Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 17

Merge discussions restored from archive for reference

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I challenge your authority and grounds for making this decision. Your simultaneous archiving of the page and closing discussion reflects the need to stifle debate and enforce a false "consensus.' Wikipedia advertises a policy of consensus. There is no consensus here for your proposed action. In fact, a majority of commentators have on various credible grounds opposed the merger. Their arguments have not been answered. Academic sanction is not the only grounds for notability. --BenJonson (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:ANI#Shakespearian fringe theory and some awful articles I've added a merge template. In view of the consensus of experience editors ther, I suggest that the merger be expedited.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Obviously, one article on the fringe theory that WS did not author his own plays is enough. Anything else fails WP:UNDUE. --Crusio (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support These articles have been nothing but promotional pieces for a long time, and any attempt to balance them results in a violent response by the adherents of the fringe beliefs, who guard them jealously from any outside influence . Tom Reedy (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As the original author of the current entry on Marlovian theory, I reject this. I have watched patiently while various "balance" enthusiasts trampled all over it and said not a word. My original intention was not to "sell" the theory, but to present enough information to allow people to decide if they wanted to know more, and to give them guidance as to how they might do so. Peter Farey 86.29.85.121 (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support with one proviso. We need a general overview, which is this page, where all theories are surveyed, and I think one article on the de Verean variation, merging Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship and Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays. Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment -- This sounds awfully close to a vote for oppose. Just sayin'! Fotoguzzi (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UNDUE. Would even support outright deletion of the Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays page. Nsk92 (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Baconian_theory has achieved Good Article stuatus. The Oxfordian article follows the same exact format. And, after all, isn't Wikipedia supposed to represent "all" human knowledge? There are several notable theories and they should each have their own article.Smatprt (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, every detail of human knowledge cannot and should not be recorded by Wikipedia. Look at the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories page, which is about half the size of this page. It doesn't go into great detail of each major individual theory, but summarises them sufficiently without the back-and-forth debate style evident on this page (which is discouraged by Wikipedia, as I have been trying to tell you for months). How the Baconian page achieved GA status is beyond me, but I know that if you hadn't been forcibly restrained by being blocked several times during the procedure to improve the William Shakespeare article it never would have achieved FA status. I've said before that if Nishidani, Paul Barlow, I and a few others were left alone we could have this article at FA status in less than a month, but most of our time has been spent having to argue with you and BenJonson.

I will try to begin arguing my defense to your charges sometime later today or tomorrow. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"In a 2004 interview with Slashdot, Wales outlined his vision for Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." This is also repeated in the main article on Wikipedia itself. Smatprt (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Our definitions of what constitutes "knowledge" obviously diverge. It's not the same as "information". Tom Reedy (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Per UNDUE and FRINGE. More effort seems to have gone into this fringe theory than on Shakespeare himself, which I see is a great shame, the weight this is given is detrimental to Wikipedia itself. Rehevkor ✉ 15:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The great thing about Wikipedia is that it leaves the door open to the kind of discourse that is simply not available anywhere else. Why try to shut that door too? There's a truth to be found in this discussion, and who knows from what argument or fact posted here the final agreement will come. User: methinx —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC).
• Strong support the merge is required so as not to give undue prominence to this fringe theory, per the ANI discussion. The other points raised by ANI (such as use of fringe terminology and fringe sources) also need to be addressed. Verbal chat 16:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, though I very much hope that the resulting article will be a lot shorter than the present one, rather than (as I fear) a lot longer. --GuillaumeTell 16:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - One article cannot possibly do justice to the overall authorship issue, including the history of doubts about the Stratford man and a review of relevant evidence pro and con, plus the same for each of the major candidates. Schoenbaum (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - This article is already over 95K and exceeds the recommendations on length. Merging more information into it seems like a bad idea. As it stands now, it needs to be split as per wp:SPLITTING, as discussed (at length) above. Why the new editors refuse to split the article is another question that should be addressed.Smatprt (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The Marlovian argument does not have the same basis as other anti-Stratfordian theories, and simply cannot be adequately presented within a portmanteau entry. For example, our case case relies hardly at all upon either the supposed inadequacy of William Shakespeare or the strange belief that the characters and story-lines of the plays can tell us anything really significant about the authorship. Peter Farey 86.29.85.121 (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - Why is it that if people disagree with something here, they do their best to hide it or get rid of it altogether? It seems to me that to do so with The Oxfordian Authorship page by conflating it with the Shakespeare Authorship Question page is simply an attempt to marginalize it and its implications for Shakespearean studies. Mizelmouse (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. You can't marginalize what is marginal. (b)No one is getting rid of anything. To the contrary, there is a request that de Verean aficionados limit their efforts at using Wikipedia to promote a fringe idea to one, at most two pages. Since those who subscribe to the theory are dismissive of mainstream scholarship, which is what wikipedia is supposed to be sourced to, too many pages of this stuff, using unorthodox, fringe methods of speculation, tests the tolerance of the encyclopedia, which aims for quality, not titivated spam.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Titivated spam"?? Must you always be so insulting? And another ad hominem generalization (those who subscribe...are dismissive...) without any data to support it? Will you ever stop this incivility? Smatprt (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For the love of God, Montresor! Is there any way you could refrain from these "leave Britney alone" outbursts until this discussion is over? Tom Reedy (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it seems like you could take your own medicine, Tom. It takes two to edit war. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

One hesitates to explain a joke, M. Ghost, but I assure you this one is almost Shakespearean in masterfully-integrated richly-layered literary and pop culture allusions. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Dear Nishidani, 1. I think you misunderstood me. I was not talking of the marginal quality of the different Shakespeare authorship theories, nor do I wish to at present. I was speaking of the possible marginalization of the page if it is conflated with The Shakespeare Authorship Question page. It cannot be done without substantial cutting. 2. Contrary to your remark, those of us who publish in mainstream scholarly jounals often use mainstream scholarship while doing so. If we Oxfordians used "fringe methods of speculation," I do not doubt these journals would not publish us. My partner and I have been published by such journals as Critical Survey, Notes and Queries, Review of English Studies, Shakespeare Yearbook (forthcoming), Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature, Cahiers Elisabethans etc.. Good heavens, I’ve even cited Mr. Tom Reedy in one of our papers. It would be interesting to know where you’ve been published with regard to Shakespeare Scholarship.Mizelmouse (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, give me a list of your publications. From your page it does not appear that you have invested any significant time in writing articles for this encyclopedia. When I say 'fringe methods of speculation' I am paraphrasing several academic sources. I repeat the phrase because the methods used by 'Oxfordian' editors here are exceptionally irrational.Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Dear Nishidani, I believe I said it would be interesting to see where you've been published. You haven't graced me with an answer, so why would I grace you with one? And no, I've invested no time at all in writing articles on Wiki, because it appears to me as I've told several people here--both Oxfordian and Stratfordian--that controversial subjects occasion much argument and ire as they shift and change like tectonic plates. Some material disappears entirely. I prefer the writing I do to stay put. Perhaps you could tell me which academic sources consider that Oxfordians are using "fringe methods of speculation," and what their sources are for such comments? Thanks very much. Mizelmouse (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. 'I prefer the writing I do to stay put.' The allusion to the Horatian Exegi monumentum aere perennius is well-taken. I look forward to the vast scholarship that will gloss your poems, when, if they have not already, entered the Can(n)on.

Comment Thank you. I look forward to it also.

Shakespeare was of a different temper: he wrote for his fellows, and cared not a jot for the aftermath, nor for their precise conservation.

You seem to have a plethora of information regarding Shakespeare's motives for writing. Could you source this statement, please?

Some of us prefer to use our wits for the public good, and not for our own vanity.

Since you haven't published anything on Shakespeare, as you admit below, you can't be said to be using your wits for the public good, at least in that arena.

As to 'partner', I always hear the word with a resonance of that lilt familiar to those who watch classical Westerns.

How interesting. Of course, what you say has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Good luck, and yes, I'm published, but not on Shakespeare. On Shakespeare I merely follow what people who actually trouble themselves to master classical and several European languages, in addition to Elizabethan and Renaissance cultural history, write.

I see. You've never published anything on Shakespeare, but you feel qualified to excoriate those Oxfordians such as myself who have.

I don't take them at their word, of course. If I come across others who venture there without that grounding, I take them cum grano salis. There's too much to read to waste one's eyes on the scribblings of the lazy.Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I do agree. In fact my eyes are particularly bad today. So if you don't mind, Nishidani, I'll stop this discussion now. Mizelmouse (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - I'm not entirely sure how one could merge articles of the size under consideration into one that is already vastly oversized. Shakespeare authorship question is currently 148 kilobytes and has reached the size for which it should be split, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship is 90 kilobytes, Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays is 46 kilobytes long and Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford is 39 kilobytes long. Merging these articles would render an article too large to deal with the competing theories and treat them in a manner that incorporates all the content in a meaningful way. The theories are so disparate that they could not possibly receive equitable attention and would effectively render the article unmanageable. The proper way to deal with this much information is to have an overview article and sections within it that briefly summarize the various theories. That's already what you have here. It already is as it should be. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I agree this article is vastly oversized, but that's because the format is contrary to that recommended by Wikipedia policy and guidelines, which I have tried to discuss with the editors of this page, only to be met with accusations of censorship and POV pushing. This article should be a description, not a back-and-forth debate over the finer points of the individual authorship theories. It could be cut into half or less and still be comprehensive. And I'm not sure that such an article should incorporate "all the content in a meaningful way." The John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories page, which I've already referenced, is much more compact yet covers more different theories than the current three main alternative Shakespeare authorship theories. At the very least all the various Oxfordian theory articles should be merged. As it appears now, the prevailing rationale seems to be that giving undue weight to a theory with absolutely no positive evidence gives it more weight than otherwise. IOW, 0 + 0 + 0 > 0. That might be a good strategy for publicising your particular fringe theory, but that isn't the purpose of Wikipedia, nor should it be. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm inclined to agree with Nishidani's suggestion that there should be one separate article on the Oxfordian theory (not three), but I don't think that the material should be merged here. Given the voluminous information contained in those articles, it seems to me to be something which should remain split out. Dumping it all here would unbalance this article or else be so pared down as to give short shrift to this (admittedly alternative) theory. As for the WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE concerns, the measuring stick for both is the abundance (or lack thereof) of reliable sources. The articles as they stand have plenty of references. I haven't followed all the links, but those references which do not meet the reliable source standard should be edited out. If, after this has occurred, the resulting article is so small as to fit neatly into this article, then I could see the benefit of merging. But right now, the suggestion to merge seems more like an end-around of achieving consensus. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

References to fringe theories here are mainly to fringe books. The few references to mainstream scholarship fit the classic definition of WP:RS. The problem is, that WP:RS privileges quality academic publications, which however don't take most of the stuff thrown up by fringe speculators seriously. So one is constrained to document the meanderings of the 'theory' from its own, otherwise, unreliable sources, unreliable in that a huge amount of this material just gets the simplest matters wrong. This places wikipedian editors in a predicament. No one is opposed to this 'theory' being described. Those who embrace it should try at least to present a minimal quantity of material that is not farcical or risible. They don't. Potentially everything is crammed in, with no regard to quality. And secondly, the main editors for the doubter camp are all de Vereans, which means that the page is tilted to one of several dozen perspectives. This means, 'nolens volens' that those editors in here who favour the fantasy push the particular vein of scepticism, and alternative candidature, they embrace, and, in doing so, edit as spokesman for a sectarian perspective.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - The arguments to merge are based on a priori definition, not substance or reason. It is argued that by definition the Oxfordian theory is a "fringe theory" which deserves deletion through merger. The proposal is demonstrably flawed for at least two related reasons:

1) Proposers ignore the actual language of Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which clearly states even theories which are thought to be "fringe" can achieve notability and therefore deserve inclusion: "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." A Google search for the phrase "Oxfordian theory" (http://www.google.ca/search?q=oxfordian+theory&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) yields 67,300 hits. The first 47 pages (all that google provides on default search) concern with very few or no exceptions the topic which is proposed for deletion through merger. These sources include a major debate in Harpers magazine, and articles in such publications as The University of Tennessee Law Review, New Yorker, and The New York Times -- none of them, incidentally, "debunking" or disparaging the theory.

2) As mentioned by previous commentators, neither Baconian theory nor Marlovian theory have been nominated for merger. Yet it is obvious that a consistent application of the “fringe theory” definition would require identical treatment for all three pages, since they represent the three major alternative theories of authorship. By any credible standard of notability, moreover, the Oxfordian theory is the most notable (for at least the last 26, if not 89 years) of all three, having had far more public exposure than the two alternatives, and having a significantly wider following. Yet the Oxfordian page is the only one proposed for merger. Why is that? The double standard employed by supporters of the merger is painfully evident and must lead an authentically NPOV editor to wonder why there is so much heat about an article with is in the very precise sense of the term parallel with pages which are not likewise nominated for merger.

Finally, as Smarprt points out, the existing article is already over 95K and exceeds length recommendations. I therefore support his contrary move for wp:SPLITTING, as discussed (at length) above and wonder with him “why the new editors refuse to split the article” and instead propose the manifestly ad hoc and double standard solution of merger, with the inevitable loss of detail and specificity that will entail. --BenJonson (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed To merge entries on other claimants into the orthodox entry is sort of fraud. Are the partisans of the orthodox theory (it's also a theory) so terrified that they must use such tricks?

Fullstuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullstuff (talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment It should be noted for the record that this proposal to merge is in response to the report filed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_Topic_Ban_on_users_Tom_Reedy_and_Nishidani--BenJonson (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You should at least send them to the right page, Roger. And don't forget to scroll down and read the two other related complaints (same thing, really). The current request for comments is here. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – Although I have my reservations about Bill Bryson’s claim, I’ve been assured that by 2007 “The number of published books suggesting – or more often insisting – that his works were written by someone else is estimated now to be well over 5,000.” [1]. Assuming that fewer then 500 were written before 1907, that is an average of 50 such books per year for the last century. In comparison with about anyone else, every aspect of Shakespeare gets undue weight, but that goes for the real world as well as Wikipedia. Be it through market forces like positive feedback, or through a need for monocultural simplicity and hero worshipping, the stage sections of my local bookstores depressingly are 1/2 to 2/3 Shakespeare and as little as 1/3 everyone else. At any rate, to comply with wp:UNDUE and to acknowledge its minority standpoint, mention of the authorship question in the Shakespeare article is limited to 75 words and one link (to this article) only. Considering the "well over 5,000 books", excluding a considerable number of books written in rebuttal, I would say a few articles on the subject is not undue weight. Afasmit (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The number of articles on Hamlet alone in early 1970 was calculated at 25,000. Of the 5,000 books, how many survive the week they were published in? Of them, how many were ever cited in WP:RS sources? Tens of thousands of useless books are published every decade on the Bible for every book that has something intelligent, fresh and new to add to them. Not by that token do we think the relatively rare scholarly tome is somehow diminished in importance by the sheer weight of numbers of evangelical bible thumping or speculative fantasies about who the 'Jesus' who loves you was.Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. There's no reason whatsoever to even suggest merging (and hence decimating) these various articles, except that a few editors obviously want to censor the extensively researched and well-documented evidence in them. These deletion-minded editors are throwing about the extremely misleading term "fringe theory" to bolster their agenda, when in fact these extremely scholarly theories are not fringe at all, not even by Wikipedia standards. Now, could we please go back to NPOV, equal time, impartial data, and live-and-let-live -- which is what Wikipedia is all about? Wikipedia is not censored. Softlavender (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• • comment the above post by Softlavender contains a radical misstatement od policy. WP:NPOV does not state that we should give equal time to fringe theories. Rather it talks about giving WP:DUE weight according to the degree of support in the literature. The NYT survey whichfor some reason the "non-Stratfordians" like to quote contains results such as the following:

18. Which of the following best describes your opinion of the Shakespeare authorship question?

2% Has profound implications for the field

3 An exciting opportunity for scholarship

61 A theory without convincing evidence

32 A waste of time and classroom distraction

2 No opinion

This makes it pretty clear how Wikipedia should slant its articles on this collection fo fringe theories.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -- There is plenty of crappy scholarship on the Stratfordian and Oxfordian sides. I think wikipedia articles naturally start out crappy and get better. My reason for wishing to maintain separate articles for the claimants is that there are a lot of them and the article sizes should be different. Giving Henry Neville a paragraph and giving Edward DeVere a paragraph in a combined article would seem unreasonable if only because the Neville idea is so young. If the decoding cipher craze has waned, a Baconian authorship article might still become long to explain the history of the idea while a DeVere article might become long because scholars are coming at the problem from so many angles. To balance my first sentence, there is good research on both sides, too. I hope people aren't afraid of the wikipedia process that slowly improves the mediocre and discards the bad. Fotoguzzi (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - An article on the case for Oxford should be included, and multiple articles are needed to cover the topic adequately. neshge 16:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wember (talk • contribs)

• Support — we don't need separate articles on every bit of minutiae on fringe theories. *** Crotalus *** 17:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Finding a better way forward

It seems that this proposal has caused a wide division among editors and we may be at an impass. While I agree that the current state of the articles is less than ideal, I am not sure deletion and merger is the correct solution. In my opinion, there has been enough scholarly writing on the various theories relating to the Shakespear authorship question (even if only to discredit such theories) to make it impossible to adequately cover the topic in one article due to size limitations. However, I do think three seperate articles on the Oxford theory is undo weight and that theory could be adequately covered in one article. On the other hand, the various fringe articles are themselves written in a back-and-forth debate style which in my opinion is unencyclopedic and detrimental to achieving a neutral article. Further, these articles are plagued by editors who have major ownership issues.

So how do we find a way forward? I propose that to start it would be best to at least merge the various Oxford-theory articles together. After that, a re-write of the individual theory articles could be tackled which would replace the debate style with a more appropriate approach. Some admins should probably be appointed to oversee the revisions to prevent any ownership problems from getting in the way. I know this compromise probably won't make either side happy, but such is the nature of compromises.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a reasonable approach. But I would like to clarify one thing that seems to be a mischaracterization: As mentioned in the ANI t/hread that started this whole thing "Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays and Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford" are at issue. However, while the first two are certainly about the theory (the "Parallels" article having been split off from the parent article due to length), the third article mentioned, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, is primarily a standard biography of Oxford, who was the Lord High Chamberlain of England and potential heir to the crown. Like Sir Francis Bacon, the man himself (regardless of the authorship issue) led a notable life. I think all would agree that it should remain a stand-alone article - with the caveat that the section within, that addresses the Authorship issue, can and should be cut down to a shorter summary, with a link to the Oxfordian Theory article.

Regarding the two theory articles though, I, for one, would agree to the suggested compromise to re-merge these two, and would be happy to contribute to that effort by cutting down on the numerous examples of "parallels" to the ones that most readers would find noteworthy. And I completely agree that admin oversight is a good thing for those, as well as the main Authorship article where we are now. Smatprt (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smatprt and strongly oppose the merger of articles being discussed. A short while ago I posted my concern that the debate style is inappropriate and offensively biased to anyone who simply wants accurate information. I suggested that the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on the authorship question could serve as a model of simple objectivity. It does not regard the authorship question as a "fringe theory" so why can't Wikipedia be equally respectful of the issue? As one who has relied on Wikipedia for accurate and self-correcting of outdated information, I am appalled at the argumentative and hostile criticism of what should be considered a cutting-edge kind of scholarship. Alexpope (talk)Alexpope —Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC).

• comment. The problem is accurate information. I've wasted a montyh trying to weed out the inaccuracies of disinformation, and all I get is protests about being 'hostile'. To repeat, the Enc Brit article is written by a competent scholar. Wikipedia is written by anyone, and many anyones who are enamoured of a fringe theory. By all means take it as a guide to neutral writing. Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• • comment Alexpope, could you be so kind as to quote some samples from the Britannica article, which I do not have readily available, which illustrate the moderate NPOV which you are suggesting should be a model for the article?--BenJonson (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I, too, agree with Smatprt and strongly opposethe merger. The Oxfordian theory is not a 'fringe' theory. It is researched and supported by a number of professors at universities. It is discussed in books from mainstream publishers and major magazines and journals. James Shapiro, a respected Shakespeare scholar at Columbia University, takes it seriously. He has written a book on the controversy wherein he states that he takes very seriously the fact that writers and thinkers he respects have doubted the traditional identity of the poet-dramatist.Wysiwyget (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

He takes the fact that they believed it seriously; the theory he calls "groundless" and characterizes one anti-Stratfordian performance as "a vision of a world in which a collective comfort with conspiracy theory, spurious history, and construing fiction as autobiographical fact had passed a new threshold." Tom Reedy (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"He takes the fact that they believed it seriously"; good idea, and grounds for notability, which I think was Wysiweget's point. But a Wikipedia article is not written by a single professor, especially one as poorly informed and highly selective in his presentation of relevant facts as Professor Shapiro is.--BenJonson (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's nowhere as near informed as you are, as I'm sure he's aware. His publication history pales in comparison with yours. I don't know how he ever screwed up the audacity to write a book about it. Maybe he was encouraged by reading your comprehensive and authoritative work on the subject.

Oh, wait a minute . . . Tom Reedy (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If 4meter4's suggestion is accepted (and I think it would be a good compromise, at least for the Oxfordian articles), there are actually four Oxfordian articles that should be merged: Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian, Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays, and Prince Tudor theory. I agree with Smatprt that the biography article, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, should be a stand-alone article. However, as it is written it is obviously slanted to promote the Oxfordian theory of authorship, and it is heavily dependent on Oxfordian sources, which are not RS, and OR. Who in their right mind would want to spend the time to cleanse the stables and oversee bringing it up to Wikipedia standards? Life is too short. And we haven't even brought up, much less discussed, all the Oxfordian propaganda sprinkled through every conveivable Shakespeare-related article, such as The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet and Francis Meres.

And we're still left to determine what to do with this article and History of the Shakespeare authorship question, which should be merged. there is no doubt, if there ever was, that this article needs to be overseen by a harsh administrator to wring the water out of it. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I might add, in addition to Tom's point, that the de Vereans here seem committed to pushing the theory, but singularly indifferent to editing pages related to it, which would benefit the Encyclopedia, but do not help them, apparently, in promoting their ideas, since it is so much encyclopedic background.

(1)There is almost nothing of note about J. Thomas Looney. Until I edited the facts in the other day, the page hadn’t even noted his birth and death dates.

(2)There is no biography of Charlton Ogburn Sr. who popularized Looney’s ideas. Someone had the clever idea of confusing him with his son, since (see (3)

(3) If you pump in Charlton Ogburn, you don't get the father, but the son, which is certainly an abuse of policy. The biography of his son Charlton Ogburn Jr., who just expanded his father's fantasies, is used again to repeat the blobs, yet no one has cared to actually research and write his life up independently of his de Verean piece of fiction, far inferior to the novel he wrote.

(4) Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, which one should think would have been a showcase for the trenchant historical erudition of de Vereans, is mainly farcical. For

(4a) Alan H.Nelson's Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, (2003), is the standard modern academic biography and yet gets just 3 references out of 69, mostly on trivia.

(4b)The articles sources frequently invoke obscure archival primary documents, against the rules, which suggests either that the editor is using wikipedia for his own research, or citing archives through secondary sources he does not mention, which is again a violation of wiki editing rules.

(4c) It uses Charles Ogburn as a secondary source whereas, since we have two mainstream biographies at least (by Ward and Nelson) Ogburn’s book should not be sourced (Nelson, the standard source, says it has nothing useful to add by way of documentation, if I recall his preface correctly)

(4d) It uses many sources from Oxfordian journals, or people like Nina Green and Stephanie Hughes, who aren't reliable.

In short, were people like Smatprt, Schoenbaum and Benjonson committed to Wikipedia, they would like the rest of many of us, be working to ensure far more articles, outside of the narrow area of Oxfordian 'theory', met Wikipedian standards. It is quite astonishing that bios of the leading theorists languish in neglect, (while bios of people who had nothing to do with de Vere or the theory of his authorship get smacked with this nonsense). Is it because that's far less sexy, and involves more serious work, than the controversies aroused by editing for the theory itself? It is an argument from silence, of course, but arguments from silence is virtually what de Verean theory is based on.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

With all that's been learned by the veteran editors here, why not start over with the goal of a short article on The Shakespeare Authorship Question that two editors could work on offline. Not sure that this follows Wiki procedures, but the current page (and these discussions) seem to verge on the unmanageable. The short article of course would have links to the other pertinent articles on Shakespeare, Oxford, Marlowe, etc. Just an idea.Wysiwyget (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed by the number of people who don't do some work to edit these articles, yet say they should be conserved all of a sudden. If you believe they are important, improve them. Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DISGUSTING

This whole article wildy slanted in favor of the traditional view. It is full or exaggerations and outright falsehoods. It's one gigantic smokescreen to discredit the leading alternative theory that Edward de Vere wrote the Shakespearean plays. It's not neutral, and it's not fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.11.4 (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved

Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2 this here as it is by far a better version then what was here per wp:bold mark nutley (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The candidate sections are not yet finished and the cites need to be checked. There are a few issues in other places, also, but those can be fixed in good time. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Can`t it be done here? If not feel free to revert me mark nutley (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I just wanted to let people know where the work needs doing in case they wanted to pitch in. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of reversion

Look, Smatprt, I'm trying to edit this page. I and several others have already made edits and reverting back to the old, non-consensual version is not productive. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd add this, that the reversion was peculiar, because, for the third time, Smatprt, you have edited out or blanketed my comments. Two of these occurred today, while a complaint precisely about this is being discussed. In this edit I provided a good source for the private email Tom Reedy had used, which was rightly questioned by NT.

In this edit I removed a section critical of Marlowe to the Marlovian theory page, as had been done for all other candidates.

That left a redirect to the Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2, which effectively lacks not only those two changes, but also all of the work done by Tom and the administrator NW, who in the meantime had cleaned up the bibliography. If your reverted old and not 'consensual' version stuck, it would have therefore expunged the interim work of three editors, since anyone looking at the linked sandbox 2 page would find no trace of it. I don't think we want another edit war over this, and I refuse to be dragged into one. Please note that the version you restored is the version no one agreed on, and which we were formally directed to replace. After 6 months, the only page of the 3 sandboxes which meets the terms of that remit happens to be the present one. Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This could be viewed as gaming the system. Simply copy your edits into your draft, and return to the agreed process. No version has received community comment. That is what we agreed to.Smatprt (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can revert pages and post on the talk page you can certainly join the AN/I discussion here. This page is undergoing scrutiny and being edited by more editors than Nishidani and me. Both Sandbox 1 and Sandbox 2 were assessed by outside uninvolved editors, who made the change. As you say, if it's decided to go back to the old version it's still there waiting. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Sandbox 1 or 2 were "assessed by outside uninvolved editors". Please provide diffs to the comments that back up your assertion. Smatprt (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no gaming of the system. I woke up, and found the old disputed page had been replaced by outside editors I have no acquaintence with, one of them an admin who had also commented on the AN/1 dispute discussing your behaviour in reverting me. I proceeded to work on that, and then had trouble finding my edits when you made your revert.

I think the evidence is that, if neutral eyes review (a) SAQ (the old page), and the three sandbox versions (b) SAQ1, with just 60 odd tweaks since we left it in your hands, remaining basically a trimmed copy of SAQ,(c) SAQ 2 (over 1200 edits in revision), (d) and SAQ3 (a monster merger of all bad pages, with no substantial edits), they will find that only one, SAQ2, had had any work done on it, the other three which you stewarded left more or less the contentious and unworkable page in the mess that caused the merger decision. It seems eminently logical to conclude that Tom and I fulfilled our side of the remit, while you haven't, and therefore the interim choice to place it as the default wiki Shakespeare Authorship Question page was eminently logical, esp. since it is the only version formatted, sourced and written according to all the criteria of articles aspiring to go to GA and then FA review. Thyere still much work to be done, but nowhere near the immensa moles that would attend editors were they to return to the troubled pastiches of SAQ, SAQ1, and SAQ3, all of which you superintended.

The 'agreed process' does not consist in never editing towards that end, hanging round for endless review, AN/I disputes, quarrels, appeals to ARBCOM, and dithering for several years, as has happened in the past. These bureaucratic Jardyce vs Jardyce procedures are all very well, but the goal of all of them is to secure reliable, WP:NPOV articles for a global readership, not to provide that readership with a spectacle of endless pettifogging litigation over procedural minutiae in what might well appear to be a WP:CRUSH gambit. Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead/lede

I've made a few small changes which I hope won't be controversial. I'm a bit dubious about the way that the "argument" in the first para turns into an "idea". Also, in the third para, the second sentence is pretty much a rather over-egging repetition of the first. How about removing the second sentence and just adding refs 6 and 7 to ref 5? --GuillaumeTell 18:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, as far as I'm concerned. At this stage the page needs all the help from outside hands (outside relatively in many cases) esp. for copy-editing and formatting since Tom and I are pretty exhausted by this long haul, and overfamiliarity with one's own work leads to blindness, often, for the obvious oversights. I think there's quite a bit of repetition in the lead which was calibrated to reflect, and overcome a long history of edit conflicts representing not a satisfactory compromise, but a set of survival solutions. Suggestions for tightening, and paring down to the bone, mindful of the POV balance (always however with mainstream vs fringe WP:Undue considerations in mind) would be most welcome. Severity according to the most stringent review protocols and general standards is what editors are asking for. Thanks everyone.Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WT. There may be a slight problem in trimming down, removing flab, while retaining the refs, which support that flenched flab! I think if the refs are to be retained (even if provisorily) the best strategy would be to précis the blubber down to baconian rashers that still reflect the sources? I'll give an example in a minute.Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(a)Nearly all academic scholars accept that William Shakespeare was the primary author (of the canon),(Nelson, Carroll) 15 words = Virtual unanimity exists that Shakespeare was the primary author of the canon. (Nelson, Carroll) 9/12 words.

(b)and they deny the validity of the various alternative authorship theories almost unanimously.(Gibson)13 words = and they concur that these alternative proposals are invalid (Gibson)9 words.

Not much flensing, true. But behind that primary of primary author of the canon Tom had in mind recent attribution studies, which are bringing out the cooperative character in several of Shakespeare's works. Since stylometrics are showing two or three hands at work in quite a few plays, the whole unitarian idea of a single concealed author falls to pieces, and, since some of the plays written collaboratively postdate Oxford's death, it means for Oxfordians that deVere must have risen from the grave to ghostwrite stuff with Fletcher, whose Jacobean floruit is too late for de Vere's influence. Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have had a go at boldly scrambling the lead, reducing the (originally too-short) paragraphs from six to four (see WP:LEAD: four is the maximum). All footnotes are intact. What do you think? Please take a look and improve or revert, everybody. (Well, not strictly everybody...) I have some points of detail also; I'll list those here later. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

Looks good to me, 美少年. Phew, what a relief. Thorough active review by several exxperienced hands is just what the doctor ordered to relieve the indigestion. Thanks everyone.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, I see you changed my unpacking of the Bardolatry easter egg here, making it shorter and better. Cool. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

By the way, the lead section can be edited without opening the whole page. This is how. Bishonen | talk 13:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

Oxford sub-heading

There's a "Historical" sub-heading in Shakespeare_authorship_question#Edward_de_Vere.2C_17th_Earl_of_Oxford which has no text. Is this waiting for someone to put something in (I am not qualified to do so) or an accident which needs deleting? --GuillaumeTell 16:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom?Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The candidate sections aren't finished by any means and any additions are welcome. I haven't even begun the Marlowe section. I think the historical is going to end up being the same as the biographical in that particular section. My method is to begin with a rough outline to give it some structure, research and add information, reorganise the section to fit the actual material, and finally cut it down to the bone. Tedious but thorough. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, and may we hope that each of the main candidates will be given equal space in this article ?

Tough cookie! One of the original objections was that the whole candidate issue was written from an Oxfordian POV. That's been adjusted, but the question of candidacy balance remains. One tries to keep WP:Recentism in mind, but the sheer volume of Oxfordian productions since the 1920s, compared to other candidates, makes that difficult, though the case for him is no more solid than for the others, (Marlowe's case is, I think, stronger actually! if only because he was an astonishing writer, and WS's contemporary. DeVere's poetry is pre-Shakespearean/and pre-Marlovian). Giving equal space would mean trimming down Oxford, which might look like prejudice. We haven't even Edward Dyer, on whom a very lengthy book was written by Alden Brooks. One could write most of the content from a Baconian perspective, which had several hundred volumes to its (dis)credit, but there ain't many secondary sources on this, or on Dyer, or Stanley, and there lies the rub on 'equal space'. To do that you either cut down de Vere's profile to the bone, or fleshen out the others by primary source quotation, i.e. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations in the wings.Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oxford is the candidate with the most support; Marlowe has the second-most support, followed by Bacon and Derby, both who are almost dead in the water. My thought is that the coverage should be given to the candidates in proportion to their support, and in fact I've considered cutting Derby entirely to save space. Of course all of them could have (and have had) a 300-page book listing all the detailed arguments, but that would amount to advocacy IMO, because the scholastic consensus is that they all are fringe theories with no merit. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting the lead (details)

Nice article! It must have been a cruel amount of work to take it this far. I've copyedited a few details in the lead section, see History. Bardolatry is spelled with a capital B in its own article. (That could be changed, of course.)

The disabling characteristic grates on my ear. Those aren't disabilities... but I can't think of anything better, for all that.

The list of candidates is typographically a little problematic: "Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Christopher Marlowe..." You see how the reader can't tell for sure whether that's three guys or four, because the commas have several different functions? Not without hovering over Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Might it work to pipe it like this: the Earl of Oxford? Or something.

Guillaume is dubious about the "argument" turning into an "idea". I've changed "idea" to "theories", suspecting perhaps unjustly that "idea" was mostly there so as to avoid saying "theory" too many times. Anyway. I'm not wholly happy about the way the "question" of the title becomes an "argument". Trusty Wordsmyth.net thinks we might want to fix that by moving the page to Shakespeare authorship hot potato, but maybe not... :-D Any ideas? Bishonen | talk 18:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

There was one idea, which turned into many theories (the philoprogenital sutlers of the idée mèr(.)e, to mix metaphors from Eliot and Joyce). Part of the success of Oxfordians is the way, according to Matus, they mustered details from the various 'theories' to rally them to the exclusive cause of Oxford's candidacy.

As to 'argument', historically that is Tom's wise (in my view) compromise between the 'controversy' preferred by Oxfordians (which presumes that there is a controversy over WS's authorship in academia, when there is not), and 'question'. That it is a question is itself 'question-begging'. 'Argument' is used in the common acceptance of the word but also, as befits the article, in its Elizabethan senses, as a subject of contention, the subject-matter of a discussion. One has thought, besides question (avoided also to vary language from the article title) of 'contention' or 'issue'. I think argument gets it right, but on these things, we should, eventually, take a vote. I certainly would argue to kingdom come against 'controversy', in this first decade of the 21st century. The 'issue' is, essentially, historical by now.

'Disabling characteristic'. Yes, that is clearly open to query, though the use of 'disable' in its originative root force caresses my ear. Perhaps 'negative factor' (a bit tinny) or 'impediment'?Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"Idea" I think is suitable, but I like the phrase "disabling characteristic" myself. It's fresh, most welcome in this topic which has been most often described using unimaginative clichés. My main concern about diction is that it be accurate, not unclear, deceptive, or POV. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(Or not POV?) Yes, but you wouldn't value elegant variation over clarity (please click on the link). One thing about immersing oneself in a period is that one starts to talk a bit like people did then. :-p Speaking as a Restoration belle to you two Elizabethans, then, I suppose you've considered simply "who for some reason, such as social rank, state security, or gender, could not safely take public credit"? The "some other reason" is still there, being implicit in "such as", and it would save a couple of dashes. But I won't go on about it, I'm sure you have considered deeply already. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

Journal refs

Would someone take a look at the journal refs that contain a full date? I clicked ref 55 and it sent me to Vickers 2006, but the corresponding citation has the day and month in the date space and so the ref won't pipe down to it. I don't know what the proper form for those are. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Length

Bishonen, what think you about the article length? Is it OK for an FA article or would it hamper the process (a disabling characteristic, as it were)? Tom Reedy (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gosh... I hadn't realized how long it was. Hardly to be read at one sitting. And so much of it being in list form doesn't help. OK, in my opinion, it is too long. Even though I'm pretty sure there are some longer FAs. Also, forgetting about FA for a moment, you want it to be read, right? Including the second half of it. I suggest more emigration of material to daughter articles, especially of the lists. Further: I also suggest you post a question about the length at WT:FAC, where the reviewers hang out. They love to argue about length, and will remember past quarrels better than I do. Bishonen | talk 23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

I did a bit of experimentation and comparative research.

Old SAQ—152

New SAQ—158kb

SAQ no annals—133kb

SAQ no candidate list—152kb

SAQ cut both—127kb

William Shakespeare—101kb

Hamlet—107kb

The Taming of the Shrew—132kb

Characters of Shakespeare’s plays—136kb

Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship—95kb

By cutting the annals it would come in about the size of Shrew, but the problem there is two fold: the article still needs expansion in the candidate sections, and it also needs a history, which I seriously doubt can be written any shorter than it is without leaving out necessary detail. The annals aren't really a list, although they appear so since it's organised around the one necessary datum common to all: date.

One solution would be to fork the candidate arguments into separate articles. The Oxford argument already has its own page, but it is hopelessly promotional and needs to be rewritten to Wikipedian standards using reliable sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I posted a query here. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm with Bish on the list-like sections (I see two; perhaps others as well). • Ling.Nut 01:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Be bold and move them! My perspective is undoubtedly faulty having lived with it so long. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor's observations

I popped in here, following a question being raised at WT:FAC about the article's length. The article's length seems to be the least of its problems, but could be resolved through addressing other issues, principally by addressing the inclusion of extensive lists - see WP:EMBED. These also affect the logic of the article's structure. It is most odd to have an article with a very brief overview, then "arguments against", then "arguments for", then a "history of" section, almost all of which is a (very unhelpful) list, then, wierdly, "alternative candidates". FWIW, here are my suggestions:

• First, clearly the prevailing scholarly view is that Shakespeare wrote most or all works attributed to him. This should be mentioned in the first para of the lead; we should not wait until the third para to be told it is a fringe view.
• Second, that being the case, the article should begin with the section on evidence for Shakespeare's authorship, not with the arguments against. It should begin with the prevailing view, not the minority, dissenting one.
• Third, my second point must also apply to the "Overview" section: it must begin by stating the prevailing scholarly analysis: notwithstanding that the authorship question is the subject of the WP article, it should still outline the majority view of the sources before outlining the contrary thesis.
• Fourth, having moved the "arguments against" section behind the "arguments for", the "Alternative candidates" material should flow logically from those arguments, or be integrated into it. (see further remarks on this below).
• Fifth, the subsections "Shakespeare's singularity and bardology" and "Precursors of doubt" should be the first paras of the "arguments against" section. The "Authorship question annals" subsection should probably not exist at all. It is a list, and to the lay reader an unhelpful one at that, with many uncited entries. One option would be to create a separate article "Chronology of the Shakespeare authorship question" or (modified) "List of publications regarding the Shakespeare authorship question", though I would talk with some experienced list editors (of whom I am not one) about it first.
• Sixth, consequently on the fifth point, there need be no "History of the authorship question", which is not assisting the article in its current form. The paras of "Shakespeare's singularity and bardology" and "Precursors of doubt" are the right way to do this stuff. If there is absolutely vital information somewhere in that "annals" list, then add it in the form of sentences in the historical context material that I am suggesting should be at the start of the "arguments against" section. (If, despite my argument, there is a consensus that a "history" section should exist, then it should come as context between "overview" and "Evidence for...")
• Seventh, while I can see why "Alternative candidates" and the reasons for their candidacy deserve discussion, the current material is a mess. It looks nothing like a usual WP article, and the part on "Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford" is particularly bad, lacking citations altogether, it is not in sentence form, it does not use the evidence to properly make the argument, etc. It looks to me as though there should be a single (perhaps longish) subsection in the "arguments against" section that identifies the candidates and the main arguments for each (just a few sentences in each case I think), and all the material currently in the four candidates section can then be deleted, or, if it is not already there, moved into the WP biographies of those individuals (but only if the material has accompanying in-line cites).
• Eighth, the "Full List of Candidates" shoudl be moved out of this article and into another article as a list. Furthermore, no one should be on this list without a citation that demonstrates that the person is in fact proposed by a reliable source to be a candidate for the authorship. Not even one in five now meet that very basic requirement. Only if their candidacy has some significant coverage in the literature should it then be discussed in the article's body text.

There are other issues with the article, but these are the basic ones that would need to be examined before the article could be considered at FAC, and probably even at GAN. I hope this is of assistance, regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your observations and suggestions. Any article about a fringe theory is problematical when it comes to presentation, and your outside perspective is exactly what is needed. Most previous attempts for outside commentary have been fruitless.

According to WP:FRINGE, articles about fringe theories "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", which is the guideline we've tried to use. The listy sections are an attempt to logically present a good deal of information in a straight-forward, easily-assimilated way. The topic itself is tedious, especially the history, and I thought that getting it over with as quickly as possible would be a boon to readers as well as positioning events clearly in their historical era, but most editors are tending not to agree with me, to which I readily accede when some solution is worked out.

None of the candidate sections are complete, which explains their unfinished nature. Again it was thought that presenting the arguments in a straight-forward logical manner suited the material. Citations are easily found and forthcoming; the task at the moment is to record and organise the material. You're right on summarising the individual candidate's cases, but the charge (as above on the talk page) was to merge the Oxfordian article with this one, which is what is being attempted, although with an expectation of it keeping its own article.

One other thought: reliable sources don't present candidates for Shakespeare's authorship; they're all proposed by fringe theorists. Those that are listed should be cited in a secondary source, although there may be some errors. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking back over the history, I think that Hamiltonstone's suggestions about merging the history and the candidates would solve a lot of problems, especially since 9/10 of the annals are superfluous to the article, as he said. I'll take a stab at it tomorrow if someone doesn't do it before then. (If you knew how tired I am of this project you'd send me a sympathy card!) Tom Reedy (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Consider it sent. I have struck a couple of bits of my commentary per WP:FRINGE. I actually think that part of the guideline may be misguided, but I accept that it is indeed what it says and respect your plan of following it. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried back in August to give a narrative form here, (in 4 sections (a) Shakespeare's singularity and bardology (b) Formal Doubts (c) Unearthing proof (d) The Trials of Shakespeare), to much of the material now listed. I don't know how effectively, though. We thought, in reviewing the review, that listing would be more comprehensive, given the unchoate awkwardness of sources we had to work from. Ideas? (in the meantime, much thanks to hamiltonstone. Nishidani (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(After breakfast) Procedurally, I think the best course is to wait a few days until the many outsiders who have kindly come in to cast a lifeline to us and aid the article can agree on restructuring, taking into consideration Hamiltonstone's important observations, and perhaps adding to them. If we could get outside discussion on, and consensus about, the way to reformat the article, though suffering from 6 months of fatigue, I think Tom and I could implement the community's directives fairly rapidly.

Since the merge proposal, I have always retained a feeling that, while the endless proliferation of fringe material into Shakespeare articles was to be stopped by having one major article outline the essential elements of the marginal dissident view, probably, for purely logical reasons, given the 'humongous' amount of 'cranky' material one has out there, a second article would be needed. My feeling is that this article should be a detailed general overview of the general landscape of the Shakespeare Authorship Question (about 80-90 kb), and that a second article, 'The Candidates', would then cover the specific cases, covering the main candidates, perhaps including Edward Dyer (5 in all).

This would, effectively, contain the pullulation of pages on fringe theories, running by now to a baker's dozen, to two stringently written comprehensive pages. If this were done, the lower half of this page, dealing with de Vere, Bacon, Marlowe and Derby could form the substance of the second page, relieving this of a good deal of the illustrative bulk. Tom's listing could go there, my narrative sections in the version I linked to above, modified, pared down, expanded or re-edited to acceptable standards, could go here. This, at least in the abstract, strikes me as meeting several, but not all of Hamilton's acute observations. (?)Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"a second article, 'The Candidates', would then cover the specific cases, covering the main candidates, perhaps including Edward Dyer (5 in all)."

I think that's an excellent idea (except for the name) that would neatly solve several problems: it would be a repository for the candidates list and give enough space into which all the individual candidate articles could be merged, instead of trying (fruitlessly, IMO) to merge them in this article. Shakespeare authorship candidates would seem to be the logical appellation. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Further suggestions

• The general prose style approach to the "alternative candidates" section found in Shakespeare authorship question Draft 1 appears preferable to the text here, though there would still need to be improved reliance on scholarly citations, and the language is not yet NPOV. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly be welcome relief. The reason this page goes into detail on the arguments is because of the charge to merge the Oxfordian page into this one, which nobody really ever thought was feasible, but I thought an attempt should be made. I'll work on the changes tomorrow (I would be happy to step aside for some other editor to complete the task). We also need to rework the history section into prose summary style. What do you think about the idea of having a page Shakespeare authorship candidates comprising the main authorship candidates to take the place of the current individual pages? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

When you say "the current individual pages", I am assuming you mean merging / deleting for example, Baconian theory, not Francis Bacon? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Well, it isn't as simple as I wish it were. First, I would be most reluctant to see there co-existing both Shakespeare authorship candidates and List of Shakespeare authorship candidates. There should only be one such article. I suggest that there just be the "List of" article. If one were to merge the various candidate stuff into that article, then it should then be structured as follows: begin with a short overview section indicating that all this material relates to a fringe theory about the Shakespeare authorship question, and have a "main article" link to that article; then a section "Leading candidates", with a subsection on each of the leading four (or five) candidates, each one of those sections being not more than a few paras in length and without further subdivision; then have "Other candidates", being the bullet point list now at the "List of" heading. HOWEVER: I am not a big fan of taking all material about the leading four contenders out of the "Authorship question" article altogether. As I read it (and it is certainly a superficial reading) one of the reasons that the fringe theory gets some traction or has some credibility in some quarters, is the identity and strengths of scholarship / writing / stature / whatever of the particular individuals in question (Bacon, Marlowe etc). I don't think the authorship question really makes as much sense in the absence of considering the actual candidates involved. I'm happy to hear views. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• The lead in the current version is preferable, being more neutral, than the lead in Shakespeare authorship question Draft 1
• The hatnote in "Overview" in the current is preferable, being more neutral, than the lead in Shakespeare authorship question Draft 1
• I generally prefer the current version's overview, on the premise that, while brief, it simply prefigures later sections that go into more detail. As a sidenote on which i would welcome comment, why does the article significantly rely on a 1958 reference, given the ongoing currency of the controversy, is there not just as effective a scholarly reference of more recent provenance? Comment welcomed.
• In general, I think the arguments against / arguments for approach of the current draft is to be preferred. However, I note that the "Draft 1" version has a prose style more consistent with WP style. I think the unusual 'subsub headings with bullets' (eg. Francis Meres • ) should probably go. In some cases they may be able simply to be deleted, and the para that follows them will stand as is. If not, then the odd heading may need to be replaced by a lead sentence that forshadows the para topic.
• The "draft 1" approach groups together the stratfordian and anti-stratfordian arguments on each point. In general i think this is not the preferred option because, as the current version points out, at the heart of the dispute is a difference in approach to evidence. Nevertheless, something that the "draft 1" approach does is make it easy for a reader to see argument and counter-argument together and weigh them up. I'm not advocating for it, but i happened to note an example where "Draft 1" has a pro and con on one point (Shake-speare as pseudonym) on which one of the counterarguments that is presented in "Draft 1" is partly missing from the current version (The para beginning "However, Stratfordians assert that no scholar of Elizabethan literature or punctuation affirms that a hyphen signaled a pseudonym, and that the claim is unknown outside of anti-Stratfordian literature"). Not sure if this presents a problem or not.

More thoughts later. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• The 1958 source, Frank Wadsworth's The poacher from Stratford; a partial account of the controversy over the authorship of Shakespeare's plays, is a recognised classic treatment of anti-Stratfordian arguments from an academic perspective. It has been praised by Schoenbaum, Matus, and Shapiro, among others. He was a respected English professor at UCLA (IIRC, I've got his obit around here someplace) who published on shakespeare in addition to his SAQ book.
• As far as Wadsworth's relevancy, anti-Stratfordian arguments haven't changed in the past 100 years or so; they're all basically the same types of presentations that are recycled from candidate to candidate. The individual candidates arguments are also pretty much clones, and Kathman, Matus, and Shapiro all have written about this curious immortality of anti-Strat arguments long after they've been convincingly refuted for any reasonable non-obsessed person.
• WP:FRINGE guideline recommends that articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas "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, which is the reason for presenting the competing ideas in separate sections rather than in a "he said-she said" format.
• Nishidani and determined that the most neutral way to present the anti-Stratfordian side was to state it as objectively as possible without any comment directly upon its heels. We also agreed that every anti-Stratfordian point did not need to be specifically rebutted, but we do note their use of argumentum ex silentio, which is the core of their entire thesis. We also felt that the strongest rebuttal was often to present the idea as baldly as possible without comment, because we don't believe that most readers need to be spoon-fed every point. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding re Wadsworth, and for reminding me of that element of WP:FRINGE. Accordingly, I am happy with that aspect of the current version. Don't know when I'll get around to more on this, but will try to come back. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments so far and only wish we could get more independent reviewers, but I suppose that will come if/when we take it to GA (or FA, which is what is needed to protect the page from advocate infiltration). Since I'm currently topic-banned pending the litigation against Smatprt, it will take a while to implement all your suggestions. The major difference between the two versions is in the use of sources. All of our sources pass muster as independent reliable sources, while Smatprt's relies heavily on fringe publications. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC started

I have started an rfc here: [[2]]Smatprt (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Candidates' list deletion

I've moved the list to List of Shakespeare authorship candidates. The individual candidate profiles could be moved there and the page moved to Shakespeare authorship candidates, which would enable the merging of the Oxfordian, Marlovian, and Baconian pages into one article. Next task is to work the important events from the annals into Nishidani's history and integrate it into the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone made a point about lists. I am minded to agree about lists concerning several things on the page, but disagree with Tom on removing this.

When we came to the page, most RS had the figure of 56 or so. One recent source (Elliott and Valenza 2004) got that up to 62, from memory. By carefully collating all of the available RS, we obtained however 75 names. Though no individual RS states this, every one of those names listed happens to be in one very reliable academic textbook on this specific subject.

So, in compiling these sources, we obtained what might be a first, i.e. the most comprehensive up-to-date number for the candidates proposed (simply because the RS on this date from 1962 to 2004, and missed stuff, or couldn't take into account candidates proposed since.)

I think wiki could be proud of this. Without any WP:OR we came up with a first, and I think that information belongs on this page, with some quiet pride of place? Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Good call moving that list. I have some other comments that I will add to the section above where I originally made some observations. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

With the removal of the list and creation of the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, what sticks out like a sore thumb is the continued presence here of the annals in the "History of the authorship question". How about adding the annals to or merging them into the List article and amending the lists's title? That enables this article to concentrate on the important stuff. --GuillaumeTell 10:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well my idea (above in "Further suggestions") is to combine the list with fuller treatments of the main candidates and call it Shakespeare authorship candidates, which could take the place of the individual authorship candidate articles now, i.e. Baconian theory, Marlovian theory, and Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship.

As far as the history goes, that needs to be summarised in this article in some dozen lines or sixteen lines. Or perhaps it could be integrated into History of the Shakespeare authorship question, although I opposed the creation of that article and was hoping that it could be merged into this one. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

Nishidani, Smatprt, and myself have been temporarily topic-banned from the SAQ and related topics until this issue is resolved. Anyone who cares can comment on that page. Since I'm not expecting to be banned for very long, I'll continue my editing off-line and drop them in after the complaint is resolved, or I'll post them here and they can be added to the article if consensus is reached. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing ref

While cleaning up the bib, I discovered a missing ref. If someone would be so kind as to insert it in its proper place I would appreciate it.

• Schoone-Jongen, Terence (2008), Shakespeare's companies: William Shakespeare's early career and the acting companies, 1577-1594, Ashgate, ISBN 978-0-7546-6434-5

Tom Reedy (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. --GuillaumeTell 10:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

dead link

Ziegler 1895 Was Marlowe: A Story of the Secret of Three Centuries. The link is dead.Nishidani (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It works for me. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

the link for "Was Marlowe the man" works, but I can't get "Was Marlowe: A Story of the Secret..." to work, presumably because it should be "It was Marlowe..."[3]. Paul B (talk)

The link was correct, but it was an external link incorrectly set up as an internal one. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. In technical matters I think my monkeying around only shows that I am the missing link.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I was using the bib link instead of the test link. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Neville supressed?

This article appears to largely omit any mention of Neville as a candidate or co-candidate in collaboration with Oxenford. Why? He has significant biographical coincidences, some part even better than Edward de Vere's! 87.97.101.54 (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoring RFC

For some wierd reason, the RFC dissappeared. I'm not sure what is going on, but I am moving it here unitl we can figure out what happened.Smatprt (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

After this merge discussion:[[4]], concerning the old Shakespeare Authorship Question article, and these instructions:[[5]], I began working on a draft, as did Tom Reedy and Nishidani. Here are the links to the two versions for community comment and suggestions: Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft1 and Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2.

Since I was responsible for editing Draft 1 (since receiving this assignment from ScienceApologist, I will provide some of my reasoning behind the work I did on this version:

• I began with this version of the old Shakespeare authorship article: [[6]], which was the product of several hundred editors working over the last few years.
• The previous article was rated B Class, but suffered from length issues, as well as some problems with POV and weight.
• After addressing the most obvious issues, I requested impartial reviews from numerous noticeboards and did my best to incorporate the various comments I received.
• I trimmed the article by half to bring the article in line with the guideline on length created or kept in place the appropriate forks.
• I removed the overly Oxfordian focus of the article, and concentrated on the overall subject, instead of arguments for or against any particular alternative theory.
• I focussed on a handful of the basic arguments, beginning with a brief section on various alternate arguments, followed by the mainstream rebuttal, in each section, as per wp guidelines.
• I avoided lists and did my best to keep the basic information that the numerous article editors have contributed over the years, so as not to create "my" version, but rather to provide a verison that reflected the contributions of these past editors.
• As an experiment, I also created a mega-beast of a version [[7]] that merged all the various authorship articles ("offending articles" as ScienceApologist called them), which was part of the original assignment following this merge discussion:[[8]]. This was not an attempt at creating a new article, but to see just how long and unwieldly such an article would be. It proved massive and ridiculous, as I am sure all would agree. I simply wanted to see what it would look like and where the obvious content forking should be. The version attached to this talk page (Draft 1) includes all the appropriate content forking, solving the length issues.

I would greatly appreciate input on these two versions from the greater Wiki community. What are their pluses and minuses? Should either or both be seriously considered as a replacement for the present version? Or should they be merged? Smatprt (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Drafts 1 & 2

Please place you comments below (instead of the various and numerous articles, noticeboards, etc.) It would be nice to have one central location! If there is a better location for comments, please let me know. Smatprt (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Early peer-review on Draft 1

Here is an early Peer Review on draft one: [[9]], with these being the primary content comments:

Ruhrfisch comments: I do not have any expertise on the topic, but here are some suggestions for improvement of the article as an article.

• The article needs to be scrupulosly referenced, but there are whole paragraphs without refs and sections that are quite sparse - for example the whole section "Pseudonymous or secret authorship in Renaissance England" has only four refs and has two plusp aragraphs with no refs at all.
• Several of the sources used do not appear to be reliable sources - for example, what makes doubtaboutwill.org a RS? Or webpages.charter.net?
• I found at least one dead external link - http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/marprelate/tract6m.htm - if this were in article space, the link checker for PR would work.
• External links in the article need to be converted to inline refs
• The refs also need more information in many cases - for example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. Books need publisher, location, year, ISBN, etc. {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The article seemed repetitious in places
• The headers do not all follow WP:HEAD
• I would try for consistency in how each topic is addressed. For example, give the minority viewpoint, then give the objections to it / majority viewpoint.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Note - I think I addressed most of the issues that were raised. Smatprt (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor's observations on Draft 2

I popped in here, following a question being raised at WT:FAC about the article's length. The article's length seems to be the least of its problems, but could be resolved through addressing other issues, principally by addressing the inclusion of extensive lists - see WP:EMBED. These also affect the logic of the article's structure. It is most odd to have an article with a very brief overview, then "arguments against", then "arguments for", then a "history of" section, almost all of which is a (very unhelpful) list, then, wierdly, "alternative candidates". FWIW, here are my suggestions:

• First, clearly the prevailing scholarly view is that Shakespeare wrote most or all works attributed to him. This should be mentioned in the first para of the lead; we should not wait until the third para to be told it is a fringe view.
• Second, that being the case, the article should begin with the section on evidence for Shakespeare's authorship, not with the arguments against. It should begin with the prevailing view, not the minority, dissenting one.
• Third, my second point must also apply to the "Overview" section: it must begin by stating the prevailing scholarly analysis: notwithstanding that the authorship question is the subject of the WP article, it should still outline the majority view of the sources before outlining the contrary thesis.
• Fourth, having moved the "arguments against" section behind the "arguments for", the "Alternative candidates" material should flow logically from those arguments, or be integrated into it. (see further remarks on this below).
• Fifth, the subsections "Shakespeare's singularity and bardology" and "Precursors of doubt" should be the first paras of the "arguments against" section. The "Authorship question annals" subsection should probably not exist at all. It is a list, and to the lay reader an unhelpful one at that, with many uncited entries. One option would be to create a separate article "Chronology of the Shakespeare authorship question" or (modified) "List of publications regarding the Shakespeare authorship question", though I would talk with some experienced list editors (of whom I am not one) about it first.
• Sixth, consequently on the fifth point, there need be no "History of the authorship question", which is not assisting the article in its current form. The paras of "Shakespeare's singularity and bardology" and "Precursors of doubt" are the right way to do this stuff. If there is absolutely vital information somewhere in that "annals" list, then add it in the form of sentences in the historical context material that I am suggesting should be at the start of the "arguments against" section. (If, despite my argument, there is a consensus that a "history" section should exist, then it should come as context between "overview" and "Evidence for...")
• Seventh, while I can see why "Alternative candidates" and the reasons for their candidacy deserve discussion, the current material is a mess. It looks nothing like a usual WP article, and the part on "Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford" is particularly bad, lacking citations altogether, it is not in sentence form, it does not use the evidence to properly make the argument, etc. It looks to me as though there should be a single (perhaps longish) subsection in the "arguments against" section that identifies the candidates and the main arguments for each (just a few sentences in each case I think), and all the material currently in the four candidates section can then be deleted, or, if it is not already there, moved into the WP biographies of those individuals (but only if the material has accompanying in-line cites).
• Eighth, the "Full List of Candidates" shoudl be moved out of this article and into another article as a list. Furthermore, no one should be on this list without a citation that demonstrates that the person is in fact proposed by a reliable source to be a candidate for the authorship. Not even one in five now meet that very basic requirement. Only if their candidacy has some significant coverage in the literature should it then be discussed in the article's body text.

There are other issues with the article, but these are the basic ones that would need to be examined before the article could be considered at FAC, and probably even at GAN. I hope this is of assistance, regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Further suggestions

• The general prose style approach to the "alternative candidates" section found in Shakespeare authorship question Draft 1 appears preferable to the text here, though there would still need to be improved reliance on scholarly citations, and the language is not yet NPOV. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly be welcome relief. The reason this page goes into detail on the arguments is because of the charge to merge the Oxfordian page into this one, which nobody really ever thought was feasible, but I thought an attempt should be made. I'll work on the changes tomorrow (I would be happy to step aside for some other editor to complete the task). We also need to rework the history section into prose summary style. (comments deleted, irrelevant to RfC)Tom Reedy (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(more comments deleted; irrelevant to RfC)

• The lead in the current version is preferable, being more neutral, than the lead in Shakespeare authorship question Draft 1
• The hatnote in "Overview" in the current is preferable, being more neutral, than the lead in Shakespeare authorship question Draft 1
• I generally prefer the current version's overview, on the premise that, while brief, it simply prefigures later sections that go into more detail. As a sidenote on which i would welcome comment, why does the article significantly rely on a 1958 reference, given the ongoing currency of the controversy, is there not just as effective a scholarly reference of more recent provenance? Comment welcomed.
• In general, I think the arguments against / arguments for approach of the current draft is to be preferred. However, I note that the "Draft 1" version has a prose style more consistent with WP style. I think the unusual 'subsub headings with bullets' (eg. Francis Meres • ) should probably go. In some cases they may be able simply to be deleted, and the para that follows them will stand as is. If not, then the odd heading may need to be replaced by a lead sentence that forshadows the para topic.
• The "draft 1" approach groups together the stratfordian and anti-stratfordian arguments on each point. In general i think this is not the preferred option because, as the current version points out, at the heart of the dispute is a difference in approach to evidence. Nevertheless, something that the "draft 1" approach does is make it easy for a reader to see argument and counter-argument together and weigh them up. I'm not advocating for it, but i happened to note an example where "Draft 1" has a pro and con on one point (Shake-speare as pseudonym) on which one of the counterarguments that is presented in "Draft 1" is partly missing from the current version (The para beginning "However, Stratfordians assert that no scholar of Elizabethan literature or punctuation affirms that a hyphen signaled a pseudonym, and that the claim is unknown outside of anti-Stratfordian literature"). Not sure if this presents a problem or not.

More thoughts later. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• The 1958 source, Frank Wadsworth's The poacher from Stratford; a partial account of the controversy over the authorship of Shakespeare's plays, is a recognised classic treatment of anti-Stratfordian arguments from an academic perspective. It has been praised by Schoenbaum, Matus, and Shapiro, among others. He was a respected English professor at UCLA (IIRC, I've got his obit around here someplace) who published on shakespeare in addition to his SAQ book.
• As far as Wadsworth's relevancy, anti-Stratfordian arguments haven't changed in the past 100 years or so; they're all basically the same types of presentations that are recycled from candidate to candidate. The individual candidates arguments are also pretty much clones, and Kathman, Matus, and Shapiro all have written about this curious immortality of anti-Strat arguments long after they've been convincingly refuted for any reasonable non-obsessed person.
• WP:FRINGE guideline recommends that articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas "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, which is the reason for presenting the competing ideas in separate sections rather than in a "he said-she said" format.
• Nishidani and determined that the most neutral way to present the anti-Stratfordian side was to state it as objectively as possible without any comment directly upon its heels. We also agreed that every anti-Stratfordian point did not need to be specifically rebutted, but we do note their use of argumentum ex silentio, which is the core of their entire thesis. We also felt that the strongest rebuttal was often to present the idea as baldly as possible without comment, because we don't believe that most readers need to be spoon-fed every point. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding re Wadsworth, and for reminding me of that element of WP:FRINGE. Accordingly, I am happy with that aspect of the current version. Don't know when I'll get around to more on this, but will try to come back. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments so far and only wish we could get more independent reviewers, but I suppose that will come if/when we take it to GA (or FA, which is what is needed to protect the page from advocate infiltration). Since I'm currently topic-banned pending the litigation against Smatprt, it will take a while to implement all your suggestions. The major difference between the two versions is in the use of sources. All of our sources pass muster as independent reliable sources, while Smatprt's relies heavily on fringe publications. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Other comments

• As the person who stumbled into this mess by providing the above input on what is called draft 2 (and which is currently the text in the article's mainspace), I am not going to comment further here, because it looks like this subject has more than enough discussion around the pedia, particularlyhere. I will make comments re article content on the main article talk page, and not elsewhere. I would probably suggest others do the same. This should not be construed as suggesting I see no merit in draft 1. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. Will you be actually reviewing Draft 1 then? I prepared it in good faith and am hoping you will respond in kind. Thanks.Smatprt (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on both drafts from Uninvolved Editor

From a couple of hours of studying the subject based on the ongoing discussions in WP, and a first look at Shapiro's latest book on the matter (Contested Will), and from a first reading of both drafts, I'd say that the controversy is not about behavior as some of the contestants here contend, but is indeed a deep content matter. From reviewing both drafts it becomes clear that academic wars are being waged here on WP by "smaller" proxies, for Ogburn on one side (draft 1), and for Shapiro on the other (draft 2). Suffice it to say that Shapiro himself mentions the ongoing debate in WP, and that he himself traces his own scholarly development from a pure mainstream Stratfordian to acknowledging the importance of the SAQ debate to the development of academic thought on the subject, and to becoming a Stratfordian that now asserts that a long list of works were actually the product of William's collaboration with other authors. warshy^talk 20:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A stratfordian logical fallacy that is not yet mentioned

There is a particular dilemma the article fails to properly articulate in its current form. If the merchant Shaksper of Stratford was acting as a willing and motivated "body-double" for the real bard, say, because the royal court bribed him X gold coins every year, than it would be impossible to find out the identity of the true author from historical records.

Maybe the merchant Shaksper was ordered by "powers that be" to go as far as fraudulently obtaining copyright for Oxford's intellectual property under his own name, in order to shield the true author from scandals.

In this sense any proof provided by the "overwhelmingly stratfordian academic majority" is ambigious. It either proves Shaksper of Stratford was the true author or it proves Shaksper was an active doppelganger for the true author. Indeed, if the true author was a shunned aristocrat, the idea of an actual cover-up conspiracy cannot be dismissed due to being a "conspiracy theory"!

(Honestly, I think any bardish research still conducted in the British Isles is pointless, because the era's official paper trail has been falsified so much by the powerful royal court. All shakespearean scolars should move to North Italy in person, especially Venice and dig up archives there for the era. If de Vere was the true author or R&J, MoV, Othello, etc. then there must be a memo or dossier on it, as the Venetian Republic had by far the best secret service in the world at that time. Events they didn't know about, in fact didn't happen.) 87.97.101.54 (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You are truly a genius. I'm sure you will have no difficulty obtaining a research grant for your expedition to the Italian archives. Just be sure that the British secret service don't learn of your plans. You know what happened to Princess Diana. Paul B (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Draft 2

I wanted to wait a while before posting my own comments, but since we only have one editor (Hamiltonstone) who really responded with any specifics (and one editor (Warshy) who - quite perceptively - addressed the whole Shapiro vs Ogburn issue), I wanted to add my comments on draft 2 so… a) they get into the record, and b) my comments will hopefully spur additional conversation, and perhaps provide a start to developing some compromise agreements on some of the bigger issues.

In general, I believe there are numerous NPOV problems that are exhibited in draft 2. Skeptics are labeled “promoters”, and publicity seekers, whereas orthodoxy is populated with “scholars” and “historians”. Doubters make “arguments”, “claims” and ”assertions”, whereas the mainstream “maintains”, “notes” and “considers”. Extraordinary claims and opinions are made, yet few scholars are named. This approach runs rampant thru the current article. At the least, we should all consult WP:AVOID and wrap our heads around precisely what that guideline hopes to achieve.Smatprt (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, did you even read the article? Your version uses "asserts" and its forms 18 times; ours uses it 4 times. Your version uses "note" as a verb 20 times, most of them with an anti-Strat doing the noting; ours uses it 3 times, 2 of them for historical figures. Yours uses "claim" and its forms 6 times; ours 8 times. Your article uses "consider" as a verb once; ours 7 times, 3 of them by anti-Strats, once by mainstream scholars. Your article uses "maintain" 4 times; ours twice. The only term that you are even close to being correct on is the use of the forms of "argue", 8 for you, 14 for us, most of them the noun "argument", which is, after all, what is being done by both sides. The rest of your observations are about as accurate as these. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I was reviewing your article. I didn't say mine was perfect. I agree with you - they both need to be cleaned up from this regard, which simply jumped out at me with the opening line of Draft 2. Admittedly, I have not cleaned mine either, and won't get to it for a little while. Regardless, I would hope you would at least consider my other observations, especially the complete deletion of almost every anti-Stratfordian source, the overuse of scholarly or mainstream consensus, to name a couple at the top of my list. I also have a problem with your complete elimination of all the early allusions (RS supported) to the the SAQ that were made in the 18th century. I realize it clashes with your claim that the authorship was never questioned until the Restoration, but I have a real problem with you excising every bit of it.Smatprt (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen anybody say "the overuse of scholarly or mainstream consensus" before. What does it mean? Bishonen | talk 01:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

I refer to the use of the phrase "scholarly ocnsensus" (or similar wording that implies scholarly consensus), without sources that confirm it. For example in Draft 2 we have "Despite the scholastic consensus" in graph 4 of the lead. It is sourced to "^ Dobson 2001, p. 31: "Most observers, however, have been more impressed by the anti-Stratfordians' dogged immunity to documentary evidence, not only that which confirms that Shakespeare wrote his own plays, but that which establishes that several of the alternative candidates were long dead before he had finished doing so." Also we have "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory with no hard evidence", which is sourced to "^ Kathman 2003, p. 621: "Professional Shakespeare scholars mostly pay little attention to it" and "Nelson 2004, p. 151: "I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... " and is in disagreement with "Sixty-one percent of respondents [Shakespeare professors] said they considered the authorship question a theory without convincing evidence". 61% of Shakespeare professors calling it a "theory without convincing evidence" is quite different than "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory with no hard evidence". See the problem? Smatprt (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we've see the problem for a long time now, but it's not the source cite.

The Dobson ref supports the Despite, not "the scholarly consensus".

I weary of your transparent tendentiousness. The Kathman cite is "...in fact, antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence. Professional Shakespeare scholars mostly pay little attention to it, much as evolutionary biologists ignore creationists and astronomers dismiss UFO sightings."

You also dishonestly forget to mention the other cites, such as Carroll 2004, pp. 278–279: "I am an academic, a member of what is called the 'Shakespeare Establishment,' one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less, by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare—and, some say, who participate in a dark conspiracy to suppress the truth about Shakespeare.... I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him. Like others in my position, I know there is an anti-Stratfordian point of view and understand roughly the case it makes. Like St. Louis, it is out there, I know, somewhere, but it receives little of my attention."

The statement is robustly supported. A New York times survey, in which the responses were preselected by an Oxfordian supporter, carries no weight when gauging the academic consensus. Your time-wasting arguments are simply more of the same tactics of distraction and attrition you've employed since you began editing Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Throwing around accusations of "dishonesty" isn't helping matters. I will just respond by saying that not one of your sources supports "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory with no hard evidence". Please review WP:SYNTH AND WP:OR. Smatprt (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That was not thrown; that was an observation, as anyone who reads this thread can determine. To state the only other alternative would be unnecessarily cruel, IMO.

As to whether the refs support the statement, you're right; the statement according to the refs should be "no Shakespeare scholars" instead of "all but a few", but Nishidani and I try to err on the side of scholarly caution. The veracity of the statement in any case is not up to the judgement of a fringe theory advocate; nobody expects you to agree with it. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, as someone reasonably well versed in the various alternative theories, the “anti” case being put forward in Draft 2 is made very poorly, almost comically, and the choice of evidence being put forward are some of the weakest arguments that were ever made. Extreme minority positions are being put forward, and far too much space is being afforded to “codes” and “ciphers”, at the expense of the more traditional methods being used by Diana Price, for example, whose RS work has, for the great part, been deleted from the article completely.

Draft 2 has also deleted every authorship theorist, every major work, including Price's Unorthodox Biography, Ogburn's Mysterious William Shakespeare, and Anderson's "Shakespeare by Any Other Name. These deletions, are in direct contrast with:

• WP:IRS, which states that "Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both.”
• WP:Fringe, which states "the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review.” and also “For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed.”

Lastly, section titles have adopted a comic, perhaps even sneering, approach, with “The Trials of Shakespeare” and “Unearthing Shakespeare” getting the awards for most clever puns. I realize that it is tempting to poke fun at the entire subject, but is that really an encyclopedic approach? These two sections, by the way, are given way too much weight in the overall history – with the Trials section being particularly misleading. I will provide further details on the Trials section, as I move through the article. But first, to the article beginning:

Last consensus on lead paragraph

Note – Here is the original version of lead paragraph 1, hammered out by a consensus of editors [[10]]. Because it reflected the only true consensus of editors, I kept it in Draft 1, and reproduce it here to assist in the conversation.

“The Shakespeare authorship question is the controversy about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers.[1] The public debate dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.[a][2] Those who question the attribution believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.[3] Of the numerous proposed candidates,[4] major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support,[5] 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.”

Comments on Draft 2 lead graph

• 1) Opening line “The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument…” . This has been changed from “controversy” to “argument”. Argument used in this way might not be neutral. Advise changing back to controversy, which is easily sourced) , adopting wording from Draft 1, which reflects a consensus of editors regarding this sentence. “Debate” could also be considered.

• 2) Closing line of lead paragraph “all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a "fringe theory with no hard evidence”. This is POV wording which is not supported by sources, and could be considered WP:OR or WP:Synthesis.

In fact the most recent survey [[11] actually conducted on the issue does not even support the statement, noting that 61% of Shakespeare professors called it “a theory without convincing evidence”, which is quite different than labeling it a “fringe theory with no hard evidence”. It should be noted that only 32% labeled it "A waste of time and classroom distraction" - hardly a vast majority or consensus of scholars. (It’s also quite impossible to reliably source the current wording, short of a major and comprehensive survey of “all” Shakespeare scholars AND literary historians.) Advise using language from draft 1, “but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars”

• 3) Suggest revisiting lead paragraph from Draft 1, which not only addresses lack of NPOV of draft 2, but is also the only graph in the original article that had achieved a consensus prior to discussion breaking down.

Graph 2

• 1) The biggest problem with graph 2 (and the main history section) is the assumption that all authorship discussion and/or theories can be traced to Bardolatry. This, in itself, is only a theory (most recently championed by Shapiro), and there is no consensus, academic or otherwise, that confirms that the Bardolotry of the 18th century is the “basis” for all alternative hypotheses. As a result, the first half of graph 2 suffers from severe POV issues, which are then carried over to the rest of the article.

• 2) The last two sentences give examples of “promoters” “arguing” and “asserting” – Not neutral, again: see wp:avoid.

• 3) “numerous historical figures, including Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, Christopher Marlowe and the Earl of Derby, have since been nominated as the true author” has been changed considerably from the consensus version referenced above. Not only does the phrasing imply equal weight to all the candidates, but provides no hint of context as to why the 4 candidates listed are even mentioned. One has to read the great majority of the article to find out that Bacon was the first major candidate and that Oxford is the strongest current candidate. The increasing popular “group theory” is also excised from this section and is barely mentioned in the entire article. Suggest adopting wording from draft 1: “Of the numerous proposed candidates,[4] major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support,[5] 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) As the lead is supposed to summarize the article, draft 2’s summary of the alternative theories is inadequate. What little that is mentioned lacks context or explanation to such a degree that all that is left is confusion. All previous references to biographical criticism have been deleted, as have any mention of the evidentiary gaps in Shakespeare of Stratford’s biography. Suggest we revisit graph 2 of draft 1 to recover this deleted information.

Graph 3

• 1) “Mainstream Shakespeare scholars maintain that biographical interpretations of literature are unreliable for attributing authorship”. Poorly sourced and wholly inaccurate. (Note use of “maintain”, as opposed to “assert”, “argue”, “claim” – terms reserved for the anti-Stratfordians). More to the point, Shakespeare scholars have, for centuries, used the plays and sonnets to make countless biographical assumptions about Shakespeare of Stratford. Draft 2, in fact, has a whole section devoted to it [[12]].

• 2) “Mainstream Shakespeare scholars maintain …the convergence of documentary evidence for Shakespeare’s authorship—title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians and official records—is the same as that for any other author of the time.” Again, poorly sourced and misleading. No mention of the evidentiary gap in Shakespeare’s bio that has been commented on by numerous scholars. No mention of Shakespeare’s “lost years”, merely a blanket statement which implies a consensus of Shakespeare scholars, when none exists.

• 3) “No such supporting evidence exists for any other candidate” – poorly sourced and misleading. Alternate theories have consistently used testimony by contemporary poets and historians, as well as official records, to build their theories. One glance at the various theory articles will easily confirm this. To read this phrasing, however, would lead the reader to believe that alternate theorists have strictly relied on biographical inferences and “secret codes”, which is as far from a neutral assessment of the facts as one can get.

• 4) “Shakespeare’s authorship was not questioned during his lifetime or for centuries after his death” – again, this phrasing is impossible to source reliably. How on earth can a neutral and unbiased article even begin to make such a claim? On a related note, “for centuries” ignores the orthodox accounting of the authorship issue documented here [[13]]. Note that “According to orthodox scholars George McMichael and Edward Glenn, the first direct doubts about Shakespearean authorship arose as early as the 18th century, in certain satirical and allegorical works. In a passage in An Essay Against Too Much Reading (1728) by a "Captain" Golding, Shakespeare is described as "no Scholar, no Grammarian, no Historian, and in all probability cou'd not write English" and someone who uses an historian as a collaborator. The book also says that 'instead of Reading, he [Shakespeare] stuck close to Writing and Study without Book". [14] Again, in The Life and Adventures of Common Sense: An Historical Allegory (1769) by Herbert Lawrence, the narrator, Common Sense, portrays Shakespeare, as a "shifty theatrical character ... and incorrigible thief" who stole a commonplace book from his father, Wit, his crony, Genius, and his half-brother, Humour, which he uses to write his plays.[15]” Recommend that graph 3 be rewritten, and that Draft 1 wording is considered when alternate theories are described.

Graph 4

• 1) “Despite the scholastic consensus,[11] a relatively small but highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters, including some prominent public figures,[12] are confident that someone other than William Shakespeare wrote the works. Poorly sourced. This is representative of numerous claims of “consensus” distributed throughout the article. Recommend consulting [[14]] on how to approach this. “relatively small”, “some”, “are confidant” – all are problematic regarding NPOV and weasel. Suggest wording from Draft 1: “Despite the lack of mainstream support, the subject has gained a highly visible assortment of supporters including independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.”

• 2) “They campaign to gain public acceptance of the authorship question as a legitimate field of academic inquiry and to promote…” – Again, "They campaign..public acceptance.." is not NPOV and gives the impression of promoters and marketing men instead of legitimate researchers who operate in good faith. Recommend revisiting wording in Draft 1 “Anti-stratfordians continue to make efforts to gain acceptance of the authorship question as a legitimate field of academic inquiry, and to promote one or another of the various authorship candidates through publications, organizations, online discussion groups and conferences”

The above comments are a beginning, and (time permitting), I hope to address additional issues with the remainder of Draft 2 in due time. I offer them in good faith. Also, to lay any doubts to rest, I fully acknowledge that alternative authorship theories are not accepted by the mainstream and do not deserve "equal coverage" with William Shakespeare. I have never advocated such a thing, but wanted to restate my position for all concerned. Having said that, I do believe the major theories and the SAQ in general do warrant neutral and balanced coverage in the articles that are devoted to them, and in any ancillary articles where they should be appropriately discussed (as long as undue weight does not apply). Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I will withhold any comments or responses until we receive input from less-involved reviewers. I do however wonder what the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt is, if not a "campaign to gain public acceptance of the authorship question as a legitimate field of academic inquiry" when its own literature states "Please join us in helping to promote the legitimacy of the Shakespeare authorship question in academia." I also wonder what the Shakespeare Fellowship is, if not a promotion, when it advertises that "The purpose of the Shakespeare Fellowship is to promote public awareness and acceptance of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604)", and whose stated goals "include bringing the Shakespeare authorship debate to a world-wide audience via the Internet". Tom Reedy (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

And why do these 2 organizations represent all authorship doubters? Do they represent Diana Price? Mark Anderson? Charlton Ogburn, Jr.? Justices Kennedy and Scalia? Derek Jacobi and Jeremy Irons? etc.?? It's a reoccurring problem in Draft 2, which infers or states that all scholars are in agreement about the SAQ and all anti-Strats are simply promoters. And it's more of a problem that you don't even acknowledge the issue. Smatprt (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I can see differences regarding this article are not going to be resolved anytime soon. I am proposing to place a POV tag on it so that readers know that it is subject to dispute. I am hesitating however because it is a tag that is likely to stay there a long time. That isn't usually the purpose behind tags (they are there to draw attention to issues requiring fixing), but i am inclined to think it is the best thing to do at this point. Comments? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

hamiltonstone This is not the place for one side to step in and challenge the legitimacy of or critique the other side's version, or call for POV tags. So I won't reply to the familiar complaints above, made even on the old mainspace article.

We were asked to produce an alternative version. Smatprt did his, and Tom Reedy and myself did ours. It is up to the community to see whose version better fits the terms of the remit. I think after 7 months and 1400 edits one has at least a right to have one's work judged by neutral eyes. If the verdict is negative, fine. But a comparison is inevitable. Flagging it now is rather preemptive, I think. Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Any action now would be premature, given several things:

1. ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is still, as far as I know, in charge of this procedure.

2. This AN/I incident is also involved in this RfC, as was made clear by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs), who is brokering that incident.

3. This mediation is also concerned with this article, and from what I gather its progress is dependent on the results of this RfC. (As an aside, I also note that RfC notices weren't posted in the places recommended by ScienceApologist. I will do so forthwith.)

4. As Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) noted, any POV tag is likely to be permanent, given the history of the contention over this article. Smatprt's definition of POV is substantially different than that of the Wikipedia and academic communities, which is obvious by his contention that the SAQ is not a fringe theory or his contention that no academic consensus exists that it is. He did, after all, declare that the addition of Shakespeare's career as an actor, playwright and theatre entrepreneur to the article Shakespeare's life was "highly POV", and placed a tag on that article also.

The thing for the participants to do is sit back and wait for other comments and admin input, not try to preemptively lobby for one decision or another. The two versions are there to be assessed; they speak for themselves. All these comments strike me as an attempt to reframe the argument and a continuation of the WP:SOAPBOX campaign that instigated my participation in editing these articles in the first place. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I'm trying to assume good faith, but it would help matters greatly if you refrained from misquoting me or taking my words out of context. To correct you:

• I didn't "declare that the addition of Shakespeare's career as an actor, playwright and theatre entrepreneur to the article Shakespeare's life was "highly POV". I said that claiming that the "best documented facts" about Shakespeare... was POV. Everyone knows that the "best documented facts" about Shakespeare are his baptism, marriage, the names of his children, his lawsuits against his neighbors, his fines, his will, and as an actor of no major notice. For details see:Shakespeare in the Public Record or the dumbed down version here[15].

I didn't "declare that the addition of Shakespeare's career as an actor, playwright and theatre entrepreneur to the article Shakespeare's life was "highly POV"

Can you not even parse your own words? Your edit summary says “Addition is highly POV”. The addition that you excised was the description “was an actor, playwright and theatre entrepreneur in London, owned property in both Stratford and London.” It is becoming quite clear to all why so many editors cannot work with you. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, if you are going to quote the edit summary, please quote it completely! [16]. I wrote: "if these were 'best documented' facts, then there would be no authorship dispute. Addition is highly POV". It's your claim [17] that these are the "best documented facts" that is POV. Your edit summary says "(add other "best-documented" facts). Please note that OldMoonraker (on your team) made this edit [18], removing "playwright" as a "best documented fact" and commenting "Partial RV: not all these are in dispute". I agreed with him so let it stand. You, on the other hand reverted him as well.Smatprt (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making my case even clearer. I read the summary. I didn't see "Claim is highly POV." I read the actual words that are there. And so what if I reverted OM? He was wrong. Your idea of editing is "Us against Them." That's not how I or most other editors operate; that is the mindset of a tendentious editor such as yourself. Your trying to bring that in merely demonstrates (again) the tactic of distraction that you employ so well. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

as an actor of no major notice.

The link (not a good source) however admits into its scrawny evidence

(a)1603 - List of Actors. In the initial presentation of Ben Jonson's Seianvs his Fall, "Will. Shake-speare" was a principall Tragoedian(William Shakespeare)

(b)1604, 15th March - Royal record. Public Record Office, Lord Chamberlain's Department. In the Master of the Wardrobe record, Shakspere (William Shakespeare) is listed among "Players" who were given scarlet cloth to be worn for the King's Royal Procession through London

Sigh. Huge threads in the offing. Much Ado about Puffing etc.Nishidani (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's not go into minutia here on this page, but I would think an actor of note would have been remarked on by someone who had actually seen him and commented on his performance, ala Burbage or Kemp. Besides, isn't Jonson's entire list principal tragedians? In any case, we can have this discussion later on the appropriate page if you like.Smatprt (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Again it appears Smatprt hasn't read the source, as both editions of Shakespeare in the Public Records (which I own) include records of Shakespeare as a dramatist, naming him in the Revels Accounts as the author of Othello, Merry Wives of Windsor, Measure for Measure, Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's Lost, Henry V, and the Merchant of Venice (pp. 17-18). What I would appreciate instead of all this hot air about "good faith" is an editor who actually reads the sources instead of throwing up dust at every opportunity and "explaining" what he really meant to say. That would be a demonstration of good faith. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There you have the 'contention' that has lasted so many years in a gist, quite simply put in the words: I would think an actor of note would have been remarked on,'

It's not, dear Smatprt, what you, or I or any Tom, or Dick or Harry, might think about the subject, the primary documents, or secondary sources. It's what RS tell us scholars think and write which should be our only abiding concern. It's been 4 long years, and you still keep editing on the premise that your private beliefs must be negotiated with when we edit to an article on Shakespeare.Nishidani (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What’s even more ridiculous than claiming that Shakespeare’s play-writing career is not well-documented is this idea that evidence for his acting is sparse. There is ample evidence in the public record, as well as commentary during his lifetime by the Parnessus playwright and John Davies of Hereford in 1603, 1609, and 1611. After his death John Hemminge, Henry Condell, Ben Jonson, John Mabbe, William Basse, Hugh Holland, Leonard Digges, and Michael Drayton testified to his acting career, as well as Sir Richard Baker, a contemporary of Shakespeare and a friend of John Donne, who wrote “For writers of Playes, and such as had been Players theselves, William Shakespeare and Benjamin Jonson, have specially left their Names recommended to Posterity.” Having to make the case over and over again that fantasy does not have the same evidential value as the historical record is the reason why these pages bloat with stacks of dismal gray type/tripe. It has been so since Smatprt's began editing, as any Wikipedia Shakespeare editor can testify. One can hardly blame those editors who won't come near any page he's edited, and I daresay that's why this RfC has had so little response. Even ScienceApologist, who is ostensibly in charge of this process, hasn't weighed in, after the topic filled his talkpage with arguments over the same type of BS arguments this one is filling up with. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Correction: I said "an actor of no great notice", I didn't say he wasn't an actor or that "evidence for his acting is sparse". Of course he was listed in the references you provide. But an actor of "great notice" (ala Burbage)? Absolutley not. Smatprt (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Whenever you say the name "Shakespeare" or see it in print, you imply "Shakespeare of Stratford". The Revels account names simply "Shakespeare". We are just rehashing an age-old argument between Strats and anti-Strats over terminology. We've been asked not to go into minutia so we don't need to have this discussion here. Let's just say we disagree over the difference between "Shakespeare" and "Shakespeare of Stratford". Smatprt (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't say that the SAQ wasn't a fringe theory. I said that claiming “all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a 'fringe theory with no hard evidence' is POV wording which is not supported by sources, and could be considered WP:OR or WP:Synthesis.I added "In fact, the most recent survey [[19]] actually conducted on the issue does not even support the statement, noting that 61% of Shakespeare professors called it “a theory without convincing evidence”, which is quite different than labeling it a “fringe theory with no hard evidence”. It should be noted that only 32% labeled it "A waste of time and classroom distraction" - hardly a vast majority or consensus of scholars. (It’s also quite impossible to reliably source the current wording, short of a major and comprehensive survey of “all” Shakespeare scholars AND literary historians.)

As we move forward, I would appreciate accurate quoting. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just another note and the last on this. A NYTs survey of professors and colleage teachers of English is quite distinct from 'scholars and literary historians'. A lot of people drive cars, only a few are mechanics. Out of WP:NPOV considerations we kept out of the article the numerous quotations from the leading scholars in the field dismissing the theory as a form of ***ness. Attention or lack of attention to what words means is part of the problem of editing here.Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would respond, but any comment by me would be gilding the lily. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

At the very least a tag is needed. However, the proper course of action would be to return the article to this state [[20]], which is the version prior to draft 2 being prematurely installed. Neither draft 1 or 2 was to be uploaded until after the RFC was complete. This was the process all the regular editors agreed to, but was preempted by a bold edit here [[21]]. This would be the honorable thing to do, as the bold page move was made without consensus, and without either draft receiving a fair and impartial hearing from the wiki community. This current version should be sandboxed in order to preserve the work that has gone on since the premature page move I just described. I would like to note that the older version had contributions from several hundred editors, including those from both sides of the debate, attributes that are severely lacking in the current version. Returning to the agreed to process would go a long way towards mending present riffs, and would avoid the appearance of a Fait accompli. Smatprt (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Re the imposed voluntary topic ban is lifted

I see no reason for further extending the voluntary topic ban I imposed upon Users Nishidani, Tom Reedy, and Smatprt. The RfC has not yet provided a sound basis for a consensual merging of the two drafts into a satisfactory whole, and by my review of both is unlikely to, and it is difficult to see a late arriving commentator galvanising such an episode. I also consider that the relations between the primary authors of each different draft irredeemably broken, and even though the enforced voluntary topic ban necessitated an elevated level of contact and exchange of views between them that no progress was made (and no evidence I could find for it being attempted). In conclusion, I regret that it is clear to me that the exercise I promoted has failed, that the issues remain unresolved and apparently unresolvable, and that the conduct of the various editors remain as it was. The viewpoints and the manner in which articles are edited likely need leavening by the input of other parties of a different persuasion in all cases, and better application of relevant policy and guideline in some cases, for there to be a article that is presented in a NPOV manner. Unfortunately, that mix of editors is unlikely to be found among the three participants in the now ended imposed voluntary topic ban.
I am mindful of other discussions regarding the above named editors taking place, and of the prevailing weight of opinion regarding the likely outcome. I am disappointed that, in view of that fact, this opportunity was not grasped. I am not minded to apportion blame, personally, on who and why this state of affairs has come about because I trust the consensus of my fellow editors and admins to come to the most appropriate conclusion, but I do think that it is a shame that an editor who might have contributed so much instead chose to focus upon a narrow aspect of a field that has a minority viewpoint in Shakespeare scholarship.
"Cry "Havoc! ..." LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I trust the consensus of my fellow editors and admins to come to the most appropriate conclusion.

What does this mean, exactly? That the consensus of the seven admins to block Smatprt in the AN/I in which you intervened goes into effect? Or something else? What about Nishidani's original complaint? Is it not addressed? Tom Reedy (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My summary: just for the record. 8 Administrators (DGG dropped a late note on the AN/1 page), analysing Smatprt's refusal to allow me to edit pages where he promotes his fringe theory, thought this last instance of his behaviour warranted a topic ban. One admin, from extreme scruple of method, laid all three of us under a ban, misread ScienceApologist's request, Smatprt's forking of that remit to compel both Tom and I to work a sandbox version and leave him sole authority over his version. Tom and I then accepted this diktat, did not interact with Smatprt for 6 months, but did 1,500 edits to thoroughly revise a page, according to the best available RS sources, one that has a long and impossibly intricate history of poor drafting, conflictual editing according to the priorities of pseudhistorical advocacy. In that time, Smatprt did some 60 tweaks, i.e., sat round while we worked our arses off, and then banned me. Result? Nothing, except that all three of us lost a month's work, and then we're told, 'nothing has been decided', please proceed to 'merge' the fringe advocacy promo mess with the new page that has been methodically, and meticulously drafted, checked, analysed and compiled in order to try to present the global readership with a fair WP:NPOV, mainstream account of the Shakespeare Authorship Question. I think I and Tom have done everything humanly possible in the past 6 months, including shutting up about the old problems with that editor, to comply with administrative advice, and do what editors are supposed to do, including canvassing broadly for outside input, technical advice, peer-review. So the washing of hands here suggests to me that attention to sensitivities in a notorious POV warrior must be so refined that nothing can be done, that 1,500 edits to topic, using the best available scholarship are no better in their result than a few dozen tweaks by an editor over the same half year who has just placed his trust in the margins for continuing the conflict in the intricacies of bureaucratic confusion. Thank goodness circumstances are taking me, at least, away from wikipedia for several months. Thanks Less, I know you act honestly according to your lights, and a record for neutrality. But neutrality in administrative work should not be confused with mugwumpery. Objectively the laurels have gone to a mode of behaviour that visibly failed to do any significant work, but proved hyperactive in dispute.Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Editing rationale

I am extremely hesitant to make any edits whatsoever in the current version because despite all the late rancour, the page has achieved a certain delicate stability and I don't want to spark a flurry of edits that could set off another edit war. But two of Smatprt's complaints have merit, and I have incorporated those in the text of the lede. At the same time I updated the refs, since I am in the process of checking them at the sandbox 2 page.

As to Smatprt's desire to replace the lede with the old version, my considered response (as opposed to my heated response) is that the only non-involved reviewer, hamiltonstone, has said that the lede as it stands is more neutral than the other. As to the "scholars and fringe" material, the statement is well-sourced and the collective opinion of the academy is actually much harsher than presented, running to terms such as "perversion" and "pathology", for two of the milder examples. I can furnish examples if needed. I would also make the point that all professors and teachers are not scholars, no matter how a newspaper poll would like to conflate the two groups.

Once again, this edit is a very conservative attempt, and I don't think a flurry of edits by all is called for nor would be helpful at this point. If it is at all controversial or if it is followed by more contentious activity, I'll revert it, but I think it addresses two of Smatprt's points--although I'm sure not to the extent he desires--and that could be chalked up on the side of progress, no matter how incremental. My main goal is to establish an accurate, reliable, and NPOV article that is stable--not to have Smatprt topic banned, although it appears often that the first is predicated on the latter. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Close RfC?

This RfC has been going on for three weeks and has failed to gain any substantial comment beyond hamiltonstone's suggestions. Are there any objections to closing it, archiving the page, and getting on with bringing the article up to policy and guideline standards? Tom Reedy (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I think it would be a good idea to close the RfC. PhilKnight (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Original Research

This statement by Earl Showerman on the peer review page highlights another of the problems with the SAQ article. Not only is the SAQ article not neutral, it engages in original research. Here's Showerman's comment:

This statement regarding anti-Strratfordian research is very misleading: "Anti-Stratfordians rely on what they designate as circumstantial evidence: similarities between the characters and events portrayed in the works and the biography of their preferred candidates; literary parallels between the works and the known literary works of their candidate, and hidden codes and cryptographic allusions in Shakespeare's own works or texts written by contemporaries." In point of fact, authorship research explores the issues of early dating ("Dating Shakespeare's Plays" - ed. Kevin Gilvary - 2010), Italian topicalities ("The Shakespeare Guide to Italy" - Richard Paul Roe - 2010), political allegory, Shakespeare and the Law, and untranslated Greek sources, a much wider scope of research than proposed by the existing article. A review of on-line articles published in the peer-reviewed authorship journals, "The Oxfordian" and "Brief Chronicles" will attest to these points. The omission of any mention of the work of Mark Anderson ("Shakespeare by Another Name" - 2005), William Farina ("De Vere as Shakespeare" - 2006), or Diana Price ("Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography" - 2001) suggests the selected references are clearly prejudicial against the authorship challenge. Earl Showerman

NinaGreen (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am quite capable of reading the PR page, which seems to have attracted lots of attention from your listserv subscribers who have never edited anything on Wikipedia before now. Either Showerman hasn't actually read the article or he has poor comprehension. Anderson was in the article but he was taken out when the history section was shrunk; his contribution only extends Looney's methodology of matching events in the plays to the life of Oxford (and I was thinking about mentioning him in conjunction with the biographical readings, but I am trying to tend to the PR comments that were actually useful before adding anything). Price is included. Nothing that has not received an academic response can be included in the article, which you would know if you had read the policies as you claim to have. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, for the record Earl Showerman is not a member of my listserv. Please stop making false allegations of this sort. And you've avoided addressing the point made by Earl Showerman which is directly relevant to the issue of whether you're synthesizing material on your own, and engaging in original research. He has pointed out that Oxfordians use more types of evidence than the SAQ article acknowledges in its false dichotomy concerning the types of evidence used by both sides. It's all about neutrality, and it's examples such as this which demonstrate clearly just how non-neutral the SAQ article is.

Moreover, you're wrong as to Wikipedia policy when you state that 'Nothing that has not received an academic response can be included in the article'. Anti-Stratfordians can be quoted as sources on themselves as, for example, Charlton Ogburn on his views concerning the Stratford grammar school records. Here's the policy:

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

NinaGreen (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Moreover, you're wrong as to Wikipedia policy when you state that 'Nothing that has not received an academic response can be included in the article'." From WP:Fringe, Unwarrented promotion of fringe theories:

"Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play." Tom Reedy (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I didn't post Earl Showerman's comments from the PR page here so you alone could read them. There are other editors of this page who need to be aware of the violation in the SAQ article of the Wikipedia policies of no original research, neutrality and verifiability. You seem to be exhibiting more and more an attitude which suggests you feel the SAQ article is your own personal site, and that nothing can be done by any editor on it without your specific permission, another contravention of Wikipedia policy. I know you've put a great deal of effort into the SAQ article, but you don't own it, and your insistence that any edit must first be cleared with you, and your instantaneous reversion, without any discussion, of all edits which have been made with which you don't agree, suggests that you feel you do own it.NinaGreen (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Crux of the Problem

We seem to be at a standstill. Tom urges that we go to dispute resolution. I feel dispute resolution is a waste of time, and will simply further exacerbate the problem. I haven't been involved, but I understand dispute resolution has already been used so often on this page that another attempt at it will merely harden positions on both sides, and perhaps even frustrate Wikipedia administrators to the point that they will ban some editors, as has happened in the past.

The crux of the problem is threefold. The article is not neutral. The article engages throughout in synthesis and original research. The article uses sources which, although in themselves reliable in terms of Wikipedia's definition of reliability, are not reliable in terms of the point Tom claims they support. This is all defended in terms of the Wikipedia policy that the majority view must be presented as the majority view. But that is not the issue, and no-one has argued against that Wikipedia policy. As per Wikipedia policy, the majority view must be clearly presented as the majority view, but that does not mean that in implementing that Wikipedia policy the article must be written in such a way as to crush and diminish the alternate view by citing as many vitriolic comments as can be found on the majority view side, and misrepresenting the alternate view as without a shred of support for either its hypothesis or methodology in academia. Yet that is precisely how the article is written.

For the past few days I've pointed out some of the specific sections in which original research, lack of neutrality and use of reliable sources in support of claims which they don't actually support are evident. I even did some editing to try to improve those specific sections to make them more neutral. I also explained why some of the reasoning (i.e. synthesis and original research by earlier editors) can't be supported by the sources. My edits were instantly reverted by Tom, and I've been stonewalled by Tom and Paul on this Discussion page and on the Peer Review Discussion page with respect to every point I've brought up. I've suggested as an alternative that Tom and Paul tackle the non-neutrality issue themselves, since they won't let anyone else do it, and nothing has resulted from that suggestion either.

So as I say, we are at a standstill. There's simply no way of moving forward. But if there's no way of moving forward, by the same token Tom is unlikely to ever get the article past the peer review process, and have it granted FA status because it violates Wikipedia policies in the ways mentioned above. So everyone loses, not the least readers of the Wikipedia article who hoped to find a clear unbiased statement of the authorship controversy in this article.NinaGreen (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, I agree you have “pointed out some of the specific sections in which original research, lack of neutrality and use of reliable sources in support of claims which they don't actually support are evident” according to your interpretations (although I have yet to see a specific, coherent list of the particular offending edits), and from that exercise it is clear that your definitions of POV, OR, and RS are substantially different than that of the Wikipedia and academic communities, which is obvious by your contention that the SAQ is not a fringe theory or that no academic consensus exists that it is.

It is also evident that you are editing on the premise that your private beliefs must be negotiated with when we edit this article. That you can marshal the support of anonymous editors who have never before appeared on Wikipedia or made one edit adds no weight to your arguments. Wikipedia is not an exercise in democracy nor are the content policies determined by public opinion.

You say you won’t use the mechanisms Wikipedia has in place to address your concerns about neutrality and OR, yet you complain that things are at a standstill. Quite frankly, your repetitious postings are getting tiresome. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I've been very patient and polite as all get out, but your stonewalling is getting tiresome. I've put forward many specific suggestions in good faith for improving the neutrality and accuracy of the SAQ article. They have nothing to do with my personal POV, and they ARE in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have background which could be helpful in improving the SAQ article, just as I had background which allowed me to improve the Edward de Vere article (in fact I rewrote the entire thing, and it's now a factual and neutral article which other editors are currently working on in order to improve it still further). You continue to reject what I have to offer in terms of improving the SAQ article, inventing one excuse for doing so after another, and constantly suggesting dispute resolution for motives which I can't fathom. If you could just let someone else do some work on the SAQ article, there would be no need for dispute resolution. Instead you continue to stonewall every attempt to improve an article which definitely needs improvement.NinaGreen (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"I've put forward many specific suggestions in good faith for improving the neutrality and accuracy of the SAQ article."

They should be easy to list, then. I'm not going to slog through thousands of words to find those gems; perhaps you'd care to list them in a coherent list sans your editorial commentary?

Tom, you don't own this page. Having already provided you with numerous examples of the inaccuracies, lack of neutrality and use of original research in the article, I'm not obligated to find them all over again myself in order to provide you with a concise list, as though the page were your own personal property and you can set the conditions under which every other editor works.

I've offered to edit the page. All I need is for you to step back and let me do the work and improve the article, and not revert every substantive edit I make. I'd be quite happy for you (and Paul) to do the editing yourselves to make the page neutral, but you've both refused to do it. Even though everyone's telling you and Paul that the page isn't neutral and doesn't reflect the current reality of the authorship controversy, you both continue to take the position that the article is perfect as it is. Why don't you just step back and let people who can fix the neutrality issue get on with it? NinaGreen (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you afraid of dispute resolution, Nina? And what "stonewalling" are you talking about? Lack of attention to what words mean is part of the problem of editing here, and to me stonewalling means "Delay or block (a request, process, or person) by refusing to answer questions or by giving evasive replies". I have been anything but evasive; you know exactly my position, and I have not refused to answer questions but have been more than forthcoming. In fact, you seem to be the one who is stonewalling, because you pick out one detail out of several points that your interlocutors put to you and ignore the rest and act as if you've responded adequately, and you spout vague charges of censorship and being blocked from the page when no such thing has happened. What is the Oxfordian definition of stonewalling?

I am extremely tired of all this time-wasting bloviation and hand-waving. Go to WP:FRINGE/N and ask the simple question, "Is the SAQ a fringe theory?" That's all you have to do. I'm sure everybody will chime in and you'll get your answer, and I think that's probably why you refuse to do it. The default category for the SAQ at the present time is that of a fringe theory, and until you get it changed that's what it will continue to be. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As someone that has been following this debate from way before NinaGreen or Zweigenbaum joined it, I have been personally attacked above ("...anonymous editors who have never before appeared on Wikipedia or made one edit..."). This is not my field of expertise (just made an edit in a completely different field if you check my history, and I am one of the few editors in Wikipedia who was never "anonymous," from the first day I joined it. I even have a discussion about this in my talk page.) I will for the first time join forces openly with the sceptics in this debate and I will subsequently revert myself Tom Reedy's summary removal of the POV tag from the SAQ main article. I really need to start catching up on Reedy and Kathman to understand a little better what is really going on here in the real world... warshy^talk 20:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

How can you have been personally attacked if you joined the team after I made the comment? I have never considered you to be a partisan editor. And you might want to read TEMPLATE:POV and see what conditions its use.

And if you want to know "what is really going on here in the real world, here's what the SAQ article looked like before I ever made an edit, almost one year ago. That's what you're defending. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

washy, as far as I can see your only comment here has been to ask for a link to the Hotson book, which I provided. So why on earth would you think you were being attacked by anyone. It makes no sense. Paul B (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

To remove the tag now, on the face of interested onlookers such as myself, after more than a whole week of intense debate as if to imply:

• Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute in an article.

that there is no ongoing dispute here, is beyond ludicrous. It is unbeliavable chutzpa, nay it is really unbeliavably underhanded tactics, as I already said. Nothing less. Let's leave all the special interests of invested scholars aside for a moment, and most of all, let's leave aside the WP policies tactics and arguments. The new debate that started a week ago here has a clear line of definition for me. This is the clear line that cannot be made disappear with the wave of a simple wikitag: Is the view of the sceptics a fringe/conspiracy theory, or is it a legitimate minority view. I think for any uninterested onlooker that is really reading all the intense argumentation that is going on here, it has been proven without a doubt that it is a legitimate minority view. It is not just a "fringe/conspiracy theory." Until this basic point is clearly reflected on the article, that tag cannot be removed. Not to my view. And I have no illusions that it is still a long, difficult, uphill battle to achive just this minor achievement. warshy^talk 22:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well, in that case, you need dispute resolution, and I suggest you post a query at WP:FRINGE/N, which I have suggested to Nina more than once. How "intense argumentation" proves it is a legitimate minority view among academics (which is the benchmark for Wikipedia, as I'm sure you know) is inexplicable to me; if anything it proves the opposite. You might be surprised to know that the sources used to reference the initial lede statement are mild compared to many others out there from academics, which range from "lunatic fringe" to apparently serious accusations of mental illness. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm stopping here, because obviously there is no end to the debate. [It was my intellingence and my common sense that were attacked, nay mocked, dismissed as idiotic by the unbelievably underhanded tactics]. For any one who has followed this debate for a reasonable amount of time it is clear what the overall tactics are: tag as fringe and dismiss. That is how this version of this article was conceived to begin with. Once you tag it as fringe, and you also get it recognized as such, you can also trample and dismiss further as "conspiracy theory" or even better, mental illness. This is how it started and it will not stop here, it is clear. I will leave it to the specialists again. I am signing out for now. warshy^talk 00:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So you won't go to dispute resolution either. Why is it that those who are complaining that the article is violating neutrality and original research policies and guidelines don't trust the Wikipedia process to get those violations remedied? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is so funny... Do you think I have time to make this my occupation for the next months of my life. Do you think I care about it enough to go to court... Do you think I want to own this article and the subject matter as you do? Who cares. Take and make it your own. Actually you don't even have to follow my advice, because it is clear that that's what you've been doing here for a long time. No. I just prefer Nina's standstill. It is good enough for me. Be well. warshy^talk 00:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not a legitimate minority view because actual Shakespeare scholarship dismisses it. There have been huge advances in stylometry in recent years. All of these confirm Shakespeare's distinctive style and disprove Oxford and other candidates. Of course it's impossible to disprove those whose works do not survive, such as Derby. What strikes me most about this "debate" is the fact that the most implausible candidate of all - Oxford - is defended fanatically, but the most plausible (apart, obviously, Will himself) - Derby - is utterly ignored by the fanatics. That suggests that this debate is not about reasoned argument; it's abut emotional need. Paul B (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

One Small Edit

OK, I've made one small substantive edit. Let's see how it goes.

This is what was there:

Anti-Stratfordian arguments share several characteristics.<refMatus 1994, p. 15 note./ref> They all attempt to disqualify William Shakespeare as the author due to perceived inadequacies in his education or biography;

This is the change I made:

Anti-Stratfordian arguments share several characteristics. They all attempt to disqualify William Shakespeare as the author due to perceived inadequacies in his education or biography;<refMatus 1994, p. 15 note./ref>

The Matus note on p. 15 doesn't support the first sentence above. The note reads:

This is an opportune point to explain the term that will be used most often for those who question the Shakespeare authorship. The proponents of Oxford have succeeded in pushing their candidate to the forefront to no small degree by refining, amplifying and adding to the research the supporters of other candidates have, over the years, developed against the "Stratford man." Therefore, rather than using ponderous general terms for the "anti-Stratfordians," the challengers will be referred to by the generic term Oxfordians, except when clearly inappropriate.

There is nothing in the Matus note which permits it to be cited for the statement that anti-Stratfordian arguments share SEVERAL characteristics. Matus mentions only one characteristic, i.e. that Oxfordians have refined the arguments against Shakespeare of Stratford made by proponents of other authorship theories). So I've moved the Matus note so that it's cited as support for the second sentence, not the first. (I don't think it adequately supports the second sentence either for reasons I could explain but will omit for the moment, but I moved it rather than delete it so as to avoid a direct revert by Tom.)

But really, what kind of citation was this anyway (before I moved it)? Matus' note is very brief, without any supporting evidence or explication of the point it's being cited for, and, even more significantly, Matus didn't write the note for the purpose for which it's cited in the SAQ article. He wrote it to explain why he calls all challengers of orthodoxy 'Oxfordians' throughout his book, rather than 'using ponderous general terms for the 'anti-Stratfordians'. When the SAQ article makes a very broad generalization such as 'Anti-Stratfordian arguments share several characteristics', and cites something like the Matus note in support, what are we looking at other than (1) non-neutrality, (2) synthesis and original research, and (3) the citation of otherwise reliable sources for points which they don't support?NinaGreen (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Matus says that he is using the term "Oxfordian" as a generic for "anti-Stratforidian" because their arguments are all alike and he doesn't like the term "anti-Stratfordian". His investigation into the various theories as put forth in his book gives him the necessary expertise to make such a judgement. Nevertheless, I agree it could be better cited, and when I get time I'll find one that uses that language explicitly. Or you could find one; such statements are ubiquitous in the literature, as I'm sure you know. I'm currently working on the punch list. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you completely missed my point. In the SAQ article Matus is cited for the statement that anti-Stratfordian hypotheses share SEVERAL characteristics. Matus says nothing of the kind.NinaGreen (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This page is not a newsgroup for discussing the authorship question

All editors please read WP:TALK and stop crowding the page with arguments for or against Shakespeare or with airing your personal views. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss specific changes in the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I confess I got carried away with the Langley/Gardiner stuff which has b-all to do with authorship questions. It was just so interesting. Paul B (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum's rudeness

This page is not a venue for scolding or trolling, either. You are very free with your personal attacks, Zweigenbaum. Try to make your points in a more collegial way, please; Wikipledia is not a battleground. Was this you talking? (It's getting pretty hopeless to tell who says what on this page. But it sounds like you.):

The judgment was asserted and followed by unacceptable and arbitrary censorship. Is it possible you are also responsible for moving the lengthy comments below to an out of the way archive location, so you would not have to deal with their import? Is this neutrality? I seriously doubt. It appears to be an action in bad faith.

Removing a POV tag is not "censorship". I suggest you take a look at Template:POV for the proper use of the POV tag (which does not include "drive-by tagging" by brand new users). And assuming bad faith on no ground is utterly against Wikipedia principle and policy. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC).

Zweigenbaum See Neutrality sections for responses to this. Zweigenbaum (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing the POV tag

When I wrote the above, I wasn't aware that you had just reinserted the POV tag. And of course you, when you reinserted it, can't have been aware of my post. But now presumably you are. Please, as I suggested, take a look at Template:POV to familiarise yourself with the proper use of the POV tag, which does not include "drive-by tagging" by brand new users. And please don't edit war to put it back! Since you're so new, you may not be aware of the policy WP:3RR. I strongly advise you to read it before you edit the article again.

I have removed the tag; it's not appropriate on this article. I hope you will read my links about it before you again explain to the rest of us what the tag is for in your opinion. Bishonen | talk 01:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

NPOV violations

List them here. Be specific and say why. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I may work on it or not as the time allows. But in the 'final' article, to my mind, the one that may not have the tag on top of it anymore, there will have to be a statement clearly saying that for a long time the sceptics view was dismissed as mere "fringe/conspiracy theory," not as serious scholarship, that also contributes to the development of knowledge of the subject matter (as even Shapiro recognizes to a certain degree in "Contested Will"). "Today" this is not the case anymore. But this day is still a long ways, I think... warshy^talk 23:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So in other words you are demanding that the article comply to your own personal belief instead of the academic consensus. Interesting. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Warshy, what you say is utterly untrue. It was closest to being mainstream around about 1900-1930. It is now totally discreditred among actual Shakespeare scholars. The internet and the growth of cheap publishing has made it more popularly known, but that's all. Paul B (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you wrote:

It is now totally discreditred among actual Shakespeare scholars

In light of your comment it seems necessary to post the entire article on the 2007 survey of those who teach Shakespeare in U.S. universities, which found that 72% of those surveyed covered the authorship controversy in their classes, while a total of 17% saw either 'good reason' or 'possibly good reason' to doubt that Shakespeare of Stratford was the principal author of the poems and plays in the canon. Neither 72% nor 17% are figures which support your claim that the hypothesis is 'now totally discredited among actual Shakespeare scholars'. The majority in the academy (82%) see no reason to doubt Shakespeare of Stratford's authorship. On the other hand, there is a substantial minority (17%) in the academy who either see 'good' or 'possibly good' reason to doubt. That's the reality of the situation. This survey is what should be cited at the beginning of the SAQ article as representative of the current view of Shakespeare scholars (i.e. the academy).

Here's the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/education/shakespeare.html?_r=2

Shakespeare Reaffirmed

By WILLIAM S. NIEDERKORN

Published: April 22, 2007

HERE’S good news for Stratfordians as they celebrate the Bard’s birth, on April 23: Professors believe in him.

Did He or Didn’t He? That Is the Question Read the complete survey results and methodology.

In an Education Life survey of American professors of Shakespeare, 82 percent said there is no good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon was the principal author of the poems and plays in the canon; 6 percent said there is good reason, while 11 percent saw possibly good reason.

What has come to be known as the “authorship question” dates back more than 150 years. Doubters allege that Shakespeare lacked the education, library and foreign travel to have produced the English language’s greatest works, and have pushed for acceptance in academe. In one small victory, next fall Brunel University, one of England’s plate-glass universities of the 1960s, will offer what is thought to be the first graduate program in Shakespeare authorship studies.

But where do American colleges and universities stand on the question?

Last month, 265 professors filled out an online survey for Education Life. The professors teach Shakespeare in the English departments of public and private four-year colleges and universities, which were selected randomly. The survey has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Sixty-one percent of respondents said they considered the authorship question a theory without convincing evidence, and 32 percent found it a waste of time and distraction in the classroom; 3 percent considered it an exciting opportunity for scholarship, and 2 percent said it has profound implications for the field.

Students, though, can expect to learn something about the issue: 72 percent of professors said they address the authorship question in their classes. Others (26 percent) wait for students to ask about it; 2 percent don’t mention it at all.

The professors were better versed in writings by advocates for the Earl of Oxford, the most prominent alternative candidate, than by Shakespeare defenders. The Oxfordians J. Thomas Looney, Charlton Ogburn and Mark Anderson had been read by 29 percent, 26 percent and 17 percent respectively; the Stratfordians Scott McCrea and Irvin Matus had been read by 11 and 10 percent.

Expressing a view that resounded in the responses, one professor wrote, “I would be thrilled if people would get half as excited about the plays as they did about wondering who wrote them.”

NinaGreen (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is astonishing. You are complaining about original research and you think this is a reliable source proving that the SAQ is an acceptable academic topic and not a fringe theory? And I specifically created this subsection to list specific NPOV violations in the article so we could all take a look at them, not to revisit your assertion that the SAQ is a minority rather than a fringe view. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Warshy, two points. First, "those who teach Shakespeare in U.S. universities" is not the same group as "Shakespeare scholars". Shakespeare scholars are those who conduct and publish peer reviewed research in relation to Shakespeare and his works. They are likely to be a minority of those who are teaching the material. The test for whether it is a fringe theory should examine the status of the theory amongst the scholarly community and in the scholarly literature. Second, teaching a theory is not necessarily relevant to the status of the theory. In classes in which philosophy of science has been a subject, I have taught simple positivist empiricism in order to use it to demonstrate certain concepts, and then in order to explain its rejection by 20th century scholars. I taught it, but I didn't accept it. The Shakespear authorship question can be a useful pedagogical device, without implying it has any actual merit. That would not however be a valid basis on which to approach the subject in an encyclopedia article. I think the status of SAQ as WP:FRINGE should not be opened to debate yet again. It is a fringe theory, and I think it is to the credit of people like Tom Reedy that they are going to great trouble to construct an article that both explains the theory's existence while trying to retain a key underlying message: this is a fringe theory accepted by almost no serious scholar. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone, you've raised a very significant point which perhaps explains why the SAQ article is not neutral. There is a world out there besides the very small group of Shakespeare 'scholars', i.e. those who conduct and publish peer reviewed research in relation to Shakespeare and his works. I don't know how many individuals are included in that very small group, and I suspect you don't know either. But let's say for the sake of argument that you're right (without conceding the distinction, because I don't think it's a valid one). Then why are individuals cited in the first footnote who are not, and never were, members of that group, or who, if they were once members of it, are either retired or deceased?

Here's the footnote:

Kathman 2003, p. 621: "...in fact, antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence. Professional Shakespeare scholars mostly pay little attention to it, much as evolutionary biologists ignore creationists and astronomers dismiss UFO sightings."; Schoenbaum 1991, p. 450: "A great many of the schismatics are (as we have seen) distinguished in fields other than literary scholarship, and their ignorance of fact and method is as dismaying as their non-specialist love of Shakespeare's plays is touching."; Nicholl 2010, p. 4 quotes Gail Kern Paster, director of the Folger Shakespeare Library: "To ask me about the authorship question ... is like asking a palaeontologist to debate a creationist's account of the fossil record."; Nelson 2004, p. 151: "I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... Among editors of Shakespeare in the major publishing houses, none that I know questions the authorship of the Shakespeare canon."; Carroll 2004, pp. 278–9: "I am an academic, a member of what is called the 'Shakespeare Establishment,' one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less, by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare—and, some say, who participate in a dark conspiracy to suppress the truth about Shakespeare.... I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him. Like others in my position, I know there is an anti-Stratfordian point of view and understand roughly the case it makes. Like St. Louis, it is out there, I know, somewhere, but it receives little of my attention."; Pendleton 1994, p. 21: "Shakespeareans sometimes take the position that to even engage the Oxfordian hypothesis is to give it a countenance it does not warrant. And, of course, any Shakespearean who reads a hundred pages on the authorship question inevitably realizes that nothing he can say will prevail with those persuaded to be persuaded otherwise."; Gibson 2005, p. 30.

This footnote establishes that your position (and I gather it's the position from which the SAQ article was written), is entirely inconsistent with the sources cited for it in the footnote, since some individuals cited in the footnote were never members of that small group, while others are retired or deceased, and can hardly be said to represent the current view of members of that small group.NinaGreen (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Since hamiltonstone is seeking to define terms, I have another pertinent question. The lede in the SAQ article states:

all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory with no hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims

Who among the sources for that statement cited in the footnote I've copied above is a 'literary historian'?

And what exactly is the definition of a literary historian in terms of the subject matter of the SAQ article?NinaGreen (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

More inconsistencies. The position taken by hamiltonstone above is this:

Shakespeare scholars are those who conduct and publish peer reviewed research in relation to Shakespeare and his works. They are likely to be a minority of those who are teaching the material.

Yet one of the sources cited in the footnote directly contradicts hamiltonstone's position (and Paul Barlow's position on the same point as well). D. Allen Carroll is quoted in the footnote as follows:

Carroll 2004, pp. 278–9: "I am an academic, a member of what is called the 'Shakespeare Establishment,' one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less, by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare . . . ."

In other words, a member of the Shakespeare establishment defines it to include the 20,000 professors in the U.S. who make their living by teaching Shakespeare, but hamiltonstone and Paul Barlow beg to differ with Carroll (while citing him as their source!), and define Shakespeare scholars as only a select group 'who are likely to be a minority of those who are teaching the material'. Could there be a better example of the lack of neutrality in the SAQ article? Or a better example of original research by editors of the SAQ article, substituting their own views for those of the very academics they quote as their sources?

There is also another example of the lack of neutrality by editors of the SAQ article, an example of selective quotation. The editors of the SAQ article suppressed the very next sentence in Carroll's article in the Tennessee Law Review from which they are quoting:

I may not be, therefore, a person fit to champion the cause on behalf of which I have such strong feelings and which seems to me so self-evident.

I'm not going to debate whether Carroll is or is not 'a person fit to champion a cause on which he has such strong feelings'. But the selective quotation of Carroll's comments by the editors of the SAQ article speaks for itself.NinaGreen (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The President of the SAA has advised that:

Mr. Reedy is in error. The SAA does not have 'an opinion' on the authorship question. Moreover, there is no ban on speaking or writing about that topic at our annual conference. Several so-called Oxfordians are members of the organization and have presented papers at that meeting.

Now that we've gotten Tom's erroneous claim about the SAA out of the way, let's get back to the interesting point raised by hamiltonstone, which is contradicted by D. Allen Carroll, who is quoted in footnote 3 in the SAQ article as follows:

Carroll 2004, pp. 278–9: "I am an academic, a member of what is called the 'Shakespeare Establishment,' one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less, by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare . . . ."

Hamiltonstone (and Paul Barlow) beg to differ with Professor Carroll (thus engaging in original research, contrary to one of Wikipedia's pillar policies). Hamiltonstone wrote:

First, "those who teach Shakespeare in U.S. universities" is not the same group as "Shakespeare scholars". Shakespeare scholars are those who conduct and publish peer reviewed research in relation to Shakespeare and his works. They are likely to be a minority of those who are teaching the material.

So whose definition of those who make up the majority view which must be fairly represented, according to Wikipedia policy, in the SAQ article is correct? Is it Carroll, who says the mainstream view (the Shakespeare establishment) is that of the 20,000 professors who make their living by teaching, reading and writing about Shakespeare, or is it hamiltonstone and Paul Barlow, who say the mainstream view is that of a very small and ill-defined subset of the 20,000? Clearly, according to Wikipedia policy, there can be only one answer to that. For Hamiltonstone and Paul Barlow to substitute their own view for the view of the mainstream scholar whom they are citing as their source (no less!), constitutes original research, which is expressly forbidden to Wikipedia editors by Wikipedia policy.

So can we now move on, accepting as the basis of the SAQ article that the mainstream view which is to be represented in the article is Carroll's 20,000?

There, now wasn't that easy? And it didn't require going through contentious dispute resolution. We merely argued the point among ourselves to its logical conclusion.NinaGreen (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, the term "professors" in the Niederkorn article refers to teachers in "public and private private four-year colleges and universities, which were selected randomly". It does not refer to specialists on Shakespeare. Almost all literature teachers and drama teachers "teach Shakespeare" in some context. That doesn't mean they know anything about detailed scholarship on the topic. Niederkorn , as you know, is well known promotor of anti-Statfordianism. The survey is worthless as evidence. Paul B (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, are you aware that you have just called a New York Times survey 'worthless as evidence' which is cited as a reliable source in the SAQ article and was cited as such when Tom submitted the SAQ article for peer review?

This is a very clear example of why the SAQ article is not neutral. When it serves your purpose to cite the survey in the SAQ as a reliable source, you cite it as such. When I refer to it as a reliable source, you state unequivocally that that same survey is 'worthless as evidence', and denigrate the survey methodology (which is original research on your part).NinaGreen (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The NYT is a relaiable source. That means it usually reports what it reports as accurately as possible. What I said is that the survey is worthless as evidence that that there is some sort of significant minority acceptance of the legitimacy of SAQ within the community of Shakespeare scholars. I did not imply that the the survey cannot be mentioned in the article. You are confused about what I was saying. Paul B (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The NYT survey is mentioned in the article along with a link in the history section. It is not in any way a reliable source about what the academic consensus is about the subject. What Nina wants to do is ignore the opinion of the Shakespeare Association of America, which has banned the SAQ as an acceptable topic for papers and conferences, and substitute the results of polling 265 Shakespeare professors--whatever they are. The poll incorporates selection bias; those who answered that the question "Which of the following best describes your opinion of the Shakespeare authorship question?" positively ("Has profound implications for the field"-2 percent, or "An exciting opportunity for scholarship"-3 percent) is within the 5 percent margin of error, and the respondents were forced to choose from vague pre-selected answers. The poll is only proof of the tendency of the anti-Stratfordian mind to jump to conclusions on too little data. If the topic is merely a minority viewpoint worthy of academic study, why is the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition circulating their Declaration of Reasonable Doubt petition with the stated goal "to legitimize the issue in academia so students, teachers and professors can feel free to pursue it"? The petition itself is evidence that it is a fringe theory and not accepted in academe. In fact, this entire conversation on this talkpage has nothing to do with improving the article, but appears to be one more tactic to reach that goal. Unfortunately for them, neither science not history is determined by a vote.

I would also add that this same conversation has been rehearsed many times on Wikipedia. Anti-Stratfordians look at the encyclopedia as a vehicle to promote their theories, and every time someone tries to improve this article to reflect the academic consensus and comply to Wikipedia policy, new and SPA editors jump in to obstruct and delay. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote:

What Nina wants to do is ignore the opinion of the Shakespeare Association of America, which has banned the SAQ as an acceptable topic for papers and conferences

On the contrary. If such a ban exists, it SHOULD be cited in the footnote quoted above. It is an excellent example of the VERY TYPE OF EVIDENCE I've been stating should be cited in that footnote since it is evidence which is representative of the current consensus of the academy. Please cite it forthwith.

What should NOT be cited in that footnote as evidence of the current consensus of the academy is the views of individuals who have never been members of the academy, or who are retired or deceased, and thus cannot represent the current consensus of the academy IF the definition of the academy is to be the restricted definition which hamiltonstone and Paul Barlow have put forward (see my reply to hamiltonstone above).NinaGreen (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

After Tom made the categorical statement above that the Shakespeare Association 'had banned the SAQ as an acceptable topic for papers and conferences', I e-mailed the SAA, and received this reply from the President this morning:

Mr. Reedy is in error. The SAA does not have 'an opinion' on the authorship question. Moreover, there is no ban on speaking or writing about that topic at our annual conference. Several so-called Oxfordians are members of the organization and have presented papers at that meeting.

There could not be much clearer evidence of the non-neutrality of the SAQ article under Tom's editorship of it, or of the original research which is and has been going on in connection with the SAQ, than the fact that Tom made this patently untrue statement on this Discussion page about the official SAA position.16:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it appears I was in error. IIRC, I got that from an interview with Shapiro in the Journal of Higher Education or another journal. I'll try to find it again, although it is moot now. I do know that Charles Boyle has spoken at the SAA conference; his experience can be found here. I've alos talked with other Oxfordians who said their presentations were cancelled because of their authorship beliefs. I'm sure you're familiar with the incident. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you've taken ownership of the SAQ article and claim to be an authority on the authorship controversy, yet you didn't know what the current SAA position on the authorship issue is, and misinformed everyone reading this page about it, and if I hadn't e-mailed the SAA (which you, of course, could have done yourself), everyone reading this page would still be completely misinformed as to the SAA position. You seem to be brushing that off as an irrelevant and minor error. It's not.

It is a minor error, Nina; it wasn't put into the article and it was my belief at the time. I thought about e-mailing them myself, but I have other things to do. I also thought about suggesting you do so, but you have demonstrated little willingness to go beyond lobbying on this talk page, so I didn't. I am happy that you took some initiative.

And as if one error isn't enough, you now state that you're SURE that I'm familiar with some incident or other involving cancellation of presentations by the SAA which I've NEVER HEARD OF, and am not in the least 'familiar with'.

Lynne Kositsky told me that she and Roger Stritmatter were prevented from presenting a paper about The Tempest at an SAA conference. I assumed you knew about it because they made their complaints known, and since you're a high-profile Oxfordian who runs an Oxfordian web site and an Oxfordian newsgroup, I thought you had at least heard about it.

A pattern of unsubstantiated allegations is beginning to develop here.NinaGreen (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Call 911, Nina. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There are many editors like myself who have effectively delegated care of this article to people like Tom Reedy: there is no ownership issue. This section invites those supporting the NPOV tag to list their concerns; be specific and say why. I see no evidence-based support for an NPOV tag. Every contentious issue (there are hundreds at Wikipedia) has a core of editors who support the scholarship view, and another core who want other material introduced (material that would unduly suggest support for an alternative view). If the NPOV tag is to stay, there must be a clear statement of what material in the article violates NPOV, and there must be reasons to explain why that material is NPOV, and there must be references to support the claims. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, in view of the patently erroneous claim Tom made about the official position of the SAA on the authorship issue (see above), is it wise of editors like you to 'have effectively delegated care of this article to people like Tom Reedy'?NinaGreen (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anybody who is quoted who isn't or wasn't a member of SAA, so I have no idea what you're going on about. The statement is referenced with reliable sources according to Wikipedia's standards, and I don't know that quoting a directive or memorandum of the SAA would qualify as a WP:PR. Whether a person is dead or retired has nothing to do with it; the academic consensus has been the same since around 1900 from all the sources I've read, and hasn't budged. Stanley Wells, Chairman of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and acknowledged the world’s leading expert on Shakespeare, calls anti-Stratfordian evidence "nonsense" and states that "There is no room for reasonable doubt that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote ... the works traditionally ascribed to him, and maybe one or two others," and said, "All theories ... rely on conspiracy theory and a lot of them are, well really, pretty crazy." Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide, published by the Oxford University Press, about as WP:RS as you can get, is where Kathman's essay is found.

But of course you know all this, yet you insist that this article cater to your personal beliefs instead of Wikipedia policy. If you want to clear, black-and-white decision that the SAQ is or is not a fringe theory, take your question to WP:FRINGE/N. I already know it is, and so does the academic community.

I am tired of posting about this. When you post your query to the fringe noticeboard, I'll reiterate my case. Until then, you'll have to be content with the 10,000 or so words I've written on this talkpage and the Oxford talkpage. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)