Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 13

Lead compromise
We need to chill out on the lead and come to a compromise that will suit nobody 100 percent. Looking over the wording that has been suggested over the past however long it's been, I think Schoenbaum came closest to a workable compromise. Here's an adaptation of his wording that I'll endorse so we can put this dispute behind us and take up another one:

'''The controversy dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted public attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures; but it is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars. '''

I've deleted "small", which, although Schoenbaum accepted it, I will concede for the sake of progress since it seems to be a sticking point for Smatprt. I've also substituted "great", which Schoenbaum said he accepted on Feb. 27 and 28 and has been accepted for "vast" I think this is about as good as it's going to get. I also don't like stacking the refs, so I combined them into one cite.

Votes? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't oppose this. It's not bad. I still think however 'vast' is the proper adjective since so many sources confirm it.Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would only suggest one minor tweak. I agree with earlier statements that using "controversy" twice in two adjoining sentences is poor writing. Since "controversy" is only allowed to be used when it is defined as "debate" (The term should be used carefully and only when it is interchangeable with the words debate or dispute)[], I would suggest this:

'''Public debate dates to the mid-19th century. It has attracted public attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures; but it is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.'''
 * This is supported by your quote from McCrae (McCrea, 13: “It was not until 1848 that the Authorship Question emerged from the obscurity of private speculation into the daylight of public debate.”). The we don't have to quibble on when the "private speculation" to which McCrae refers actually started. Smatprt (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tom, for proposing a compromise. I support it, with Smatprt's minor tweak, which is consistent with Nishidani's point that we shouldn't use "controversy" twice in these two sentences. Also, "Public debate" is supported by the McCrea quote, and leaves it open as to when the earliest doubts first arose, as it should be. Please note that I would have preferred, "In recent decades it has attracted increased public attention ...", but I'll drop it for now because you object, Tom. I should mention, though, that I've heard James Shapiro's Contested Will provides solid support for it, and so I may want to revisit the issue once his book is out. So are we all ready to move on to sentence #3? Schoenbaum (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Public debate of the issue?" "Public debate of the theory?" "Public debate" by itself seems to me to just be hanging out there, although perhaps that's just me. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind; I fixed it by beginning the sentence with "The". Tom Reedy (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And Schoenbaum, I'm sure there are any number of sources that say so now, because interest increased after Ogburn published another tome after the mock-court debates and with the growth of the Internet, but my point in leaving it out is that it doesn't give the full picture. There was more public interest in Bacon at the beginning of the 20th C. than there is in Oxford now. Oxford began coming up and then the war began, which had a curious effect of concentrating public attention on more important things, and anti-Stratfordism never recovered its popularity until 40+ years after the war ended. So just saying it has become more popular in recent decades would imply that it hibernated until just recently, and it's too much detail to be completely accurate in the lead. Better just say it has won public attention and explain the details in the text. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize I'm coming a bit late to this discussion, but either of these is acceptable to me. I actually prefer Tom's original wording the best. "Controversy" is a good word for what we're engaged in, and gets rid of the weasel word "vast." "Great majority" seems far more empirical to me. At some point in the future, the phrase will require changing,but that day is not yet. Thanks for the good suggestion, Tom.--BenJonson (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand of 'weasel', in wiki. It cannot refer to the use of 'vast' here because many sources, some cited, use that adjective to describe the majority of Shakespearean scholars who dismiss the de Verean foghorn. A word repeated in RS to describe the identical phenomenon is not a 'weasel word'.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you say that "there was more public interest in Bacon at the beginning of the 20 C. than there is Oxford today." How are you measuring "public interest." I don't think you are correct, but I'm interested in what sources or methods of inference you would use to defend this claim? Also, I would caution you not to get overconfident about what the next few years will hold. Your bias is very evident in word choice such as Ogburn's "tome." Since then we have had Sobran, Anderson, Farina, etc, just to mention the Oxfordian books, and there's a lot more coming down the pike which will continue to provoke both public and academic interest. So even if you could defend your claim in 2010 (can you?) I doubt that you'll be able to do so in 2012. I agree, however, with your larger point that there is a long and intriguing history to be recounted here, and the present article greatly oversimplifies and in some cases misconstrues that history. So what do you say that you stop flogging Schoenbaum, Smarprt, and myself, with accusation of bad faith or statements that we are "crazy," etc., and get about reading, understanding, and writing about, that history? --BenJonson (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Good points you make, Tom. "Public debate" by itself is dangling. I'd prefer "Public debate of the issue" myself. Also, I agree that the history of public interest in the issue is too complex to capsulize in the lead. Your version is fine. 96.251.82.13 (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Smatprt, the note label got lost because I just did a select-cut-and-replace instead of changing the sentence word-by-word. I wasn't aware of the note and didn't read it until you replaced it. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nietzsche
I hope you de Vereans true-believers do not take my good faith addition of the name of Nietzsche among sceptics as an occasion for ruining the Nietzsche page, which I have just bookmarked, in case the mania for splashing the conspiracy theory everywhere follows this trail. Like Freud, Nietzsche wavered, and in the end embraced the Baconian version, on very complex, and indeed (in the secondary lit on Nietzsche this is often stated) snobbish grounds. You can, see it for example in Ecce Homo:4 'Und, dass ich es bekenne: ich bin dessen instinktiv sicher und gewiss, dass Lord Bacon der Urheber, der Selbstthierquäler dieser unheimlichsten Art Litteratur ist: was geht mich das erbarmungswürdige Geschwätz amerikanischer Wirr- und Flachköpfe an?'(Werke, Carl Hanser, 1994, Bd.2, p.1089). Note however the unkind remarks he has on the American rage for authorship doubters of his time.Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, Nishidani. We stopped beating our wives last week. Thanks for adding the Neitzsche reference. I am going to repeat my request that you stop insulting your fellow wikipedians. It merely makes you look ugly.--BenJonson (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And I'm going to ask that you stop making baseless accusations of "insulting your fellow wikipedians". I know you're trying to build a case that you made an effort to discuss the "problem" with the "offender", but your transparent efforts remind me of the cops who twist a suspect's arm behind his back while shouting "Stop resisting" because they know the dashcam is running. Such accusations from a master of superciliousness is ironic indeed, and will gain you no credibility this time, no matter how many times it's worked in the past. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 'It merely makes you look ugly'. Well, the truth will out. What's wrong with being ugly? I'm comfortable with it.Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom, you have been asked to refrain from attacking fellow editors going back months and months. No case needs to be mad, as this has been discussed numerous times - and you were warned about this at Wikiquette by an administrator who persuaded you (under threat of a block) to delete your offending statements.Smatprt (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, I take it from your response that you are just going to continue attacking and insulting fellow editors? Smatprt (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 'I take it' means 'I interpret it to mean'. You misinterpreted my responses. I want serious editing, by competent editors ready to inform themselves of the subject under discussion. If you feel insulted by my repeated endeavours to insist you stick to wiki editorial protocols, and stop messing with a text with bad edits that require constant surveillance and correction, well be it. This is supposed to be on the 'high quality scale'. There is no evidence of it, and you've been here far longer than I have. So assume some responsibility. This is not the deVerean aficionados' clubpage. It is a wikipedia page in which even those who subscribe to the fringe doctrine are asked to rein in their partisan belief system to ensure neutrality. I see little sign of any willingness on your part to listen to what editors you disagree with are arguing, saying or demonstrating by reference to real Reliable Sources.Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "You misinterpreted my responses." There's a good one. You're a one man riot, Nishi.--BenJonson (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

POV tags added
I have added two POV tags for the following reasons:


 * The lead states that "the theory" dates back to the 19th century as an undisputed fact. This is, in fact, a disputed assertion (disputed by both mainstream academics as well as those who hold the minority viewpoint).
 * You use plurals for the singular. You quoted 1 sourcebook, from scholars, citing texts that have been construed as suggesting doubts preexisted 1848. Tom Reedy dealt with this. You have yet to show it is 'disputed by mainstream academics'. Paul Barlow contested this, referring to recent research in the intervening 4 decades which gave the denier to your claim.


 * The second sentence uses the weasel words "small" and "vast" without any data to support them. The term "vast" is being taken out of context from its use in the source quoted, which says  "The traditional theory that Shakespeare was Shakespeare has the passive to active acceptance of the vast majority of English professors and scholars".  In the article the usage says that the entire authorship issue  "is dismissed by the vast majority of academic Shakespeare scholars". This is POV and in no way neutral. Smatprt (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone one step further: the whole article is a flagrant POV mess. The problem cannot, as your little intervention suggests, be restricted to the introduction.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither 'small' nor 'vast' are weasel words. They have data to support them.
 * The vast majority of academics accept that the William Shakespere recorded as living in Stratford-upon-Avon, the actor Shakespeare and the playwright Shakespeare are one and the same person
 * The vast majority of academics still subscribe to that belief. WILLIAM S. NIEDERKORN A Historic Whodunit: If Shakespeare Didn't, Who Did? NYTimes
 * those involved in the Authorship Question, the vast majority of whom were non-academics William Leahy 'The Shakespeare Authorship Question – A Suitable Subject for Academia?,' p.3 (this is the inverse corollary)
 * The vast majority of Shakespeare academics express no doubt that William Shakespeare––Stratford businessman, actor, theater company share-holder–– wrote the plays and poems attributed to him.' The International Marlowe-Shakespeare Society
 * ike the vast majority of scholars who work on Shakespeare, I find the DeVere hypothesis wildly implausible Stephen Greenblatt


 * Nishidani - those are not undisputed facts - those are opinions of selected anti-Stratfordians. (And beside, you are still misquoting your source)Smatprt (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Smatprt. I don't like using the sign of the cross, and biting my lips, and exhaling the anodynic susurrus: 'be charitable' under my breath, as a prolegomenon every time I have to reply to you. But I'llk try . .bz hs.. uhm..The citations are not meant to be undisputed facts. They are intended to illustrate the widespread use of 'vast majority' which you recalcitrantly refuse to accept, among scholars who describe what mainstream scholarship thinks of the Authorship doubters. To repeat (cross myself, purse my lips), editors are not entitled to complain about what mainstream sources, or RS, say, as you are doing here, and reject that data simply because, apparently, it rubs up against their prejudices. What you've just done is reject four RS sources simply on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For the truth of the matter, it is not relevant how many people support one argument or the other. It only matters what the arguments are. For example, the author of The Tempest relied on the Strachey letter as a main source. Since at Jamestown, Secretary William Strachey, Deputy Governor Sir Thomas Gates, Governor Lord De La Warr, and in London the entire Virginia Company were under an oath of secrecy then anyone who had handed Shakspere that document would have been prosecuted. Since England were at war with Spain who were gathering intelligence to decide whether or not to take Jamestown, release of that document would also have been treason. The author of The Tempest had to be a member of the Virginia Council and Shakspere was not. These are the facts and orthodox scholars need to do more work on this issue. I can save time by giving a free download link http://barryispuzzled.com/shakpuzz.pdf (see chapter on The Tempest) intended for anyone with the academic integrity not to brush unpalatable facts under the carpet.Temperance007 (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * He's B-A-C-K! And lecturing again about "academic integrity" while ignoring current scholarship.--BenJonson (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You'd do well, to read the rules of wikipedia, where it does not matter what the arguments are, but matters greatly if they are sourced to quality scholarly, optimally from university presses.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What's your game here Smatprt? I don't think you are just thick. Is the strategy to exhaust our attention by a pattern of manic attrition in which arguments made earlier (see above my discussion with Schoenbaum on Greenblatt) are ignored, and represented as if nothing had be said, proven, or discussed, until the opposition expires from sheer exasperation, and leaves the field to the fringers who otherwise stand by as you harass the place with wikilawyering and dysmnemnonic hair-splitting? Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As near as I can figure it out, that's it, or certainly a major strategy. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shall we return to discussing the edits instead of the editors? Thanks. You have proved my point - not one of your quotes uses the term "vast" in terms of "dismissing" the entire subject, which is exactly what you are trying to say. After all your requests for precision in sourcing and quotes, I don't know how else to explain to you that you are misquoting your source. Seriously, one last effort here - don't you think there are scholars out there who do indeed accept the traditional attribution but do not categorically dismiss the entire subject? Personally they don't believe it, but they maintain an open mind or have no opinion because they have done zero research? Or the ones who say "I am not convinced" - not "I think you are nuts, dismissed!"? Smatprt (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are so tied to using the word "vast", which unless you are very careful can be a peacock term wp:peacock, you need to pick one of those quotes to use and not a different sentence of your own devising. You suggested it once above and I would tend to agree that would be the way to go. How did you phrase it?


 * I don't know of any rule or policy that says the phrasing has to follow the source word-for-word. And I really don't know why you're putting up such a struggle about this. As you frequently say, is the statement in any doubt? The only time they don't dismiss the subject is when they're refuting it, which since their time is apparently more valuable than yours or mine, they rarely deign to do.
 * We could just scrap the "vast majority" wording and go with Kathman's: ". . . the first [the Shakespeare authorship question] is dismissed as the realm of crackpots"(620), or perhaps the gentler ". . . in fact, antiStratdordianism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence. Professional Shakespeare scholars pay little attention to it, much as evolutionary biologists ignore creationists and astronomers dismiss UFO sightings" (621). I see no weaseling in those quotes, do you?
 * Seriously, I could go with "great majority," as Schoenbaum suggested many months ago, or at least that's how long it seems. I'm anxious to spend another 15,000 or so words on discussing the third sentence. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Reading
I thought this was an excellent article:

2nd try on the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ravpapa/The_Politicization_of_Wikipedia

"What is to be done? I am the last person to suggest abandoning one of the pillars of Wikipedia. I do believe, however, that true neutrality can only be achieved by granting equal platforms to opposing camps to tell their story as they see it. This does not mean abandoning the principles of comprehensiveness, reliability of sources, and academic rigor. It means allowing opposing narratives free and equal voices." What I have been objecting to all along about this article is the presumption of people who do not agree with the anti-Stratfordian/Oxfordian case presuming to speak for those who do. I think that problem has been partly redressed, and some of the more extreme voices have faded away. But the lingering assumption that because the anti-Stratfordian editors to the page are "lesser breeds before the law" they cannot be trusted to accurately interpret the history and bases of their own skepticism is still unduly influencing page content. BenJonson (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No,we do not grant equal platforms to holocaust deniers and holocast believers, for example. The internet is free for anyone to say whatever they like on their own webpages, but Wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopedia. However, it differs from others in that it gives far more space than is usual to alternative points of view. No-one is a lesser editor, but all editors should respect the rules and not use wikipedia as a promotional tool for pet ideas. Paul B (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? Please cut out this nonsense. The article in question has nothing to do with your illusions. It is about how to improve an encyclopedia when persons of good faith (which does not include holocaust deniers, obviously, don't agree. Please read the article if you want to discuss it and leave your pecadillos out of the discussion. --BenJonson (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read it. It's one person's opinion, not a policy or a guideline. Who's to say that holocaust deniers are not writing in good faith? Individuals can and do genuinely believe things that are offensive or absurd to most persons. Paul B (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say so, but perhaps you would not. Think about it.--BenJonson (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Pec(c)adillo' is spelled with two c's, and is used as a malapropism here. Explaining wikipedia policy is not a 'minor sin'. Ravpapa, after Nableezy, is one of the wildest eccentrics in Wikipedia, because he belongs to that small, sorry, exiguous minority of a minority that insists on rational compromise and narrative equlibrium. I suspect if you called him over, he'd reply that his links to Shakespeare are mainly via such things as Verdi's Falstaff, which Auden in his New York lectures said brilliantly redeemed the otherwise boringly flat Merry Wives of Windsor written by the Stratford man in one of his less inspired weeks. Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Price
The article states: "Shakespeare of Stratford left behind over seventy historical records, and over half of these records shed light on his professional activities. Price notes, however, that every one of these documents concerns non-literary careers – those of theatrical shareholder, actor, real estate investor, grain trader, money-lender, and entrepreneur. But he left behind not one literary paper trail that proves he wrote for a living. In the genre of literary biography for Elizabethan and Jacobean writers, Price concludes that this deficiency of evidence is unique." I have no idea what this last sentence means. In what sense do these records belong in "the genre of literary biography"? What exactly is supposed to be unique? Paul B (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bait and switch. He didn't write for a living. Back then professional writers relied on patronage for their living. Shakespeare didn't have to, since he was part owner of a lucrative theatre troupe and part owner of the playhouse they leased. Sold at the going rate, all of his plays together wouldn't have brought him as much as he made in a year from his theatrical business. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No doubt, but I'm not sure how this helps to illuminate the intended meaning of the relevant sentence. I was asking what Price considers to be "unique" and what is referred to by the phrase "the genre of literary biography". Paul B (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right, Paul, that the sentence is badly confused. What is meant, I think, is that when you compare the records of other writers of the period there is a decided lack of evidence for Shakespeare, in numerous categories of evidence which survives in plenitude in the other instances. For instance, over three hundred known books survive from Ben Jonson's library. How many from Shakespeare's? None that have ever been authenticated. What have we learned from the history of Ben Jonson's annotations in his books? A great deal. Shakespeare? Nada. That was Price's method. You may not like it, but it is a sound historical method, based on the effort to wrestle with the problem of anachronism  If there is an absence of certain kinds of biographical evidence, what is the likelihood, given the conditions of the time, that such evidence should exist? This is exactly the question (one of them) we should be asking.  David Kathman concedes Price's point when he argues that the reason that there is so much apparently missing (books, letters, literary manuscript of any kind, authentic portrait, etc.) is because Shakespeare was a middle class poet. Price's book shows that Kathman's argument is wrong or at least very misleading, since significantly more documentary evidence survives for other middle class writers. I'm not at all sure what user Tom Reedy means by "bait and switch." He seems to be referring only to the question of patronage, which is a tiny slice of Price's argument. Tom's response also assumes a great deal that is not in evidence. What is in evidence is that Stratford man became wealthy. This is a significant fact, given the thematic preoccupations of the plays. Tom, once more, could you please stop this sort of prejudicial language? I know you're addicted to it, but it really makes you look a lot smaller than I think, in your heart of hearts, you really are.--BenJonson (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know there is a lot of information about Jonson, but the question is what is unique about the evidence regarding Shakespeare, or more particularly what exactly is Price claiming to be unique? Jonson is one of many, many playwrights of the Elizabethan/Jacobean era. I take it that the phrase "genre of literary biography" is simply nonsense, since we are not taking about generic conventions of contemporary biographical writing. Paul B (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You actually believe we have more evidence about Beaumont, Fletcher, Webster, Greene, Kyd, Peele, Marlowe, Nash and Marston's personal libraries, from the books they must have annotated, than from Shakespeare, who, unlike them, apparently, left no books behind? Some method, and I wouldn't put a price on it beyond a senseless cents' worth. Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I suggested to Smatprt that we needed something on Price to be comprehensive, since her book has become a mainstay for anti-Stratfordians. I suggested that he contact her and get her to write a synopsis. He did and then modified what she wrote, so maybe he'll chime in here. I think what she means is that there are no documents such as manuscripts or personal letters from people who knew him from his lifetime alluding to Shakespeare of Stratford being a writer, such as there are for other (but by no means all) writers of the period. She only accepts literal evidence and disallows any inferences made from the historical record, such as the connections between Shakespeare and Camden which strongly suggest they were personally acquainted and the connections between Shakespeare and Buc which prove they were.

What I meant by "bait and switch" is that Price sets up expectations of what types of records we should expect from a writer, qualifies them heavily so Shakespeare's records don't meet the expectations, and then declares that Shakespeare doesn't have them and so must not have been a professional writer (which term is misleading in itself as a form of presentism). She claims that those types of records are used by literary biographers, and she is of course correct, but those are by no means the only types of records they use, and she disqualifies those other types of records by using specious reasoning for her arbitrary use of qualifiers. This type of cherry-picking evidence after the fact is certainly not the way literary biographers work, her claims to the contrary notwithstanding. For example, no literary biographer would ignore the testimony of his fellow actors and business partners Hemmings and Condell on the grounds that it was published seven years after his death.


 * I believe her statement is that "historians routinely distinguish between contemporaneous and posthumous evidence, and they don’t give posthumous evidence equal weight - but Shakespeare’s biographers do." Smatprt (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I see nothing wrong with quoting her methodology and then pointing out its defects, using RS, of course, McCrea and others. There are several reviews of her book that point out her deck-stacking. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with explaining Price's views. My problem was that the explanation made no sense. I assume, then, that the "literary biographers" in question are modern ones. If so the way that the term 'genre' is used here is misleading, since letters etc are used by biographers of literary figures from all periods where they exist. Of course they are not used when and if they do not exist! We also need to clarify what her methodology is - including what she thinks fit to exclude. Paul B (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So are you two saying that it's pretty much open season on "pointing out the defects" in the methodology of the specific scholars and researchers being quoted through-out the article? So, instead of stating facts or hypothesis, followed by rebuttals, we'll have a bunch of Strats opining anti-Strats, and vice versa? Smatprt (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? I was trying to make sense of a garbled passage of prose. I have made it clear that I wanted "to clarify what her methodology is - including what she thinks fit to exclude". That is part of the process of explanation. When I said that the term genre "used here" is misleading, I was commenting upon the intelligibility of the passage in the article, not Price. I don't know what Price herself actually said in her own words. Paul B (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Paul - I was not referring to your statement, but to Tom's directly above yours: "I see nothing wrong with quoting her methodology and then pointing out its defects, using RS, of course, McCrea and others. There are several reviews of her book that point out her deck-stacking." So we will all look to book reviews to attack (point out the defects) each others researchers, is that what Tom is endorsing? Smatprt (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Smatprt, why exactly do you think that anti-Strats come to a different conclusion than mainstream scholars when the historical record is the same for both sides? And what do you think this is: "Authorship doubters believe that mainstream Shakespeare biographers routinely violate orthodox methods and criteria,[7][8] and include inadmissible evidence in their histories of the Stratford man.[9]" or this: "The majority of academics specializing in Shakespearean studies, called "Stratfordians" by sceptics, generally ignore or dismiss these alternative theories, arguing they fail to comply with standard research methodology and lack supportive evidence from documents contemporary with Shakespeare."
 * It is incumbent upon this article to explain each side clearly and accurately and to also explain each side's critique of the other's. This article is not a debate; it is a description. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And those statements are already in the article. What you are proposing is using book reviews to add further material to "explain" the explanations. So are you saying that I should start quoting book reviews to explain the many errors Gibson (your source) made, how he made them, why he made them, all under the guise of "explaining". Are we writing a 500-page book here, or an article that has to conform to size limitations?Smatprt (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. We won't quote book reviews. Happy? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Sorry, Paul - I was not referring to your statement." I'm glad you clarified that. Otherwise one might have thought that when you wrote "So are you two saying that it's pretty much open season on 'pointing out the defects' in the methodology of the specific scholars and researchers being quoted through-out the article?" that you were referring to Paul in addition to me. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your statement to Paul. I wrote "you two" because "you two" were having the related discussion. Must you nitpick and make a new issue out of every word on these pages?  This is one of the issues that several editors have raised with you (and Nishidani) that you continue to ignore. Next to Nishi's making an issue out of the occasional typo or editing error, this non-stop argumentative style you have adapted is the true culprit in delaying work on this article. Smatprt (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Smatprt, (demanding accurate diction)≠(nitpick). Of the two faults, argumentativeness is much less a sin than sloppy writing when composing an encyclopedia article. This is one of the issues that several editors have raised with you that you continue to ignore. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would disagree - argumentativeness, personal attacks, insults, etc. do far more harm to the Wikipedia community than poor writing skills. Writing can be cleaned, edited, fixed up. The other behavior problems can have long lasting impacts. As far as ignoring this issue, I will admit to ignoring comments that start with "learn to read" "go back to community college" "Are you dumb" and other such statements made by you and Nishidani. It is disheartening to see you defend such actions. Smatprt (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC

In response to Paul's orginal question, Price read every extant biography of every alleged writer of the period (24 writers besides Shakspere), and noted the evidence cited as documentation of their writing career. She grouped the evidence into ten categories, and created a 10 x 25 table showing which of the 10 kinds of evidence was extant for each of the 25 writers, including Shakspere. The table shows that Shakspere was the only one of the 25 for whom none of the 10 kinds of evidence was extant. That's the methodology that supports the statement that, "In the genre of literary biography for Elizabethan and Jacobean writers, Price concludes that this deficiency of evidence is unique." The deficiency is unique in that Shakspere was the only alleged Elizabethan-Jacobean writer for whom none of the 10 types of evidence exists. The 10 types of evidence are: "(1) Evidence of education, (2) Record of correspondence, especially concerning literary matters,(3) Evidence of having been paid to write, (4) Evidence of a direct relationship with a patron, (5) Extant original manuscripts, (6) Handwritten inscriptions, receipts, letters, etc. touching on literary matters, (7)Commendatory verses, epistles or epigrams contributed or received, (8) Miscellaneous records (e.g., referred to personally as a writer), (9) Evidence of books owned, written in, borrowed or given, (10) Notice at death as a writer" The book includes more detailed explanations. "Notice at death as a writer," for example, is defined as "within a year" of death. Obviously this excludes the First Folio, which she calls "posthumous" evidence. Clearly the Folio testimony is important; but it is still odd that there was "notice at death as a writer" within a year for 9 other writers, but not the Stratford man, allegedly the greatest of them all. Why is he the only one for whom not one of the 10 types of evidence of a literary careers exists? I hope that answers your question. I strongly recommend the book. Perhaps some clarification is needed in the article? Schoenbaum (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice summary, Schoenbaum. Thanks.--BenJonson (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

1604
Some while ago I changed the phrase "authorship researchers" in the "Date of playwright's death" section to "Oxfordians". The phrase seems to have returned. Obviously only Oxfordians believe this, since Oxford is the only major candidate known to have died before Billy of Stratford (though the "real" date of Marlowe's death must of course remain a mystery). All those Baconians who spilled so much ink on the problem and essentially invented this whole field of fruitful research are being written out of history, as are all those poor but honest Derbyites and Marlovians. I've restored my alteration to the text. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, there is an extensive scholarly tradition on the problem of the cessation of publication of play quartos in 1604. It includes both Oxfordian and orthodox scholars. One point on which anyone who knows the actual data are agreed is that there is a problem with the traditional view. The numbers strongly support the inference that something of significance transformed the shape of shakespeare's career in 1604. Please see the introduction to the first issue of Brief Chronicles for some citations. Or I will provide them myself, along with suggested wording.--BenJonson (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ben, You are spectacularly missing the point. Whether or not Shakespeare continued writing after 1604 - which of course the overwhelming majority of scholars believe he did - is wholly separate from the question of whrether he was dead after 1604 - or 1609. Obviously there is no "extensive scholarly tradition" that says this, from orthodox writers or from spporters of any of the main alternative candidates other than Oxford. Please check what is actually under debate before weighoing in with irrelevancies and question begging. Otherwise all you are doing is muddying the waters. Paul B (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It should probably be "anti-stratfordians". Of course, it applies to the Oxford theory, but it also applies to the group theory as well. More accurately though, it's one of the strongest anti-Strat arguments going. Obviously, if the author were dead by 1604 (or 1609), then it could not be Shakespeare of Stratford. The search would then focus on either a candidate who was dead by then, or on a group theory where sole authorship is not the issue. Smatprt (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No it should not be. Only Oxfordians believe this. The group theory implies nothing concerning dates at which publications can cease, since, like the Rolling Stones, groups can go on after members leave or die. There is no specific date required for the group theory, and of course Baconians and Derbyites cannot possibly believe evidence that the playwright was dead after 1604. They too are "anti-Stratfordians". Paul B (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, see my remarks above. You don't appear to know anything more about what "Oxfordians" "believe" than you do about what honest orthodox scholars have said about the 1604 question, even though such information has been readily available on authorship related sites such as the Shakespeare Fellowship for several years now, viz: "Although Roth supports Erne’s central thesis, his comment on the chronology of quarto publication also deserves to be quoted: “Erne does not provide a satisfying explanation for the sudden halt in registration of new Shakespeare plays around the time of James’ accession. ” Oxfordians have argued, since 1920, that the abrupt cessation of publication of new Shakespearean quartos in 1604 is most plausibly explained by the author’s death on June 24, 1604." In other words, it is very well understood by honest academicians that there is a "1604" problem, just as there is a "1609" problem with the Sonnets.--BenJonson (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You apparently cannot understand plain English. See my remarks above. All of this comment is almost wholly irrelevant and question begging. Its only relevant aspect supports my point. This is an argument made by Oxfordians, not by any other type of anti-Stratfordian. Your quotation says "Oxfordians have argued, since 1920, that...". This is a uniquely Oxfordian argment, not a Baconian, Marlovian or Derbyite one. You don't appear to know anything more about what non-Oxfordians "believe" than you do about what honest scholars have said about the 1616 question, even though such information has been readily available on authorship related sites such as Bacon is Shakespeare for several years now. Baconians regularly argue that the playwright must have been alive after 1616. . Jeez. Paul B (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul - you are mixing apples and oranges. Group theorists can certainly believe the playwright was dead (or the group changed/disbanded/etc.) before 1609 - it does not hurt their case (unlike Baconians or Berbyites) at all. But I reiterate that it is an anti-Strat argument as it disqualifies Shakespeare of Stratford. Can you deny that simple statement?Smatprt (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem confused. Group theorists are unlikely to believe that "the playwright" was dead after any particular date, since it is a typical feature of group theories that there is no single playwright. That's why they are group theories. But in any case this is irrelevant. Only Oxfordians argue this, for obvious reasons. Proof that plays were written after 1604 would cripple their case. Of course Oxfordians are also "anti-Stratfordians", but they are a specific subset of them. Imagine if someone wrote in the Obama article "American voters admire Barack Obama", and justified the statement by saying that supporters of Obama are in fact American voters. Yes they are, but there are also American voters who do not admire him, so the phrase would be misleading. Paul B (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally get where you are coming from, and although I still believe there are some non-candidate specific anti-strats that make the Sonnets "ever-living" argument, for example, I certainly agree that it is primarily an issue that Oxfordians raise. I don't know if you will remember this, but the whole labeling discussion was raised a while back by Barry (mostly) who objected to having "Oxfordian" everywhere in the article. So to make him happy, I went thru and changed "Oxfordian" to "anti-Stratfordian" wherever I could and that ended that issue. Now we are going the other way. To me, it hardly matters. The only thing I wanted to stress that if we are talking about arguments against Stratford, it cannot be denied that it's a pretty strong argument against him if it could ever be shown that the author was dead prior to 1616. And, by the way, thanks for having a discussion without dragging in the personalities of the editors. It was refreshing. Smatprt (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason for including this section in the article, IMHO, is because it calls the case for the Stratford man into question, and not because it favors any other specific candidate. Oxford is the only major alternative who died in 1604, so he is the main beneficiary; but he isn't the only one among the 50+ candidates proposed. So it isn't just an Oxfordian view. But Paul has a point that not all anti-Strats agree there's a "1604 problem." So I propose that the opening words be: "Many anti-Stratfordians (mainly Oxfordians)..." I think this would take care of the problem. Schoenbaum (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We are only going the other way with regard to this specific section. I don't object to its inclusion at all, only that it is presented as a generically "Anti-Stratfordian" position. I think that you are so wedded to Oxfordian thinking that you can't even imagine yourself into the thinking of Baconian Anti-Stratfordians, who have been the dominant participants in the debate through much of its history. Imagine a section which discussed evidence that the playwright was alive after 1616 (strongly supportive of the Bacon and Derby theories, and also necessarily anti-Stratfordian). Imagine that it started with the sentence "Anti-Stratfordians believe that there is evidence that the playwright was alive after 1616". As an Oxfordian surely you can see how misleading that would be? It implies that that the whole "anti-Stratfordian" position supports the view that the writer was alive post-1616. If Schoenbaum can give evidence that anyone other than Oxfordians have actually argued this point then I will be happy to accept his wording. Paul B (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, I proposed changing it to "Many anti-Stratfordians (mainly Oxfordians)..." That does NOT make it sound like "a generically anti-Stratfordian position." If, as you say, you "don't object to its inclusion at all," then let's make this change and move on. Do you agree? Schoenbaum (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've already said, I'm OK with that if you can show that there are any non-Oxfordians who actually argue this. Paul B (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing it to the generic "anti-Stratfordians" would be inaccurate, for the reasons Paul stated. I have never heard any other faction besides Oxfordians argue this point. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The debate over particular terminology is an avoidance of the real issues which the article needs to address, as noted in my above remarks in the discussion. If this article is really about the subject it purports to treat, it should acknowledge that both Oxfordian and traditional scholars (personally, I don't care whether Baconian et alia proponents understand the issue or not) have agreed in effect that there is a 1604 problem. If you don't understand this, Tom, or Paul, then maybe we need to reiterate what the facts are and see if we are all willing to stipulate to them. Otherwise we are just wasting time, like soldiers in WWI firing out of foxholes and waiting to die on the service of the great lies of history.--BenJonson (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We are trying to explain different points of view, not argue through the evidence to discover the truth. See WP:truth. This is a very simple matter of terminogical exactitude, which should not have required any argument at all, but instead we get this long thread and bizarre revert wars over something that should be entirely uncontroversial. The "1604 problem" exists in the discourse of Oxfordianism. It did not exist as a "problem" before Oxfordianism was invented, and it certainly plays no role in other models of anti-Stratfordianism. Simple really. No-one is saying that this subject should not be discussed. BTW, the fact that you apparently "don't care" about Baconian points of view indicates that you are not interested in fairly representing any position other than your own. No doubt there are Baconians who could say they "don't care whether Oxfordian et alia proponents understand the 1616 issue or not" and could happily fill a whole section with their post-1616 playwriting theories. Do you agree that the opening sentence of the section should say "Oxfordians argue..." not "anti-Stratfordians argue"...? Paul B (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Soldiers in WW1, as opposed to the next war, did not think of themselves as firing out of 'foxholes'. They fired from slit-trenches: it was trench warfare. Debates over terminology are important. Nor can I see any 1604 problem as besetting orthodox scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as you have no problem including this section, Paul (and you've said that you don't), then I have no problem starting it off with "Oxfordians believe the author was already dead by 1609 ..." I agree that it's mainly Oxfordians who say this. But I'd like to delete the phrase, "they can identify evidence that," since the paragraph obviously goes on to give supporting evidence. The phrase just clutters up the opening sentence. A more general point is that we all agreed, I thought, to proceed sentence-by-sentence, starting from the top. This jumping around, raising relatively trivial issues at random elsewhere in the article strikes me as a distraction, and as counterproductive. Schoenbaum (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We all agreed to work on the intro sentence-by-sentence, but that doesn't mean any improvements to the article in other places shouldn't proceed. And accuracy is never trivial, no matter how trivial the point. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting the Question of Majorities and Minorities
Its been my intention for some weeks now to draw attention to an interesting fact in the history of the debate which up until now has not received the attention it might merit. In 1991 Douglass Hunt, Professor of English at the University of Missouri, in his edition of the Riverside Guide to Writing (published by Houghton Mifflin as a University writing textbook, included a section, "Arguing When the Facts are in Question." I encourage all editors involved in this page to get a copy of this article and read the whole thing. Its a good read, and indicates how far wide of the mark are some of the over-generalizations of those promoting the "fringe theory" theory of authorship debate.

According to Professor Hunt, “The idea that Shakespeare’s plays and poems were not actually written by William Shakespeare of Stratford has been the subject of many books and is widely regarded as at least an interesting possibility" (174). --BenJonson (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had that book for quite some time but don't remember much about it except that it was an exercise in evaluating arguments. I took it off the shelf this evening and read the first paragraph in the essay beginning on page 169:
 * "Most people assume that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, king Lear, Venus and Adonis, and 154 sonnets simply because everyone says so: his name always appears in the title page. In fact, his name did not appear on any existing title page until the publication of the first folio, seven years after his death, and many people believe that the man named William Shakespeare could not have written the plays attributed to him."
 * As you can see, we must call upon our skills of evaluation with the very first paragraph of the chapter. So far I must confess I am less than impressed, but I am willing to soldier on. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You successfully identified a bad error, Tom. The question is, what does the error mean? You will not find that error in any of the canonical authors of the Oxfordian school, from Looney to Ogburn or Anderson. So my interpretation of it would be that Professor Hunt, despite his impressive credentials as an academician, made the same mistake that most of his colleagues make: He didn't know enough about either the Oxfordian/anti-Strat literature or the primary evidence. Its not clear to me how this effects the rest of his judgments. His entire larger point is that the facts are sometimes in question on this topic. I just consulted the current edition of what Encyclopedia Britannica says about authorship. It begins with a typical deception. Hunt is factually mistaken, but arguing in good faith. Whoever authored the 2007 Britannica Macropedia entry is either at least as mistaken as Hunt, or is simply manufacturing an indefensible argument for the purposes of maintaining the status quo for a few more years. --BenJonson (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger, I did re-read the article last night and I agree, it is well worth reading. I don't have it to hand at the moment, but I believe that quotation is not from Hunt, but from an article on the authorship question that he uses as an example to point out types of persuasive language that seem to be neutral. What I got from it was his point that calm and neutral language is more persuasive than obvious, heavy-handed slanting, and I agree. I think this article should be as accurate and as neutral as we can possibly make it, which is why we need both sides involved to weed out the bias. Partisanship necessarily colors all of our judgment, but when it gets to the point that it becomes obvious and unreasonable, what are we to do when the other side can't see it? I think the 1604 discussion directly above is an obvious example. I admit that often it takes a week or better before I can see my own bias (and I'm sure that often I never see it), sometimes after the consensus has been reached in my favor (I have such thoughts about the second sentence issue but I don't want to get bogged down in it again), but it appears to me that Smatprt and you have an undeviating agenda that doesn't scruple to use any advantage, no matter the violence done to history, neutrality, or Wikipedia standards.
 * I have more to say (as always; "Sufflimandus erat, as Augustus said of Haterius") but I am quite busy today on another project.
 * Oh, and if it's from the 2007 Brittanica, it was probably written in the 1970s. There hasn't been a new edition since then, and only the major articles are revised. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And what does "sufflimandus erat," in your interpretation, mean in that context? What was on Jonson's mind?--BenJonson (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

News: A Diversion for all to Enjoy
This should especially appeal to Nishidani, since it is clear evidence of a creative conspiracy. http://www.undertheradar.co.nz/utr/more/NID/1991/Video-and-Download:-Edward-de-Vere---Mind-Thoughts.utr#comments_1991--BenJonson (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It was very entertaining until the appearance of the yuppie kids. I much preferred the statues. My contribution is a hard-to-find classic that has been compared to Citizen Kane: http://www.megavideo.com/?v=B8H0RRZ1. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Didn't click on the video, but gazed for some moments at the mousy, rodent-visaged adolescent with the wispy womb-broom. I have a book, in Japanese, on Nietzsche's moustache.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nishidani at his finest, still doesn't get it. Look up "news of a difference" under Gregory Bateson. Neitzche's mustache has rotted your brain.--BenJonson (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Fool: Dost thou know the difference, my boy?'
 * You know how William Shakespeare of Stratford answered de Vere (whom I admit was the author of the Sonnets, only I beg to differ as to the boy he wooed there). It was Shakspeare himself, who replied to every one of the frustrated love letters de Vere sent to him via Roger Arnim, as the recent discovery of his 126 answers to deVere's sonnets shows. de Vere wrote of differences in poem 105, and sure enough, in the manuscript find, shortly to be published, found in a buried rick in Avon's fields recently, we find the reply, no. CV:-
 * How mediaeval you would have me seem!,
 * A perfect knight from that benighted age;
 * So rare in virtue readers must esteem
 * Your verse mere romance for a girlish page.
 * The wit too forces blasphemy in that play
 * Where my three virtues coincide in one,
 * Like some scholastic clerk’s, that would betray
 * A mind so bored by doctrine it would pun.
 * ''I’d rather be any of those triple wights
 * Whose evil stalks your brilliance as they rant.
 * Macbeth or Edmund;or Iago who ignites
 * The truths in all that difference you scant,
 * Or all three men in one, whose daring-do
 * Would test the mettle of Fair, of Kind, and True.


 * Quite familiar with Bateson, thanks. I prefer his double-bind theory when thinking of de Verean patterns of thought. But the 'news of difference' is just old Bateson recycling Norbert Wiener and Thomas Kuhn. I prefer King Lear: 'Come, sir, arise, away! I'll teach you differences', and the splendid use Terry Eagleton made of it in his monograph William Shakespeare. Indifferent to your diffidence about my deference to difference, and no doubt huffy and resentful of the fact you refuse in turn my suggestion you peruse Prof. Hikami Hidehiro's fascinating remarks about Nietzsche's moustache in his Nietzsche no kao, (Tokyo Iwanami 1976) I'll save you the standard allusion to Jacques Derrida's difference/differance elucubrations, and direct your attention, by a return of ironical courtesy, to Gilles Deleuze's Différence et répétition. Shakspeare is all about differences, Oxfordian harping all about repetition. Hence Norbert Wiener's theory: 'disorganization in transit' is what happens when textual evidence is decanted through incompetent interpreters. But enough. Like Prospero, I must turn a walk or two. Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Decanted?" "Incompetent?"  Hum. You just can't seem to stop using those big words with which to veil your insults, can you? History will judge who is a better interpreter, not you, and not even Norbert Weiner, and certainly not Dr. Derrida's postcard.--BenJonson (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to learn you also have the gift of foresight into future history, and have a Nostradramatic assurance it is on your side. Something of an oracle, then, and so, taking the Stratford man's advice, when Sir Oracle opes his lips, let no dog bark! Let's drop this futile and purposeless banter, which you invited in your section heading. Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to modify lead sentence
These sentences seem choppy to me: The public debate dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted public attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.

How does everyone feel about combining them thusly: The public debate, which dates back to the mid-19th century, has attracted public attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.

Too much in one sentence?

Also Smatprt, why don't you turn that note into a reference, since it supports the statement? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, I have no problem with making it one sentence, but I still like your suggestion of making it "Public debate of the issue." I would also put a semicolon before the final clause to make it a compound sentence. These changes would yield the following: "Public debate of the issue, which dates back to the mid-19th century, has attracted public attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures; but it is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars." Schoenbaum (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is better.--BenJonson (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A comma is called for as the sentence is constructed. But I think we should probably leave it alone or risk opening another can of worms. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Public' is repeated three times in the space of a single sentence. Reconsider.Nishidani (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nishidani's point is well taken, hence: "Debate on the topic, which dates back to the mid-19th century, has generated considerable attention and a thriving following, often involving prominent public figures; but it is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars." This eliminates the duplication and preserves Schoenbaum's use of the semicolon, which is preferable because it develops a more detailed pattern of subordination and emphasis. The word choices reduce the volume and improve the accuracy of the sentence, viz. "on" for "of." One does not really have debate "of" an issue, but "on" one. --BenJonson (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering - with this change, would it then be saying that it was the "debate" that has attracted a thriving following, including some prominent public figures? Presently it is "the issue" that has attracted both. Also, it seems taking out "public" takes us back to the argument over when the theory began. We do not know when private debate start - what is sourced is McCrae's statement that "public debate" started in the 19th century. Why don't we at least finish the first paragraph before we look at it as a whole? Bringing this up in the middle of our discussion of line 4 is just a distraction. Can we avoid duplication of words as we move forward, instead of going backward to address new issues? Smatprt (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine holding this question in abeyance as you suggest, Smatprt, pending further discussion about the whole paragraph. No wording we have yet hit on seems ideal, including mine. Tom, see my comment on your talk page.--BenJonson (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead: third sentence, etc.
Moving on to the third sentence of the lead, it currently reads as follows: "Those who question the attribution, known as 'anti-stratfordians', believe that 'William Shakespeare' was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.[3]." I'd like to propose that we cut "known as 'anti-Stratfordians'" from this sentence, move it down to the second paragraph, and define all of these terms at once. Here it interrupts the main point. That would leave: "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]" Is that acceptable to everyone? Schoenbaum (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I know I'm throwing some contention out there, but the sentence as written implies only one or just a few actors directly involved in the deception. Every alternative authorship scenario requires some type of deception involving the explicit or implicit cooperation of the government or others in the know, whether loosely or tightly controlled, and I think this article would be incomplete without that being a part of the description. So trying to avoids the buzz word conspiracy, I propose Those who question the attribution believe that 'William Shakespeare' was a pen name used by the true author, or authors, as part of some type of organized subterfuge to keep the writer's identity secret. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Tom, you're throwing "some [major] contention out there" with the proposed addition of "as part of some type of organized subterfuge." There's no consensus among authorship doubters about who, or how many, people were in the know, or necessarily had to be in the know. Yes, the article should deal with the issue, but there's no need to get into that much detail in the lead. The use of a pen name is by definition "a subterfuge" involving some unknown number of people. There's no need to spell it out any further, especially not with a phrase that's clearly designed to suggest that it's an implausible idea to begin with (for anyone unfamiliar with the period) right in the lead. I find it totally unacceptable. Schoenbaum (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you find it unacceptable. Every source that I've read on both sides mentions it right up front. It is a factor in every authorship scenario, just as the demotion of the Stratford Shakespeare is, and this article should not deviate. In fact, I'm surprised at the lack of any mention of it in this article except in two places, both of them mainstream. As it is it implies a single or just a few persons writing under a pen name with the cooperation of others. Many writers have done so without the help of others; Benjamin Franklin comes to mind. There's no great level of detail necessary for the lead. And the phrase I suggested is not designed to suggest that it's an implausible idea; that is intrinsic to the authorship question. The article should reflect anti-Stratfordism how it is, not my version of it nor your version of it, and I find your desire to withhold information surprising, given your comments up to this point. I don't care how it's phrased, in fact, someone else can write it, but I think it needs to be mentioned in the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from agreeing with Schoenbaum on this, I want to point out, Tom, that you are continuing this pattern that Schoenbaum refers to - adding material to the article that is not neutral and designed to belittle the minority view. Are you going to try and drag us this way on every line of this article? How is this helping to overcome your own complaint (and ours) that this process is moving too slowly? Right now, you need to either form a consensus for change (or even something that actually approaches a consensus), otherwise these continued additions are unlikely to happen. Regarding your proposal, I imagine Ben will be also oppose it, do you agree? That would be 1/2 the regular editors opposed, so quite frankly, unless you have another proposal, this particular conversation (concerning your proposed addition) is pretty much over.


 * Quite frankly, Smatprt, your hysterical accusations are becoming quite tiresome. I haven't added any such material to the article. We're discussing it. Or trying to. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Right now, we are back to two choices: leave it as it is, or accept Schoenbaums cut of 3 words (which I see is not in your version anyhow -so it appears we actually do have a consensus on the cut.)

One other comment. Our charge was to make the lead more streamlined and more compact. The consensus was that it was too long. Now, due to Tom and Nishidani consistently trying to add material (mostly pov remarks that break neutrality), the lead (as well as the article) has now become larger. In the first two lines, (mostly Schoenbaum) negotiated additions to balance your additions, with the result that we just beefied up both sides of the argument. Net change, in two lines, we have added 9 more words. Now Tom wants to add 8 additional words for the next line alone? At this rate, the lead will end up being over 500 words by the time we are through. Needless to say, we need to start going in the opposite direction.Smatprt (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer Schoenbaum's original wording for the reasons he and Smatprt have both stated. The original is more clear and to the point. I appreciate Tom's attempt to avoid "buggeswordes" like "conspiracy," but I think that discussion of an "organized deception" could and probably should constitute a section all of its own and need not be brought into the lead in any way. By creating a later section for discussion of this point, we can agree, I hope, that those arguing for the orthodox view can even use the term "conspiracy" as long as they can cite its use in the relevant literature (which shouldn't be that difficult given how readily true believers have recourse to it in order to short-circuit factual and historical discussion). This would be acceptable, to me at least, as long as there is opportunity to cite alternative sources which reject or qualify the use of such terms (For instance, Justice Stevens refers to the term "imaginative conspiracy," to describe his version of the "organized deception" involved.--BenJonson (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, you say that, "It [some type of organized subterfuge] is a factor in every authorship scenario ... " As I said, the use of a pen name is a type of "organized subterfuge," so nothing needs to be said beyond that. You seem to want to imply some sort of "massive conspiracy," which isn't unnecessarily so. Oxfordian Nina Green has proposed that only the author and his front man knew the truth, so it's not true that it's a factor in "every authorship scenario." Again, the article should address it somewhere, but not in the lead. That's too much unnecessary detail, and I will not agree to it. Schoenbaum (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You people aren't really all that proud of your theories, are you? since you want to suppress full disclosure until further down in the article. I'm not aware of any WP:RS publication by Nina Green, although my knowledge of her activities is very limited.
 * Very well, I withdraw my suggestion and go along with Schoenbaum's suggested edit, since it wasn't in any of the earlier suggested rewrites, as long as the information is addressed in the Authorship doubterssection, which needs rewriting to comprehensively articulate the commonalities among the various authorship theories instead of being a shill section. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nina forgot to mention the go-between, Robert Armin.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, of course if Nina is right, then all those hidden messages expressing secret knowledge of the true author must be...imaginary. However, it's worth noting that the earliest doubters did not imply a conspiracy, or at least Disraeli's character and Hart don't. They simply imply that Elizabethan plays were like many modern film-scripts, written and rewritten by several hands, so that “Shakespeare” is a name attached to multiply-authored works, It’s a version of the group theory, but without the secretive aspect. Paul B (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well quite a few were, as you know, and doubts about a single hand in many emerged quite early, as did doubts that the Folio's attribution of plays like The Two Gentlemen of Verona to him was correct. Hamner denied it, as early as the mid 1740s, as did Coleridge. What they had was, as heirs to a much deeper literacy than we epigones can boast, pitch-perfect ears, that tingled at shifts in style and authorial tone even in a written text. That's one reason why, as opposed to actors and judges, great poets (other than the great but tone-deaf, yawping Walt Whitman) haven't joined the great conspiracy murmur as it grumbles, in frock coats, in the wings in minor opinion. Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Shakespeare's authorship was first questioned on Titus, sometime in the late 1600s, I believe. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. Moving on, I've redrafted the rest of the paragraph, rearranging it while keeping most of the same content, with a couple of exceptions. I think it's important to see it in its entirety, but we should probably still discuss it one sentence/issue at a time. So here's what I propose:

'''Over 50 alternative candidates have been proposed. The major ones include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby. Oxford, Bacon and Derby are also often associated with various "group" theories. Bacon had the largest following during the early years of the controversy, but Oxford has received the most attention -- especially from prominent public figures -- since being proposed in 1920. Supporters of the four main candidates are referred to as Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians and Derbyites, respectively.'''

Comments anyone? Schoenbaum (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (A)'especially from prominent public figures' is not necessary for the lead.
 * (B)'Bacon's name prevailed in the 19th century controversy. Since 1920, Oxford's candidacy has won greater/gained prominence.'
 * One can vary B in many ways. I offer it as a template for the succinctness commended by WP:LEADNishidani (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether it's the wording above or some other, I think that if the "50+ candidates" or "more than 50" or 'numerous" bit is going to be in there then we need to provide some context that addresses the fact that only Bacon and Oxford have attracted wide followings and/or the support of prominent figures. Otherwise, I think it can be misinterpreted to sound like all the candidates were actually well-researched and generally accepted by the majority of authorship doubters. In this regard I would suggest something closer to what we have now or along these lines:


 * *Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support,[4] statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Of the numerous candidates proposed,[5] only Oxford and Bacon have won support from prominent public figures. Supporters of any one of the four main theories are commonly called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively.[6]
 * On other thing that I like about this is that it stays compact. The present version is 81 words. Schoenbaums's version takes it up to 90. My version reduces it down to 77.  A small reduction, but it least it goes in the right direction! I think further detail should go into the history section. Thanks.  Smatprt (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You write:'addresse(s) the fact that only Bacon and Oxford have attracted wide followings and/or the support of prominent figures.'
 * Theories aren't described or evaluated according to their public following, or support by 'prominent figures'. And, are you willing to provide good sources for the suggestion that no prominent public figure has ever supported any candidacy other than that of Oxford or Bacon? Putting the 'prominent figures' into the lead already betrays the hand of deVereans, who love to showcase the moot court folly and the 2007 declaration. To overplay this is to violate NPOV, with regard to potential Marlovian, Baconian, Rutlandian etc. propounders (the Rutland theory was once a vogue in Europe, especially Russia, for example). Rubenstein has many levelheaded things to say, for example, in his book, which however proposes Neville's candidacy, which has no prominent backers I know of. So one simply cannot press this 'prominent backers' stuff without endandering the neutrality of the article.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the theory attracts prominent supporters has already been addressed, and any further detail should go in the text rather than the lead. Also we don't need double links in one paragraph to the same Wikipedia pages. My suggestion logs in at 64 words:

'''Of the more than 50 proposed candidates, major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians, or Derbyites, respectively. '''

If we want to inject a bit of history, this version is 72 words:

'''Of the more than 50 proposed candidates, major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, 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. Bacon's name prevailed in the 19th century, but since 1920 Oxford's has won greater prominence. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians, or Derbyites, respectively. '''

Whatever we do we don't need four references for Oxford and none for the others. One or two for all should do. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All the above verbiage not withstanding, you have not addressed the issue I raised concerning the "more than 50" reference being taken out of context. If it stays, then it has to be rewritten somehow so that it is clear that the great majority of those candidates were never taken seriously by most authorship doubters. Almost all of them, I imagine, were single source candidates with no adherents other than the nominator. The bottom line is that there have never been more than a few candidates that ever received any continuing research (or criticism), and this is completely unclear. Of course, if we simply cut it down to "numerous", then we can leave the rest to the history section, where context can be provided. Smatprt (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I do note what you say about mentioning Oxford so much and the issue of sourcing "only" so have tweaked it to accommodate those objections:

'''*Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support,[4] statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Of the numerous candidates proposed,[5] only a handful have been endorsed by prominent public figures. Supporters of any one of the four main theories are commonly called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively.[6]''' Smatprt (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you say "more than 50" is taken out of context? The very next phrase "major nominees gives it sufficient context. And don't be so sure about how seriously some of the others were taken; entire books were written on such "minor" nominees as Queen Elizabeth and Rutland, not to mention the groupist books.
 * And I'm not saying anything about Oxford being mentioned so much, just that he's the only one referenced, and overly referenced to boot. (But now I see you are replying to Nishidani and not me, but I think his point is that endorsement of prominent figures is not necessary to mention since it's already been said.) Tom Reedy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You save a lot of space simply naming the number generally accepted.
 * There are four major nominees among the 56 (note)candidates proposed so far: de Vere, Bacon, Marlowe and Derby. The former two have received most support. Many variations of these proposals do not exclude group composition.'
 * Insistence on endorsement by public figures is ridiculous. That is a minor issue, esp. for the lead, but a major factor in the deVerean movement, and therefore cannot stand the test of WP:NPOV, which is strict on leads.
 * One could save wordage by relegating the Oxfordians, Bacopnians, Marlovians or Derbyites to the maintext. I say this also because historically there have been booms of support for Rutland, and I suppose a thorough grasp of the 160 year old literature, which few probably know, would reveal other major candidates in vogue from decade to decade or continent to continent.Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To speed this along I'll agree to numerous; it's six of one, etc., anyway, and the exact number can go in the main text, plus we lose a few words. Here are my proposals, the first at 62 words:

'''Of the numerous proposed candidates, major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians, or Derbyites, respectively. '''

And the alternate version with a bit of history at 70 words:

'''Of the numerous proposed candidates, major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, 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. Bacon's name prevailed in the 19th century, but since 1920 Oxford's has won greater prominence. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians, or Derbyites, respectively. ''' Tom Reedy (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben just posted this to the page - I am moving it here til we finish this discussion, leaving the previous version in place.Smatprt (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Although more than 50 alternative candidates have been proposed, the list of those with any significant following includes only statesman Francis Bacon, William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe and, most recently and persuasively,Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Supporters of any one of the four main theories are commonly called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively.  (BenJonson's version)
 * In regards to Tom's version I just want to comment that I still have concerns about making prominent mention of the minor candidates without clarifying the fact that there have never been more than a handful of serious candidates. Listing the major nominees doesn't quite cover it, cuz, in reality, they are not only the major, but the only real nominees (yeah - maybe one or two others) that have received attention from more than one scholar from both sides of the aisle. Ben's makes a good attempt at that, though I don't know if his "only" can be sourced. "Most persuasively" is also problematic. But I appreciate his attempt at responding to my concern about giving the also-rans too much weight. Smatprt (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "In regards to Tom's version I just want to comment that I still have concerns about making prominent mention of the minor candidates without clarifying the fact that there have never been more than a handful of serious candidates." Excuse me? Just which minor candidates have I mentioned? They're all lumped up in "numerous" and it's followed by the "major nominees", which certainly puts the first group into perspective. And sorry, Roger, but your prose is even flabbier: "the list of those with any significant following includes only ..." should be "those with significant following are ..." And your "most recently" is incorrect; Marlowe is the most recent significant nominee.
 * We also need to remember that brevity is not as important as accuracy and neutrality. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You old hound dog, Smarprt, Nishi and Tom and Paul and all the rest of the serious people 'round here are right: a man can't accomplish a dang thing with you fluttering about, moving this and that and calling for more discussion. I demand that my edit be restored. I cut clean 20 words out of the flabby, misshapen, justly controversial piece of crap I started with, and its still not GOOD enough for smartypants smarprt. Humph. I see my mentor Malvolio existing stageleft right now and I've half a mind to follow him offstage to mind my own business for a while. Who do you think you are, anyway, some kind of stage director who can just go ahead and push everyone else around and gang up on us all? I'm fed up. Miffed in Oxford, Missouri --BenJonson (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Very funny, Ben :) Yeah - I ain't nothin' but a hound dog! That's actually a great number from the last show we did. As I said, very funny - now back to line 4? Smatprt (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if that's the way you MUST have it, how about this:

"Although more than 50 alternative candidates have been proposed, the list of those with any significant following is small. Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Supporters of any one of the four main theories are commonly called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively."

I don't like it one dang bit, but if I can't have my own way, maybe it'll do. dodo. --BenJonson (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I realized this doesn't read well. Let me revise one more time:

"Although more than 50 alternative candidates have been proposed, the list of those with any significant following is small. Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Supporters of any one of the four main theories are commonly called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively."

There, cut out a whole dangnab wasted sentence. We could do it another way, but this to me comes closest to what the Quakers would call the "sense of the meeting." A hedge fund operator might call it something else, but that's for him to say.--BenJonson (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see where you are going. This is getting close and with Tom giving a little on "numerous" we would have:

"Although numerous candidates have been proposed, the list of those with any significant following is small. Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Supporters of any one of the four main theories are commonly called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively."


 * Shorter, it has all your elements, and it would address my concerns (I'd close my mouth!):

"Major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Of the numerous candidates proposed, only a few have received a significant following. Supporters of the four main theories are commonly called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively." Smatprt (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else?Smatprt (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, first I want to thank you for your two proposed versions above. My initial reaction was that both versions are better than what I first proposed, and so either would be acceptable to me. But upon hearing of Smatprt's concern that the primary focus should be on the major candidates, I now prefer his last version, which is similar to yours, except it mentions the four major candidates first, before mentioning "the numerous candidates proposed, only a few of which have achieved a significant following." It's a valid point, and his version keeps the minor candidates more in perspective relative to the others, IMHO. I hope you will agree. Schoenbaum (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're the only one insisting on that, and BenJonson's latest even gives a rough number. The problem is that it's bad writing; it moves from the specific to the general, from the introductory to the expository. If I said, "I bought radishes, onions and butter. I needed a few items so I went to the grocery store," you might not find anything terrible wrong with it—we talk that way all the time—but it's backwards, the same as mentioning "numerous candidates" after naming four specific ones. And as I said, stating there have been numerous candidates, then stating there are four major ones and naming them, makes it unnecessary to say "only a few of which have achieved a significant following" because that type of writing conforms to how human beings think, so the medium (the grammar) is the message, so to speak. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, de Vere is showcased. The lead is about a topic with 160 years of history, and cannot play up a trend for one candidate, who happens to be favoured by three editors here, with such phrasing as 'Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support'.
 * Few of the numerous candidates have received significant backing. The major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively. Theories of multiple authorship between various candidates also exist. (56 words) Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, I think you make a valid point. The "numerous candidates" should be mentioned first. I will therefore accept the first of your two proposed wordings, i.e, the shorter one (at 62 words), which reads as follows: Of the numerous proposed candidates, major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians, or Derbyites, respectively.  Are there other takers? Schoenbaum (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, I just reverted your deletion of the phrase "who currently attracts the most widespread support" in Tom's proposed wording, which I've just accepted. We've been discussing this very sentence, trying to reach a consensus, as you well know. It was an act of extreme bad faith for you to change it unilaterally before a consensus was reached. Schoenbaum (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would remind you that you have just accepted Tom's suggestion does not make it policy. Take your 'extreme bad faith' attributed to me, and place it in your own court, with its double standards, as I addressed them in a note below, before catching this. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given Schoenbaum's statement above, I too will agree to Tom's proposed wording, as restated by Schoenbaum. It is a reasonable compromise and will allow us to move on to the rest of the lead. I also agree that it was extreme bad faith editing for Nishidani to unilaterally change the lead while the rest of the page editors were in the middle of discussions concerning the very sentence that Nishidani altered/deleted. Smatprt (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll change it in lieu of any other objections; it will be easy enough to revert if there are.
 * You might want to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia terms before bandying them about. Your and Schoenbaum’s accusation of bad faith against Nishidani for doing the same as BenJonson is more than a bit hypocritical, and speaks much louder to the uninvolved editors watching this page than lodging any formal complaint.
 * I expect a lot more heat on the next few changes. Let's begin a new section. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)