Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

CATS

I've added the conspiracy theory cat because the lead itself admits that the 'orthodox' scholarship has been engaged for centuries in a cover-up. I.e. ‘Authorship doubters such as Charlton Ogburn and Diana Price believe that, for centuries, Shakespeare biographers have suspended orthodox methods and criteria to weave inadmissible evidence into their histories of the Stratford man,’

The fringe theory is self-evident, as pro-Oxfordian editors admit in frequently them,selves citing WP:FRINGE to finesse their defences. The pseudo-scholarship CAT is also mandatory since Ogburn and Price, leading theorists, regards orthodox scholarship as one that 'suspends orthodox methods and criteria',i.e. engages in pseudo-scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not acceptable and will not be accepted. You previously argued that none of the sources in question supported the language you are now using to justify name calling. Do you really think that these contradictions will not be noticed? Do you really fail to see them yourself? To argue that "biographers have suspended orthodox methods" is hardly the same thing as to argue that they have engaged in a conscious and fully purposeful conspiracy. Your attempt to confuse this difference constitutes a rather unappealing example of the deep bias that seems to motivate even your sometimes useful contributions to the debate. No one is alleging what you claim. --BenJonson (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy theory because it theorises a conspiracy, not because the proponents of the theory are conspirators or that they propose that their opponents are. Paul B (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead proportions and language for fringe theory articles. Some evidence

For Afasmit 's consideration. Callling a spade a spade, or referring in the lead to a consensus which ignores,dismisses, or treats a fringe theory as pseudo-scholarship, is commonplace on wiki articles in this category. If you and others ompare the Chrit Myth page, it makes no bones about what specialists think, and cites them to effect. What is being done in the lead here, by Ogburnians, is to pass off 99% of ranking scholarship on Shakespeare as 'most' (when every Ogburnian sources say 'vast majority'), calling the almost non-existent number academics in English studies supporting this hypothesis, a 'small minority', and erasing all mention of the fact that the doyen of the orthodox field on Shakespeare's life, when, unlike most of his colleagues, he deigned to look at this fringe material, dismissed it in a superb RS publication as the work 'cranks' (giving the Baconians a run for madness. The objections from scholarship do not have 'twin planks/pillars', even if one can find a source for that phrase (Kathman). The objections from scholarship are that hitherto 99& of the fringe literature is written by people, much like the editors pushing the version in here, with no understanding of what writing a scholarly investigation into the past requires in terms of training, method and textual mastery. What makes clarity about this particularly important is the fact that the header lists the article as one included in the Wikipedia for Schools, see Shakespeare authorship question at Schools Wikipedia, something which makes it particularly incumbent on editors to ensure that the article does not pass off a fringe theory as an eminently respectable alternative to some vaguely majoritarian 'orthodox' point of view. No editions of Shakespeare for school I am familiar with think that Looneyism is worthy of study as a serious contribution to the understanding of the works. It's much like putting Creationism on the science curriculum (well, after all that's not far off it. The paradox is that the elitism theory comes from Tocqueville's exemplary democracy, whereas in class-ridden England, it is very much a minor cult)

(1)Christ myth theory lead

The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles, biblical scholars and historians being highly dismissive of it, viewing it as pseudo-scholarship. Some of these specialists have even gone so far as to compare the theory's methodological basis with that of flat-earthism, Holocaust denial and moon landing skepticism.

(2)Nostradamus lead.

Most academic sources maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus's quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power. Moreover, none of the sources listed offers any evidence that anyone has ever interpreted any of Nostradamus's quatrains specifically enough to allow a clear identification of any event in advance.

(3) Flat Earth lead.

Although the hypothesis of the flat Earth has long been generally dismissed, there are still occasional modern advocates of the hypothesis.

(5) Holocaust denial lead

Most Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples.[6] For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory. The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.</blo0ckquote>

(6) Moon landing conspiracy theories lead.

There is abundant third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings, and commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims. Various polls have shown that 6% to 28% of the people surveyed do not think the Moon landing happened.

(7) 9/11 conspiracy theories lead

Published reports and articles by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Popular Mechanics and mainstream media 'have rejected the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The civil engineering establishment generally accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC

(8) AIDS origins opposed to scientific consensus lead

While a few reputable mainstream scientists once investigated some of these theories as reasonable hypotheses, this is no longer the case, as continuing research has invalidated the alternative ideas.

(9) Nazi UFOs lead

While there is no credible evidence to support the theory of Nazi spacecraft, the stories are often associated with esoteric Nazism; an ideology that supposes the unlikely possibility of Nazi restoration by supernatural or paranormal means. Consequently all but the most plausible accounts of actual spacecraft are generally held to be religious, political and scientific heresy.

(10) Ancient astronauts lead.

‘Ancient astronaut theories have been widely used in science fiction. Such theories have not received support within the scientific community, and have received little or no attention in peer-reviewed studies from scientific journals.

(11) Atlantis lead.

Scholars dispute whether and how much Plato's story or account was inspired by older traditions. Some scholars argue Plato drew upon memories of past events such as the Thera eruption or the Trojan War, while others insist that he took inspiration from contemporary events like the destruction of Helike in 373 BC or the failed Athenian invasion of Sicily in 415–413 BC. The possible existence of a genuine Atlantis was discussed throughout classical antiquity, but it was usually rejected and occasionally parodied by later authors. As Alan Cameron states: "It is only in modern times that people have taken the Atlantis story seriously; no one did so in antiquity".

(12)Ignatius L. Donnelly[[]] lead.

Ignatius Loyola Donnelly (November 3, 1831–January 1, 1901) was a U.S. Congressman, pseudo-historian, populist writer and amateur scientist, known primarily now for his theories of the history of Atlantis and Shakespearean authorship, which modern historians consider to be pseudohistory.

(13) Ages in Chaos lead

Velikovsky's work has been harshly criticised, including by fellow chronological revisionists such as Peter James. In 1984 fringe science expert Henry H. Bauer wrote Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy, which Time described as "the definitive treatise debunking Immanuel Velikovsky".

(14) Immanuel Velikovsky lead

In general, Velikovsky's theories have been vigorously rejected or ignored by the academic community. Nonetheless, his books often sold well and gained an enthusiastic support in lay circles, often fuelled by claims of unfair treatment for Velikovsky by orthodox academia. The controversy surrounding his work and its reception is often referred to as "the Velikovsky affair"

(15) Mu (lost continent) lead

The existence of Mu was disputed already in Le Plongeon's time. Today, scientists generally dismiss the concept of Mu (and of other lost continents like Lemuria) as physically impossible, since a continent can neither sink nor be destroyed by any conceivable catastrophe, especially not in the short period of time required by this premise. Moreover, the weight of all archaeological, linguistic and genetic evidence is contrary to the claim that the ancient civilizations of the New and Old Worlds stemmed from a common ancestral civilization. Mu is today considered to be a fictional place.

(16) The Templar Revelation lead

‘It proposes a fringe hypothesis regarding the relationship between Jesus, John the Baptist and Mary Magdalene, and states that their true story has been suppressed’

(17)Priory of Sion lead.

The Priory of Sion myth has been exhaustively debunked by journalists and scholars as one of the great hoaxes of the 20th century. Some skeptics have expressed concern that the proliferation and popularity of books, websites and films inspired by this hoax have contributed to the problem of conspiracy theories, pseudohistory and other confusions becoming more mainstream. Others are troubled by the romantic reactionary ideology unwittingly promoted in these works.

(18) Piri Reis map lead:

The map has been used to claim an ancient knowledge of an ice-free Antarctica, transmitted either from extra-terrestrials or an Ice Age civilization. These claims are generally considered to be pseudo-scholarship, and some scholarly opinion is that the region sometimes thought to be Antarctica is more likely to be Patagonia or the Terra Australis Incognita (Unknown Southern Land) widely believed to exist before the Southern Hemisphere was fully explored..

Wow, the editor does go on at great length, doesn't he, to bash his head against the skulls of those he doesn't like with "guilt by association" theories. But let's return to the point, shall we? "the doyen of the orthodox field on Shakespeare's life, when, unlike most of his colleagues, he deigned to look at this fringe material, dismissed it in a superb RS publication as the work 'cranks.'"

I assume the "doyen" being referred to is Samuel Schoenbaum. I wonder if the editor in question has actually read Samuel Schoenbaum, or knows anything at all about the history of the two versions of Shakespeare's Lives? If not, he might be advised to be careful about citing Schoenbaum as if the insults larded in his 1975 edition actually reflect his views near the end of his life after he had learned something about the topic in question, substantially as a result of having actually read Ogburn's Mysterious William Shakespeare and held a number of conversations with the author.

He and Charlton Ogburn became rather well acquainted in their final years, and there is no way on God's earth that the mature Samuel Schoenbaum would ever have agreed to the statements you are are enlisting his support for in this context. The differences between the 1975 and 1991 editions of Shakespeare's Lives are significant, and many of them concern the deletion of the most offensive and small-minded of his remarks about the Oxfordians (including, ironically, Freud) that are found in the earlier edition.

Moreover, the question remains, why single out Schoenbaum? There are others who have been just as dismissive, or worse, and then there are an increasing number who are starting to unlearn the dogma which the editor confidently opines as gospel. One might, for example, take a look a the recent defection of William Leahy, Brunel University Shakespearean scholar, who has in the past three or four years abandoned entirely his unexamined faith in the Stratfordian ideology and now openly advocates for the legitimacy of authorship studies. There are others close to the tipping point, and the imminent publication of James Shapiro's poorly argued Contested Will this coming spring is only going to raise the debate to a new level of public prominence in which orthodoxy will continue to decline.--BenJonson (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The quotation is present in the second edition as well. I checked it this morning.

Regardless, I don't think it's necessary to reproduce rants in order to communicate the fact that we're discussing a fringe theory with a snobby basis. While at one time I was a member of the Schoenbaum school of abuse, I lean more to the Matus school today. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for checking. Please note that I did not claim that that particular quote was not still present in the 1991 edition. I don't have the copies handy and could not check it. I did claim -- and it is true -- that much of the offensive language was removed in 1991, and that the quote which our wiki editor Schoenbaum has now supplied in full -- was ADDED to the 1991 edition. Now please stop and think, before you write your response, about what that means.

It is also a known fact (although I cannot for sure vouch that written documentation exists) that Ogburn and Schoenbaum held some conversations post 1984. These were part of the basis of Schoenbaum's significant shifts in opinion as he grew older, backing away from the dogmatic certainty of his earlier belief.

This is all to his credit. He obviously did not go all the way, but he went far enough to realize that he was damaging his own case by the extreme manner in which he had expressed himself in 1975.

You may be surprised to learn, though, that I disagree with you about not including this quote. I think the quote should probably be included. Better still, how about Evans and Levin, who asked after the Harvard Alumni Review published an article by Ogburn whether the editor (whom they tried to have fired for his temerity in daring to publish a nutcase like C.O.) would next be publishing an article proving that Queen Elizabeth was a Peruvian Transvestite. Such quotations serve an important function in reminding us to what extent wholly irrational motivations and ad hominem abuse have characterized the discourse up until the present. But S's quote is included, the article should also include reference to the changes in the editions which prove that views were changing over time. Perhaps that is too much detail for this particular article, and there should be a separate entry just discussing the role of Schoenbaum's book in the authorship question.

If you say that you were once a member of the Schoenbaum school and are today more of the Matus school I must say that reminds me of the lines from Hamlet when he compares his dead father to Claudius. Stick with the old man, sinner that he was. Matus is a total intellectual lightweight by comparison to Sh. and no moral champion, either (hint: do a background check).--BenJonson (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Roger, I was referring to Irv's attitude toward anti-Strats in general and Oxfordians in particular. He is no mean scholar in my book and I consider him a friend. I prefer the company of those with chequered backgrounds with true passion for their calling to the mindless drones of academe. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"What makes clarity about this particularly important is the fact that the header lists the article as one included in the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection|Wikipedia for Schools" - well the problem is that the header is wrong. Follow the link and you will see that no such page exists and this article is not part of the project. I'm removing the header. I guess the "particular importance" no longer applies. Smatprt (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to break the logjam

I've edited the lede to cut it down and make the most direct and important points about the article. I did so so that we can discuss any changes rather than endlessly posting alternate versions that get lost on the talk page. I think I did a good job of keeping a neutral point of view and attributing the arguments. We do need more citations for unreferenced statement. We do not, however, need 15 citations for each point to grandstand our deep scholarly convictions. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, since you broke your own proposal and posted a version without any agreement, does that make us even? :)

In any case, I posted the only version that has been under active discussion. This is also the only version that has received support from uninvolved editors so if we are going to start anywhere, it really should be here. Much of it I took from your own version and reflects various agreements that have been made on this page (pillars - planks, 50 - numerous). At least this version started here, received numerous comments and was the basis for a beginning discussion. Completely side-stepping this process was not the best way to go. I am perfectly willing to continue discussions about amending this version and coming to a reasonable conclusion. I hope you are too. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I signaled yesterday that I was working on a version and that is what I posted, rather than put it up on the discussion page and have it get lost in the vacuous exercise you call discussion, which lately has only been Roger bloviating and crapping up the boards so nobody can find anything.

This version clocks in at 440 words, it's even-handed and leaves out some problems that we'll never work out. It's also an accurate description of both the anti-Strat side and the academic stance, which I know you are fighting to keep out of the article, but it's going in eventually if it takes us until summer. I hope you were joking with your substitute of "devoted." And nobody agreed to planks, which I completely avoided, or numerous, except for me when I was trying to be conciliatory, which never works with you anyway so I don't know why I even bother. As for the words you say can't be defined, they echo the sources, one of which is your favorite NYTimes staff writer.

Nobody was really discussing the version you substituted. I have reverted back to the version previous to mine.

One of the major problems with this page that is going to have to be overhauled is that it doesn't follow the lede or the lede doesn't follow the text. The major topic should be what is common to all anti-Strat theories: that Shakespeare could not have written the works with his background. The other major topic should be anti-Stratfordian methodology. Anything peculiar to a particular candidate should be in their section, not in the main text. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Precise citation required

(1) Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject.

Where does McCrea say that? I cannot find the page.Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find it. Some refs have migrated as text has been added without changing cites. I'll keep looking. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Tom - you wrote the line, so what gives? Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I was worried only by the 'consequently'. It is true that academics have been, fortunately, slow to pander to public interest in conspiracy theories of this sort. But is it necessary to keep this in? Most specialists are, and always will be, simply too fascinated by the massive critical literature, interpretative books, and technical research on Shakespeare, and the Elizabethan era ever tolet themselves get embroiled in what is, so far, a fringe theory. They have enough minority hypotheses, founded on serious scholarly investigations, to examine without getting themselves sucked into polemics with people who have no philological training or understanding of method.Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(2)A citation needed tag was placed for this sentence in the lead.

‘some claimants have achieved major followings and notable supporters ‘

The sources do not back the first claim. Neither source backs the sentence, with the subject 'some claimants'.

Neither mentions any achievement of ‘major followings’ (what ‘major followings’ means is not clear, in any case)

The Declaration has

Present-day doubters include many more prominent individuals, numerous leading Shakespearean actors, and growing numbers of English professors.’

The second source is a NYT poll. It doesn’t back the text.

Neither text mentions ‘claimants’ Both refer to the authorship question, not to any claimant. It’s a WP:SYNTH violation.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My mistake - I freely admit. I meant to copy over the Atlantic Monthly reference and apparently started referencing something else. I have added that and several other refs to address the notable supporters section. More to come. Smatprt (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What you did was however to add a WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR violation by adding four sources that do not support the sentence but merely name names.

Merely name notable supporters, which is what I was referencing and what I stated I was referencing. Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You cited articles naming several people who believe this stuff, to justify 'major followings' (which is obscure. 'Major' can refer to 'big names' or to quantity of people. It is not clear which you mean). Doing this is a WP:SYNTH violation, making a deduction that there is a 'major following' (which is intended to indicate a widespread public and, not to be excluded, professional following) from listing articles with several public figures interviewed or listed, and using this to invent the fiction that this is 'evidence' of a 'major following'. You still need a citation to justify 'major followings'. As I showed in my proposal below, the problem and the need for citations is simply overcome by referring to the fact that a good number of notable public figures subscribe to the theories. Please read what I write before answering a point I never made. Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I will therefore have to restore the ‘citation needed tag’ since none of the sources, in note 5 to 8, back the sentence they ostensibly document, but rather simply adduce 4 or five people who disbelieve the overwhelming consensus of orthodox scholarship.

• Note 5 doesn’t support the text. It is Bethel’s rehearsal of the usual deVerean doctrines. It says nothing of major followings

It mentions several notable adherents.Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So what? Several notable adherents do not constitute a 'major following'.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note 6 is Jess Bravin’s articleon Judge Stevens’ views about Shakespeare, which are neither here nor there. Judge Stevens was a notable member of the American judiciary, as a Supreme Court Judge, but you cannot cite an article about his personal views, which are as relevant to this as Simon Schama’s views on quantum theory, to prove that the fringe has 'major followings', a phrase whose denotative sense is unclear, and cannot be sdourced until you tell us what on earth you mean by it.

See the graph noting the number of supreme court justices who support Oxford.Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it. A great publicity stunt. 9 notable people with no adequate knowledge of the subject, convened for a day to deliberate whether 200 years of research by expert could stand its ground against 80 years of conspiracy-mongering by non-academics, and we got a split verdict. I eagerly await their verdict on the existence or not of the Higgs boson and the pros and cons of Superstring theory. I doubt whether the Journal of High Energy Physics will have its pages troubled by the verdicts.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note 7 Horace Howard Furness quoted in Appleton Morgan, The Shakespearean Myth 1881 p.201 (actually p.157, in the 2003 reprint), simply says he can’t reconcile the plays with the man. The same point was made eloquently by Furness's colleague of the day (J. O, Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, 1889, Part 1, 8th ed. Kessinger Publishing, 2003 reprint Preface p.vi-vii). So, so what? no one can, as they can’t with Homer, Terence, Aeschylus Cervantes, Molière, Chikamatsu, Murasaki Shikibu, Li Bo (from a provincial, perhaps Turkish fringe family, who wrote much of the most beautiful poetry in the history of the Chinese language), or Cao Xueqin, perhaps the greatest novel of Chinese literature, the son of an impoverished bannerman, about whom we know almost nothing of, except that he was fat, swarthy, and small, and like the companionable witty William Shakespeare in later anecdotes, ‘wherever he was, he made it spring’. So little that weird theories cropped up just after his death that he must have been someone else. etc, etc.

• Note 8 Friedman, William and Friedman, Elizabeth, ‘’The Shakespearian ciphers examined (Cambridge University Press, 1957). This has no page number and is irrelevant in any case since it just systematically dismantles all of the hocus-pocus theories, by people they call ‘cranks’, about a secret cipher in Shakespeare’s work.

These all support the statement "notable adherents". The Friedman's dismantled the argument made by Ignatius L. Donnelly, but by doing so, it's a given that Donnelly was a notable Bacon supporter. They can call Donnelly a "crank", but that does not mean he wasn't a notable crank! Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You gave the book without page references. That book does not deal exclusively with the non-notable crank Donnelly, but with all theories about Baconian cryptograms. You protest Schoenbaum's use of the word 'crank' in one section, and now value Donnelly as a crank because he is notable! Really, this is just verbiage.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE writes:’ The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.’

Oh, please, Bethell merely lists several notable adherents, thus the reference. The cite was not used to quote Bethell making proclamations of any kind. But you guys are just gaming. You know perfectly well that both Bacon and Oxford have notable adherents and numerous supporters. It's you are are just trying to waste time and energy (mine). The statement is hardly controversial, but you are just making it so. Whatever. Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The gaming is all yours, because you refuse to interpret the standard meaning of what your interlocutors say. No one is challenging the fact that notable adherents, all people who have little if any knowledge of the subject, exist for the fringe view. What one questions is your invention of a 'major followings', attached to that cliché. Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What you did shows either that you don't understand what sourcing an editorial judgement requires (namely a source which says more or less what the in-text remark states) or that you are straining WP:AGF by repeatedly adding material that requires your interlocutors to waste hours, if they check it out, on verification, in checks that show the citations are futile, but which in causing editors to check irrelevant material of considerable length, causes an attrition of patience. I don't know if you are engaged in the latter, but it is standard for fringe theories, deVerean and Ogburnian polemicists. Please check what you cite, and refrain from wasting editors' time with misleading data.Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As I explained in my subject line, the cites were added to show notable adherents. But really, it's hardly controversial and it is more likely that you guys are simply trying to waste my time by adding unneeded cite tags.Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't speak of wasting time. None of your answers to serious queries based on wiki protocols address the substance of the complaints. They drivel on. By the way, I am not a plural person (you guys).Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

3.

'Authorship doubters such as Charlton Ogburn and Diana Price believe that, for centuries, Shakespeare biographers have suspended orthodox methods and criteria to weave inadmissible evidence into their histories of the Stratford man.' Ogburn, Chapter 4, "Baseless Fabric", p 46-57; (2) Diana Price, Shakespeare's Authorship and Questions of Evidence,paragraphs 31-32. in Skeptic, December 1, 2004, retrieved February 16, 2010.

What the editor who wrote that is saying is that both Charlton Ogburn, and Diana Price specifically argue that orthodox Shakespearean scholarship does exactly what fringe scholarship does, and admittedly does, i.e. 'suspend orthodox methods and criteria'

In other words, the orthodox biographical tradition does not use orthodox scholarly methodology, and thus, there is no methodological distinction between academic work on Shakespeare, and fringe theories. Our article however states the contrary elsewhere.

This is an extraordinary claim, requiring very precise references from reliable sources. The two sources are quoted generically, and this is not good enough. You have to provide us with the relevant passages from both texts which clearly state that orthodox methods are 'suspended' in the historical and academic tradition writing Shakespeare of Stratford's life. Unless this is evidenced by a verifiable pair of citations from both authors, once more the sourcing must be replaced by a citation needed tag. Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I provided specific page numbers for Ogburn, which is exactly what Tom requested. The chapter makes a clear case for what the edit in question, but here are some quotes and page numbers:

• "In the void that confronts them, Stratfordian biographers heedlessly embrace a document that might seem to provide a foundation for the edifice they erect. (p 46)

• "Having misconstrued Greenes Groats-worth to make Will Shakespeare a playwright, the Stratfordians misconstrue the next publication in the case to make him an honoured one" p49.

• "The airy reconstructions that the Stratfordians go in for are sometimes of ludicrous effect" p.50.

• "A whole succession of writers, Malone, Steevens, Dycem Collier, Halliwell, Knight and a host of minor authors, are so blinded by their admiration for Shakespeare, that they cannot read a simple document correctly, or are such simple followers of Malone [who gave the misreading currency int he 18th centure] that they have adoped his mistakes and made no inquiry for themselves." p.51

• Ogburn summarizes his own chapter with the following quote "We need to be extremely sceptical about what we read in science, history , and in all other areas. We must always remember what what we are reading may be fraud. We must also remember what what we are reading may be a collection of cliches that have been passed down uncritically from one generation of writers to another, with no one bothering to examine the veracity of what was written."

Also the reference we have these two quotes from Price (who was not quoted "generically" - I provided precise paragraph numbers where you would have found:

• In the early years of the last century, scholars were so desperate to prove that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare that they attempted to manufacture evidence.

• The paleographers suspended their own roles to try to make a case for Shakespeare.Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing me with the definitive proof that the text's:

'Authorship doubters such as Charlton Ogburn and Diana Price believe that, for centuries, Shakespeare biographers have suspended orthodox methods and criteria to weave inadmissible evidence into their histories of the Stratford man

By no stretch of the imagination can the synthesis ofthis sentence be matched with any of the quotes you have now supplied. It is your interpretation of wehat the drift of their arguments is saying, and happens, on this evidence, to be wrong. So don't use sources to sneak in your own beliefs, again.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"In the early years of the last century, scholars were so desperate to prove that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare that they attempted to manufacture evidence." Excuse me but scholars "attempting to manufacture evidence" for use in their biographies is a definite suspension of orthodox methods. I'm just amazed that you would argue that. By no stretch of the imagination? Wow. Now don't fly off because of this question but is English your first language? Because your definitions sometimes astound me. In any event, lets just say we disagree. 01:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, smatprt. I don't know exactly what that sentence is referring to, but the charge of manufacturing evidence is an accusation, as is the purported motivation, and not an accepted fact by anyone but those who hold the fringe belief that somebody else wrote Shakespeare. If it's referring to Ireland, that certainly wasn't his motivation, and it it's referring to the 1923 Sir Thomas More book, they didn't manufacture evidence, they processed it. And an opinion by a non-expert on paleography or forensic document examination--heck, by somebody who doesn't even know very much about it and who uses signatures to "prove" illiteracy--is not any opinion at all, and that would have to be made clear in the quote. In any case, you don't understand that this article is supposed to reflect the scholarly consensus and make it clear that the Shakespeare authorship question is an extreme minority view. You seem to think that neutrality means that all the arguments should be given equal weight. That's your misunderstanding and that's not Wikipedia policy. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The central problem with this is that it is essentially meaningless. The construction "orthodox scholars" seems to mean anyone who takes the default position that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. This might mean absolutely anyone or anything. Apply this to any other author, artist or historical event. In the long history of scholarship on Homer, Cleopatra, Michelangelo, or Hitler some writers have "suspended orthodox methods and criteria", have invented evidence, eschewed logic and evidence etc. All this means is that some poeople over hundreds of years or over thousands of publications have said some irrational things, used dodgy arguments, mistaken and misrepresented stuff. We can find people saying daft things about, say Michelangelo, over the hundreds of years of writing about him. There have also been forgeries. We cannot meaningfully extrapolate from this to say as a generalisation that "Michelangelo biographers have suspended orthodox methods and criteria to weave inadmissible evidence into their histories." Paul B (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the (Authorship doubters such as Charlton Ogburn and Diana Price believe that, for centuries, Shakespeare biographers have suspended orthodox methods and criteria to weave inadmissible evidence into their histories of the Stratford man'</ref>)sentence more. Unless there is a 'consensus' that the sources say what the synthetic text in the lead pretends they say, it simply cannot stand there, no matter how much Smatprt defends it. In any case singling out two authors is partisanship, and Price used in the lead, is advertisement.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Support just on style alone. The sentence is an abomination of prose. I've noticed that most anti-Stratfordian works are badly written, Price being the exception, although she writes doctrine, not history. Even Ogburn, who wrote a very good WWII book I read when I was young, loses his style when writing about Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I see Smatprt has reintroduced the idea, sourced it uniquely now to Diana Price, yet retained the generic 'authorship doubters' as subject of the sentence, and thus attributing to all sceptics, the published opinion on one aspect of a multifarous debate of one independent student of the problem. This is poor editing. I have put her name to the idea, but I still think it inappropriate to the lead, because, as before, the idea can be summed up more succintly, whereas here you have a showcasing of one author's perspective on one issue in the lead, which smacks of advertising her work and of bloating the introductory section with excessive detail (as now rephrased). A lead cannot showcase one of a thousand author's specific interpretation of a detail. Either rephrase the idea succinctly in a way that you can multisource it as a general 'authorship doubters' viewpoint, or I'll remove it. Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

1RR restriction?

I notice that User:Smatprt and User:Tom Reedy have begun reverting each other again, after having been warned earlier to make no controversial changes without getting consensus first. To avoid resorting to blocks, I propose a 1RR rule (maximum of one revert per person per day) that applies to all editors. Please let me know if anyone objects to this. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't reversion in the edit-warring sense, but yes, I think it's best to head off any inclinations toward that.

Are properly-referenced edits that accurately reflect the scholarly consensus controversial? My understanding is that the stance of this article should be that of the scholarly consensus and not one of promotion. Am I correct in that? Because one problem we have is that "controversial changes" means "scholarly consensus" with Smatprt and company, or at least that's the way it seems from their reactions to certain edits, and it has resulted in gridlock as far as improving the article because we can't get editorial consensus for any substantial rewriting. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Tom (and now Nishidani) keep quoting 1 or 2 overly harsh opinions, and then label them as "scholarly consensus". How on earth do you prove "acholarly consensus" anyhow? If Kathman and Schoenbaum, in one of their fits, both published something that said "Oxfordians eat their parents" - would that be scholarly consensus, too?Smatprt (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Kathman and Schoenbaum are serious scholars. Their "fits" exist in your imagination. Their dismissals are, as you know, entirely normative. Paul B (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And yes, a 1RR restriction is a good idea, especially as it applies to all editors of this page.Smatprt (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion for simplifying the lead to conform to WP:LEAD conditions of succinctness

All agree the lead is far too long. It is so because it is repetitive.

All one needs to do is cut out the last two paragraphs, which are clearly more appropriate to the elaborative sections of the main text. I.e. excise

Authorship doubters such as Charlton Ogburn and Diana Price believe that, for centuries, Shakespeare biographers have suspended orthodox methods and criteria to weave inadmissible evidence into their histories of the Stratford man. They also claim that some mainstream scholars have ignored the subject in order to protect the economic gains that the Shakespeare publishing world has provided them. Authorship doubters assert that the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford did not have the background 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. Anti-stratfordians also note the lack of any concrete evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford had the extensive education doubters claim is evident in Shakespeare's works. They question whether a commoner from a small 16th-century country town, with no recorded education or personal library, could become so highly expert in foreign languages, knowledge of courtly pastimes and politics, Greek and Latin mythology, law, and the latest discoveries in science, medicine and astronomy of the time. Doubters also focus on the relationship between internal evidence (the content of the plays and poems) and external evidence (biographical or historical data derived from other sources).

Mainstream scholars reject all these arguments and say that authorship doubters discard the most direct testimony in favor of their own theories, overstate Shakespeare's erudition, and anachronistically mistake the times he lived in, thereby rendering their method of identifying the author from the works unscholarly and unreliable. Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.

Since both sides lose material, this cuts the Gordian knot. Compare Nostradamus's lead, on a page dealing with fringe theories in abundance.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll go for that. I think we also need to move away from the debate-style assertion/rebuttal format. It is tiresome to read, and a few of the major arguments should be enough. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, since you requested comments justifying the votes cast below regarding your proposal, I will gratify you with a few remarks. It seems to me that the real objection you have to this passage, based on some of your previous comments, is that you don't like the fact that the Oxfordian case has involved a critique, and one that has struck home in critical ways, of the methods as well as the conclusions, of traditional Shakespearean biography and criticism. At any rate, whether that is the main source of your objection, if your point is to save the mainstream of Shakespearean studies from facing the music, it ought to be your objection. Perhaps it would be worthwhile in view of this conjecture to recall the words of Richmond Crinkley, the former Director of Educational Programs at the Folger Shakespeare Library, in his 1985 review of Ogburn. Crinkley commented that if the abundant errors of fact and fallacies of logic which Ogburn chronicles in his book, not to mention the history of unprofessional abuse, are representative of scholarship, then

"it is not just authorship about which we have to be worried."

    New Perspectives on The Authorship Question
   Richmond Crinkley
   Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Winter, 1985), pp. 515-522

I would submit, therefore, that any attempt to write out of the history of this debate the analysis of Ogburn and others regarding this history of error not only compromises the standards of wikipedia, but is an invitation to intellectual tyranny of the worst sort. All specialized constituencies of experts are subject to confirmation bias. The use of works like Ogburn's, whether his conclusions are ultimately correct or not, is to provide the necessary check and balance on such derelictions of professional duty. So I ask, Nishidani: Have you read Mr. Ogburn's book? If not, on what authority would you presume to say, as you did in a previous note, that "by no stretch of the imagination" could the language in question be justified by the cited sources? My reading of Ogburn suggests that the lines in question are a reasonable summary of his perspective on the matter. But then, I am just an amateur aficionado of a "fringe theory" -- unlike you, I suppose? So my view does not count, right?--BenJonson (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

By my word count Shakespeare has 398 words in the lead. Our page, which is on the fringe theories of Shakespeare, has 558, which is absurd. Endless tickling won't solve the issue, and, being somewhat impatient with the slowness of deliberation in here, I've already shortened the lead, without interfering with its contents. I think we need a vote. But if that fails, then either someone should propose concrete measures to hive off 200-250 words quickly. Anything excised can be stuck down in the main body of the text.

Yes, the assertion rebuttal format is flagrntly inadequate. I concur it would be better to simply list the history, major theorists and arguments, followed by replies, without the inordinate minutiae, which loses the reader.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be shorter. The last two paras are unnecessary, and many of the 'citation nededed' tags should go, since the relevant passages are just summarising points later developed in the main text. I think the claim that 'doubts' began in the 18th centry also needs to be removed, since this is much disputed. In reality the 'anti-Stratfordian' position emerges as a definite public debate in the mid 19th century as a spin-off consequence of the 'deification' of Shakespeare. Paul B (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I put the citation needed tags in there. They mark passages which strike me as odd or queer (i.e. 'Oxford and Bacon have achieved major followings and notable supporters' implies the deVere and Baconian hypotheses have a major following, though the 'major following' must refer to the exiguous republic of enthusiasts who follow the alternative author debate. The language deceives the reader into believing that this is not a fringe theory, but one with substantial backing, in either public taste or among the learned. Unacceptably POV-tilting language.*). I don't support the text at these junctures, therefore I called for references, rather than eliding the controversial lines. The 'points made' have yet to be backed up by any verifiable source, and thus should not go into the lead.

As to 'doubts' in the 18th century, while rereading in a new edition 'The Taming of the Shrew' today, I found a reference to the first doubt emerging in 1769, attributing the works to Bacon. I had earlier changed 'debate'(early 18th century) to 'queries' precisely for the reason you give. The public debate took wing, as you say, in the mid 19th century.Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note that I originally edited out 'major followings' and let the sentence, perfectly acceptable without citations in the lead, refer to 'notable supporters'. This is a truthful statement, and does not require documentation. However the language is ugly. The way this should be stated is:

Oxford and Bacon have won support from notable figures in public life.

Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The terminology is perhaps disingenuous, but it's true thst both have achieved "notable supporters" in the sense that well-known people have supported them, though not scholars; it's mainly creative writers, actors etc. I think "major following" just indicates that these two guys have a substantial body of fans, as it were, which is not true of the others. again, the wording could be tweaked to sound less grandiose, but it's not false. I've no idea where the 1769 date for the Bacon hypothesis comes from. The first recorded attribtion to Bacon is supposed to have been made by James Wilmot sometime in the late 18th century, but this is very much in doubt now. Paul B (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict), yes, I think the change you suggest works. Paul B (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The 1769 date refers to Herbert Lawrence's The Life and Adventures of Common Sense. Wilmot came to his conclusions by 1781, but his private researches didn't go into the public record until his confidente James Cowell revealed them to an Ipswich audience of Pickwickians around 1805. So Lawrence has the balmy/barmy palm.Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

N.H. Gibson's, The Shakespeare Claimants, (Barnes and Noble 1962), Routledge reprint 2005 pp.17ff., has details. That's quite a useful book to cite here. By the way he was writing in 1961, and had counted 57 figures for the claimants by that early date (p.10)Nishidani (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no he doesn't, because at no point does Lawrence say that Bacon wrote the works. It's probable that Wilmot never said it either. Indeed Wilmot is essentially a cipher created by fraudsters, beginning with his niece. If you read The Life and Adventures of Common Sense you will see that it is a satire about the life of "Common Sense" who goes through history accompanied by other allegorical figures. It's a fantasy. At no point does Lawrence ever deny that Shakespeare wrote his works. He portrays him as a thief in the literal sense (derived from the supposed poaching story) who stole a Magical Glass from a box, which was the property of Common Sense's father "Genius". With this glass he could see into men's souls. In this way he "stole" his creative powers. Never once does the text say that Bacon or anyone else literally wrote the plays. Indeed later on he complains about talentless 18th century revisers who had no access to the Magic Glass. The editor of The Shrew is evidently confusing Wilmot and Lawrence, having accepted the total misrepresentation of Lawrence's book by Sobran. Paul B (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I should add that one technical reason for my Gordian knot proposal is that the supererogatory final two paras are framed in a way that both violates NPOV, and especially the first of them, is put in to contradict the few words in para 2 of the lead dealing with orthodox theories.

We have

• (a) exposition of the theory and its followers
• (b) a short para on the academic mainstream
• (c) a very large para that is placed to cast doubts on (b)
• (d) a small concessional reply recapping (b), to reply to (c)

I.e. it's redoubling. Secondly (c) runs to 206 words (d) to just 69, i.e. the orthodox recap gets a third of the space given to the fringe recap. WP:UNDUE violation, apart from violating WP:LEAD indications by padding and reduplication of the first two paras. Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A few comments are in order - first, the most serious duplication is the series of attacks against anti-strat researchers and their methods. You say it, repeat it and then repeat it again. You have said before that graph c should come 2nd. I agreed, Tom agreed. But now you want to delete it all? Now if this were the Shakespeare article, then undue weight would be an appropriate accusation, but in an article on a minority topic, it's not undue weight at all. The guidelines are quite clear on that.

Please see below for my proposal which cuts the attacks from both sides (what a waste of space) and gets rid of detail from the long graph and instead summarizes the key points of the debate. Tom wrote most of it, but the way - which is probably why its so compact and to the point. (Good job, Tom... and I can't believe I just said that). Anyhow, in the neighborhood of 170 words are now gone. The lead is now appropriate to the size of the article itself. The article covers a lot of ground, so the lead is going to be challenging. I think what Toma and I came up with was at least a positive step. It's made in good faith. I hope you see that. Smatprt (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've always maintained that the material in (c) is arguing rather than summarizing, and that it should be further down. I'm all for cutting the last two grafs.

As to The Life and Adventures of Common Sense, it is an allegory. You can read it on Goggle Books, but there are several sources who claim it is one of the first mentions of the authorship question. The other is An Essay Against Too Much Reading (1728), which is a joke book. Matus looks at it in his essay, Doubts About Shakespeare's Authorship ─ Or About Oxfordian Scholarship?, which is RS.

I've been quite busy of late and haven't had time to keep up with all the edits, but so far I'm in agreement or near agreement with the way things are going. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting old. My instincts bristled with suspicion when I read the account of Wilmot travelling all over a 50 miles area without finding a decent set of books (he mustn't have had good connections, I thought). But I went ahead, or rather obeyed the dinnergong rather than the inner prod to check this out. ThanksTom Reedy and Paul B. I appreciate being pulled up like that. One gets complacent.Nishidani (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd also favour cutting the last two paragraphs. Glad to see that the hare that I started all of (wow!) 3 days (and hundreds of words) ago is bearing fruit (or coming home to roost) (or choose your own mixed metaphor). --GuillaumeTell 22:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be having this discussion in two places on this page. Here is a version that has been endorsed by several editors up above. This version cuts some 170 words and takes us down to below 400: (note that this was based on the version of several weeks ago so will need the latest changes to be incorporated. Note also that Tom rewrote most of graph 2, eliminating a lot of the detail and (instead0 sticking to summarizing the body of the article:

"The Shakespeare authorship question is the ongoing debate about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually written by another writer or group of writers.[1] First recorded in the early 18th century, the issue has gained wide public attention, and of the more than 50 candidates that have been proposed,[13] several claimants have achieved major followings and notable supporters. Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories.[4] Those who identify the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, or Christopher Marlowe as the main author of Shakespeare's plays are commonly referred to as Oxfordians, Baconians, or Marlovians respectively.

Most authorship doubters, known as "anti-Stratfordians", believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name, used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.[2] They assert that the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford was more likely a front man, believing he did not have the background necessary to create the body of work attributed to him, and that the personal characteristics inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man.[3] Anti-Stratfordians believe Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the extensive education necessary to write Shakespeare’s works, and question how he could have gained the life experience and adopted the aristocratic attitude they claim is evident in them. Alternate authorship researchers focus on the relationship between the content of the plays and poems and a candidate’s known education, life experiences, and recorded history.[4]

Most mainstream Shakespeare academics, often referred to as "Stratfordians", pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories. Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject, noting that the authorship of Shakespeare of Stratford is supported with two main pillars of evidence: testimony by his fellow actors and fellow playwright Ben Jonson in the First Folio, and the inscription on Shakespeare's grave monument in Stratford.[10] Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view.[11] Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[12] Smatprt (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

All that in graf 2 should be in the body. I think what we have now with the last two grafs cut off is more of a standard lede for a good encyclopedia article. All of the argumentation should be in the article text, not the lede. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree - graph 2 summarizes what is detailed in the article. How can you have a lead that does not summarize the main points? In any case, all the previous detail is gone and (what you wrote) is a true summary.

Adding in the more recent changes, here is what the above version would look like, which eliminates around 170 words, including all the accusations and characterizations of the researchers on both sides of the question, and comes in at less than 390 words (or thereabouts):

• "The Shakespeare authorship question refers to ongoing debate about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers.[1] First alluded to in the early 18th century, the issue has gained wide public attention, though little support from the academic community. Alternate candidates include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support,[4] statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories.[5] Of the numerous candidates proposed,[6] both Oxford and Bacon have won major followings and notable supporters.[7] Those who identify the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, or Christopher Marlowe as the main author of Shakespeare's plays are commonly referred to as Oxfordians, Baconians, or Marlovians respectively.

• Most authorship doubters, known as "anti-Stratfordians", believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name, used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.[8] They assert that the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford was more likely a front man (9), believing he did not have the background necessary to create the body of work attributed to him, and that the personal characteristics inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man.[10] Anti-Stratfordians believe Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the extensive education necessary to write Shakespeare’s works, and question how he could have gained the life experience and adopted the aristocratic attitude they claim is evident in them. Alternate authorship researchers focus on the relationship between the content of the plays and poems and a candidate’s known education, life experiences, and recorded history.[11]

• Most mainstream Shakespeare academics, often referred to as "Stratfordians", pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories. Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject, and note that the authorship of Shakespeare of Stratford is supported with two main planks of evidence: testimony by his fellow actors and fellow playwright Ben Jonson in the First Folio, and the inscription on Shakespeare's grave monument in Stratford.[10] Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view.[12] Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[13]

I prefer this version, and based on their comments above, I would guess that Schoenbaum and LAL would support this version as well. Smatprt (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a good solution. I agree with Smatprt. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you noted that on a WP:Fringe theory topic, the latest proposed lead gives 305 words to the fringe theory, and 92, a third of that length, to what virtually all serious professional scholarship on Shakespeare says with regard to it?Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, if you want to contribute to what "virtually all serious professional scholarship (geeze, what a mouthful of qualifiers in that sentence!) thinks," may I suggest that there are many other wikipedia pages that might better channel your interest. There is, for example a very long page detailing the life and times of the Stratford bard on the *assumption* that the attribution to him is a secure one. The purpose of the authorship page, as I understand it, is to explore the tradition of doubt about this assumption. Of course, the troubling thing for true believers is that doubt always does involving thinking on the part of the doubter. Therefore, to engage in a serious piece of intellectual history involving that that doubt, you have to actually allow the doubters, at least sometimes, to speak for themselves.

From its inception, this article has suffered from ideologues who feel that this is unacceptable. One does not have to go back too far in the record of the talk pages to find ludicrous comments like "an Oxfordian has struck," pronounced with the sort of derisive condescension that would apply to the sentence "a Martian has landed in my cornfield." Rather more recently, you asserted that no scholars take the Oxfordian perspective seriously. This is just wrong, unless you wish to tendentiously define "scholar" to the point that only those members of a particular elite club within academia are included and everyone else is treated like a "lesser breed before the law," to again quote Richmond Crinkley from an article I daresay you probably haven't read.

Have you ever heard of Jack Shuttleworth, PhD? He was the chairman of the Department of English at the U.S. Air Force Academy for many years before his retirement. He is currently preparing an Oxfordian edition of Hamlet. How about Dr. Felicia Londre, theatre historian and full professor at the University of Missouri Kansas City, who has frequently debated David Bevington on the authorship question and edited an excellent volume of articles on Love's Labours Lost, many of them supporting in one way or another the Oxfordian attribution of the plays. Shall I go on? I know that you seem to have a fetish for brevity, so perhaps not. My point is this: Why do you think that after blunders like your assertion that no scholars support this "fringe theory," anyone should take you seriously?

For a change, let's get real, shall we? Its quite true that the vast majority of Shakespearean scholars are still at the stage of laughing at, and/or scorning anyone who questions the traditions which many seem dedicated to guarding ad infinitum. But this is a historical problem, and like any historical problem, advances are made. I have studied the subject in question as a topic in intellectual history for nearly twenty years now. And there is no question which way the wind is blowing. Twenty years ago, there were no Shuttleworths or Londres or Drayas or Delahoydes or Wrights. Today, they are joined by a growing murmuring chorus of other academicians who are starting to realize that something is rotten in the intellectual traditions in which they have been schooled. Whatever changes are made to this page should reflect that reality. To the extent that they deny it, they merely make wikipedia irrelevant. I should hope that no one here wants to do that. --BenJonson (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all 397 words are about the theory, of which the first graph and last sentence have nothing to do with summarizing the debate points, but merely define the subject. The debate points add up to 143 words to summarize what anti-strats believe are the main debate points and 92 words to summarize the mainstream debate points. As a compromise, I will post a further cut down version below. Smatprt (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My counterproposal is for the first two paragraphs to be retained. The Overview is all wrong, grandstanding as a set piece (like Ogburn's 1952 incipit) one recent event. Technically after the lead, an overview of the history of the argument is required. The Section on the 2007 manifesto should end the history section, coming after the 1987 Supreme Court show. I suggest a compromise. To edit up the Ist para of the Overview, succinctly, and use it to round off the 2 paras in the lead.

Proposed para 3:

'Interest in the authorship debate continues to grow. On 8 September 2007, actors Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance unveiled a "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt", signed by over 1,600 people, including 295 academics, to encourage new research into the question.'

The details can be added at the end of the 'History' section which should technically be first up in the Overview, placed just after a short para on the 1987 Supreme Court show.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Further cut down version, taking the summary of anti-strat debate points down to 122 words, and the entire lead down from 582 to 376 words (I believe the goal was to cut 200 words):

• "The Shakespeare authorship question refers to ongoing debate about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers.[1] First alluded to in the early 18th century, the issue has gained wide public attention, though little support from the academic community. Alternate candidates include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support,[4] statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories.[5] Of the numerous candidates proposed,[6] both Oxford and Bacon have won major followings and notable supporters.[7] Those who identify the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, or Christopher Marlowe as the main author of Shakespeare's plays are commonly referred to as Oxfordians, Baconians, or Marlovians respectively.

• Most authorship doubters, known as "anti-Stratfordians", believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name, used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.[8] They assert that the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford was more likely a front man (9), believing that the personal characteristics inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man[10] and that he lacked the extensive education necessary to write Shakespeare’s works. They question how he could have gained the life experience and adopted the aristocratic attitude portrayed in the works. Alternate authorship researchers focus on the relationship between the content of the plays and poems and a candidate’s known education, life experiences, and recorded history.[11]

• Most mainstream Shakespeare academics, often referred to as "Stratfordians", pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories. Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject, and note that the authorship of Shakespeare of Stratford is supported with two main planks of evidence: testimony by his fellow actors and fellow playwright Ben Jonson in the First Folio, and the inscription on Shakespeare's grave monument in Stratford.[10] Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view.[12] Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[13]Smatprt (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You apparently haven'ìt understood the issue. It is still 262 words for a fringe theory, and 114 words, far less than half, for the orthodox state-of-the art scholarship's attitude to the fringe theory. Gross WP:NPOV violation. The issue is structural. All trimming and paring still ignores the fact that a weird theory is showcased, and commonsense is lower-cased.Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, leads/ledes of fringe theories pages are rarely as you describe them. In the past, among less appropriate comparisons, Tom has compared this theory to the Christ myth theory. They have a lot in common: they both represent historical revisionism, originated about the same time and aged similarly, have had serious academic proponents as well as kooky contributors, and are widely dismissed by the mainstream. The last paragraph of the Christ myth lede reads "The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles, biblical scholars and historians being highly dismissive of it, viewing it as pseudo-scholarship. Some of these specialists have even gone so far as to compare the theory's methodological basis with that of flat-earthism, Holocaust denial and moon landing skepticism." which could very well have been the last paragraph of this page's lede. A difference may be that the great majority of biblical scholars share a faith diametrical to the theory's propositions, while in principal Shakespearian scholars don't. At any rate, after 27 archived discussion pages, the Christ myth theory lede has 249 words on the theory and 51 words for the mainstream attitude towards it. Smatprt's suggested text looks better to me then the current lead (containing the oddest references at the moment) without the last two paragraphs. Afasmit (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good points. It is late here. I'll reply tomorrow. My academic work was on ideology and the publics it captures. I'm familiar with the analogy. Indeed I was called in by an admin to help unlock the stymied Ebionites page in 2007, as one can see from the talk page there. I'd have no objection to the proportion you refer to, were the language of the orthodox position in Shakespearean scholarship expressed as strongly as it is with regard to the Christ myth. A one-liner gets more attention that a screed. What we have instead is 2 thirds of the lead devoted to the fringe theory, and a wet-rag gloss on what 99% of Shakespearean scholarship thinks, and hence there is no analogy of the kind you draw.

I emphasized balance because, in the editing environment, I can see no flexibility in adjusting the para on orthodox attitudes to show the strength of its dismissal of these theories. I tried to cite Schoenbaum's withering judgement, which is the best RS source for what orthodox scholars really think, and it was dismissed vigorously. As far as I am personally concerned, you could have 90% of the hypothesis adumbrated in the lead, with just Schoenbaum's simple, succinct judgement at the end. That would be the best solution, but again, I've been thinking of practical problems in editing here in making my calls. If one cannot get a good fresh lead para expressing the strength of orthodox opinion but just a wet few lines, then one insists that, for a fringe theory, this tilting aims to make it pass for something it is not, a fringe theory, accepted by no scholar who ever held a respectable chair in English. Thanks in the meantime Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are just incorrect about undue weight. You are quoting the guideline for articles about mainstream subjects. This is not. According to wp:weight “In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.” Smatprt (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused about your comment. Here are a few quotations from WP:FRINGE that apply to this article that you don't seem to have read:

Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is.

Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research — denialist histories, for example — should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic.

The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.

From WP:UNDUE:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. . . . In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views . . . . In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. . . . Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, in terms of the Schoenbaum statement, please consider this - According to WP:Fringe “When using sources written by authors who are a reliable experts in the field in which they are writing, consider using the facts mentioned by them rather than making direct attributions of their opinions." As you have seen, quoting dismissive and overly harsh opinions by a mainstream orthodox scholar about a specific group of skeptics of his field invites controversial edits. this is one of the points I've been trying to make, though obviously not very well. Smatprt (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, I really think you need to accept that consensus is against you. Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

here - this link WP:Consensus might help you understand why you are mistaken. Smatprt (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you be good enough to pipe to a particular section & then elucidate? Þjóðólfr (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

With regard to this one point about the Schoenbaum quote, I think smatprt is right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe#Evaluating_claims says that "restraint should be used with such qualifiers [of fringe claims] to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment . . . .particularly within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas," and I think the principle can be extended to mainstream assessment of the topic. I think we should go back to my original edit, "Most academics consider the topic a fringe theory . . . ." and use Schoenbaum as a source, if needed. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smatprt, i.e, “When using sources written by authors who are reliable experts in the field in which they are writing, consider using the facts mentioned by them rather than making direct attributions of their opinions." Sam Schoenbaum's expertise was in documentary evidence, not personality assessment. His ad hominem attacks on authorship doubters merely reflect the fustrations of an angry man who didn't like having his authority questioned. The evidence should speak for itself. Schoenbaum (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The first quotation you include is intended to ensure that promoters of fringe theories don't disingenuously use attribution to imply that opposition to a fringe view is the isolated opinion of a single writer: e.g. "Joe Smith says he has travelled to the centre of the earth, but Joe Jones says this is impossible". In fact the overwhelming scientific consensus is that this is impossible. In other words we may use "the facts mentioned by him", rather than present Jones' assertion as a mere opinion. Quoting an individual author creates the impression that we have two equal but opposed views. It is amusing that you are now taking this sentence out of context to exclude the mainstream view! If we followed the guideline we would simply use the "facts" mentioned by Schoenbaum and say that as if it were undisputed that "doubters" are motivated by snobbery etc. Is that what you really want? Paul B (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sam Schoenbaum summarises widespread views on the motivation of "doubters". This claim that one needs to be an expert in "personality" to make such claims has generally been rejected at WP:RS. It applies to characterisations of many fringe theorists in other areas - motivations of "Christ myth" theorists, holocaust deniers, "Out of India" theorists etc. We don't wheel out psychiatrists who know nothing about the historical issues. We use historians. Sam Schoenbaum is not making personality assessment, since he is not discussing specific individuals. However, I think you misuse the term ad hominem. It is no more ad hominem than any other historical assessment of motivation, for example "Milton was motivated by Puritan ideas". If I said Milton's arguments must be accepted because he was a "godly man", or rejected becase he was a "fundamentalist", that that would be argumentum ad hominem. Paul B (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Paul B, Schoenbaum. That is plainly fatuous. You don't appear to have a mninimal awareness, and neither does arguably Smatprt, what editing in here means. In writing that your ironically eponymous Sam Schoenbaum's 'expertise was in documentary evidence, not personality assessment', in order to exclude material from a master historian with the highest expertise in the history of Shakespearean biography, you are introducing your own personal criteria for selecting what is quotable. Wikipedians have no authority to pick and choose according to what they privately think the best RS can be cited for. This is wholly unacceptable. You are now endeavouring to weed out use of an author of RS of the highest scholarly repute, concerning Shakespeare, indeeed from a man who wrote a near definitive book entitled 'Shakespeare's Lives.

The exposition of this fringe theory culls evidence from a mass of sources written by people who had no expertise in their field, in textual analysis, in type molds of the kind we find in the Don McKenzies of this world, in Elizabethan philology, in the historical methods required for this discipline. Nor did they have any expertise in 'personality assessment' (ha! famnously, TS Eliot, following Shakespearean scholarship's avoidance of the biographical fallacy, argued that poets engage in the 'extinction' of their personality (a variation also of Keats' Negative capability in writing, since they must assume for the moment, like actors, the identities that go with the numerous voices their poems strive to articulate. It is as if, to note one of a thousand examples, someone were to read Browning's My Last Duchess and try to deduce that Alfonso II' dramatic voice enciphered his desire that his wife,Elizabeth Barrett, croak it. Poets of this order are chameleonic, as Keats said: their peculiar power is to get inside other, imagined or otherwise, identities and live them fully until the voice they are describing assumes a potent reality, one that is not commensurate with their own being). One definition of an inferior poet is that he is one who can only be himself. The same goes for actors.Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Tom Reedy: "I think smatprt is right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe#Evaluating_claims says that "restraint should be used with such qualifiers [of fringe claims] to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment . . . .particularly within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas," and I think the principle can be extended to mainstream assessment of the topic. I think we should go back to my original edit, "Most academics consider the topic a fringe theory . . . ." and use Schoenbaum as a source, if needed." Okay with me. Schoenbaum (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.

In other words, since Schoenbaum, the real scholar, discussed the antistratfordians, he made their fringe theory notable. However, in discussing them he 'debunked and disparaged' the fringe theorists, and this makes him, by an interpretative twist from another section of policy, unquotable or unnotable for doing so. Brilliant irony! One can pilpul wikirules to obtain any result. Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC

I've reverted Nishidani's edits re: "snobbery and elitism" because there's no editorial consensus on this point on the talk page. Perhaps he can explain why such accusations are "absolutely central to orthodox dismissal of the theory," as he put it. Has anyone ever shown with objective evidence that the incidence and prevalence of snobbery and elitism are more prevalent among authorship doubters than among orthodox scholars? No. Are some authorship doubters motivated by snobbery? Possibly. Are some orthodox scholars motivated by snobbery? Obviously. Are all authorship doubters motivated by snobbery? Certainly not. Again, why is this false and misleading accusation "absolutely central" to the orthodox dismissal? Because the facts are insufficient; that's why. Schoenbaum (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Schoenbaum:

Very well put, and it is a pleasure Sir, to finally meet the real YOU.Isn't it amazing how some people, and even old dogs, have the capacity to actually learn new things? Already in 1991 could tell you were on the path to sanity in the second edition of Shakespeare's Lives, when I compared it with the 1975 edition. Among other changes reflecting your conversations with Mr. Ogburn, you added that marvelous phrase about the "temptation to despair" over the incongruity of the documentary record and the "sublimity" -- I believe that was your somewhat romantic term at the time -- of the literary work. We really must work that quotation in the wiki article, since its undergoing such a facelift. But it is indeed a joy to see how far you have come even since then: "Perhaps he can explain why such accusations are 'absolutely central to orthodox dismissal of the theory,' as he put it." Indeed. You are a master fencer, always were, and always will be. Yours, Ben.--BenJonson (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben. Here's the exact quote: "Perhaps we should despair of ever bridging the vertiginous expanse between the sublimity of the subject and the mundane inconsequence of the documentary record" (Shakespeare's Lives, Second Edition). Prof. Sam Schoenbaum was no doubter, but that's a remarkable admission nonetheless. Don't you just love it when Strats complain that doubters are "amateurs," and only Shakespeare scholars are qualified to render judgments on this question, and, besides, the amateurs are all a bunch of snobs! They even say Supreme Court Justices aren't qualified. Our courts are based on verdicts rendered by citizen-jurors. Such juries routinely render verdicts on questions more complex than the authorship question. Lawyers present the evidence on such questions and make it understandable. Yet Strats claim this issue is too complex for anyone but themselves. They're English professors, yet they can't explain it to anyone else in a way that makes it clear. It's not that difficult: "If writing the works were a crime, would there be enough evidence to convict Mr. Shakspere of having committed that crime beyond a reasonable doubt?" That's the way to frame it. The answer is clearly no, IMHO, and any citizen-juror should be qualified to render that judgment. Strats would have it otherwise. If the case went to the Supreme Court, they would first ask the Justices to step down and be replaced by themselves because nobody else is qualified, and the Justices are too dumb to have it explained to them. And these people have the nerve to claim, without a shred of evidence, there WE are snobs! Anyone reading these talk pages will very quickly see who the real snobs are here. Schoenbaum (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not an "admission". It's a fact about almost all authors from that period. And of course Supreme Court justices are not qualified to assess something of this sort, because they do not have detailed knowledge of the period, culture and literature. The legal concept of "reasonable doubt" is absurd in this context. No one could say Chaucer wrote Chaucer, or Marlowe wrote Marlowe by that criterion. Reasonable doubt is a concept designed to protect people who maybe wrongly convicted unless we can be ceratin of their guilt. It's not how rational historical judgements are made, or we would remain in a state of permanent limbo. Paul B (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

'I've reverted Nishidani's edits re: "snobbery and elitism" because there's no editorial consensus on this point on the talk page.' (pseudo-Sam)

I don't really care if there is no consensus, a term you chaps use to stall sensible editing. I only care what WP:RS commends in regard to editing, i.e., reliable sources, which, in this regard, affirm that on those few occasions when eminent representatives of 'orthodox' scholarship the 'orthodox' is a pleonasm, we are talking about people capable of understanding what scholarly methods allow or otherwise disallow) glance your way, they consider the whole hocus-pocus ofthese fringe theories to rest on two simple and falsifiable assumptions, i.e., that people of humble origins can't rise to the heights of intellectual and cultural genius (da Vinci did, as did Socrates, Homer, Srinivasa Ramanujan, and thousands of others: I thought of the mathematician because his meteoric autodidacticism took wing from reading Loney)'s textbook on trigonometry -Loney-Looney). To believe this is to be an elitist. And it's been noted often in fine sources written by the grey eminences of the Shakespearean fold, as the RS you elided demonstrate. Removing RS on grounds of personal distaste for what they say is frowned on). You are simply saying that a block of editors espousing a crackpot theory will withhold their 'consensus' until they get what they want, priviliging WP:CONSENSUS over WP:RS. Politicking, instead of editing to the record.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Verbal diarrhea

In response to Tom's classy "bloviating and crapping" remark, the stats over the last five days only are: Nishidani added 77 kB, Smatprt 38 kB, Roger 27 kB. Tom 23 kB, Paul 11kB and Schoenbaum 7 kB. It is recommended to archive a talk page every 50 kB... This way anything relevant gets lost or archived before you can read it. Cutting accusations of stupidity and comparisons to holocaust denial or creationism would help. Afasmit (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree (and hasten to add that my remark was a commentary on the signal-to-noise ratio of the referenced material). We need to divert our energy to actual discussion about the encyclopedia entry instead of parading our hurt feelings. This is not a chat room.

I also want to add that Nishidani's comparisons were not meant as insulting, but as a demonstration of the ledes of other fringe belief articles. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The imputation that this subject can reasonably be categorized as a "fringe belief," however wikipedia may define that term in distinction with popular usage, is not just insulting. More importantly, it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the history of the debate and the precarious nature of the orthodox belief.--BenJonson (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

By 'imputation' I presume you mean 'insinuation', or 'assertion' (2) 'in distinction with' should be 'in distinction to' or 'in distinction from'. One learns these elementary things pretty quickly if one studies English with a passion, Ben. Ignore them, and it is best to keep away from kibitzing of 'orthodox' scholarship. The rest is incomprehensibly vague.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference Section

I put some much needed energy into reforming this section. I divided the bibliography, which formerly included orthodox and anti-Stratfordian works in one category, into two separate sections, as it would have been extremely confusing to anyone who doesn't know the literature well, in the prior jumbled form. I moved Hope and Holston to the anti-Stratfordian section, since the purpose of that book is to survey the history of the dispute itself, not to make original arguments supporting the Oxfordian attribution. I also alphabetized all the other sections (if I made any errors, I appreciate the assistance of Tom or anyone else to make sure that the sections are consistently alphabetized). I moved one Baconian link to a website that was categorized as a print resource, and cut one irrelevant Oxfordian link which was also in the wrong place and which does not really merit inclusion, imho. I encourage us to spend more time making these kinds of obviously much needed corrections and less time engaging in debate with Nishidani et alia. The past few days have demonstrated, if proof was needed, that although a few of his points were valid, the angst which comes attached to many of his comments is a waste of time and energy.--BenJonson (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's discuss

Here's the version of the lead (not lede; I need to stop using journalistic jargon and adopt Wikipedia conventions) I put up yesterday, with the exception of one change to accomodate Smatprt's objection, the deletion of "nonprofessional". I've stripped out the references for clarity, but they all can be accessed and read here.

As I commented in the edit, everything important is in this lead. What I left out, such as what supporters are called, other details and accusations of dishonesty, are unnecessary for the introduction and more adequately addressed in the article anyway.

If need be, let's discuss it sentence-by-sentence, beginning at the top and working our way down. I want to make it clear that we need to agree at the beginning that all objections need to be based on accuracy of the statements, verifiability, and neutrality according to Wikipedia policy. Otherwise we're all just spinning our wheels here and we might as well petition to delete the article. I also want to make it clear that I intend to post the results after a sufficient amount of time has passed for a discussion, so don't sandbag during the discussion and then try to revert after the fact unless you want to be the subject of a complaint.

The Shakespeare authorship question is the controversy that dates back to the mid-19th century over whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers. The theory of alternate Shakespeare authorship has almost no academic support, though it has gained a small but thriving following, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics. Those who question the traditional attribution, known as "anti-Stratfordians", believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.

Anti-Stratfordians say that the sketchy biography of the actor, playhouse sharer and investor baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford lacks concrete documentary evidence that he was the author and question how a commoner from a small 16th-century country town could have gained the life experience and the aristocratic attitude that they perceive in Shakespeare’s works. They say there is no evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford received the extensive education necessary to gain the wide learning or master the extensive vocabulary they claim is exhibited by the plays and poems and say that the personal attributes inferred from the poems and plays do not fit the known biographical facts of his life. Sceptics look for correspondences between the content of the plays and poems and the known education, life experiences, and reputation of the alternative candidate they support. Of the more than 50 candidates proposed, major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, the current frontrunner, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories.

The vast majority of academics specializing in Shakespearean studies, called "Stratfordians" by sceptics, pay little attention to the topic and consider it a fringe theory. They dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories of alternate authorship as fanciful because of their failure to comply with orthodox methods of research and their lack of direct supporting historical evidence, and say they smack of snobbery or elitism. They argue that anti-Stratfordians discard the most direct testimony in favor of their own theories, overstate Shakespeare's erudition, and anachronistically misread the times he lived in, thereby rendering their method of identifying the author from the works circular, unscholarly and unreliable. They point to the testimony of his fellow actors and fellow playwright Ben Jonson in the First Folio and the inscription on Shakespeare's grave monument in Stratford as incontrovertible evidence for the authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford. 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.

Now before we get started discussing each individual sentence, does anybody think that more information needs to be in the lead? Is it all covered? We'll discuss particular sentences and means of expression later, but for right now we need to know if the information adequately does the job as outlined at WP:LEAD. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

First, here is the version that we were discussing. It is the only version endorsed by the uninvolved editors that have commented here so it would be wrong to simply dismiss it out of hand. It is by far the most compact and cuts over 170 words from the present version. Much of that by deleting questioning of each others standards and honesty from both sides. Tom's very partisan cutting only deleted anti-strat material (in several places), but, amazingly, left intact the snobbery accusations that have nothing to do with the issue. I suggest we use this as a starting point.Smatprt (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The Shakespeare authorship question refers to ongoing debate about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers.[1] First alluded to in the early 18th century, the issue has gained wide public attention, though little support from the academic community. Alternate candidates include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support,[4] statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories.[5] Of the numerous candidates proposed,[6] both Oxford and Bacon have won major followings and notable supporters.[7] Those who identify the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, or Christopher Marlowe as the main author of Shakespeare's plays are commonly referred to as Oxfordians, Baconians, or Marlovians respectively.

• Authorship doubters such as Charlton Ogburn and Diana Price believe that, for centuries, Shakespeare biographers have suspended orthodox methods and criteria to weave inadmissible evidence into their histories of the Stratford man. Most skekptics, known as "anti-Stratfordians", believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name, used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.[8] They assert that the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford was more likely a front man (9), believing that the personal characteristics inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man[10] and that he lacked the extensive education necessary to write Shakespeare’s works. They question how he could have gained the life experience and adopted the aristocratic attitude portrayed in the works. Alternate authorship researchers focus on the relationship between the content of the plays and poems and a candidate’s known education, life experiences, and recorded history.[11]

• Most mainstream Shakespeare academics, often referred to as "Stratfordians", pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories. They say most anti-Stratfordian works fail to comply with orthodox methods of research and lack supporting historical evidence. Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject. Stratfordians note that the authorship of Shakespeare of Stratford is supported with two main planks of evidence: testimony by his fellow actors and fellow playwright Ben Jonson in the First Folio, and the inscription on Shakespeare's grave monument in Stratford.[10] Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view.[12] Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[13]'Smatprt (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

After reading the examples of other theories and how they are discussed by the mainstream, I added back in "They say most anti-Stratfordian works fail to comply with orthodox methods of research and lack supporting historical evidence.". This is consistent with how those other examples show this being handled, without resorting to name calling and "overly harsh" criticism. I also added in the line which summarizes Price 's statements about previous biographers. Now both sides have made their points about methods without getting nasty about it. Smatprt (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no discussion going on and it was deadlocked. As to the "overly harsh" criticism, as I said, we can argue about the language, etc., later. We need to establish some type of methodical system to get this done. We need to deal with each issue in order instead of you using one objection in one section to stop any changes. If you want to compare each sentence between the two version and we discuss the differences and come to an agreement, I'll go along with that. But first we need to know if everybody is in agreement about the information contained. Is there any more that needs to be put in?

And please quit with the accusations of partisan bias. We all know which side everybody is on, but I'm trying to work on a properly-referenced, accurate depiction of the authorship question as it is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. If you don't want to do that, fine, but your tactics are very tiresome and frankly I'm just tired of your incessant whining. And I suggest you do a word count before accusing me of tilting the focus. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The versions we were discussing, User:Smatprt were two. The lead as it is, and your proposed shorter version. I suggested cutting the last two paras (3rd. version, split vote), and Tom then gave his version (4).

The bolded version ignores everything argued against it over the past few days. Unacceptable. It is as if the only version you wish to propose as a substitute is your own templated one, with constant chops and changes that ignore serious criticisms made of parts of its content in the meantime. I see no consensus building here but simply a refusal by yourself to budge from a structure that has serious problems.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And exactly what do you mean by "It is the only version endorsed by the uninvolved editors that have commented here"? Why would any uninvolved editors endorse anything, and if they did, who cares? And for that matter, please show us these "endorsements". Tom Reedy (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom and Smatprt, I like the idea of starting at the top and going one sentence at at time. Here are your two first sentences, first Tom's, then Smatprt's:

"The Shakespeare authorship question is the controversy that dates back to the mid-19th century over whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers."

"The Shakespeare authorship question refers to ongoing debate about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers."

The main difference between them is that Tom's includes "dates back to the mid-19th century". I don't see why it's important to include this in the first sentence. It can be dealt with in the history section. So I propose the following, based on Smatprt's version, but with "the controversy" substituted for "ongoing debate", shown in brackets:

"The Shakespeare authorship question refers to [ongoing debate] the controversy about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers."

How's that? Schoenbaum (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be in the first sentence, but it should be somewhere in the lead. I put it in the first sentence because the second got too crowded. So if we leave it out from the first sentence it needs to be in the second. I used "controversy" because it covers it all, and it wasn't actually a debate until some time after the first alternative theory was published, in 1846, IIRC. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, you need to revert your change to the lead. You've go no consensus to change the balance of the lead and you did not discuss it. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, what on earth are you talking about? How can anyone change the balance without adding or deleting a word? I switched graphs 2 and 3, as proposed by Nishidani and supported by you. Nishidani even quoted the appropriate policy. Did you not read the reordered version, or was your statement just a knee-jerk reaction to what you thought I did, as opposed to what I actually did? Not one work was deleted or reverted. This is in contrast to recent edits make by Nishidani that did, in fact, remove material without consensus. Smatprt (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Show me the discussion where Nishidani proposed and I supported you combining graphs and switching the order in this version.

And it you don't know how precedence and weighting affects balance, you need a caretaker. But of course you don't; you're just being disingenuous in the classic Smatprt passive-aggressive pattern. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, here is Nishidani's edit. See his Edit Summary (Repositing para 2. The lead should expound the doubter position, and then conclude with the standard mainstream position, and not switch from one to another) where he sums up policy reason:[[1]]

And here is your support of it "I also like the way Nishidani rearranged the introduction where the anti-Strat material came before any of the Strat stance. I think that would read much better" from this edit here: [[2]]Smatprt (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

So you go back to an edit from six days ago from Nishidani's first round of edits, all of which you objected to and reverted, and claim that is the discussion in which we agreed you could change this particular edit? If you want to revert to that same edit, I have no objections at all. But you can't take commentary from one edit and say it applies to another. That is worse than disingenuous; that's dishonest, and unfortunately that has become your hallmark among all the editors who have tried to work with you. You need to learn better ways of editing if you want to continue editing this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you are acting like 6 days ago was last year. Or that just because both of you said something 6 days ago - "well, that's ancient history and I don't feel that way anymore"! Can you step back just for a brief moment and look at your own behavior once in a while? You are just not correct here:

• I didn't object to "all" of the edits. And I stated so in the talk page after I reverted everything (which I did simply because of the sheer volume of edits without even a "hello" on the talk page). I then discussed my action at talk and after hearing from Nishdani, I went in and restored most of the non-lead edits, one of which I recast and one that I moved to a more appropriate location.

• And I said "I switched graphs 2 and 3, as proposed by Nishidani and supported by you", not that you "agreed" that I could make any "particular edit" out of the bunch. I was encouraged to go back and restore the edits I didn't have a problem with, which I did. Frankly, I overlooked this one. So what?

• You said "you can't take commentary from one edit and say it applies to another" - What are you talking about?? - the commentary was about the switching of the graphs. You said "I also like the way Nishidani rearranged the introduction where the anti-Strat material came before any of the Strat stance". How can you now claim that I have made a controversial edit? Have you completely lost it?Smatprt (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

These are your latest examples of my chronic dishonesty?? And, by the way, I'm not sure its a good idea to get into the whole dishonesty argument, given the number of times you have switched positions, this being another example. Do you really think you have the market on truth? Man, for the last 6 days, you have been all over the place. What the hell happened to you? Are you really sinking down to my supposed lower depths? Smatprt (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

'remove material without consensus'. You've been doing that since I've edited here. Pot-and-black kettle assertions.(b) 'consensus' is not a synonym for 'permission' granted by yourself. (c) I saw you editing the lead, and followed your example, assuming the liberty you take can be adopted with collegial equanimity.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Schoenbaum. That's (almost) fine, except 'controversy' and 'the' should be 'a', and with one adjustment heading the second sentence, i.e.,

"The Shakespeare authorship question refers to a debate about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers.". First raised(recorded) in the mid-nineteenth century . . .(the doubt, scepticism)'

 :::The crucial a for the is necessary for the simple reason that the fringe thinks it a controversy, whereas mainstream scholarship does not, a nuance the, perhaps tactically, obscures.Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

However, since the controversy is specified, the use of "the" is perfectly appropriate and sounds better to the ear. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tom on this, nothing to do with tactical, simply because as he says, it sound better to the ear. I would agree to either "debate" or "controversy". I'm also fine with going thru the versions line by line as Schoenbaum has initiated. Smatprt (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Tom on both points, and for the reasons he gives. So unless someone still has issues with it, I propose that we accept the following as the first sentence and move on:

"The Shakespeare authorship question refers to the controversy about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers."

I think you are both wrong, and frankly, on this, tin-eared. 'The controversy' refers to a fringe culture of amateurs mainly, who vigorously work on their theories, which, as we all agree, are almost ignored by mainstream scholarship. Therefore, one has to avoid language that would imply there is a 'controversy' or 'debate' between the two. As far as my reading over four decades allows me to surmise, for the mainstream there is no controversy, and no debate. 'A' controversy is quite different from 'the controversy' in terms of semantic nuance, 'a' being restrictive. 'Controversy' and 'debate' themselves are problematical, for it assumes two sides actively engaged in a quarrel over some shared body of knowledge. One side can controvert, but if the other side just ignores much of this pamphleteering, in house-debate and research, and most of the book length hypotheses, then it is not participating in, or even recognizing a controversy. Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Would someone else like to take a stab at the second sentence? Schoenbaum (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no consensus on the first.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "debate" was agreed to by the mainstream editors of the William Shakespeare article. To quibble about it now is just silly and makes it appear that Nishidani is so extremely partisan that he can't even acknowledge the state of the debate. Wells has recognized it and written about it, Matus has, Bates has, Schoenbaum has - to deny otherwise is just putting up needless roadblocks. Let's wrap up sentence one and move on to number two. Smatprt (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong about the usage at the William Shakespeare article; the word doesn't appear. I think "controversy" is a better description than debate. The debate didn't begin until the 20th century. The mainstream reaction until then was largely one of puzzlement and investigation until then, or if there was any debate, it wasn't all that publicised. I don't why you would have a problem with it. And two sides aren't necessarily required to bring up a controversial subject, nor is the subject totally ignored by academics. Let's stop trying to make points in the lead and try to dispassionately describe the topic.

And let's lose as much excess verbiage as we can, please, without being ungrammatical:"The Shakespeare authorship question is the controversy about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers."

As I wrote earlier, the controversy is sharply defined in the sentence and so "the" is appropriate. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying, Nishidani, is that only the mainstream academic view counts, and if they choose to say there's no "controversy," then there is none, regardless of any other consideration. That is a highly authoritarian position, and reveals an attitude of extreme snobbery and elitism. Any neutral, objective editor would reject it. Hope and Holston's The Shakespeare Controversy (sic), reviews the controversy's history in detail. The NY Times found the controversy sufficiently important to survey Shakespeare professors, and 6% said there's "good reason" for doubt, and 11% "possibly good reason." Scholars in other disciplines, and also the mainstream media, take it seriously. The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt names 20 prominent "past doubters" who said it was a valid controversy. Over 1,700 people have signed it, including over 300 academics, the largest number of whom were in "English Literature." Five Supreme Court Justices have expressed doubt. Yet you want to say that one party to the dispute -- mainstream academics -- should have the authority to say whether there is a "controversy" at all, despite their obvious conflict of interest. Your attempt to define it out of existence lacks anything resembling neutral POV, and you are outnumbered here 3:1. So unless your lone dissent gives you veto power, I think there is now a consensus. Schoenbaum (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying, Nishidani, is that only the mainstream academic view counts, and if they choose to say there's no "controversy," then there is none, regardless of any other consideration.’

There you go again, to quote Ronald Reagan. Wikipedia optimally counsels using the best resources and results of modern research, with quality imprints, coming from University-level experts in a given discipline. You impute to me something I never said, and don’t think. It’s typical of you guys to pretend to engage in dialogue, and then, distort your interlocutor’s words, fashioning out a slant that is not supported by the interlocutor himself, only then to engage in a ‘dialogue’ between your own view, and that which you spuriously attribute to the other person. Interlocutors are merely starting points to return to the drone of a monologue intérieur whose contents are in recitative, and lack all dialectical development.

I don’t subscribe to the view you impute to me, for the simple reason that there is no ‘mainstream’ academic ‘view’. Any discipline will, over a vast range of issues, have a range of views or interpretations, but these views are provisory hypotheses, struggling to ‘save the phenomena’, that is account rationally and methodically for the available data, without going beyond that data. Even if a consensus of major probability takes hold, (each generation has it’s tendential consensus about the question of Homer’s identity), the existence of that consensus does not mean that the ‘establishment’ thereby closes its eyes to all other tenable, alternative hypotheses. It merely means that in the current state of research, peers prefer one interpretation over several others, as best accounting for the known evidence.

This is no place to give you a recap freshman’s course on what mainstream scholarship is about. It is not about securing a perspective immune to criticism, as your words imply. Since you and the clique pushing this wacko theory's slant in here don't seem to have much of a grasp on what the phrase 'mainstream scholarship' means, I'll have to elucidate.

It is not a matter of backing an academic 'view', therefore. Primarily, those who practice 'mainstream scholarship' are required to master a 'method'. Once you have mastered the method, and learnt about simple matters, such as the extreme dangers of reading from a work of fiction into the otherwise unrecorded life of its author, you are free to draw whatever conclusions you believe the available evidence may warrant, but on condition you do not allow inferences from a fiction to controvert the established documentary record of the real life. You come to appreciate that, especially regarding distant historical landscapes, where facts are few and far between, one may form interpretative hypotheses, but they remain, and ever will be hypotheses, perhaps even just so stories, barring rare discoveries that may confirm them, from the sands of Egypt, such as the Oxyrhynchus papiri, or the Mawangdui manuscripts of the Tao Te Ching, inclusive of a wide range of new ancient textual material, or Aurel Stein's discoveries in the Mogao Caves, or Pyotr Kozlov 's unearthing of Tangut manuscripts at Khara-Khoto, or Martin Litchfield West's analysis of the Derveni papyrus. Scholars adjust their curiosity to the facts, and the tradition of commentary on them by peers. They do not, if they wish to be remembered and read, invent scenarios from a paranoid reading of documents, parsed and perused, often without any understanding of the historical conventions, through the spectacles of the hermeneutics of suspicion.

Only with extreme rarity can one invent, and, under scrupulous peer review that may last for centuries, be accorded the palm for an intuition otherwise unsupported by documentary testimony. Scaliger once emended a defective Greek text (Euripides’s Hercules Furens, line 149) by coining a word (κοινεών) to fit it which was, however, unattested in the surviving corpus of Greek literature, which is vast. Later generations have lauded his genius, and accepted the imaginary Greek as probably what Euripides really wrote, though there is no evidence for it. Nietzsche himself once made a suggestion along similar lines. Unless my memory errs, the conjectured word, otherwise unattested, turned up in the rubbish dump at Oxyrhynchus, confirming the genius of his linguistic divining powers. Nothing like this is detectable in the trivial hackwork of the schoolteacher from Gateshead, or the vast hallucinations of the author of Merrill’s Marauders.

Scholarship is a method, not a content. Any hypothesis is possible and reviewed, if it employs non-circular reasoning, shows a mastery of textual-hermeneutic methods, and is congruent with the known facts, as opposed to hunches cooked up by a paranoid suspicions of a vast cover-up. If the result of method tells us there is nothing in the records that would lend support to the hackwork amateur’s dilly-dallying daydreams of an alternative story, then one ignores the chat in the wings about Bacon and de Vere, esp. when any humdrum versifier today could trot out sonnets better than any written by the historical de Vere, but no poet of distinction can graze Shakespeare’s best.

This is all obvious, and a tedious waste of time, since it will fall on deaf ears. But, well, I grit my teeth in obeisance to policy, WP:AGF, etc. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nishidani, for your gracious agreement to the proposed wording of the first sentence. I believe we've now reached a consensus, at least among the four of us, on the following: LP1S1 (i.e, "Lead, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1"): "The Shakespeare authorship question refers to the controversy about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers." Wonderful, progress! Shall we move on to LP1S2 and LP1S3 below? Schoenbaum (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)