. 5, again, without any discussion, and I recast the main change and you agreed to it. Then again on Feb. 7 you made another change along with a deletion, again, without any prior discussion. I tried to work with you on that, but you keep making changes trying to jockey for advantage because your edits and behavior make it clear that for you this article is a promotional tool, not a neutral examination of the authorship question.

So the last version with any consensus before you started chewing up the lede was that of Feb. 5, and that's the one we need to start discussion with.

And there has been no "back and forth of late"; you're the only one making edits without discussion in direct violation of the protocols which you agreed to.

So let me know if you're going to change the lede back so I can take appropriate action if you refuse. I'm tired of dealing with someone who doesn't live up to his agreements and who uses edit creep to circumvent the protocol and then accuses his interlocutors of making unwarranted personal attacks when he's called out. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit creep? You mean like inserting statements during a prolonged period of sock puppetry and edit warring and then claiming they have consensus?Smatprt (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Gradesaver.com? The Frontline Shakespeare TV show? A library card catalog? These are reliable sources for Wikipedia? You've got to be kidding. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A library card catalogue for the specific purpose here is hardly controversial (I mean, do you doubt the statement?). Frontline (PBS) is, of course, fine as well. Gradesaver? who knows, but do you truly consider those fact tags as referring to controversial statements? Besides, you have said both on this page and at the RS board that you don't care what sources are used as the "whackier" the sources the stronger your case is. So what does it matter? Smatprt (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Say or note

As you know, Diana Price uses official records to support her theories, so saying "note" - like it's an undisputed fact - is incorrect. And you know that other researchers use contemporary comments the same way the Stratfordians use Groatsworth. It is an opinion. Would you please revert back to "say" which is the NPOV approach?Smatprt (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see. The sentence in dispute is "Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records—the type of evidence used by literary historians that Stratfordians note is lacking for any other alternative candidate—are also cited to support the mainstream view." (The mainstream view being that William Shakespeare wrote the works traditionally attributed to him.)

Are there title pages saying William Shakespeare wrote his works? Yes.

Are there title pages saying anybody else wrote his works? No.

Is there testimony by other contemporary poets and historians saying William Shakespeare wrote his works? Yes.

Is there testimony by other contemporary poets and historians saying anybody else wrote his works? No.

Are there official records saying William Shakespeare wrote his works? Yes.

Are there official records saying anybody else wrote his works? No.

If there are any, please let me know. I am unaware of Diana Price or any other person who uses title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records to support the authorship of any other candidate.

Do Stratfordians point this out and is that present in the cited references? Yes.

Are any of these "a matter which is subject to dispute"? No.

So it is not merely "an opinion;" and NPOV doesn't really apply, at least as you interpret it.

And as a matter of fact, I'm unaware that Diana Price supports any candidate, unless she made an announcement and I missed it. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there title pages saying William Shakespeare wrote his works? Yes.Tom Reedy

Yes, but the question is whether he was a front man or perhaps a member of a larger group so the title page reference (which does not establish "Shakspeare of Stratford" is subject to various theories.Smatprt (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not paying attention. The section this appears in states what Stratfordians use for evidence and the reason why they do so. It is not their duty to make your case or even to acknowledge that there is a case. All of your responses are nothing more than special pleading, and don't deal with the stark fact that no evidence of the type cited exists for any other candidate besides William Shakespeare. To expect academics to couch their opinions in terms that acknowledge all of the anti-Stratfordian theories is just ridiculous. The sentence as it stands is accurate and correctly referenced. Your misunderstanding of the policy NPOV is the reason for your objection, not the inaccuracy or supposed bias of the sentence. If, as you say, all of this is "subject to interpretation," you can make that point in the article, but you can't insist that the statement be changed to suit your point of view. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I am paying attention and I have not asked for stratfordians to make the anti-Strat case. I am not asking you to change anything about how you portray Stratfordians or the evidence they use. What I am saying is that it is not NPOV to state that anti-strats don't use any of the same material. That is all I am saying. And you know that is the case. Anti-strats use historical records all the time. They use contemporary statements all the time. They even use title pages to build specific points in their various theories. To say they don't use any of these items is deceiving. You may not agree at all with "how" they use these records, but you can't deny that they do. That is all that I am saying.

Are there title pages saying anybody else wrote his works? No.Tom Reedy

But there are title pages with no attribution, and there are title pages with the name Shake-speare hyphenated, which some researchers believe was evidence of a pseudonym.Smatprt (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there testimony by other contemporary poets and historians saying William Shakespeare wrote his works? Yes.Tom Reedy

Most of which is subject to interpretation. Smatprt (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there testimony by other contemporary poets and historians saying anybody else wrote his works? No.Tom Reedy

But there is testimony from other poets and historians that question the attribution in the same way that Shakespeare biographers say that Groatsworth is about Shakespeare. Yes, it's interpretive, but so is much of mainstream scholarship.

Are there official records saying William Shakespeare wrote his works? Yes.Tom Reedy

It is subect to interpretations, like so much of the "evidence" that Stratfordians offer.Smatprt (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

These official records do not say that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works, nor do they solve the question of whether he was a front man or not. Smatprt (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there official records saying anybody else wrote his works? No.Tom Reedy

There are official records that authorship doubters quote to support their case, such as Bacon's private wastebook which showed parallels between his notes and excerpts from various Shakespeare plays, or Derby's supporters that a pair of 1599 letters by the Jesuit spy George Fenner report that he was "busy penning plays for the common players." Price, of course, uses historical records extensively to support an anonymous "nobleman" who she believes wrote the plays.

If there are any, please let me know. I am unaware of Diana Price or any other person who uses title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records to support the authorship of any other candidate.

Do Stratfordians point this out and is that present in the cited references? Yes.Tom Reedy

They express their opionion - but they cannot say it is an undisputed fact. Smatprt (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Are any of these "a matter which is subject to dispute"? No.Tom Reedy

Of course these are in dispute. You don't agree that they are, but that does not make it so. Otherwise, there would be no question (and no article here).Smatprt (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So it is not merely "an opinion;" and NPOV (as you interpret it) doesn't really apply, because the statement complies with NPOV policy.

Obviously I disagree. We have not reached consensus on this, so again, I ask you to delete the controversial section "that Stratfordians note is lacking for any other alternative candidate".Smatprt (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And as a matter of fact, I'm unaware that Diana Price supports any candidate, unless she made an announcement and I missed it. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, she discounts Shakespeare of Stratford and believes the plays were written by a "nobleman" - for the myriad of reasons that she lays out in her research. Smatprt (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said above - Anti-strats use historical records all the time. They use contemporary statements all the time. They even use title pages to build specific points in their various theories. To say they don't use any of these items (which is what you inserted) is deceiving. You may not agree at all with "how" they use these records, but you can't deny that they do. That is all that I am saying. And that is why the line you inserted "that Stratfordians note is lacking for any other alternative candidate" does not have consensus and should be removed. Smatprt (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SMATPRT on this point. Anti-Stratfordians use the same kinds of documentary evidence as Stratfordians. The issue is one of interpretation, not the types of evidence used. Diana Price, for example, has said that 99% of the sources she used in Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography are orthodox sources. Some 70 documents clearly relate to the Stratford man during his lifetime, yet none documents a literary career prior to the First Folio, seven years after he died. Nothing about the Stratford man's will suggests he was a writer, or that he was a man with a cultivated mind. Nothing about the will supports the Stratfordian position, but they just explain it away. Both sides clearly use the same documentary evidence, but they interpret it differently. Schoenbaum (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, will you please read my words at face value instead of interpreting them to mean what you think they say? Because your complaint is not in the sentence. The sentence doesn't say that anti-Stratfordians don't use the same evidence; it says the type of evidence listed is lacking for any other alternative candidate. Do you see the difference? You are free to note that anti-Stratfordians interpret the evidence differently, but as I listed above, the type of evidence that names William Shakespeare as the author doesn't exist for any alternative candidate. I've read Price, and she doesn't use title pages, official records or contemporary testimony to state that some other person wrote the canon; she says contemporary testimony is all ironic and means exactly the opposite. I don't recall right now if she uses title pages or SR records, but if she does, she certainly doesn't point to them as proof for some other candidate.

The purpose of the sentence is to point out the difference in the methodologies between Starts and anti-Strats: Starts use the historical record literally, the same way they do in every other case of literary attribution; anti-Strats interpret the record to mean opposite of what it says prima facie. Do you understand the difference? Tom Reedy (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I think it's incorrect to say that anti-Strats "interpret the record to mean the opposite of what it says prima facie." The way I would put it is that Anti-Strats find the parts of the record you refer to problematic, and inconsistent with other evidence on the record, so they don't accept those parts of the record at face value. But otherwise, yes, I do understand. Your use of "prima facie" reminded me that the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt acknowledges that the kind of evidence you describe "would seem to amount to a prima facie case for Mr. Shakspere (evidence sufficient to establish a presumption of fact, unless rebutted by other evidence)." It then goes on to explain why each of those pieces of evidence is "problematic," before detailing other evidence on the record that seems inconsistent with the orthodox view, i.e, nothing in his own hand but the six signatures, his non-literary will, no evidence of either formal or informal education, no contemporaneous documents of a writing career, no dedications or commendatory verse addressed to him, no recognition as a writer in Stratford, no eulogies at the time of his death, etc. So rather than denying that there's a prima facie case for Shakspere that doesn't exist for other candidates, it sounds to me like you're saying that anti-Strats need to explain why the prima facie case is problematic and inconsistent with the other evidence you cite. Right? Schoenbaum (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, I am merely stating what the orthodox literary scholars use to attribute the works to William Shakespeare of Stratford. It is up to you to point out those "inconsistencies" in the rest of the article. It is not incumbent upon me to do so; I am merely stating their case in the manner that they state it.

One example would be the November 26, 1607, Stationers Register entry (an official government record) for King Lear, which states that the play was written by "Master William Shakespeare", which honorific William of Stratford was entitled to use by virtue of him having the status of a gentleman. Subsequently the name on the title page was "M. William Shak-speare". To orthodox scholars, this is proof that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gentleman, wrote the play, and it directly contradicts your statement of "no contemporaneous documents of a writing career" (and it also contradicts the notion that the publication of the plays "mysteriously stopped" after 1604).

P. S. What exactly would a "literary will" be? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad we agree on something. The references to "Master" William Shakespeare do strike me as evidence pointing to Shakspere, but do orthodox scholars really think that they, in themselves, "prove" that he wrote King Lear, regardless of any other considerations? Do they recognize the concept of a pseudonym, or a front man? No, the publication of new plays didn't "stop" after 1604, but the rate fell off sharply. Re: "non-literary will," sorry; I meant that nothing about Shakspere's will suggests that he was a professional writer. Schoenbaum (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course that is not the only evidence (and I should have written that instead of proof) they consider in attributing authorship to Shakespeare. Read Harold Love's Attributing Authorship for a good overview of how it's done. It's a short book and is very thorough. There's even a short chapter on Shakespeare authorship. For a summary of the historical evidence for Shakespeare's authorship, read this. For the historical evidence supporting all the other authorship candidates, read this. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Point of View when setting arguments alongside one another

In the section Shakespeare's life experience:

"Anti-Stratfordians have responded that while the author's depiction of nobility was highly personal and multi-faceted, his treatment of commoners was quite different, including comedic and insulting names (Bullcalfe, Elbow, Bottom, Belch), with these characters often portrayed as either the butt of jokes, or as an angry mob.[99]"

While it is good and proper to clearly elucidate the arguments by putting objections and responses together, this line seems to be excessively defensive. Here a point made by the world's top shakespearian scholar, is responded to again by a marginal, amateur book now out of print. (I do not mean to be derisory, but that is their relative status.) It's quite reasonable that commoners would be portrayed as comic or crude, they probably were. It was elizabethan times, commoners are like that today, it's just not politically correct to say so. In a time of absolute Monarchy, the court would take offence more easily, and the consequences would be much more severe. I think this response to a response should be omitted, the paragraph reads much better without it. Best, Ktlynch (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)