Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

The lead

I've had a glance at the lead, which seems tremendously long and rather detailed. It seems to more or less conform to WP:LEAD in practice but not (IMNSHO) its spirit, and I wonder what a reader who doesn't yet know anything about the subject would think (that's who we're writing for, isn't it?). A small example: the term "anti-Stratfordian" (also "anti-stratfordian") is used there, way before the definition section that explains what this means. No doubt every word in the lead has been argued over ad nauseam, but is there any possibility that it could be cut down somewhat? --GuillaumeTell 11:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

How about you suggest specifics and we can discuss them to avoid a long, tedious edit war (by whatever name)? I think the specifics in the third graf are the worst offenders, but I'm not about to touch it for obvious reasons.

I really don't know what else to use in place of anti-Stratfordian. In the first instance, I suppose "such theories" would work. In the second instance, "They say most methods used to eliminate William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author fail to meet orthodox (or academic) standards . . . ." could work, I guess, or "most methods used to supplant Williaam Shakespeare with some other author . . . ." but both seem a bit wordy. Maybe it would be simpler to add a short explanation to the first graf, "Those who question the attribution, called anti-Stratfordians, believe that . . . ." Tom Reedy (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the lead is a bit long, though not too bad considering the length of the article itself. I think it "more or less" conforms, but I still lean toward the "less" side. It lacks as a true "summary" of the article. We should look at the table of contents and make sure follows the contents summary and touches on the major points. I think para 1 does a good job for what it summarizes - the short definition of the issue, and the major candidates that are mentioned at the conclusion to the article. Summarizing the history a bit more would be my only comment there. I agree that para 3 could be trimmed down and/or recast to better summarize the main arguing points. However I also feel that an inordinate about of time (3 separate edits) is spent telling the reader how unorthodox the methods of authorship doubters are. Not only have these statements generated considerable controversy and lack any true consensus, but they are seriously repetitive.Smatprt (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned, in developing the lead, we should refer to the table of contents to make sure we cover the main sections: The more I look at the subject headings and the lead, the more I think we need to do a better job summarizing the article:

• 1 Overview

1.1 Authorship doubters 1.2 Mainstream view 1.3 Criticism of mainstream view

• 2 History of authorship doubts

2.1 Pseudonymous or secret authorship in Renaissance England 2.2 "Shake-Speare" as a pseudonym

• 3 Debate points used by anti-Stratfordians

3.1 Doubts about Shakespeare of Stratford 3.1.1 Literary paper trails 3.1.2 Shakespeare's education 3.1.3 Shakespeare's life experience 3.1.4 Shakespeare's literacy 3.1.4.1 "Shakspere" vs. "Shakespeare" 3.1.5 Shakespeare's will 3.1.6 Shakespeare's funerary monument 3.2 Comments by contemporaries 3.3 Publications 3.3.1 The First Folio 3.3.2 Geographical knowledge in the plays 3.3.3 The poems as evidence 3.4 Date of playwright's death

• 4 Candidates and their champions

4.1 Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford 4.2 Sir Francis Bacon 4.3 Christopher Marlowe 4.4 William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby 4.5 Group theory 4.6 Other candidates

Should we simply use this as a format for the lead? I don't necessarily think we need to follow this prcise order. For example, I think that para 1 is pretty good and seems to cover the beginning and end of this list very compactly. Maybe a bit more of the history would be helpful, but i think para 1 is close. I'll start working on the debate point section, which is now overwhelmed by the "education" argument and not much else.Smatprt (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I'm just playing around, but here is a first attempt at at least reorganizing the material, cutting some unneeded detail (like to 29,000 word vocab bit), cutting some duplication from the strat stuff I mentioned. Noting that in these type of articles, the alternate theory is supposed to be explained, then the more "accepted view" laid out, I am rearranging the para order. I believe I was responsible for the current order and I now see it is the opposite of what the policy is. This is just a suggested starting point, by the way - I hope everyone can assume good faith and take it for what it is - an effort in the right direction:

"The Shakespeare authorship question is the ongoing debate, first recorded in the early 18th century, about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually written by another writer or group of writers.[1] Those who question the 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.[2] Of the more than 50 candidates that have been proposed,[3] some 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.

Authorship doubters assert that the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford did not have the background necessary to create the works in question, and that the personal attributes inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of the Stratford man.[10] Anti-stratfordians believe that Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the extensive education that is evident in the works, and question how he could become so highly expert in foreign languages, courtly pastimes, politics, and the latest contemporary discoveries in science and medicine. Authorship doubters believe that, for centuries, Shakespeare biographers have suspended orthodox methods and criteria to weave inadmissible evidence into their histories of the Stratford man and claim that some mainstream scholars have ignored the subject in order to protect the economic gains that the Shakespeare publishing world has provided them.[9]

Most Shakespeare academics, known as "Stratfordians", note that the authorship of William 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.[7] Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view.[8] Mainstream scholars say that authorship doubters discard the most direct testimony in favor of their own theories,[12] overstate Shakespeare's erudition,[13] and anachronistically mistake the times he lived in.[14] They say most anti-Stratfordian scholarship fails to meet orthodox standards and lacks supporting historical evidence.[5] As a result they reject all alternative authorship arguments.

Despite the somewhat esoteric subject matter, and the often acrimonious debate on both sides of the issue, interest in the authorship question continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[15]

I think this version is worse and less organized than we have now. The lede should summarize the case in general terms, not make specific arguments. The only par that really needs work on the lede as it stands is the third graf. Instead of making specific arguments general principles should be stated. The two general principles of anti-Stratfordism are

(1) Shakespeare could not have written the works because he lacked the background commensurate with the material in the plays, and

(2) Someone else did because his (education) (biography) (social status) equipped him with the necessary (learning) (experience) (attitude) that is exhibited in the plays.

Actually, graf 1 could be the first sentence standing alone. Later on we might want to put a history of the movement sentence in.

Graf 2 could start with the second sentence, and then add some of the information now in graf 3. Graf 2 is fine the way it is, but the first sentence of graf 4 could be added and it should be graf 3. Graf 4 could be the Shakespeare claimants along with the third sentence of graf 1. I'll put them all together and post them later.

No matter what we do, we need to agree that no one changes it until a consensus is reached on the talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a quick edit that incorporates most of the information now in the lede but is 80 words less. I deleted any vague sentences.

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] The question was first recorded in the early 18th century and has gained wide public attention since the mid-19th century.

Those who question the 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.[2] They 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.[3] Anti-Stratfordians note the lack of concrete evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford acquired the extensive education necessary to write Shakespeare’s works and question whether a commoner from a small 16th-century country town could have gained the life experience and adopted the aristocratic attitude they claim is evident in them. Those who support an alternate candidate as the true author focus on the correspondences between the content of the plays and poems and that candidate’s known education, life experiences, and reputation.[4]

Most mainstream Shakespeare academics, referred to as "Stratfordians" by those engaged in the debate, pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories. They say most anti-Stratfordian scholarship fails to meet orthodox standards and lacks supporting historical evidence.[5] Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject.[6] They say that authorship doubters discard the most direct testimony in favor of their own theories,[7] overstate Shakespeare's erudition,[8] and anachronistically mistake the times he lived in,[9] and say that their method of identifying another author from the works is unscholarly and unreliable. The authorship of William 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—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.[11]

Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[12] Of the more than 50 candidates that have been proposed,[13] some 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.

Tom Reedy (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I agree with you on losing the Shak vs Shake section. It slows the page down without contributing much in the way of an argument, although I know for some people the spelling is a major point. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I see the value of your rewrite of the anti-strat graf and am willing to try and work with it a bit. But you are hanging on to all the attacks on anti-strat researchers while cutting similar negative beliefs about the mainstream ones. We need to address the fact that several editors feel these edits are controversial. I know you don't agree with the sentiment being expressed, but here is the relevant policy from the very page you want this article to conform to: [[1]]:"(last bit of example showing how to dismiss an alternate viewpoint)…most other specialists in the field reject this view."...then "but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations." This one policy is what is being completely disregarded. I'm pointing this out to you so you can understand why your insistence that this material be included is against policy. It was written because of the very reaction you are getting here from authorship proponents. You are attacking the researchers instead of "referring the reader to more accepted ideas". Smatprt (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So here is a shot, taking the above policy into account: I did move the leading candidates back up to the first graf. We are supposed to describe the key point about the issue first, before we move on to "more accepted ideas". The leading contenders are obviously a major focus of the article and is certainly one of the first things readers are going to want to know. this version cuts almost 140 words from the present one:

• "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] The question was first recorded in the early 18th century and has gained wide public attention since the mid-19th century. 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.

Those who question the 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.[2] They 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.[3] Anti-Stratfordians note the lack of concrete evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford acquired the extensive education necessary to write Shakespeare’s works, and question whether a commoner from a small 16th-century country town could have gained the life experience and adopted the aristocratic attitude they claim is evident in them. Those who support an alternate candidate as the true author focus on the correspondences between the content of the plays and poems and that candidate’s known education, life experiences, and reputation.[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 the somewhat esoteric subject matter, and the often acrimonious debate on both sides of the issue, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[12]

And here is trimming some more stuff that can be explained (if need be) in the article: It takes it down about 155 words:

• "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. 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 the somewhat esoteric subject matter, and the often acrimonious debate on both sides of the issue, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[12]

I cut all the characterizations of researchers on both sides of the question and focuses on the history and major debate points. Don't you think this is an approach worth pursuing? Smatprt (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A final trimming along these lines: It takes it down about 170 words:

• "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]

That's about as compact as I could make it and summarizes the main points of the article. It does not get into specifics on either side, does not disparage either side and reads pretty well. I look forward to input. Smatprt (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't be in a race to have the briefest lede possible. A look at other articles concerning Shakespeare reveals that their ledes are usually longer and more detailed than this one. We need enough detail to explain what the article is about, and the point of this discussion is not to make it as compact as possible.

I would agree with that. But the devil is in the detail, as they say!Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving the candidates back up is fine.

There's no 'race' to have the shortest lead possible. There are serious objections to reduplicating paras 1 and 2 in 3 and 4, with weighting in favour of the fringe theory. It's a problem of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. The lead should absolutely not repeat itself. All of your versions give great detail to the fringe theories, and are only succinct with the orthodox perspective. Any word count will confirm this violation of drafting protocols.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're ignoring that the main problem Strats have with anti-Strats is their methodology, and I don't see how you can accurately picture the topic without it, because to Strats that explains where anti-Strats go wrong, and all of the refutations in the body of the article illustrate the differences in approaching literary attribution. According the WP:undue weight, "The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." That entire policy is highly relevant here, including WP:VALID and giving "equal validity". (And BTW, attacking their methodology is not the same as attacking the people using that methodology, so please stop using that.)

Well it sure sounds like they are being attacked. It gives that impression - is that fair to say, perhaps? In any case, I guess I've just never been impressed with all the name-calling, the "snob" stuff, etc. and it seems that often the attacks on ones "standards" and "methods" are an extension of those attacks. It's like the strats are won't meet some issues dead on with a reasonable explanation to the key points outlined in the table of contents - education (especially the real tough skills like translating of and proficiency in foreign languages), the ability to lampoon Burghley as Polonius (mainstream consensus) and see Richard II used in an attempted upheaval and totally get away with it, the whole period between 1604 and 1616 when the Sonnets get published and plays like MacBeth are all screwed up by Middleton's additions or Pericles is "finished", and all the while Shakespeare is doing what? If you guys would just answer the questions instead of attacking the "methods" and bringing out the "cranks" and "snobs" and my favorite of course "heretics", I mean burn us at the stake for having questions, is that what that one is all about? But I digress...! Let me get back to asnwering your questions.Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That the snobbery charge is all over the orthodox scholarly literature is easily attested. You may not be 'impressed', but to voice your disagreement on personal grounds of belief to what WP:RS is neither here nor there. The page reflects what sources say, not what we editors believe. Again 'attack' is inappropriate: the fringe literature is nothing but screeds in attack mode. The scholarly literature merely, as noted by others, 'attacks' the incompetent methododology Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to put this back in: "Authorship doubters believe that, for centuries, Shakespeare biographers have suspended orthodox methods and criteria to weave inadmissible evidence into their histories of the Stratford man and claim that some mainstream scholars have ignored the subject in order to protect the economic gains that the Shakespeare publishing world has provided them," that's fine with me, but I cut it because I thought they were vague and/or peripheral to your main argument and not covered in the main text, not because I was trying to gain a head start in the lead ot that I thought it was attacking anyone.

Just wanted to comment that the first line comes from the Price section, so it is in the main text, and you will recall saying the Price's section would need to be accounted for in the lead. The second line actually came from you - i just moved it from a strat graph to an anti-strat graph and recast the sentence to drive home the point more. And I still think we should both cut the great bulk (if not all) of the attacks on methods and standards - it's making the lead into a battleground. Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where either side is overly harsh. This may come as a surprise, but this is probably the most polite description of the authorship question that I've ever read. You don't quote the Ogburns or anyone else on what a rustic yokel Shakspur was, and I don't quote the harshest conclusions about anti-Strats of Schoenbaum and Wells, so I don't agree with you that the treatment violates the policy you quoted in that manner of being excessive or overly harsh. In fact, WP:Fringe states that "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community," and I think it is remarkably restrained in its presentation of its assessment by the academic community.

As far as other editors being critical, it appears to me that Schoenbaum was satisfied with my defense of the wording (one word, actually).

No, I think we have all mentioned this stuff - even Mr. Pope - not a great "editor" by any means, but he still has a viewpoint regardless of his editing skills. He made quite the impassioned plea addressing these same issues. Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I do believe that the entire article violates that policy in being a use of point-counterpoint style refutations, but at this point in time I don't think we can move away from that.

yes, this is a debate after all. But do note that it says to "avoid" point-counterpoint. It does not say never to use it. This may be one of those cases where it's too complicated a subject not to need the point-counterpoint style in place.Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The points in the lede explaining each side have a rough parity:

• "William Shakespeare" was a pen name to keep the writer's identity secret
• "Shakspere" of Stratford did not have the background
• personal attributes don't fit biography
• lack of concrete evidence of extensive education necessary
• question whether a commoner from country town could have gained the life experience

not quite - not "could he?" but from what we know about his life, the experience he did have just doesn't sit right.Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• question whether commoner could have adopted the aristocratic

it's not because he was a "commoner", it's about what we know about him (lawsuits, moneylending, grain-hoarding) vs the attitude expressed in the plays. And I know you bring up the biographical fallacy argument, but that argument is not exclusive. Yes, it happens (the fallacy) sometimes, maybe often, but that does not mean it necessarily happens every time. Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

vs.

• testimony in the First Folio
• inscription on Shakespeare's Stratford monument
• Title pages
• testimony by other contemporary poets and historians
• official records
• that type of evidence is lacking for any other alternative candidate

aside from some minor quibbles regarding "commoner" the only one I see that doesn't ring true is "that type of evidence is lacking for any other alternative candidate". Both Schoenbaum and I have argued against this because they have been used as evidence. I know you don't agree and that "interpretive" is problematic, but they are used by both sides. And both sides "interpret" - I have used Groat's Worth as an example of this before. The Title page of the Sonnets are certainly used by anti-strats. Admittedly, Price's candidate is merely defined as "a nobleman", but she definitely uses official records and has come out against Stratford and for some anonymous royal. That's still an alternative candidate to Stratford, isn't it? Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, with your sentence added in as above, both sides have a section pointing out where they believe the other side goes wrong.

In the end, I feel sure we're going to need some neutral observer to referee when we get dead locked, and not anybody with a one-week editing history. Tom Reedy (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right, but at least we are talking and making a little progress. Sorry it took 2 days to get back to these questions. I closed a huge show on the 14th, which was a two show day, and yesterday and today have been alot about catching up. In the meantime I had to try and keep up with all the WTF changes in the last 48 hours.Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to propose the following three changes to Tom's last version above (I do like keeping it short):

• Delete "of the more than 50 candidates that have been proposed,[13]" It's too much detail and not essential to understanding what the article is about.

• In para 2, after "Alternate authorship researchers focus on," I would insert, "anomalies that they see as inconsistent with the mainstream view, and especially on apparent inconsistencies in", and delete "in the relationship". This sentence would then read: "Alternate authorship researchers focus on anomalies that they see as inconsistent with the mainstream view, and especially on apparent inconsistencies between the content of the plays and poems and a candidate’s known education, life experiences, and recorded history.[4]" Otherwise the sentence suggests the one example given is the only type of evidence anti-Strats use, which isn't true.

• In para 4, delete "two main pillars of evidence:" Calling them "pillars of evidence" isn't neutral language. It's editorializing about their strength, which doesn't belong in the lede.

Schoenbaum (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I posted the last version above (the one that cut it down 170 words, posted at 9:07 on Feb 14). Can you clarify if that is the version to which you are referring? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well he did say "Tom's last version above," so I assumed he meant mine. (But re-reading it I think he meant yours. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

As to Schoenbaum's suggestions: I don't know how all this is going to play out, since the WTF edits of this morning. But if we're still talking about this, I can go along with the original "numerous" instead of "more than 50." As per the second suggestion, an apt citation is needed, and "perceived" should be used in front of "anomolies" and in place of "apparent". "Two main pillars" is rhetoric related to support, not editorial language. But if you can come up with something else, I won't fight it as long as it's accurate.

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. Once we get through this step then we can talk about his other changes to the lede.

And Smatprt you need to respond to my comments above Schoenbaum's. I get tired of being told to comment on the talk page and then having my comments ignored. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just did!Smatprt (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on replacing 'more than 50' with 'numerous'. Reliable sources give precise numbers over the decades. By 1958, 21 claimants had been proposed (William D. Rubinstein Shadow pasts: history's mysteries, Pearson Education, 2007 p.77). By 2005, the number was 56 (Scott McCrea, The Case for Shakespeare: the end of the authorship question, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005 p.14). Precision should always be preferred to vagueness and ((b) when the exact figure has been calculated, or is known and cited, to ignore it in favour of an editor's generic choice or strategic preference for an indefinite figure looks like a manipulation, where editorial judgements overrides RS.Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The latest (Feb. 14) lede looks much better. Would "major planks" work instead of "pillars"? LAL (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry Smatprt, I meant your last version -- the one that "cut it down 170 words." Re: "more than 50" vs. "numerous," I prefer the latter. The supposed "precision" of giving a number is meaningless when there's no precision about the criteria used to decide which are serious candidates. Many are not. Re: putting "perceived" in place of "apparent" in front of "anomalies." I propose simply replacing "anomalies" with "evidence." Then it becomes, "Alternate authorship researchers focus on evidence that they see as inconsistent with the mainstream view, and especially on apparent inconsistencies between the content of the plays and poems and a candidate’s known education, life experiences, and recorded history.[4]" Then "perceived" is unnecessary because it's clear from "they see as inconsistent." There's also no need to get specific about the other evidence because it's just a general statement about other evidence, with the one example given. I just don't want any implication that doubters use only one type of evidence, because it's not true. Re: two main "pillers" of evidence, "planks" is acceptable to me. Schoenbaum (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

'The supposed "precision" of giving a number is meaningless when there's no precision about the criteria used to decide which are serious candidates.'

There is no supposed precision, but a datum given by an RS. Your second error is to employ an editorial judgement that challenges the content given by an RS. In this, you are patently challenging RS on subjective personal grounds, intruding your own views of an article's subject's sources and their validity, which is not one of a wikipedian editor's rights. The point therefore is self-invalidated.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In passing, where is LAL's record, other than a remark by Richard of NZ, dated the 25th Sept 2007 which doesn't show up on User:Richard001's page history as ever having been made? Just curious.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Kathman wrap-up

Tom, you asked what I felt the consensus at this point is. Let me answer as best I can.

• While its true that no true "consensus" has been achieved it certainly appears that the majority feeling is that the Kathman site is useable, but with some caveats attached:

• Most editors (here and in general) would always prefer, whenever possible, to see sources that are of higher quality (what ever that means) and have greater accountability than a self-published website.

• Several editors (Dlabot, Crum375) also noted that clear attribution (in-text) should be used. For me, a key to this consensus it the use of in-text attribution as it will assure readers that certain statements are the opinion of Kathman and not a statement of undisputed fact, or that one researcher is speaking for the "academic consensus" - a claim that would be classified as extraordinary, and would require RS of the highest quality (not just the fact that certain Stratfordians recommend him).

• One (Crum375) also mentioned that in any case, "how" to use the site should be discussed by the article editors.

Now that we have a pretty good picture on how these editors feel, I think we can continue working on the article and decide how and when to use the website back on the article talk page. I acknowledge the feeling of the majority there and will provide greater leeway for the Kathman site as we move forward. Though I would have preferred a different outcome, I want to thank the editors there for providing input. Smatprt (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits

Since I gather the main complaints against my edits dealt with the lead, still under discussion, I have simply added there an indispensable 'citation needed' tag. The rest of the edits are to the body of the text, which is not, I presume, subject to prior consensus, judging by the edit history to date.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR violation material requiring support from secondary sources

*Describing contemporary writers, the dramatist and pamphleteer Robert Greene wrote that "others ... which for their calling and gravity being loth to have any profane pamphlets pass under their hands, get some other Batillus [a minor Augustan poet] to set his name to their verses".

*Roger Ascham in his book The Schoolmaster discusses his belief that two plays attributed to the Roman dramatist Terence were secretly written by "worthy Scipio, and wise Lælius", because the language is too elevated to have been written by "a seruile stranger" such as Terence.

These are citations from primary texts, and material here must be filtrated through RS secondary sources. That this is handled by anti-Stratfordians I do not doubt. So, whoever wants it in must check his books, and find the a-Strat books where this primary source material is discussed, and source it from them.

A more serious infringement, WP:OR has taken place in the use of Ascham's treatise, where he says no such thing as 'secretly'. As I showed, it was well known that Terence laughed at innuendoes that he had high placed friends to help him polish his work. Secondly he wrote 6 plays, of which two Cicero says were written by others, meaning four were not. This was not done 'secretly', it was openly bruited about in Terence's own time. Thirdly, it was not because the language was 'too elevated'. Ascham says certain scenes have a native fluency of correct idiom one would not expect from a foreigner, formerly a slave, and these scenes thus attest to the hand of a local litterateur of distinction. As is almost always the case, things are distorted.Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, primary sources can be used to quote text - " WP:NOR strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources in addition to these; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", and is essential to writing an encyclopedia." So if the Ascham quote is wrong, of course, change it. But both appear to be usable. And I'm not sure how the Ascham but is any different than quoting Wells or Bates from the statements they make in their books. Can you explain the difference? thanks. Smatprt (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh really, come now. You are selectively snipping and ignoring the full context (reflecting, I believe, what happens with the anti-Stratfordian 'method'). This is elementary. Ascham is not cited, he is paraphrased by the wiki editor who plopped that piece in there, and the paraphrase distorts what Ascham wrote and does so with a series of strategic misprisions of the primary source. Such misprisions are interpretive, since what the paraphrase says distorts, and does not faithfully reflect the original. You can quote a sentence, as the policy shows, from a primary source, but you cannot paraphrase it to make it say what it does not say.

'Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.'

'Reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.’’

Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source'

Policy as any neophyte quickly learns, optimally requires secondary sources to interpret primary sources, which can be cited directly where necessary, but cannot be cited synthetically to buttress an editor's personal beliefs, which is what has happened here. You want a ragged page, or one that strives to reach the 'high importance' criteria that the header says this page is to have?

In any case, these passages are in the secondary sources, and one only uses 'primary sources' with extreme care, when there is no secondary source of quality available for them. It's lazy to disregard good editorial practice, and dangerous to mess round with a presumed liberty to use 'primary sources' when the rules state the dangers involved in harvesting them as they have been done here. Playing with fire, in short.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

sonnets

a number of sentences here appear to be pre SYNTH or OR:

"In fact, there is no record that Shakespeare of Stratford, who was not beyond suing his neighbors over paltry sums, ever objected or sought recompense for the publication." This is footnoted to Shakespeare in the Public Records, which no doubt shows that he never "sought recompense for the publication", but no evidence is provided that any legal recourse either existed or that Shakespeare even objected in the the first place. This is OR argument unless cited to a researcher who actually argues this.

"In addition, some sonnets suggest the author was older than the Stratford man (#2, #22, #37, #62, #66, #73, #138), and possibly approaching death" This is footnoted to something called "gradesaver.com" and the Frontline TV show "The Shakespeare Mystery". The former says nothing whatever to support this statement, and in fact refers to scholars who suggest the passages about age refer to Shakespeare's increasing baldness (clearly a reference to the "Stratford man"). The Frontline TV show contains a passage in which the unnamed narrator asserts that "Several sonnets speak of old age and imminent death. De Vere was nearing death at the time the sonnets were written." This is of course rubbish. De Vere died at the age of 54, of unknown causes, possibly quite suddenly. There is no reason to think he believed he was "nearing death" when the sonnets were written. There is no cited support for the specific listed sonnets, which are in any case misrepresented (for example sonnet two starts, "When forty winters shall beseige thy brow...", referring to the future middle-age of the Fair Youth, not to the poet's age. Nothing in it refers to the age of the poet). Paul B (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the sentence in the preface of SITPR I assume is the reference: "He appears [in the public records] as a taxpayer, a property owner, a will maker, a beneficiary in the wills of others, an actor under royal patronage, a shareholder in theatres, a dramatist and is involved in law suits." Is this what Wikipedia calls editing in good faith?

Read this exchange: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#Reliable_sources.3F from above. What's really amazing is that he's been trying to argue that anti-Strats use the same type of evidence as Shakespeare academics. The irony is so thick my teeth fillings hurt. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources removed

• Macbeth, ref =(A.R.) Braunmuller,Macbeth, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997; pp. 5-8.

Braubmuller calls the method circular, describes various theories aabout topical indicator for dating but does not himself claim composition earlier than 1605

• King Lear ref =Frank Kermode, 'King Lear', The Riverside Shakespeare (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974), 1249-1250.

Kermode says no such thing (‘composed no later than 1604'). He writes that late 1604 or early 1605 ‘seems the best compromise’ for the date of composition p.1298 of the revised 1997 Riverside text.

‘In an age when such (eulogies) were expected’ This is untrue, and yet passed off as though it were an established fact all agree on. Many poets did not write eulogies on the passing of royalty.

The whole nonsense about 'failing' to write eulogies of the passing of royalty is a self-goal or conspiracy theorists shooting themselves in the foot. If de Vere or some other aristocrat were indeed, as they maintain, the author of Shakespeare's works, then we would indeed expect eulogies to survive in the corpus, since they were members of court. If Shakespeare was of humble origins, and at best a made gentleman, we would not expect him to write eulogies. Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Polling/Taking the pulse

Those in favour of simply cutting the repetitive last two paragraphs.

• Nishidani
• Tom Reedy
• Paul B
• Guillaume

Those who disagree

• Smatprt
• Ssilvers
• Afasmit
• Schoenbaum
• BenJonson

—Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

All those who have participated over the last month are welcome to add their vote. I would like to ask those who charge in to then participate and justify their views. Mere voting is meaningless, and numbers can be stacked. That is to be avoided at all costs. Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus building is not vote counting". Smatprt (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your right we should simply cut the repetitive last two paragraphs.Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Please consider adding your opinion to the peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1. This is intended as a way to improve article quality, and you will not be pressed to judge the correctness of the various theories about the authorship. Opinions on the quality of referencing would of course be welcome. I left a notice at WP:AN#Shakespeare authorship question, and perhaps there are some other ways of publicizing this peer review that would not be considered spamming. As you can see from the project banner above, the Shakespeare WikiProject judges this article to be of High importance. Thanks to User:Smatprt for opening the review request. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

While we are there we should all look at this regarding undue weight: [[2]] which states

• "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. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

I think we have done quite well in identifying which side believes what. Extremely well, in fact. But we should remember that this article is specifically about a minority viewpoint so it should not be overwhelmed by the mainstream views, which have their own extensive articles at William Shakespeare, Shakespeare's life, Shakespeare's style, Shakespeare's reputation, Chronology of Shakespeare's plays, Shakespeare's funerary monument and many, many others where the traditional case is made and the authorship issue gets hardly a mention at all. Smatprt (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We should also look at WP:FRINGE, because this topic is a fringe theory, although I don't believe it follows the Wikipedia guidelines for such. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia distinguish between "fringe" theories and "minority" theories, i.e, theories that have enough supporting evidence and followings that they shouldn't be labeled with the pejorative term "fringe"? Schoenbaum (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Read this. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, no Wiki does not make that distinction. They use the term very "broadly" to include anything that disagrees with a mainstream view including "hypothesis, conjecture and speculation". So as a result, they don't view it as the pejorative term that the general public often associates with the phrase. In discussing minority or alternative viewpoints, editors are referred to the various policies on "Fringe", which acts as a kind of catchall. Smatprt (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding source material that can be used, please note the following policy: "While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources. " So we shouldn't quote Sobran to say, for example, how brilliant or important he thinks Ogburn is, in discussing "notabliity" or "prominence" we need to quote independent sources. But the policy supports using theory proponents to describe "what they believe". All of which makes perfect sense. Smatprt (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But it's OK to quote an anti-Stratfordian editor about how brilliant he thinks a piece is that he edited and published that was written by another anti-Stratfordian? Tom Reedy (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom - he does not say anything even approaching "how brilliant" the article is. He summaries the piece by saying "the continued support of Strachey as Shakespeare's source is, at the very least, highly questionable". That's it. And note that he uses "at the very least" and "questionable" - and does not day it's a done deal or a "fact". In other words, he couches it in scholarly terms and leaves the matter open. And to repeat - he in no way is being quoted as saying the piece is "brilliant", "fabulous" "ground-breaking" or anything else along those lines.Smatprt (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Tom Reedy has brought Stritmatter and Kositsky into the discussion again, I will offer him a foretaste of the comment of one independent editor of a major Oxford University Press publication, to their forthcoming response to Alden Vaughan's 2008 SQ article on the Strachey, which also includes a critique of Tom's own RES article. This quote is offered as among friends and colleagues. My intent is not to make a point that has any particular immediate relevance to the editing of the wiki authorship page, but to allow wiki editors a glance of what is going on unspoken behind the scenes:

"Your piece is a real tour de force, as it goes without saying....You piece together your case with great intelligence and scrupulousness, and it is a piece of genuine scholarship." The editor declined to publish the article because it is very long, and the content was a bit off topic for his publication. However, the quotation does underscore that, as Tom well knows, the traditional boundaries between "orthodox" and "fringe" theories are at this time extremely fluid. This editorial team shouldn't forget that. And after the article is actually published (not in the venue of the quoted editor, which actually strengthens the significance and credibility of the quote, imho) we can reveal further details. --BenJonson (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Authorship doubters

I forgot to give an edit summary for why I have removed this meaningless phrase. No one doubts that the corpus of works ascribed to Shakespeare have an author, or authors. Therefore, one cannot coin a weird expression like 'authorship doubters' to refer to those who subscribe to the view that Shakespeare of Stratford was not the author, but de Vere, or Bacon, or whoever, was. Unless of course you take the Harold Bloomian joke about Shakespeare being God literally.Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The term "authorship doubters" refers to those who doubt the traditional attribution of the works to William Shakespeare of Stratford without necessarily favoring a specific alternative candidate. The term is in common use, and has a well-understood meaning. The "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt," for example, uses it consistently throughout, and has been signed by over 1,700 people, including over 300 academics. They apparently had no problem with it. I think this change should be reverted. Schoenbaum (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually searched it and discovered it is recent, and in-house jargon. One does not use the 'cant' of a sect (the other Schoenbaum's term, not mine) to describe that movement objectively. If one uses such 'infra-nos' neologisms, which the larger public does not know about, it must be glossed and sourced to a definition, usually. Wiki asks that we write in clear comprehensible English, avoiding such groupish terminology where possible. This is about Shakespeare, who was the most verbally sensitive writer in our language, and therefore it is particularly important to bear that in mind, and use words carefully. 'Authorship doubters' to a newby, or someone unfamiliar with this sect's views, or an accomplished German or Russian born English speaker, would be construed as I construe it, as expressing the weird idea that certain people entertain doubts that Shakespeare's works were 'authored', and would pause to mull over the apparent non-sequitur. [User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should write in clear, comprehensible English, and "Shakespeare authorship doubter" is more clear, accurate and intuitively understandable than the jargonish "anti-Stratfordian" -- a term coined by Stratfordians to describe their opponents, which is widely accepted but shouldn't be because of its misleading connotation of opposition to the town of Stratford and dislike of its native son. Authorship doubters are not necessarily "anti" anything, any more than doubters of the existence of an all-powerful God are necessarily anti-religion, although believers, threatened by their non-belief, often see them as such. The term "Shakespeare authorship doubter" is as easily defined for the uninitiated as "anti-Stratfordian." The title of this article is "Shakespeare authorship controversy." The topic arises from the fact that credible people have long doubted the traditional attribution of the works. That's an accurate statement, using non-jargonish English. It makes sense to describe such people as Shakespeare authorship doubters, or skeptics. It avoids the implication of active opposition. Many doubters have a live-and-let-live attitude, and in that sense are not "anti-"Stratfordians. So I propose that the term simply be defined as I've defined it above, and regarded as a suitable alternative to the misleading term "anti-Stratfordian." As a Stratfordian partisan, I can understand why you want to dictate the terminology we use to describe ourselves, but this article is about the minority view, not the mainstream view. The minority should have a right to define itself in its own terms, as long as they're within Wikipedia policies. Language is not static. It evolves over time, as any Shakespeare scholar should know. The term "Shakespeare authorship doubter" is well-established, and doubters shouldn't have to defend it. 96.251.82.13 (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In standard English prose you cannot use an expression like 'Shakespeare authorship doubter' at the head of every other sentence. It sounds like a mantra, and produces a dull thud in the reader's head like a hammer. Once one makes clear in a lead that this is the subject of the page, one uses (a) either personal author attributions in stating pèositions within the unorthodox fold (the best solution), or variation, such as 'doubter' 'sceptic' etc. I suggest one go through the text count the number of times 'Shakespeare authorship doubter', or 'authorship doubter' is used, an make a Google Books check on both these phrases as well to supply us with evidence as to whether or not these terms are widely used. Nishidani (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nidishani, Please spare us the lectures about what the language can or cannot do. I happen to agree with you that the clarity of the article can be much improved. But only yesterday (metaphorically speaking) there were in these discussions a number of proponents of conventional views of authorship who couldn't be bothered to us a spell checker and coined phrases like "pèositions within the unorthodox field" in posts advocating clarity of expression. The question is not whether the disputed terms are widely used -- a logical fallacy of impressive dimensions, which implies that popularity of expression is synonymous with clarity. The question is whether they are apt to the purpose of describing the phenomenon they purport to elucidate. I would not infer that the terminology of the page cannot be improved upon. But I'm getting that de ja vu feeling all over again, like "here we go, another person who pops in out of nowhere, who appears to know very little about the subject in question but parades a knowledge which in substance he does not have, and proposes to make himself the arbiter of what's appropriate and what's not by asking us to "check google books." Please. --BenJonson (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"As a Stratfordian partisan, I can understand why you want to dictate the terminology we use to describe ourselves, but this article is about the minority view, not the mainstream view."

Is hair-trigger touchiness and knee-jerk defensiveness a requirement for anti-Strats? Or does it just seem that way?

"The minority should have a right to define itself in its own terms, as long as they're within Wikipedia policies."

Not on Wikipedia they shouldn't. An encyclopedia describes topics as they are; it doesn't introduce new terms or concepts.

"Language is not static. It evolves over time, as any Shakespeare scholar should know."

Not in encyclopedias, it doesn't. But of course, the anti-Strats who edit on Wikipedia have a different idea of Wikipedia's purpose. They seem to believe it's a promotional tool. This particular article, as bad as it is, is a model of unbiased reporting compared to the Oxfordian theory article, where I wouldn't be surprised to see a print-out membership application any day now.

"The term 'Shakespeare authorship doubter' is well-established, and doubters shouldn't have to defend it."

This article is the first place I've ever seen it used, and I've been arguing authorship for more than a decade now. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"The minority should have a right to define itself in its own terms, as long as they're within Wikipedia policies."

If this view is what some editors believe is a right to be exercised over this article, then we are in strife. No wikipedia article, on principle, can be written by partisans, because that would violate the fundamental pillar of the encyclopedia, WP:NPOV. Nishidani

(talk) 14:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If no Wikipedia entry can be edited by partisans, Nishidani, you should recuse yourself. Your partisanship is very evident. The real question is not whether there is a partisan bias among participants, but whether editors can place their own opinions in the context of the larger intellectual debate. You are typical of those who imagine that the debate is not real, and therefore up to this point in time your contributions seem less aimed at improving the quality of the presentation than they are in skewing the entry to reflect this prejudice. As I've said a number of times before, the views of the orthodox tradition are very thoroughly and ably represented in a number of other Wikipedia entries. The purpose of this one is to fairly and comprehensively represent the minority opinion in its various permutations. Its the same principle which allows Supreme Court justices like John Paul Stevens to author minority opinions even when they do not side with the majority. Stevens, by the way, knows much more about the authorship question than you do, from what I can tell.--BenJonson (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"The purpose of this one is to fairly and comprehensively represent the minority opinion in its various permutations." You are in effect saying that this article is to promote anti-Stratfordism. Sorry, but that is not the purpose of this article or any other on Wikipedia. The guidelines stress that any article on a fringe theory or minority point of view should make it very clear that they are such, and the reasons why. And it appears to me that Nidishani is very well versed on this topic. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, please do not take my remarks out of context and redefine them according to your own prejudicial lexicon. An important element of my comment was the concession that other wiki articles already represent the orthodox view.

You are in effect arguing that because your "side" is "right" (you are very sure of this, because so many powerful and influential academics have directly or indirectly assured you that it must be so), those who are the "wrong" side should not be allowed to speak for themselves. Please review again my analogy. Do you find it flawed?

Do you support a theory of the judiciary in which only those judges voting in the majority are allowed to leave remarks on the record? If so, please explain yourself. If you think the analogy is flawed, please argue your point.

But you can no longer make the argument on the basis that some of the partisans in the debate belong to the "Supreme court" (or any court for that matter) and others don't. As you know, and have admitted, the boundaries between "us" and "them" are beginning to disintegrate.

You are wrong to infer that my comment constitutes a vote to represent those minority opinions in isolation from the opinions of the majority. That is your projection, and it is not an accurate interpretation either of what I said or my intent in saying what I did say. Any credible minority opinion MUST refer also the convictions of the majority. The article in its present form does that. Can the lead and other parts be improved? Absolutely. I hope we improve them.

Finally, however, althought appreciate the fact that you left your snide Tom Reedy out of your reply in this instance, you are still indulging in a partisan debate that starts off with the assumption of bad intent on my part. That is an unfortunate indication that you still have a way to go in understanding the implications of where you stand. You can appeal to wiki "standards" till the cows come home -- it doesn't help you.--BenJonson (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

The recent wholesale block revert of my edits, as I reviewed the text this morning, is unacceptable, since it smacks of WP:OWN violation. I am more than happy to discuss any edit I make, and justify it.

There is a huge amount of poor work, and slapdash method throughout this page, and so far I have closed an eye to much of it. What I did was a light clean-up of several areas where texts were miscited, phrasing was misleading, up-to-date scholarship ignored, or simply bad writing was evidenced. One does not negotiate how to phrase the intended idea behind 'authorship doubters'. One emends it to comprehensible English, for example.

I was looking at this this morning, for example:

Many anti-Stratfordians have suggested that "Greene's Groatsworth of Wit" could imply Shakespeare of Stratford was being given credit for the work of other writers, and that Davies' mention of "our English Terence" is a mixed reference given that many contemporary Elizabethan scholars knew of Terence as, in reality, an actor who was a front man for one or more Roman aristocratic playwrights.

This conflates two distinct points arching over almost two decades, Robert Greene 's Groatsworth of Wit (1592), and John Davies's 1610 poem from his 'Scourge of Folly'. Neither Greene nor Davies are linked. Poor editing. Do I need consensus to edit that? No. Should I be reverted if I edit it, because I haven't obtained permission (consensus)? More seriously,

(a)the non-RS source for the statement about Terence, Mark Anderson, a journalist who writes desultorily for the Boston Globe and Rolling Stone, which therefore means he is on a par as an authority with Schoenbaum, Homan, Wells and co., I suppose, makes the remark on p.xxxi, not p.xxx, as far as Google Books allows me to see.

(b) He is not 'many anti-Stratfordians' but one kibitzer. The line should read 'Mark Anderson, not 'Many anti-Stratfordians.

(c)mixed reference should be 'possibly ambiguous reference'.

(d)We read the following extraordinary assertion. 'Terence as, in reality, an actor who was a front man for one or more Roman aristocratic playwrights', though it may paraphrase what Mark Anderson believes, happens to be untrue.

(e)Since it is untrue, it still may be an untruth believed, by 'many contemporary Elizabethan scholars'). But Mark Anderson, not an RS for Elizabethan scholars and their beliefs, cannot be cited for this view. You need an external source from mainstream scholarship.

(f) Mainstream scholarship won't provide you with that required reference for the simple reason that

(g) Elizabethan scholars were fluent Latinists, and familiar with Terence, and his biographers, such as Suetonius, and drew their information from those classical sources. In these sources, there is no mention of Terence being 'in reality, an actor who was a front man for one or more Roman aristocratic playwrights'.

(h)The remark garbles the following two passages from classical literature:

(h.1)

nam quod isti dicunt malivoli, homines nobilis

hunc adiutare adsidueque una scribere:

quod illi maledictum vehemens esse existumant,

eam laudem hic ducit maxumam, quom illis placet,

qui vobis univorsis et populo placent,

quorum opera in bello, in otio, in negotio

suo quisque tempore usust sine superbis. Terence, Adelphoe, lines 15-21

(h.2)

'Non obscura fama est adiutum Terentium in scriptis a Laelio et Scipione eamque ipse auxit numquam nisi leviter refutare conatus, . .Videtur autem levius (se) defendisse, quia sciebat et Laelio et Scipioni non ingratam esse hanc opinionem, quae tum magis et usque ad posteriora tempora valuit.' Suetonius, de Poetis ed. Augusto Rostagni, Loescher, Rome 1956 p.35

I.e., Terence refers to malignant rumours spread by Luscius Lanuvinus and others that his work was polished by members of the nobility. He appreciates the fact that the nobility honour him with their friendship. In Suetonius, it is noted that Terence never took serious efforts to deny the rumour that his authorship was helped by Laelius and Scipio Africanus. Donatus in his biography adds Furius. No evidence exists that Terence was a frontman.

Any Elizabethan scholar familiar with these texts would not fabricate a wild notion that Terence was just an actor, playing the frontman for aristocratic playwrights. That sentence is a retroactive fiction reconstruing the evidence above in a misprision which allows the author to mug up a perfect fit between Terence and Shakespeare, Laelius and deVere. Sheer incompetence. Okay, the sources for these oddball notions are all RS for the fringe theorie being examined. They are not to be used as sources for the Elizabethan period, as the drift of the language used to compose this text often makes out. So 'anti-Stratfordians' opn each occasion has to be specified, i.e. who is saying what, given that there are 56 different people to whom the 'authorship doubters' ascribe Shakespeare's works, and most of them disagree among themselves. So far it is like describing the intricate history of early Church heresies to one comprehensive 'Anti-Roman' viewpoint, when you simply have hundreds of distinct groups opposed to the growing orthodoxy of the Church of Rome, and to each other. Wiki pages cannot be composed according to the eccentric protocols of Ogburnian-deVerean mythology. Period.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely that the existing wording here was very sloppy and required emendation. There is no justification for claiming as a fact that Terence was a front. However, this is also not really the point and your rebuttal is unfairly prejudicial to the notion that Elizabethans may well have supposed that Terence was a front. Your classical sources do not address this point. And you make up for the difference with the usual tired ad hominems. There are doubtless errors in Ogburn's book, but phrases like "the eccentric protocols of the Ogburnian deVerean mythology" do not advance the discussion and suggest a ready willingness to follow the usual orthodox methodology of "guilt by association." Mr. Ogburn is not responsible for the poor wording of passages of this Wikipedia article, however convenient you might find it to pretend that he is.--BenJonson (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this tricky page. Well explained and competent edits. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The edits discussed here are well reasoned and I have no problem seeing them restored. But many of the changes to the lead did not follow policy on leads nor on fringe articles. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, not introduce detailed evidence. that is what the article is for. Also, adding in stuff like "cranks and lunatics" would fall under the category of "unduly harsh" criticism, as explained at wp:fringe. According to policy, the minority theory should be explained clearly, followed by a summary of the "more accepted ideas". I don't think "more accepted ideas" means you lambast the researcher and their methods. If we can all just stick to the debate itself instead of trying to tear down the researchers themselves, we would be far more successful in creating an article that actually follows wiki policies and benefits the reader. Smatprt (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You are making here as to Ed Johnson generic remarks about policy breaches. You have failed, while reverting, to explain why you, and so far no one else, considered my complex series of edits all in breach of these rules. I've been editing for 4 years here. The remark about 'cranks and heretics' (not lunatics, which is your choice of word) sums up in the lead what the foremost Shakespearean scholar of the day thought of these theories, and allows us to understand why most of this work is ignored by professional Shakespearean scholars. It sums up succinctly, in four epithets, by the once ranking scholar, why the authorship question is ignored, and precisely for this reason is appropriate to the lead. This whole article is dealing with WP:fringe theories, and in defending its many non RS sources, you appear to challenge some of the finest scholarship's summary assessments of the fringe theory as unfair.

I would appreciate it if you enumerate your objections in an orderly precise fashion, and be highly specific, and not generic. We work on wiki articles not to just 'stick to the debate', meaning endless discussion, but to write articles that are readable, up-to-date, objective accounts of the state of the art. This article fails on all counts, and one cannot rifle the wiki rulebook endlessly to hold to ransom obvious corrections in citation, phrasing, and presentation. Look at the historical introduction. A shambles. Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok - first, I have no problem with minor fixes and going with inline attributions (many used to be there, in fact). But you can see that we are in the middle of discussions about the lead, so making major changes there should, at the very least, follow those discussions, after an attempt at consensus building. Does that make sense? Smatprt (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, let's drop the past. I made 27 sequential revisions of the text over one period today. Of those I thought one challengeable on technical grounds. Most of the rest were intended to remove poor phrasing ('authorship doubters'): finesse generic remarks 'anti-Stratfordians' with specific authors, i.e. John Anderson: to add WP:RS of the highest order for the orthodox perspective such as Schoenbaum and Park Homan: to add a book reference from a doubter's perspective (B. James and and W.Rubenstein's The truth will out): to correct the 29,000 word vocabulary patch, which is just Marvin Spevack's highest estimation (he counts 'cry, cries, cried' as three words), by noting Manfred Scheler's more conservative figure of 17,500.18,000 words, which is roughly Milton's range: to use the impeccable Cambridge History of the English Language source: to adjust the sloppy confusion over Edward's reference, not to Venus and Adonis, as the text had it, but to 'Adon' (Edmunds is parodying both Marlowe and Shakespeare, whoever either or both were for him, and certainly not saying the poet of Venus and Adonis wore 'purple garb'), etc.etc. Though most of this was commonsensical and off-the-top of the head, I did quite a bit of checking around. I fully expected challenges, but not total muddle.

Since your mass revert, which I can understand as a reasonable fear by someone who hasn't seen me on this page, we have had successive to-and-fro mass or partial reverts, so that I can no longer recognize the page, and do not want to waste several hours nitting and picking to piece back the bits and pieces strewn over the history page. I note that a highly experienced editor, User:Ssilvers has reverted now to more or less the old version, restoring bad phrasing and all since it was consensual, and we have therefore, from a wikipedian with 55,000 edits to his credit, the 'stable version before edit-warring occurred', which means he sees my 27 careful, content-and style-related edits as the initiator of an edit-war. The result, he's just restored huge amounts of material both you and I would agree is junk, and thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

We have for example, this misleading factoid restored,

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, including an enormous vocabulary of approximately 29,000 words.

And apparently my perfectly neutral correction, which adjust this to a more refined state of the art details, has been cancelled as contributive of edit-warring, i.e.

Anti-stratfordians believe that Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the extensive education evidenced in the works, that he could not have gained the wide learning attested in the plays, nor mastered the extensive vocabulary exhibited by the texts, variously calculated, according to different criteria, as ranging between 17,500 to 29,066 words.

Worse, and you should have noticed this when simply reverting my work, both you, and other reverters, and now Ssilvers, have thrown out material that is taken from the sceptical doubter side of the equation. Such as this, which surely no 'authorship doubter' would challenge. I.e.

Other doubters, using precisely the same material, argue that the allusion shows Sir Henry Neville to be the real Shakespeare.

I'm an old man. I haven't time to waste on edit wars. I dislike hard work being wiped out indiscriminately. I'd have been quite happy to work with people ready to review my contributions edit by edit, even excorporate what they found challengeable and copy it here for discussion, which is what you should have done with the few bits in the lead you disliked instead of restarting the battle. But I'm afraid I'm not up to it, to have the careful results of several decades of reading, and 4 in retirement helping out on wiki, wiped out, patchily restored, partially elided, semi-reverted, till I can't work out what's going on. This is not about the lead, and wiki editing works on a long time-scale.

I'd appreciate one more goodwill gesture. Revert to my last edit version, then cut and paste the bits, because I don't think there are many, you take personal exception to, and paste them into a new section here. That is the way it should have been done. I haven't edit-warred at all, and the last and only second time I broke 3RR was in Otober 2007. I ask this, not because I think 'my version' should prevail, but because it was an integral series of edits that can justly be challenged in specific points, but not rendered unrecognizable as it has been by the edit-war which ensued.

Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you stick around. I agree with Old Moonraker that this page desperately needs a new vision. The edits made by Nishidani cut a Gordian knot of stalled, half-baked edits with well-supported scholarship and pointed teh article in a new direction that more closely resembles what Wikipedia policy calls for. I propose a moratorium on edits to this page by Smatprt and myself for a month. After that, we could join in the fray if we wish, but he and I are only contributing to the problem by engaging in an endless feud that guarantees an insipid encyclopedia article. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting in on restoring the non-controversial edits now. I agree the cut and paste can be tedious so I'll just tack them one at a time. I'll leave the lead as it is until the current discussion (which only began yesterday) has the chance to gain some sort of consensus. It may never happen, but at least we can give it a shot.Smatprt (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not do as he asks and revert the entire set of edits and then replace the lede with the current one? That seems to me it would be easier, and then you can identify the changes you think needs discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, my understanding is that Shakespeare only has this humongous vocabulary if you count "do," "doing," "done," "did" as separate words, and "wing," "winged" "eagle," "eagle-winged" as separate also. Is "read" one word or two? What about "murther" and "murder?" "Showest" and "show'st?" With 27,505 distinct spellings in the canon (29,066 counting proper names), it would seem that all this would have been worked out long ago, but for some reason it hasn't been. Counting only lemmas, Shakespeare's vocabulary shrinks to about 18,000, or around 16,400 leaving out proper names.

Most estimates say that the average person knows (or at least can recognize) around 100,000 words. Nobody is saying we use that many words every day, nor does anybody I know think Shakespeare used the same number of words in his everyday speech. Poetry and drama are, after all, elevated speech that calls for more than the ordinary daily vocabulary. The few people I've talked to who are knowledgable about Milton tell me that if you tally up the words from Milton's prose works (which has never been done as far as I know), his vocabulary would be larger than Shakespeare's, but I'm not an expert.

I was going to get to this eventually. Nishidani is right when he excoriates anti-Stratfordian claims. Most of them are wrenched out of context and cooked up from rumors, half-truths and outright lies. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A great scholar, a rare breed of man, and doyen of Holocaust studies, Raul Hilberg, once remarked that one should not be disconcerted by holocaust-deniers to the point of calling for repressing them, or censorship. Occasionally, their otherwise wholly unacceptable views, hyperfocused on all sorts of out of the way data and material, can bring up details, problems, that make the professional scholar think harder. There is very little in the 'Oxfordian' tradition that makes one think harder, but occasionally their obsessive researchs do turn up useful ideas or stuff. Alan Nelson, de Vere's 'orthodox' biographer, found the discovery of an annotation in a copy of William Camden’s Britannia by the Oxfordian neurologist Dr Paul Altrocchi of great value, since it qualified Shakespeare of Stratford as a great actor in the view of his wealthy neighbours, and not the one-dimensional Stratford businessman of myth. So, while I think most of this material is outlandish, that doesn't stop me from keeping an open mind. It just worries me that people read the greatest writer in English for clues to who he might have been, and not as a vademecum for understanding who they, or we are, which is the proper end of the art of reading.

As to Milton, I read four decades ago that the range of his English vocabulary was of the order of 17,000 words. Can't recall the source, only the seat in the library where I read the page. I won't edit till things cool down here, and I see real commitment to improving what is a scandalously poor page. Consensus is fine, but if it is based on wikilawyering, rather than an achieved and reciprocal awareness of what constitutes the basis for evidence, and method, it only produces a mishmash that no one is happy with.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

'restoring the non-controversial edits'. I hope you are aware that 'controversy' in standard usage implies that any group from several people to a public disagree about something. As far as I can see, you alone found what I wrote 'controversial', by which you mean, you disagreed with my edits. Disagreeing with another person does not mean that what that person wrote or said is 'controversial'. All of the anti-Stratford material is, by definition, 'controversial', dear Smatprt, since it deals in unorthodox fringe theories and interpretations. The material and sources I cited, or the summaries I gave from the world of scholarship, are not (though even there controversy abounds, but not on this theory). I mean no offence, but Shakespeare, whoever he was, was like the fellow in Thomas Hardy's Afterwards, who 'used to notice such things' in the exquisite delicacies and unintended slips of implication. We read him to learn to care for the nuances of what we say. One doesn't, here, use 'controversial' as a synonym for 'what I personally find unacceptable'.Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Notes on Method

I.Since there is much evidence of poor or distorting paraphrasing, and sourcing that doesn’t back up what the text asserts, I agree with Tom’s recent edit asking for precise page numbers to cited books. Not to follow this convention is to constrain other editors to read a book just to find one attributed remark from it.

II.Irrespective of the ideological divide, there is a question of style. The page is poorly written.

The overarching error consists in the creation of a generic rubric ‘authorship doubters’ (13 times), or ‘Anti-Stratfordians’ (43) times to form the subject of many sentences that then are sourced to one individual author. The impression given is that ‘authorship doubters’ are a collective, sharing a similar perspective, outlook, method and ideology. Since there are to date 56 distinct candidates for the ‘anti-Stratfordian’ author in the hypothesis, and since a large number of these writers dispute not only with orthodox scholarship but among themselves, it is sheer deception to write in language that would have the reader assume they share similar views, or that the there are not deep rifts among anti-Stratfordians. As it stands, the false impression is contrived that there is only a 'Stratfordian'-'Anti-Stratfordian divide. In illustration, Rubinstein, who supports the candidacy of Sir Henry Neville (Brenda James, W. D. Rubinstein, The truth will out: unmasking the real Shakespeare, Pearson Education, 2005), writes that

‘The reluctance of academics in English Literature seriously to consider the possibility that anyone other than William Shakespeare actually wrote the works attributed to him is enormously compounded by the naïve nature of most anti-Stratfordian material by obvious amateur authors, which is often badly written and /or poorly researched. No one can read widely in the anti-Stratfordian corpus, either that from the past or the present, without concluding that many of the theories advanced would not survive close scrutiny’ (William D. Rubinstein, Shadow pasts: history's mysteries, Pearson Education, 2007 (see on Shakespeare ch.4 pp69-100),p.82.

I.e. here you have an anti-Stratfordian who refuses to be categorized simply as one, but wishes to cut out his own position as a distinct one, methodologically and in terms of theory. I come back to Tom's point: all positions should be referred to the authors in the citations, and not to some generic 'anti-Stratfordians'.

Unless we can agree on principles like this there is little point in editing. I have several others, but in the meantime await input on this issue.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the same should go for Stratfordian positions as well. When Tom says "all positions", I hope this applies to the whole article. Just count the "orthodox scholars" and "mainstream scholars" and you see the same problem. It's not as if there isn't major disagreement about most issues within mainstream camps as well. From dating to sources, everything seems to have adherents and detractors. Yes? Smatprt (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course giving exact page numbers is a requirement of citation that cannot be ignored.

I don't think we're going to get away from the poor writing, because it is a byproduct of poor thinking, which condition could almost define the topic.

I suggest that a new section be started, one that outlines the objections to the anti-Stratfordian methodology instead of trying to introduce them inline as you did with your edits. It should follow "Criticism of mainstream view" and point out the reasons why academics reject those arguments. I think that would be more useful than a point-by-point refutation, which is largely a waste of time, since more points are always forthcoming. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have sincere doubts that, given the history here, such a section could be written from a neutral point of view and not be "overtly harsh". But if it could be, it might solve some of the other problems. Smatprt (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an important distinction between 'overtly' and 'overly' which your remarks confuse.

You are quoting WP:fringe out of context, the statement about 'overly harsh’ (not as you write ‘overtly’ harsh) words refers to the language an editor uses in describing a fringe subject, not to what can and cannot be culled from the best RS concerning those fringe sources.

Actually, the whole tradition of anti-Stratford theorizing is full of contemptuous language, yokel, hick, illiterate, low-born. The whole tradition is based on the snobbish premise that poor people denied a university education, can rise to rank among the great authors of literature, which itself is a bizarre and cranky notion denied by numerous examples in world literature (see below)

I suggest citing both Schoenbaum for the orthodox view and Rubenstein, who opts for Sir Henry Neville, and therefore is an anti-Stratfordian, for the same opinion, put more euphemistically:

‘The reluctance of academics in English Literature seriously to consider the possibility that anyone other than William Shakespeare actually wrote the works attributed to him is enormously compounded by the naïve nature of most anti-Stratfordian material by obvious amateur authors, which is often badly written and /or poorly researched. No one can read widely in the anti-Stratfordian corpus, either that from the past or the present, without concluding that many of the theories advanced would not survive close scrutiny’ William D. Rubinstein, Shadow pasts: history's mysteries, Pearson Education, 2007 p.82

Well, this can head the new section, since the authority is impeccable. I know it was removed from the lead, but it has to go somewhere.

'The vast majority of Shakespearean scholars, referred to as "Stratfordians" by their adversaries, pay little if any attention to the topic and are dismissive of anti-Stratfordian theorizing, which Samuel Schoenbaum, the former doyen of Shakespearean biographers, once defined as the work of 'amateurs', 'eccentrics', 'cranks' and 'heretics, alert to conspiracies'.

Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose adding this as it would certainly be defined as "overtly harsh criticism", and as such would be against policy as stated previously. Aslo - and I may recall incorrectly, but isn't this taking Schoenbaum out of context. If I recall correctly, he once thought this, but then loosened up a bit. Regardless, those kinds of quotes should not be used any more than Ogburn's stuff about yokels. Constantly attacking the anti-strat researchers is not the way to make this article better. Why would you think it would?Smatprt (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(3) The History of Authorship doubts is methodologically fraudulent. This section must write the history in chronological order, from Joseph C.Hart (1848) and Delia Bacon (1856) onwards to outline the rise of doubt, down to our day, touching on the main theorizers, Looney, Ogburn and co.

Then, a second paragraph must deal with the hypothesis that doubts existed, though they are not extant or documented, in the Elizabethan period itself. Diana Price's theory, and others

As it is written, recent hypotheses are made to look like retrospective facts, backdating a modern fringe theory to make out it was in fact entertained before it was even thought of four centuries ago, which destroys all chronology, or rather upends it.Nishidani (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the history section needs work (I believe Tom had actually laid claim to it, saying he was the only one who knew the history). But I disagree about breaking the chronology. Early doubts (or those interpreted as such) should start the section - as long as it is clear that they were interpretive, then moving on to the 1800's etc. It would make no sense to start in the 1800's, move into the present, than go back to the 16th century. Smatprt (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you are completely confused. There are 'no early doubts', as even the anti-Stratfordian historians admit. There are modern hypotheses about the possible existence of early doubts, extremely flimsy, yet no doubt a part of the record. The error you are making is called hysteron proteron, or putting the cart before the horse. For Chrissake, this is high school level compositional method (or when schooling was serious, was).Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User Nishidani: "there are no 'early doubts.'" And you know this because?

"extremely flimsy." Please cite an example.

Better yet let's take, for instance, the recent article published in Brief Chronicles by Detobel and Ligon on Francis Meres. I assume you know about this publication. If not, you can find it by googling.

Please read this article, which suggests that Meres knew full well that Oxford was Shakespeare, and designed his commentary to communicate this knowledge. Please then explain if you still think that all the examples of claims of early doubts are "extremely flimsy," operationalising your terminology so that we can understand what, to you, constitutes "extremely flimsy" and realize that it does apply to the claims in question put forward by Detobel and Ligon. Please do not attack the authors of the article personally. If you do, it will be credited as an instance of your inability to abide by simple protocols of respectful debate. No, those principles are not suspended just because you have contempt for the other side. Please note that in order to accomplish this objective, you will need to read and understand the article. This is not High School level stuff. This is graduate school.

The history section does need lots of work. Its a pity we can't get Warren Hope to write it, as he is the most qualified person alive to do so. --BenJonson (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We all know that anti-Stratfordians will find "evidence" of doubt all over the place. But that is exclusively a view within the fringe theory. We cannot present that as a history of "doubt", since it is a purely "in universe" history and there is no evidence whatever of any public debate on this, just of supposed "allusions" that were never openly asserted or recognised at the time. As far as public debate goes this is reliably recorded from the mid-nineteenth century. That's when people actually say directly that someone else might have written the works. We simply record that fact and then note that later anti-Stratfordians argued that writers from earlier dates had expressed their doubts in less explicit manner. That fairly describes the situation. Paul B (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)