Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 16

Merging procedure
This is going to take a while to accomplish. I suggest we come up with some type of rough outline to follow. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can an administrator clarify what is being merged? Just the Oxfordian articles listed at the top? All the authorship articles (Baconian, Marlovian, Oxfordian, etc)? All of these into the Authorship article? Both Oxfordian articles into one? So many options were listed in the discussion that I am not sure what has been decided. An administrator needs to clarify this before we can move forward. Smatprt (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Once we get clarification, I also think it's been made clear that primary anti-Stratfordian texts cannot be used, or at least that's my understanding. This will take a bit longer to set up than just rushing in there with a machete, not that I think anybody is advising such. Meanwhile, I've got one short project left to finish before I can answer your charges against me, so look for my answers sometime tomorrow. I'll probably also answer them in stages, since there are so many of them. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Start with a summary style main article written in Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox. All editors should work to provide a full and detailed accounting of the controversy keeping in mind WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE. After the article is written, then replace this article and redirect all the other articles unless a clear rationale for a content fork or spinout article is shown to exist while creating that article. As for primary source documents, please keep in mind WP:PSTS. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not at all clear that primary anti-Stratfordian texts cannot be used. WP:PSTS asserts that primary sources may be used, but only with care. And that caveat does not merely apply to anti-Stratfordian texts, it applies to all primary sources, Stratfordian or otherwise. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Using primary-source anti-Stratfordian references with care is appropriate. Please try to find external, independent, secondary and tertiary sources to keep the article as neutral as possible. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears we have an issue with the decision to merge. I opened up a discussion with Wiki founder Jimbo Wales who advised this:


 * "For what it is worth, I misread the close. What I meant is that there seems to be a consensus against undertaking a merge. I see that the close says the opposite, perhaps Peter just mistyped? It happens. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)"


 * I will check with Peter to see if he agrees, otherwise, we will need to followup on this discrepancy. Smatprt (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The "close" I wrote above makes it clear that merging is preferred following the Content fork guidelines. Developing the article in Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox is preferred to continuing forum shopping. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the decision was based on the conclusion that the "arguments for consolidating articles on alternative authorship hypotheses are stronger than those arguments for keeping them separate," not a straight majority vote.

It appears that consensus=majority when Smatprt wins the raw vote, but I bet I can find at least five instances in the past two months where I was told that consensus≠majority when the majority was against him Tom Reedy (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify: this is not to say that at the end of the day there will be only one article. This is only to say that we should proceed from the ideals of Summary style and move forward. The sandbox is open, and I encourage people to begin to write. The best arguments on the side of those opposing the merge are those who say that we may run into WP:WEIGHT issues with extreme minority authorship opinions getting full paragraphs that compare in size to, say, the Oxfordians. Well, that's what the sandbox is for: to get the weighting right before going live. It may be that some of the tiniest minority ideas do not even belong in Wikipedia (*gasp*). We need an article on this subject, but we need one that is dispassionate, neutral, and not tied to primary sources or original research. Please, for the love of the Bard or whomever else, work on editing and less on sniping at each other. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems with merging procedure
ScienceApologist, closing this conversation after only 32 hours seems rather hasty to me and in my opinion it was done without much clarity. If there was a consensus reached above it alludes me and I can only draw the conclusion that you have made an arbitrary ruling. Perhaps in a debate like this such a ruling is necessary, but its subverts the collaborative process and is likely to create more ill will among editors at an already fractious group of articles. I personally would have allowed discussion to continue longer and tried to reach a good compromise.

However, I am not going to contest your decision. I do think you need to make a much more clear and precise closing summary above as to where this is going. (i.e. what exact articles are being merged and to where) Are we merging just Oxford articles? is everything being merged to one page? Is nothing being merged but just a rewrite? What exactly is happening?4meter4 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually thought your idea was a good one, 4meter4. I would like to see it fleshed out in the sandbox. The reason the closing was done hastily is because the discussion had devolved into petty arguments and rehashing old vendettas. The points were well-made and new ideas were not forthcoming. Your idea, which amounted to essentially a Solomon's cut perhaps closer to the side of the mergist was great, but it really for me represented the one side of the full spectrum of appropriate responses considering the difficulties inherent in writing about fringe theories. The reason the "ruling" was vague is because the argument itself is vague. Without an alternative to point to, it is very difficult to decide whether the alternative is better even though those arguing for the alternative (including yourself) seem to have the collective weight of Wikipedia policies and guidelines as well as the most reliable sources on their side. My point is do not worry about which articles will be merged yet. Work on the sandbox and then see where content forking may be required. Merging is a stand-in idea for getting the various sticks-in-the-mud unstuck (and that applies to all sides who are engaging far too much in arguing with each other and not nearly enough with actually editing). ScienceApologist (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * After further explanation I really like your ruling. :-) I obviously cannot forsee where this going either, but I would be surprsied if when all is said and done there will be only one article pertaining to the Shakespeare authorship question. It seems to me that it might be prudent to also create the following sandboxes with the aim of weeding out the back-and-fort arguement style and unreliable sources: Talk:Baconian theory/sandbox, Talk:Marlovian theory/sandbox, and Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship/sandbox. The Oxford sandbox could also work on merging Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian, Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays, and Prince Tudor theory into it. I am not sure as to what to do with History of the Shakespeare authorship question. Its possible it could be merged into the main article but it may prove to be too unwieldy.4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'd recommend against this, and here's why: presumably the main article will have a section on all these ideas. These should be summary style sections. It may end up that these sections become unwieldy and too large and will require content forking to their own articles, but until that becomes abundantly clear we need to keep everything on the same page, as it were. There are parts of all those articles that need desperate culling, but there's also good information. I think it's great to start with them, but multiple sandboxes is just going to get us nowhere. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A few other questions. How are we going to decide when/if the alternative articles are to go live and what (if any) merges should be made in the end? Is someone going to watch over the re-write process to make sure issues like ownership, cabals, etc. aren't getting in the way?4meter4 (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll volunteer to watch over it. I can't guarantee that it will work, but we need to start somewhere. One thing to try is to make things simple and short rather than long and drawn out. Summary style is the name of the game. Trying to keep this article as simple and short as possible is best. If edit warring breaks out over a sandbox then we're truly in a pickle and I cannot help any further. Let's cross our fingers. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica sample
BenJonson in the above archived passage requested that Alexpope provide a sample of objective language from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Here is a sample from a subsection of the "William Shakespeare" entry:

Example from Encyclopedia Britannica, Fifteenth edition, (1991) Vol. 27, p. 266: Questions of authorship. 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. The source of all doubts about the authorship of the plays lies in the disparity between the greatness of Shakespeare's literary achievement and his comparatively humble origin, the supposed inadequacy of his education, and the obscurity of his life. In Shakespeare's writings, people have claimed to discover a familiarity with languages and literature,with such subjects as law, history, politics, and geography, and with the manners and speech of courts, which they regard as inconceivable in a commmon player, the son of a provincial tradesman. This range of knowledge, it is said, is to be expected at that period only in a man of extensive education, one who was familiar with such royal and noble personages as figure largely in Shakespeare's plays. And the dearth of contemporary records has been regarded as incompatible with Shakespeare's eminence and as therefore suggestive of mystery. That none of his manuscripts have survived has been taken as evidence that they were destroyed to conceal the identify of their author." (Notice that the EB does not refer to the issue as a "fringe theory" or denigrate the doubters.) Alexpope (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Alexpope/talk

Thanks, Alexpope, for giving us this model of clarity and moderation. It is free from weasel words and other prejudicial forms of language. I myself would word the case somewhat differently, preferring to stress the discrepancies between the traditional biography and the works, rather than the more abstract question of mere "learning" (and such an emphasis can readily be sourced in works by Ogburn, Anderson, Sobran, or Farina). I'm also not sure how you would cite the claim that the fact that "none of his manuscripts have survived has been taken as evidence that they were destroyed to conceal the identify of their author." But the model is a good one; it dheres to NPOVand avoids heaping approbrium on authorship skeptics.--BenJonson (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome, BenJonson. No doubt you could improve on the EB summary with more recent and precisely worded information, while still keeping the tone reasonable and neutral. But the mere fact that this question was acknowledged respectfully in 1991 should refute the assertions of the Stratfordians that nobody was taking authorship questions seriously, or that academics were of a unified opinion in the 1990s. I also object to their implication that nobody doubted that Shakespeare of Stratford was the same person as the author during his lifetime. It wasn't until the 18th century that Nicolas Rowe attempted to write a "life of Shakespeare" -- based on what the actor Thomas Betterton [sp?] was able to glean from a visit to Stratford to learn about his favorite author. Betterton found that very few people in Stratford remembered Will Shakspere, and the best they could come up with for poetic talent was that he could sing while butchering a hog. This should tell us that nobody was even paying enough attention to Shakspere of Stratford to have an opinion about his qualifications as a playwright or poet. But these sketchy details and legends have come down to us as facts because of the dearth of genuine information. Why, if he was so famous in Stratford, didn't somebody write a decent biography of him while he was alive? Alexpope (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)AlexPope/talk


 * Yes, and why didn't he have a Facebook page if he was so famous? That comment makes as much sense as yours. There are so many things wrong with your anachronistic assumptions it's hard to know where to begin, so I'll just point out that the term "biography" wasn't even invented until more than a century later, and the first production of anything that could be thought of as a biography of a literary figure, John Doone, written by Izaac Walton in 1642, didn't even mention his poetry. I thought you said you were an English professor. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's Decision
I don't believe that ScienceApologist should have the right to make a unilateral decision to terminate the voting on the merge question, especially as his decision to merge runs counter to the opinion of the majority of voters.

Part of the statement on his page reads as follows: "Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. If Wikipedia had been around at the time of Galileo, his ideas would have been subject to my incisive commentary and editorial braggadocio -- even if I agreed with him. I am a status quo promoter." Frankly, I'm stunned that a person with such a narrow comprehension of what Wikipedia represents should have the right to make significant decisions. His bias is all too obvious. Mizelmouse (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe it will turn out that he doesn't "have the right." Certainly so many fundamental grounds of civil discourse and reasoned inference have been violated in establishing the merger as a fait accompli that proceeding with it can only result in the degradation of Wikipedia.--Ben 76.69.101.88 (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. In looking at ScienceApologist's further explanation of his ruling above (see my conversation) I don't think he has actually ruled in favor of either party of this debate. He's merely suspended judgement and directed everyone to create the sort of changes that must to be made. He hasn't made a ruling on any mergers or article deletions at all...yet. It's a "let's see the alternative first before deciding" approach. I think this is very smart and exactly what needs to be done in this contentious climate. This is a good opportunity for both sides to work constructively together.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, 4meter4, no reasonable person reviewing the history of this page can possibly agree with your conclusion that ScienceApologist didn't "actually rule in favor of either party" and that "he hasn't made a ruling on any mergers or article deletions at all." It is clear from the official notices that he placed on the page, apparently simultaneous with archiving the section, that your interpretation is incorrect. Here are ScienceApologist's words, in case we need to refresh our collective memory:


 * "Resolved: A merge is appropriate. Please sandbox a proposal that will replace this article and eventually all the offending articles."


 * Are we in Wonderland? When did we fall down the rabbit hole? It is obvious that your interpretation cannot be reconciled with the fact of this official sounding opinion, replete with the invidious reference to "offending articles" which I wonder if ScienceApologist has even read.


 * Certainly I will confidently state that even if he has read them, there is nothing in his history as an administrator or a scholar which shows the least qualification to pass judgment on their content. The fact that ScienceApologist subsequently engaged in an extended and very unclear discussion with you regarding the specifics of how his decision was to be implemented does not change the fact that a decision was -- clearly and unambiguously -- "rendered." Trying to come along now and claim that it was not, merely seems like a way to cast doubt on your own credibility. --BenJonson (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh... so we're on to jibes and barbs at me now as well. Part of the reason why editors like myself don't like to put our toes into the pool here (let alone jump in) is the continual hostile atmoshpere generated by comments like the one you just made. Try to learn to communicate without resorting to withering criticism and personal attacks on other's "credibility". As my comments clearly stated above, I too objected to the ambiguous words of the closing arguement and to its timing. Frankly I am not entirely satisfied by its current re-wording, hence why I am in dialogue with ScienceApologist. I don't think the current wording entirely reflects his intentions as they were expressed to me, but perhaps I am mistaken. Lets wait and see what he says.4meter4 (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 4Meter4, first, I apologize if anything I said was construed as a "jibe" or a "barb." But if you review the archived history of this page, you will see a systematic history of certain users (who have been instrumental in egging on this proposed merger), of sarcasm, personal invective and abuse, and attempted humiliation of other editors operating in good faith. These practices are have regularly been employed to exert a control over the content of the page which is inverse proportion to the factual and reasoned contributions of the editors in question. If you found my remarks in the above statement difficult to deal with, then I encourage you to consider what effect these practices, which have been regularly employed by both Nishidani and Tom Reedy,have had on the atmosphere of good faith in this discussion.


 * I have no wish to engage in those practices, which only reflect what Richmond Crinkley, writing in a 1985 Shakespeare Quarterly review of Ogburn's Mysterious William Shakespeare, described (from his firsthand experience as the educational director of the Folger Shakespeare Library) as the "bizarre mutant racism" which was regularly indulged by partisans of the orthodox view of Shakespeare. However, nothing in your reply disposes me to change my opinion that your position can be reconciled with the actual history of the page. I am less concerned with what ScienceApologist says -- his prejudices are already on record -- than with what others, who have not yet contributed to the dialogue, may wish to say.--BenJonson (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted, and I have noticed the less than civil behavior of many other editors on this page (hence my description of "hostile atmosphere"). However, I have no control over what other people say and I have no desire to be mom and make other people stop. I am going to say something though when someone is uncivil to me personally and I make an effort to always keep my comments calm and polite. I have been in a bad debate on wikipedia a few times and have learned a few things the hard way. However, I like the idea of these sandboxes and seeing if we can make some better alternatives through a collaborative process. Once we have something to compare to what is there now it might be easier to make an overall decision.4meter4 (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 4meter4, thank you for the clear reply. It is certainly not your responsibility to play mom. I do believe, however, that Nishadani's material contributions to a project which is in your words "collaborative" are greatly overshadowed by the absence of NPOV in his approach to the question and a complete failure to engage in the civility which collaboration requires. Someone -- not you -- should restrain him. The failure to do so will only drive away qualified contributors who can improve the entry, and are willing to work in good faith with others such as yourself who by their words display a commitment to the principles which wikipedia requires to function, but do not wish to be exposed to the kind of stress with comes from such abuses. --BenJonson (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I demand an apology, Roger! You've just implied I'm schizophrenic, Nishadani in Japanese would mean 'a two-person (二者)tick'. I now know how Shaksper must have felt when people wrote his name as Shakespeare, particularly since Nisha, can also mean 'two shacks' (二舎).
 * On a serious note, since I entered the page, I've cleaned up several major errors that neither you, nor Schoenbaum, nor Smatprt had ever even noted as problematical, though they are of the most elementary kind. Scholars are supposed to note obvious lapses, like calling Montaigne an Elizabethan, or making out that Terence was an actor, and not an author, or noting that 'Mute swan' was a term unknown to Elizabethans, and that Ovid never said anything about mute swans. If correcting puerile errata like this drives away academics, well, I suppose we shall have to seek a new form of disciplinary surveillance for anyone who edits meticulously to the simple facts, which are ignored by those who suffer the enchantments of high speculation. Can we drop this futile bickering then, and just work on the sandbox, without playing sandmen?Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a point to continuing this exchange? I can't see one. Get into the sandbox and start editing. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ScienceApologist: Despite your decision that editors should adopt a policy for which there was manifestly no consensus, Jimbo Wales has made it quite clear that your decision was erroneous, as anyone can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Your_input_is_requested. What do you propose to do about this? Why should I "play" in a sandbox for which you claim administrative privilege, in light of your clearly evident prejudices ("offending articles," etc.) and erroneous judgment? Has it ever occurred you that some of us might have better things to do than engage in a procedure controlled by your personal biases? --BenJonson (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have better things to do, then I encourage you to do them. Continuing this line of argumentation in this fashion is going to get you nowhere fast. We welcome your contributions and any help you can give us in getting articles on this subject to the best form that they can be. But there is no reason to halt the progress that is already being made. If you would like to ask for another person to help resolve this conflict, I invite you to do so. Jimbo Wales is not going to do it. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you (ScienceApologist) have become an involved editor (commenting on and voting to delete the Oxfordian parallels article, for example), I think it would be appropriate to ask another administrator to help resolve these conflicts. It would go a long way to alleviate any concerns that have arisen, or may arise in the future. (This is not to say that you should not be involved, but it help to balance things and avoid any appearance of taking sides). Does that seem fair? Smatprt (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Merging

 * 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 ANI 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 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)

Fullstuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullstuff (talk • contribs) 21:10, 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?


 * 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.” . 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)

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


 * 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 &mdash; 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)

Simplify the article!
There is too much talk and little gist in the current article. The only thing that matters is the boot-shaped country.

1., Commoner William Shaksper of Stratford has never been to Italy. 2., The italian-themed "Shakspeare" works were written by a person who had been to Italy for a lenghty period. 3., Game over for stratfordians! 4., Optionally choose your favourite Oxenford or else to take the commoners place.

This is about as much as anybody needs to know about the authorship issue and any further words are futile. Computerized textual analysis proves the royal dramas about the english kings were written by the same person who wrote the italian-themed plays, therefore W.S. remains merely an amateur theatre performer and the real bard was? (probably Oxford). 87.97.98.167 (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice and short. I like it. I will replace the current article with your concise version as soon as you explain to my satisfaction how you came to know point 2. Bishonen | talk 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC).
 * And indeed how you know 1. Paul B (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

George Wilkins
The section on "Personal testimonies by contemporaries" includes the sentence "Inn-keeper and part-time dramatist and pamphleteer George Wilkins collaborated with Shakespeare in writing Pericles, Prince of Tyre, with Wilkins writing the first half and Shakespeare the second" Surely this needs some qualification. At least something like "believed by some authorities to have collaborated" needs to be inserted. In any case it is not an example of a "Personal testimony" and probably doesn't belong in this section. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No one has defended the Wilkins section since I highlighted the problem. I am hesitant to delete as the author is obviously more knowledgeable than I am. I will give it another few days- till 10 December. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Check the article. The section was deleted the very day you suggested it . There is no longer any Wilkins section! However, the known personal link between Wilkins and Shakespeare plus the good evidence of collaboration is relevant, though maybe too specific to include here. Paul B (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You are quite correct about Wilkins ,Tigerboy. And beware the term "inn-keeper" Wilkins was a plain pimp and at least once convicted in court of viciously beating one of his tricks.Some of the documents were discovered a hundred years ago by Alfred Wallace who discreetly printed them only in a publication from his local university.Leslie Hotson discovered a second document linking Shakspere (to use Will's own preferred spelling) to the skin trade and other gangland connections(Leslie Hotson"Shakespeare vs. Shallow" 1936)but Hotson chose to ignore the obvious link to the earlier Wallace discoveries.These were fully utilized by Alden Brooks in "Will Shakspere,Factotum and Agent"(1937),"Will Shakspere and the Dyer's Hand"(1943),and "The Other Side of Shakespeare"(1963) and incorporated by myself into John Michel"s "Who Wrote Shakespeare?"(1995).Diana Price independently arrived at exactly the same conclusions a couple of years later.
 * In 2008 Stratfordian Charles Nichol published a book length documentation entitled "The Lodger",which was most enthusiastically received by the main stream press but not by David Kathman and his ever faithful Tom Reedy over at Hlas and at their definitely non-"mainstream" Shakespeare Authorship Page.They are still printing the Wilkins was an inn-keeper blarney.
 * By the way,a considerable number of apparent Shakespeare lines show up in the Wilkins novel,"Pericles".If the appearance of Shakespearean matter there proves that Shakespeare collaborated with Wilkins than Paul should be arguing,if he is in any way capable of consistent logical argumentation,that the novel was likewise a collaboration between Shakespeare and Wilkins.
 * I have posted this information before but Tom keeps censoring it in hopes of concealing their slight intellectual mendacity.
 * Hope you get to read this before it goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Darnay (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well well well. If it isn't my old buddy from out of the past. I thought that was you when I read your first comments on the Alden Brooks page, but I wasn't sure until now. I read an interesting paper of yours just yesterday about the history of Baconism in the Oxfordian, I believe it was. Your essays at least have the virtue of not being boring, which is rare for anti-Stratfordian literature.
 * I'll look up the Hotson paper; it sounds interesting, but Wilkins is referred to as a victualler and tavern keeper by Nicholl, see pp. 198-9. Why you find it surprising that an actor, playwright, and theatre sharer would rub shoulders with prostitutes, pimps, and gangsters is beyond me; the industry is still full to bursting with them. And just FYI, every comment and every edit on Wikipedia is archived and readily accessible by clicking on the "history" tab or the archive page link. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously the novel was a de facto collaboration between Wilkins and Shakespeare, even if Shakespeare was not personally involved in its publication. As for whether or not Wilkins was a pimp, what difference does it make to his or Shakespeare's authorship? Is there some law that says pimps can't write? Paul B (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a look at Hotson. Fascinating stuff. There's nothing in there that I can see about "the skin trade". Why you seem fixated on commercial sex is something of a mystery. Hotson's evidence suggests that a dispute between the thoroughly unpleasant William Gardiner and the slightly dodgy Francis Langley got out of hand and Shakespeare got caught up in it. Big deal. Paul B (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for drawing my attention to the change.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Can some good soul here point non-initiated novices on where to look for/(find?) the "Hotson paper" being alluded to above? Thanks. warshytalk 00:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's called Shakespeare versus Shallow. It was published as a book, and can be found in several libraries. It can also be read online in whole or in part. . There is a summary of the argument on the Francis Langley page. Paul B (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I got the book today from the remote stacks and have been reading it. So where's the gangland connection? I haven't found it yet. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a mystery. I guess you promote Gardiner and his hapless stepson Wayte to the status of a mafia don and his henchman. With a bit of imagination Lee and Soer can become gum-chewing gangster's molls, on the basis of zero evidence. Paul B (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! warshytalk 02:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Paul glad to see that you now realize the well known Elizabethan researcher, Leslie Hotson (who previously discovered the Marlowe inquest) is not a Hodson and Tom has discovered that he did not write a pamphlet.As there are only two Shakespeare documents discovered by Stratfordians in the past hundred years it is well to know both of them.

Moreover, since you admit that you are quick reading (you would have to renounce neo-Stratfordianism entirely if you ever took up thoughtful reading) it is, perhaps, understandable that you fail to differentiate between a book and the document contained in the book.The document is a complaint filed by William Gardiner of attempted murder. He accuses Francis Langley, William Shakspere(Kathman used to believe this was another gentleman of the same name), Anne Lee who lives in an alley by the Clink and Dorothy Soer.

Gardiner may well be lying (as Heminge and Condell may well be lying when they claim they received manuscripts from the author exactly as he conceived them, no George Wilkins or Tom Middleton or John Fletcher to their recollection) in accusing a female resident of an alley and a second woman(whose husband sent in his own lawyers to explain that his wife was on her own) when he accuses them of murder,but he is definitely intends to designate them as what you not incorrectly term "molls"

Francis Langley. There is far too small a commentary but you will find the few Strats or anti-Strats out there generally regard this as some kind of shakedown; they just what exactly was going on. Langley filed a counter complaint that he was the one in danger of his life, but you may recall that he took up show business after being forced (as I recollect with no document at hand)out of government service.The pot is calling the kettle black. Sounds like gangland to me. Though who the spiders and who the flies is anybody's tossup. Certainly nobody would a widow on Gardiner's evidence. There's a life of FL written in the late seventies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Darnay (talk • contribs)


 * There was no complaint of attempted murder. The phrase "for fear of death and so forth" is standard formula used in writs of attachment. Since you seem to delight in trivial slips, some of which are not slips at all, then I shall point out that it was William Wayte who made the complaint, not Gardiner. And Langley did not file a counter complaint. He filed first. You have your facts all over the place. As has been pointed out many times "the swearing of peace bonds was frequently undertaken tit for tat", as  O'Dell says, so the so-called threat from Langley, WS and the women is probably meaningless. We all know that Pericles was not part of the Folio, nor was Two Noble Kinsmen. In other words H&C chose those works which were mostly Shakespeare's work. What do you expect? So I made a typo, accidentally writing Hodson insted of Hotson for a brief period. Why do you crow about this triviality? It's not as if your own contributions are not full of typos and factual errors. Yes, of course the Gardiner/Langley conflict may have been "some kind of shakedown", but we don't know what kind and it was initiated by Gardiner. But the reality is that we don't know what it was about. However, Hotson is clear that we have no reason whatever to take the view that the women concerned were "molls" or anything else. Hotson implies they were probably connected with the theatre in some way. His best guess is a landlady and a maid. Where you get the idea we know what street Anne Lee lived in I've no idea. Hotson was not able to identify either woman and makes several suggestions. I suspect you just make up stuff. Joseph Pearce states that Anne Lee was the wife of Roger Lee. The couple were noted for their activities in the Catholic cause, especially hiding Catholic priests. How Pearce knows this is a mystery to me. He just asserts it. Paul B (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul:" Since you seem to delight in trivial slips, some of which are not slips at all."In that case they must be mendacious. " So I made A typo, accidentally writing Hodson insted of Hotson FOR A BRIEF PERIOD".Hmm. So you pushed the trigger once and it just kept firing?
 * since you had never Look,Paul.you are not talking to Sranley Wells or even Tom Reedy here.I can well understand that you didn't catch the name of an author of a book of which you had just learned existed.I am concerned that(a) you and Reedy,whose been the eys and ears of David Kathman for nearly ten years, never knew the document existed before and (b)when you did get around to scanning the book you merely reiterated seventy year old,and rather inane,conjectures by Hotson.
 * I've got my facts turned around?You've got the order of what you allege to be facts turned around .You admit,"it was initiated by Gardiner" therefore Langley countered with his complaint.Wayte was then sent in on behalf of his Uncle.No, I was not making any mistake on either count of your indictment.
 * Moreover,I recollect (though you have seen the Langley compaint more recently than I) that it is Gardiner-Wayte who first drag Shakspere,the estranged Madame. Soer and Widow Lee in as co-defendants.
 * The manager of the theater is listed next to Will Shakspere so Hotson does think that the case has "something" to do with the theater.Well,they weren't actresses,they were not shareholders,may be they held the toffee apple concession in the "lobby".There is exactly one steady relationship  which women whose husbands were no longer responsible for them held in  the Elizabethan theater.To paraphrase Soer's position,contra Hotson's,"That was no lady. That was my wife."
 * As you well know, Henslowe kept the accounts of his brothels right in with his other theatrical accounts and son-in-law Ned took the best tapestries from one of the brothels straight into Dulwhich college when he decided to endow that worthy institution.Why Hotson was puzzled by what the connection could be surpasses understanding.


 * "There was no complaint of attempted murder. The phrase 'for fear of death and so forth' is standard formula used in writs of attachment." Yes,which is handy for the posthumous reputation of a lot of homicidal Elizabethans show people.In fact you recently posted a short list of such on another thread erroneously implying that I was not aware of the same.The circumstances here warranr the harsher (and by no means uncommon interpretation.
 * I can understand why gentle,almost Victorian, Hotson wanted to back off but you and Reedy?Why stop ye now for breath? Suc(,on the basis of FL's overall record) was the interpretation of Langley's biographer who escaped the unpleasant inferences by raising the mistaken identity defense(which we hear a lot around here),i.e. it wasn't Shakespeare bur another gentleman of the same name. At least that's where I think David Kathman derived it when he raised it at the debate we held in Los Angeles about ten years ago. The only thing for which I might need to apologize is Anne Lee's domicile but I expect to find she can be placed very close to the Clink and the word "alley" comes in there somewhere,I always correct misstatements. Speaking of which(and getting us back on topic at long last) you wrote,"We all know that Pericles was not part of the Folio, nor was Two Noble Kinsmen. IN OTHER WORDS H&C chose those works which were MOSTLY Shakespeare's work.." The "other" whose words these are is yourself and they speak for yourself alone.H&C or(as Malone found on cogent grounds) Ben Jonson pretending to be H&C)claimed they had received the copies which they were printing from the author perfect as he conceived them. None of this most of this or most of that.


 * When Brian Vickers first resurrected these very old attributions,the Kathman Reedy blog nearly deafened themselves with a chorus of denials.Further if,just once,you would read a little more pensively you would find that I did not say any specific attribution was correct as a I quite accurately compared the Heminge-Condell-Shakspere situation to the Langley-Shakespeare-Gardiner situation.We do not know to what extent any of them were telling the truth.Charles Darnay (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can write gibberish such as "since you had never Look,Paul.you are not talking to Sranley Wells" and then spend several sentences making a big issue about the fact that I briefly typed Hodson before correcting it to Hotson. O tempora o mores. Gardiner "initiated" it because of the actions that led Langley to file the suit. If there was any shakedown he was doing the shaking. The order is clear in the sources and you have got it totally, utterly, completely wrong. Langley filed a complaint against Gardiner then his agent Wayte filed against Langley et al. Read the book. I've no idea what Kathman said, nor do I care. I will not contiue to discuss this here since it has nothing to do with the article. If you want to thrash over the details on your talk page I am happy to do so. Paul B (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Since you have never HEARD,Paul." For once we are able to acknowledge that you have a valid ground for complaint..Unlike you efforts to rewrite the Gardiner=Wayte complaint or even worse rewrite Hemine and Condell or-as Malone perceptivelly maintained-Jonson writing as Heminge and Condell.
 * "ReAD THE BOOK".We were trying to staert a discussion on George Wilkins and we cited the most pertinent contemporary document available Shakspere in 1597 was mixed up in a "business" entterprise with a mawd and a procuress(the "widow" can play the role) and a very fewe years later he is having breakfast at his lodging house with this bawdmaster who just happens to drop in.
 * Next we find him acting as go between for the landlady's daughter."Sweet Little Mary Mountjoy".(I forget if this phrase comes from Alfred Wallace or J.Q.Adams).Either way the groom takes "sweet little Mary" for a honeymoney at George Wilkins"s inn cum brothel or brothel cum inn as you like it.Even by today's standards ,so far as they may be said to exist,this is pretty kinky stuff.
 * Later.The infeerence Wilkins shows up at the Globe which runs two of his notably untalanted productions.The inference is obvious that lead stockholder Shakspere was payin off some unknown favor
 * The Globe successfully runs a show called "Pericles"(there is at least one piece of internal evidence concerning Charles Blount,8th Lord Mpontjoy,which strongly suggests it was written not later that the earlier 1605) in 1607-1608 1608.or earlier.An edition billed as by William Shakespeare.solo appears shortly thereafter.Heminge and Condell dismiss it(and many other Shakespeare editions) as inauthentic.We do not know whether or not the Quarto represents the same version previously played at the Globe.
 * The Heminge and Condell(or Ben Jonson) statement held until Victorian times when a major effort was made to give the first three acts in Wilkins.

A major against this was the obvious one that a major dramatist like Shakespeare wouldn't be caught dead collaborating with a miserable hack like Wilkins.Then came the Alfred Wallace documents in 1010.
 * Personally,I think Will sold ,or swaped for unknown considerations, somebody else's manuscript(written at latest early 1605) with old pal Wilkins.However,Paul,you stated sometime back before you became obsessed ny Leslie Hotson's admittedly fascinating book,that you could advance evidence(though somewhat complex) that Will was collaborating with Wilkins in the text as we have it.If so you would have an excellent argument for a Shakspere authorship.The first oone that I would have seen here.
 * By all means advance it. I positively won't heckle you or even say anything until you are through.
 * Paul:"I've no idea what Kathman said, NOR DO I CARE."
 * Just a minute ,don't you receently what you just wrote about Dave over oon the biography of Oxford thread.Don't you know that Stanley WQlls has made David an international authority on the authorship questiion? And Kathman  will soon appear in three further officiallly sponsered British publications as their authorship expert.

They couldn't find a better in the entire British Isles.You can't buck authorities like this.And Reedy will shortly be butting in here to inform you of said fact.
 * Trotsky was booted from the Soviet Union when he started talking like this.Never mind what other sad things happened to him.

Missing Sentence In the second paragraph of Shakespeare authorship question part of a sentence is missing. It's between Sir Toby Matthew and Jesuit Southwell; a citaiton/footnote seems also to be damaged. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That was introduced by one of Tom's edits. I've tried to give what I think was the intended sense and cited the Feil article, which first argued that Matthew was referring to Thomas Southwell. Paul B (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking good
As much as I abhor the edit warring and the incivility which has gone before, I must say... the article actually looks pretty good now! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's amazing what can be done to a page when edit warring stops and peace reigns for the first time since its creation!
 * Thanks for the kind words. If you have the time, your input would be appreciated at the peer review.
 * Cheers GG. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Need to discuss edits
Nina, I welcome any edits or suggestions that tighten up the accuracy of this article, but you should discuss edits to this page, since almost every change is subject to challenge on this type of page. As per the Wadsworth cite, a vast conspiracy certainly falls under the category of "some type of conspiracy", and neither does he say all conspiracies are such. Also please double check your page numbers; all cites have to be accurate so that reviewers can check them easily.

One item I wish you would help with is the summary of the Oxford case. It is around 750 words right now, which is really about 50 words too much. Anything you could do to condense it further and weed out any inaccuracies would be appreciated, but it has to be a description of the case, not an argument for it. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nina I asked you to please discuss any changes on the talk page. Ogburn is not the only anti-Start who makes that argument. This article is a tertiary source, and Ogburn is a primary source as far as this article is concerned, so the statements pertaining to the SAQ arguments have to be cited from secondary sources. You might want to take a look at how this article looked a year ago; that's what we don't want. We also don't want any edit warring, so please discuss your edits when they might be subject to challenge. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You cannot delete sources, leave only one, and then write "according to [that one source]". The statements you attribute to Shapiro are cited in Schoenbaum and other sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Standards of Evidence Reedy writes: "By contrast, academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely on the documentary evidence in the form of title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies, all of which converge to confirm William Shakespeare's authorship.[24]"

This is false, as there is no documentary evidence whatever that William Shakspeear of Stratford wrote anything at all. In fact, no literary manuscripts in his hand exist. Bibliographic evidence - such as title page attributions - does not constitute documentary evidence. Modern stylometric studies are also not documentary evidence, but analyses of bibliographic materials (the printed plays and poems) conducted by scholars. Further, there is no "testimony" by Shakespeare's contemporaries in legal documents that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays, poems and sonnets--there is the "testimony" of legal records of a William Shakespeare as an actor and theater investor-owner, but not playwright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.71.250 (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are in fact title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him—all which are classified as documentary evidence by historians. Tom Reedy (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, I'm happy to discuss specific edits, but it's a lengthy and time-consuming process, and what seems to be needed, according to IronHand's comments on the Peer Review page is an overhaul of the entire article to make it more neutral:


 * Comments from Ironhand41 This article is not written from a neutral point of view and therefore is not ready for peer review. First, it is biased rhetoric. For example, the authors of the article go to some length to make those who don't accept the traditional attribution look odd and quirky by using negative adjectives to describe them. Second, the article casts the dispute as between academics and non academics. But there are a few academics who agree with the doubters and their number is growing. Additionally, there is a significant list of non academic intellectuals who have looked into the controversy and decided that the academics have it all wrong. The "us-versus-them" framework of the article as presently written creates a false dichotomy. Good arguments don't rely on appeals to authority and the claim that scholars and academics are neutral is an insult to anyone who has attended a university. Third, there are those of us who don't have a large stake in the authorship controversy, but whose interest and participation has increased precisely because of the underhanded ways a few academics and traditionalists have attempted to skew the argument in their favor. It would seem that waving a hand and declaring there is no doubt about who wrote the Canon doesn’t work well anymore. This probably explains Plan B; the effort to dress the skeptics’ arguments in a Stratfordian pinafore and claim with a straight face that it represents a neutral point of view.


 * I think you might be surprised at the extent to which you and I agree on many of the major issues concerning the authorship question. For example, for years I've been perhaps THE strongest opponent of the Prince Tudor theory and any of its variations because of the lack of historical evidence for it. I therefore find it odd that the SAQ article (and Shapiro's book) give the Prince Tudor theory such prominence without citing Christopher Paul's article which refutes it on the historical evidence (Shapiro cites Paul's article on p. 313 ('For an Oxfordian critique of the theory etc.'), but doesn't even mention evidence against the Prince Tudor theory in the text of his book). If anything will eventually overwhelm the Stratfordian position on the authorship, it's acceptance by the general public of the Prince Tudor theory when Roland Emmerich's film Anonymous is released next year. Hardy Cook realized this, and asked on his Shaksper list for suggestions for strategies which academics could use when the film is released. In the interest of neutrality, the SAQ article should mention the evidence against the PT theory, not merely the claims for it.


 * But on a more general note, it seems to me that the SAQ article doesn't come to grips in a neutral way with the real issue, which is the fact that the reason the controversy has existed for so long, and simply won't go away, is that although the evidence in historical documents for Shakespeare of Stratford's career as an actor and theatre shareholder is strong (a strength in the Stratfordian position which Shapiro barely mentions), the documentary evidence for Shakespeare of Stratford as the author of plays and poems is much weaker, and subject to endless argument because when Stratfordians argue that a particular document (such as an entry in the Stationers' Register) refers to Shakespeare of Stratford as the author of plays and poems, anti-Stratfordians argue that it refers to the pen-name. The SAQ article doesn't really focus on these two key points.


 * On another more general note, it seems to me that the SAQ article is living in the past. I haven't read Wadsworth, but however valuable his book might have been in 1958, it's not going to be read much today by anyone. Even Schoenbaum is pretty outdated. Shapiro now holds the field, and although his defense of the Stratfordian position is strangely weak, he provides a good overview of the authorship controversy.


 * I definitely don't want to get into revert wars, so if there could be some agreement by editors of this page on the two general key points mentioned above, we could all edit along the same lines without having to discuss each individual edit on the Discussion page beforehand, and if a problem develops because of a particular edit, that edit could move to the Discussion page and be reverted until agreement is reached. What do you think?

NinaGreen (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, I've noted your comments below on this topic. Since the main problem with the page seems to be neutrality, I've deleted the non-neutral personal comments from the lengthy footnote on the 'fringe theory', and added a 'citation needed' note. The fact that Alan Nelson knows no-one in a particular organization who supports an anti-Stratfordian authorship theory can't be cited in a neutral Wikipedia article as a reliable source, and in any event, Alan knows Dr. Dan Wright, who runs the authorship studies program at Concordia, and presumably Dr. Wright belongs to the organization in question, so the accuracy of Alan's statement is debatable, even putting aside the issue of neutrality. And David Kathman's statement that most university professors devote as much attention to the subject as they do to creationism is belied by the 2007 New York Times survey which found that 72% of those surveyed covered the authorship issue in their classes.NinaGreen (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, I've also removed the Dobson footnote which termed the authorship controversy 'an accident waiting to happen'. It's statements such as this which give the article its non-neutral tone. I've left the Bate citation in the footnote.NinaGreen (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, you can't remove WP:RS references that directly support a statement and then tag it with "citation needed". Tom Reedy (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, as I've said in the section below, I don't want to get into revert wars over this. The issue is not whether these are reliable sources. The issue is whether the statements quoted from those sources comply with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. The SAQ article will never get past peer review, never mind be granted FA status, unless it's neutral. Would it be better if you went through the article first and deleted all the non-neutral statements since you take exception to my doing it?NinaGreen (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

How Should Shapiro Be Cited?
I just added a citation for Shapiro, and I've noticed that there are two different page numbers given for every Shapiro reference in the article. Can someone explain?NinaGreen (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the topic of this article is an English subject, in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines the spelling is British and the British edition of the book is cited first with the American edition page numbers in parenthesis (see the book's entry in the bib). I'll get to your comments in the above section later, but it seems that the process is working so far in that I'm editing your edits to tighten up the accuracy and citations. Any disputes I feel sure we can hash out on the talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I can only cite the page numbers in the copy I have (American edition); hopefully someone can supply the page numbers for the British edition.NinaGreen (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Spearing The Wild Blue Boar
A new book out on the authorship controversy. I don't now whether it will be of relevance in editing this page.

http://artvoice.com/issues/v9n50/theater_books_for_christmas

NinaGreen (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not new; I've had it for a year or so. It's basically an amateur anti-Oxfordian rehash of all the mainstream SAQ books up to Shapiro. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Someone told me it was new. I'd not heard of it.NinaGreen (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The author has a blurb from David Kathman.Why be so dismisive ,Tom .The poor guy is over ninety years of age and if he ever gets a quick chance to play a suporting role in the neo-Stratfordian Follies it will depend as yours did on Kathman expertise.

WikiProject Alternative Views
I just noticed that this page is part of WikiProject Alternative Views, and am copying below the statement from the project:


 * Wikipedia's policy is to write articles from a neutral point of view describing not just the dominant view, but significant alternative views as well, fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Because alternative views lack the widespread acceptance enjoyed by dominant views and often suffer from a lack of coverage in verifiable and reliable sources, fewer editors know or care about them, and this imbalance puts alternative views at risk of neglect, misrepresentation, and a level of coverage not in keeping with their relative notability. This project aims to counter that tendency by facilitating collaboration among interested editors. This should all be done while following our basic content principles. It should not be an excuse to correct supposed suppression from the mainstream orthodoxy, to engage in original research, or to use sources that aren't verifiable and reliable. We are not here to correct real-world coverage. We are here to report real-world coverage. We are not here to counterbalance real-world sources. We are here to balance according to real-world sources.

Doesn't this fact alone dispose of the 'fringe theory' issue?NinaGreen (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "This should all be done while following our basic content principles. It should not be an excuse to correct supposed suppression from the mainstream orthodoxy, to engage in original research, or to use sources that aren't verifiable and reliable. We are not here to correct real-world coverage. We are here to report real-world coverage. We are not here to counterbalance real-world sources. We are here to balance according to real-world sources."
 * My suggestion is to thoroughly famliarise yourself with what those bolded areas comprise, especially Wikipedia's basic content principles as they have been interpreted through the various resolution procedures. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, I have no disagreement with anything in the policy. It just seems odd to me that what Wikipedia itself terms an 'alternative view' would be designated in the article as a 'fringe theory'.  The statement still lacks a citation. Perhaps when one is found that will help to clarify the situation.NinaGreen (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nina apparently you disagree with WP policies and guidelines since you removed the citation and tagged the statement. The citation is acceptable as per WP:RS, which is why I suggested you familiarise yourself more with WP policies and guidelines. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, see below. I removed it because I'm following Wikipedia policies, not because I disagree with them! The statements are as far from neutral as can be, and neutrality is a pillar of Wikipedia policy.NinaGreen (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

EXTREME PERSONAL AND REFERENCE BIAS
The peer review submission by Tom Reedy is anything but neutral. Reviewing the footnotes he used to support his contentions, I read some of the most misinformed and bilious remarks about other scholars and other scholarship that I have ever seen. Kathman's and Nelson's in particular are little more than polemic, with Shapiro, Bate, Smith, and Wadsworth also characterized by summary judgment, unsupported by any specific factuality. The basic point of departure into polemic is their common assumption that Gulielmus Shakspere of Stratford and William Shake-Speare/Shakespeare of literary renown were one and the same person. Since this cannot be asserted without numerous contradictions collapsing the argument, it throws into question the (lack of) scholarly motives of the individuals involved. There can be no neutral discussion under these terms, and in this case Tom Reedy's neutral point of view is a travesty. The defensive posture of asserting that Elizabethan authors did not write out of their own experience and social frame, for instance, is clearly disproven by their individual biographies. The only biography to work chasm is that of the subject in discussion, Gulielmus Shakspere of Stratford. --Zweigenbaum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweigenbaum (talk • contribs) 16:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Modifying Argument to Theory then Hypothesis
Zweigenbaum Considering the strife that has resulted from loaded word meanings, I have modified "argument" to "theory" in the article. This is a less contentious usage in the direction of achieving neutrality of point of view. --Zweigenbaum Zweigenbaum (talk) 00:31, 23 December 10:

Zweigenbaum After noting that someone reverted the "argument" term at the beginning of the article, I followed the link supplied regarding it and used alternative wording found there, although this is not a science article. Either word is neutral, theory or hypothesis, as opposed to argument, which is not. Zweigenbaum (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Zweigenbaum needs to discuss major changes with more editors than just Zweigenbaum, and an agreement between Zweigenbaum and Zweigenbaum is not really an agreement, is it? I am more than willing to listen to Zweigenbaums reasons why Zweigenbaum thinks the word "argument" is a loaded term, but Zweigenbaum has furnished no reasons for Zweigenbaum's belief, and until Zweigenbaum does, Zweigenbaum will have to be content with the traditional term "argument".


 * The word "argument" is not a loaded term, and aptly describes the many theories challenging Shakespeare's authorship in the same way that "question" (as in "Shakespeare authorship question) acts as a collective noun encompassing all those theories. In addition, and more importantly in my view, it is a traditional description of the SAQ, where "theory" is used for each individual candidate (Oxfordian theory, Marlovian theory, Baconian theory, etc. etc.) and "debate" implies a formal or informal discussion attended by interested observers, of which there have been several, none of them referred to as anything other than a debate (nobody has ever said anything to the effect of "Did you hear the hypothesis/theory/controversy between the Oxfordians and the Stratfordians?"). "Controversy" implies a contentious disagreement between experts or academics, such as the controversy over "A Funerall Elegye in memory of the late Vertuous Maister William Peeter", now settled, or the controversy over the authorship of "A Lover's Complaint", which is still ongoing. Within the academy there is no controversy; it is all from outside originating from mostly amateur Shakespeareans with little or no scholarly training. The use of the word "hyposthesis" as a collective noun for the many anti-Stratfordian theories in inaccurate in that it implies only one in a way that "argument" does not, and (as you have already commented) it is used most commonly with scientific topics.


 * I recommend that Zweigenbaum read WP:NPOV, especially the section Impartial tone, which states "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." We are trying to root out non-neutral language in the article, and Zweigenbaum's suggestions are being utilised for that purpose when it doesn't lead to inaccuracy.


 * Zweigenbaum might also begin new sections at the bottom of the page, so that other editors won't miss Zweigenbaum's comments. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum

Hmmm. A rather intense repetition of my name there, fourteen of them. Are you talkin' t' ME? HUH, I don't see no one else standin' hih. Are you talkin' t' ME? --Robert De Niro. One could conclude there is an ad hominem intent involved, and something to be considered in the final reckoning of the charge of non-neutrality. Like I said elsewhere, "The same thing that makes you strong will kill you in the end." --Neil Young. Getting annoyed at me is not going to help you solve this paralysis.

I added a new section, particularly meant for the matter of "argument-theory-hypothesis-and what's next?", which pertains to the section above it, concerning biased language that is decided non-neutral by any definition. Sorry if that snafued.

Now to Tom Reedy's reasoning. Contrary to charge I presented a reason, not a belief, that theory or hypothesis are preferable, being sufficient and non-combative in tone. 'Argument' implies conflict, opinion, and tension between or among the parties. This need not be the case and theory or hypothesis fits the neutrality standard. He clings to 'argument' as an expression of the matter of the Shakespeare Authorship question. But a question is not an argument and vice-versa. If 'theory' is too high-flying and 'hypothesis' is too respectable for that dirty Oxfordian intrusion, what shall we do to describe the Shakespeare authorship question? What about "The Shakespeare authorship question refers to a difference of determining the identity of arguably the greatest writer in English and even world literature. This major difference of assigning fame and honor involves  distinctly contrasting means of using evidence and historical sources in defense of one of several contentions. The main ones are the traditionalist Stratfordian William Shakspere and since 1920, the nobleman Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford." Anything wrong with that? If so, we're like Odysseus, never at a loss. There is the colorless word "proposition". "The Shakespeare authorship question concerns the proposition, episodic since 1920, that another Englishman, not William Shakspere of Stratford, wrote the works of Shakespeare. Before that, a flurry of interest in Francis Bacon was the rudimentary response to the astounding achievements of the Shakespearean figure, amazing if considered to be an uneducated commoner from humble beginnings."

Now a word about your temper. In future, feel free to use the pronoun 'you' or possessive 'your', instead of the repetitive disrespectful misuse of my name, when circumstances occur that involve addressing me. That is offensive. It all goes to the final reckoning of how neutral your approach is. Just as a mnemonic device: "My mind it scuffs at pettiness that plays so rough/ Kick my feet inside handcuffs say OK I've had enough/ What can you show me?" --Bob Dylan Just let me know if you can live with a neutral term less combative than argument, and we'll discuss it. Zweigenbaum (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I was conforming to your obvious preference to be referred to in the third person, old boy, as evinced in the titles of your comments. Is there any reason you can't begin your new sections at the bottom of the page instead of in the middle where everybody has to hunt for them? All you need do is hit "new section" tab at the top of the page and everything is done for you. Give it a title and insert your comments and save the page. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum No problem. Due to manifold differences of view about the article's neutrality, I suggest a compromise of using the term 'proposition' with a slight change of verb for clarity, in the first sentence. The impasse should be noted publically, and this is the purpose of the neutrality tag at the top. We can make progress even though it is there. Remember Tom, we are not petty men; we are not small. Zweigenbaum (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Achieving Neutrality
Tom, I see you've restored this citation, and I'm not going to get into a revert war over it, but the statements are a long way from neutral ('creationists', 'UFO sightings','schismatics', 'ignorant of facts and methods', 'dismaying', the patronizing 'touching', 'creationists', 'dark conspiracy','I do not know of a single professor', the dismissive 'like St. Louis it's out there', 'nothing he can say will prevail' etc.)

^ 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.

If the article is ever to be accepted as neutral, this sort of thing has to go. Neither you nor I should be trying to 'prove' our position here. The objective is to present a neutral summary of the authorship controversy so that readers can make up their own minds. Right? There's been a lot of harsh language on both sides, but this article isn't the place to present any of it.NinaGreen (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As per my suggestion above,you should familiarise yourself with WP policies and guideliines, especially WP:NPOV. You might want to begin here.
 * We report what sources say; we don't say it for them, not do we tone them down or ramp them up. These comments are mild compared to a lot of stuff out there, but the fact of the matter is that the academic community considers the SAQ a fringe theory with no evidence, and they don't think too much about it. Those stats you quoted about Shakespeare professors (as opposed to scholars) are in line with how evolutionists treat creationism: they "cover" it by dismissing it. In no shape or form is the SAQ part of the accepted scholastic curriculum, except to dismiss of disparage the claims. That you know of one or two professors who treat it as a serious theory does not invalidate the scholastic consensus, and in fact the topic is banned from the Shakespeare Association of America as well as Hardy's listserv as a serious topic of discussion.
 * To recap: we present the various sources of each side by describing what they say neutrally, not by tempering or censoring their comments. Wikipedia's bias is toward the academic consensus, and the objective is not to present a neutral summary of the authorship controversy "so that readers can make up their own minds"; it's to present each point of view accurately and in context. If that entails offending the sensibilities of either side, that's too bad. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you think those quotations are over the top, I've got lots of "lunatic fringe" and worse if you want me to post them. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, I disagree. I don't see Wikipedia as a forum for presenting mud slung by both sides and then calling it 'neutrality' because both sides have gotten to sling some mud (and in fact in the article as it stands, only one side has gotten to sling mud anyway, so the article isn't even neutral on that ground :-). Wikipedia is a forum for dispassionately presenting the arguments for both sides, keeping the mud-slinging out of it, particularly on controversial issues. We need to step back from a partisan position so that we can edit the article from a neutral point of view. It really isn't that hard. I don't in the slightest care whether this article 'proves' anything about the authorship one way or another so long as both sides are presented neutrally and impartially, without any pejoratives from the combatants (by 'combatants' I mean the sources quoted, not the editors of this article :-).NinaGreen (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nina, if the academic consensus holds that the SAQ is without merit, it must be stated so and the statement must be reliably cited. That is all. If the SAQ proponents say that William Shakepseare was an illiterate grain merchant who grew up in a cultural backwater and so couldn't have written the works, then it must be stated so and the statement must be reliably cited. That is all. The reason those quotations you object to are there is because any statement liable to be challenged has to be cited, and even with a cite, without quotations it was being challenged every time a new editor read the lede, just the way you are doing now.
 * And respectfully, you aren't really responding to what I say; you have only said you disagree and then give your reasons—not Wikipedia's—for why you object. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, you wrote:


 * Nina, if the academic consensus holds that the SAQ is without merit, it must be stated so and the statement must be reliably cited. That is all.


 * I agree completely that the majority view must be presented as the majority view, as per Wikipedia policy. I have no argument whatsoever with that.  But I have not yet seen a reliable source cited in the article which says 'I speak for the academy, and not for myself, and the academy says the SAQ is without merit'. Instead, I've seen this sort of statement from Alan Nelson cited: 'I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare'. Does Alan know all 1300 members of the SAA? Has Alan questioned each member personally concerning his/her views on the authorship issue? This is clearly not the consensus of the academy.  This is merely Alan Nelson stating what his personal experience suggests to him about the consensus of the academy. And it is flatly contradicted by the results of the 2007 New York Times survey of professors who teach Shakespeare at U.S. universities.  So who are we to believe -- Alan Nelson's view based on his personal experience, or the Shakespeare professors who responded to the New York Times survey? I don't disagree in the slightest that 'if the academic consensus holds that the SAQ is without merit, it must be stated so, and it must be reliably cited'. What I obviously disagree with is the reliability of the sources you've cited for that statement. How can you cite Alan Nelson's view of the academic consensus based on his own personal knowledge, and not cite the New York Times survey on the academic consensus?  I would be quite happy with a statement on the academic consensus which cited the New York Times survey.  That survey shows what the majority of university professors teaching Shakespeare think. Why not just cite the results of that survey and be done with it? That would state the academic consensus fairly, and would meet the Wikipedia requirement of neutrality. At the moment, none of the sources cited is reliable in terms of the issue of academic consensus because each source is simply someone speaking for himself, not speaking for the academy.  So the citations are neither reliable, nor neutral.NinaGreen (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So are you arguing that the NYTimes polled every Shakespeare professor in the world, and that's why it should be valued over Nelson's experience of the Shakespeare Association of America (of which he is a very respected member), as well as all the other testimony supporting that statement? (Because you have a habit of picking out one ref and basing your argument on that as if that were the only evidence adduced for the section.)

And by the way, Wadsworth is a good reliable reference. He was a very respected published Shakespeare academic and the rebuttals, like the arguments, haven't changed all that much in the past 50 years. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, no, of course I'm not arguing that the New York Times polled every Shakespeare professor in the world. I'm arguing the very clear and irrefutable point that you can't claim to represent the views of the academy in the SAQ article by citing the comments of three or four members of the academy (and in any event your first citation is by David Kathman, who isn't a member of the academy). If you're going to make a claim concerning the position of the academy in the SAQ article and not violate the Wikipedia pillars of neutrality, verifiability and no original research, you have to cite the best evidence you have of the academy's collective view. The only evidence of the academy's collective view that I'm aware of is the New York Times survey, which is recent (2007) and representative.  If there's something more recent and more authoritative which represents the collective views of the academy, by all means cite that. If there's nothing which can be cited which verifiably represents the collective view of the academy, then delete the section from the text of the SAQ.NinaGreen (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag because the assertions of POV are vague and all over the place. How an editor who has not contributed one edit is able to tag an article based on unsupported generalised assertions as he posted earlier is simply ludicrous. A sentence such as "The basic point of departure into polemic is their common assumption that Gulielmus Shakspere of Stratford and William Shake-Speare/Shakespeare of literary renown were one and the same person" is pure nonsense. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User: Zweigenbaum Since you made a point of issuing the following statement, I as its target wish to respond to it.

"I have removed the POV tag because the assertions of POV are vague and all over the place. How an editor who has not contributed one edit is able to tag an article based on unsupported generalised assertions as he posted earlier is simply ludicrous. A sentence such as "The basic point of departure into polemic is their common assumption that Gulielmus Shakspere of Stratford and William Shake-Speare/Shakespeare of literary renown were one and the same person" is pure nonsense."

Under ordinary conditions in a face to face encounter, I doubt you would try this. In our hopefully civil context, I would appreciate you managing your own anger and sensibilities so that substance rather than opinionated characterizations occupies the exchanges. To the main point. You had no right under rule to remove the notice of a neutrality dispute. These responses demonstrate too well that there is a neutrality dispute. That is sufficient cause to post a notice, whether I've recently enrolled as an editor or not. Therefore, kindly adjust your approach and methods if you can. I know there must be a protocol to protest someone trying to take over a Wikipedia subject section, and as I understand you are a follower of David Kathman, the last word in bias on this topic, maybe that will be the eventual course.

As to whether my remarks were ludicrous and/or pure nonsense, that remains to be proven. 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. The archived remarks are totally relevant and should be considered, not ignored, whatever the rationalization for doing so.

The sentence you quoted is far from the complete statement that I made under the discussion category, but I will be happy to back it up. James Shapiro's 'Contested Will' operates on the very assumption I cited, that the Stratford burgher named Gulielmus Shakspere and the literary giant whose moniker was Shake-Speare/Shakespeare were identical. If that were the case in fact, there would naturally be factual support in the form of letters, books, bookcases, desk(s), writing implements, manuscripts, exchanges with other writers, remarks from and to writers and university scholars, contracts, local anecdotes (which last an extremely long time), visits from dignitaries and other writers, sales, legal suits regarding pirated materials, recovery actions, encomia and elegiacal literature upon the writer's death, and so on. In this evidentiary profile of the Stratford burgher there is literally nothing, though similar materials exist to a greater or lesser extent for all other contemporary writers. Consult Ms Price's documentation if truly curious. There was a person, honored in his own time, who presented many of the same "Shakespearean" plays at court in the 1570's and '80's, with the same plots and characters but differing titles. He was given covert, discreet, but unmistakable tributes by writers and almanac compilers during the era and remembered as the apex of Elizabethan literature after his death. That person, whoever he was, was surely not from Stratford, whose now most famous citizen was noted not at all at his death, even by fellow townsmen, until useful in the First Folio publication. All of the writers making tribute were friends, colleagues, or former employees of the Herbert brothers or Jonson, themselves followers of de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. It is not prudent academic practice to ignore the obvious, but people are often foolish. Therefore the statement that "The basic point of departure into polemic is their [Stratfordians'] common assumption that Gulielmus Shakspere of Stratford and William Shake-Speare/Shakespeare of literary renown were one and the same person," is not ludicrous, not nonsense, not vague and all over the place. If the shoe fits, wear it. My statement pertains specifically to the subject matter, a unique one of secrecy and deception, and especially to the methods of study, namely, the Stratfordian (i.e., your) incapacity to come close to a "neutral" point of view. Operating on the wrong basic assumptions, you will never reach an acceptable objective analysis. The only way to rectify what has been submitted for peer review is to utterly re-write it from a more removed perspective.

I do not expect an apology for the aspersions, which I regard as a fine example of a believer's emotional reflex to a disturbing challenge upon his beliefs, resulting in an attack on/dismissal of the messenger. In Latin class we learned to call it ad hominem arguing--if you can't beat the argument, go after the speaker. This may not be in the relevant literature, but it is a fact: we're not children any more. Attacks don't work. You'll get more respect with reasoned statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweigenbaum (talk • contribs) 10:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why you feel the need to write Shakespeare's first name Latin is some thing of a mystery. There are many records of Shakespeare which clearly indicate that the writer was one and the same person who was born and died in Stratford. Why on earth do you think there should be "letters, books, bookcases, desk(s), writing implements, manuscripts,..." etc? How many are there for other playwrights of the period. Do we have Kyd's or Marlowe's bookcases etc? Just look up how many of Marlowe's letters and manuscripts survive. Yes, of course sometimes some letters and some manuscripts of some authors survive. More often not. Every single piece of evidence discovered concerning Shakespeare is consistent with his being an actor/writer. All Shakespeare specialists know this. And it is the views of specialists that determine content on Wikipedia. Paul B (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

User: Zweigenbaum In response to Paul Barlow: Sorry but we have a communication gap. Your assertion that "Every single piece of evidence discovered concerning Shakespeare is consistent with his being an actor/writer," is without evidentiary foundation. The seventy pieces of evidence that are legal documents irrefutably tied to Shakspere the person, which have been seen by specialists or others, definitively show him as money-lender, land-owner, broker, business proprietor or investor, defendant in civil suit for intimidation, active court litigant--but not in any manner an author or playwright. This is unique among his contemporaries. To a greater or lesser extent, each and every other writer left SOME KIND of evidence of being a writer in addition to printed works with their names on the covers. But none at all for the greatest writer of the age? Credence requires inquiry. This is the crux of the evidentiary dispute, bearing so heavily on the capacity of his proponents to write a clear and convincing sentence of probative support for their position. Reliance on authority does not constitute a trail of evidence. Yes, the name on the play title pages are evidence, but of publication of the printed name only, not the person you assume and believe is synonymous with that name. It was clear at the time that hyphenated names were pseudonyms and unhyphenated 'Shakespeare' attributions were never contemporaneously confused with the Stratford Shakspere. Further and overwhelming 'evidence' appeared in the form of the First Folio, but again with no connection to the person you honor, and with mysterious elements tying the entire episode to the Herbert brothers, relatives and followers of de Vere; to writers associated with them; to a highly ambiguous introduction and to a more ambiguous monument plaque statement; to dedicatory language supposedly from two actors but in a style suspiciously like Ben Jonson's. In no discernible way, did the First Folio evidence confirm Shakspere's authorship simply by (intentionally confusing?) reference to him--that seems to be the nature of the ruse then and now. You wish to believe what you are told is true, but manifold facts do not appear to support that wish. This inconsistency between available evidence and traditional reputation beclouds any effort toward 'neutral', or in another word, unbiased, thinking. The contradictions do not go away. They are factual. They must be faced dispassionately, even if that means a readjustment in our understanding. --Zweigenbaum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweigenbaum (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Zweigenbaum, writers didn't "leave" evidence. They didn't put it in a time capsule. Evidence either survives, more less by chance, or it doesn't. It's subject to a thousand natural shocks. Most written material has just been thrown away, crumbled away, got lost or used as kindling. It would be nice if more material relating to Shakespeare existed. But every single piece of evidence that does either says he was a writer or is entirely consistent with that fact. When aristocratic or other writers wanted to publish anonymously they used names like "ignoto", or just published with no name. Creating a whole persona around a real human being from Stratford is wholly unprescedented, utterly bizarre and nonsensical. There is no contradiction between "available evidence" and traditional reputation. Shakespeare is exactly the type of person we'd expect to have written the plays - an active man of the theatre with a middle-class education. Paul B (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Trivializing a respondent's words is not debating. Elizabethan writers "left" plenty of evidence in their known biographies and documents as to being writers and writing works. These are on record and referenced in scholarship. For the sake of brevity, just access the research of Diana Price in 'William Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography'. You will find dozens of artifacts listed for numerous writers. You will find none for Shakspere of Stratford. We're talking about evidence here, not speculation to win a point. If you have anything beyond a playwright's name similar to Shakspere's on a title page, let's see that "every piece of evidence" and discuss it. The First Folio introductory materials, once understood as to their origin and motivation, become evidence AGAINST your contention. That includes the introduction, the etching, the tributes, and the dedication to the Herberts. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the use of evidence as presently propounded in the Stratfordian model is not being used neutrally, free of bias, but incorporated into a speculative theory accepted over time but beyond the power of available facts to support a case for authorship. Generalized comments such as you present are defensive in nature because they are not buttressed by the preponderance of evidence, or at this point any evidence. Reedy's attempt to skew the debate into a respectable us versus a kooky anti-Stratfordian them, like a wrestling match on TV, is inherently not neutral. --Zweigenbaum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweigenbaum (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum At this point (December 19, 2010 12:15 AM) I note that on more than one occasion Tom Reedy has reverted the neutrality tag I placed at the top of the contested article on Shakespeare authorship, presently under discussion and peer review. The following is the rule forbidding so doing.

"In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."

It is clear that under this language Reedy is defying the recommendations of the neutrality section. I assume rule-breaking with impunity is actionable and wonder whether the editors agree. Of course further action will be moot if Reedy stops the unlawful practice. Thank you. Zweigenbaum (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for an article. Per WP:TPG, please restrict your comments to policy-based attempts to improve the article. Many people believe many things, but more than belief is needed to justify tagging an article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And more than cherry-picking the bits you like out of the template usage notes is needed, too. Please turn your attention to your own action (=adding the template), Zsweigenbaum, instead of hopping right to the question of removing it. Removal discussion only comes into play when it was added appropriately. This is the central advice for when it's to be added:
 * Quote:
 * The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor.
 * The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.


 * This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.


 * determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. However many shouting SPA's turn up here, inflating the fringe viewpoint "among Wikipedia editors", it doesn't make the tag appropriate, and I consider your reinsertion of it without giving reason (see section "NPOV violations" below) to be tendentious editing Neither you nor Warshy seem interested in trying to justify the tag. Merely using it to make the article look bad is not what the tag is for. ("This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.") What matters is that only one side has high-quality reliable sources (and it's not the Oxford side), as has been shown on this page. The tag is inappropriate. Please desist from your tendentious editing, or you may find yourself blocked for edit-warring. I'm also considering full-protecting the article until such time as a compromise—obviously distant at this time—is worked out. Bishonen | talk 09:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

Zweigenbaum Sorry the charge that I have reverted the editing of another editor without comment toward the issue, i.e., neutrality of the proposed article, is patently false. I explained in plain language in my first communication why the proposed article is biased. While it includes the most virulent of polemical and ad hominem attacks upon the "fringe element" so called, there is no reference whatsoever to the opposing scholarship, as though there weren't any to cite. As to my "reverting" Reedy's removing the neutrality tag, his action is the one requiring justification not my original one being restored. His removing my use of the notice--and no one to this point can claim acceptable neutrality on his behalf--is a retaliation for the embarrassment of a valid use of the device. This is unacceptable according to rule. As is obvious from the outset of my contributions, an "improvement" of the article is possible, not from tangential suggestions about it, which would not change its biased thrust, but clarifications about basic assumptions that have led to it and whatever use of reference and citations are being used to support them. The most obvious example of an unexamined assumption therein is that no writerly evidence for Shakspere of Stratford exists, with reference to Diana Price's 'William Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography'. This is basic research pertaining to the personality favored in your persuasion. Reedy does not grant credence and consideration to this detailed work or indeed any Oxfordian scholarship. It is difficult to reach consensus on such an unbalanced footing, and demanding co-operation as I sense you do towards that end is inappropriate. Consensus follows from agreement on the validity of the evidence presented. Let us seek that valid evidence by bona fide consideration of the available elements and supporting materials leading to the dispute. The article will benefit from them, once included. This has yet to happen. The peer review status so far appears to be a stonewalling action of positing the Reedy position in prominence, and then keeping it there before the public as though it were the last word, no dispute at all. Stating outright that there is a neutrality issue is not tendentious but reflective of fact. Removing the tag is the objectionable action. As to the cherry-picking, I am not quite sure what was meant by the charge--a review of the entire footnoting background is cherry-picking? Thank you. Zweigenbaum (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (Then we're even: I have no idea what you mean by "the peer review status." But was I referring to footnotes, really? Didn't I speak of "cherry-picking the bits you like out of the template usage notes "? [/me checks her edit.] Why, yes, I did. "The template usage notes." I don't know how to put it any more clearly. And I mean exactly what I say, so please don't take the trouble to "sense" my intentions.)
 * Quoting you:
 * "As to my "reverting" Reedy's removing the neutrality tag, his action is the one requiring justification not my original one being restored. His removing my use of the notice--and no one to this point can claim acceptable neutrality on his behalf--is a retaliation for the embarrassment of a valid use of the device."
 * Nonsense. You reverted Tom just as much as he reverted you. A revert is a revert. Please read and inwardly digest WP:3RR and Template:POV instead of inventing "rules" out of whole cloth. What this page doesn't need is yet another IDIDNTHEARTHAT editor. And please don't invent quotes from me, either. You state that:
 * (Bishonen called my position 'belief' without specifics for that charge)
 * "Bishonen made reference to "Specialists" as the only acceptable authorities."


 * That's some misunderstanding there. I haven't said either of those things. Never used "belief" or "Specialist" on this page. Perhaps somebody else has, and you (like me) have trouble understanding who wrote what here? Let me explain: I sign my posts by typing four tildes (squigglies, like this: ~ ) at the end of each post. The squigglies automatically turn into my username plus a timestamp when I save. Please do the same, and we won't have a problem. Sign at the end of your posts; don't add your name at the beginning or somewhere in the middle, which confuses everybody. (Don't you usually sign, say, letters at the end?) Keeping this principle in mind, you will find that these posts are mine: ; no others. It would be great if you read them and paid attention to the words that actually do occur in them. It may save you a block for edit-warring. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 00:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

Zweigenbaum

Nina Green is discussing another policy issue raised by the article's approach. I have followed suit regarding the neutrality of the proposed article (Bishonen called my position 'belief' without specifics for that charge) and I offer these suggestions regarding reliability and wording. In general, from my reading of the rules mentioned in the Wikipedia sources, the wording must not be slanted in one direction and derogatory in the other. [(WP:WORD)] I wonder if Mr. Reedy can overcome his bias and actually do this. The reliability of the proposed article depends almost completely on using sources fairly, neither emphasizing one nor condemning the other. [(WP:RELIABLE)] It is another major factor in achieving neutrality.

Bishonen made reference to "Specialists" as the only acceptable authorities. This does not appear in the guidelines I read. They call for peer-reviewed, fact-checked, academically credentialed and other reliable sources. It is the Specialists so-called that by and large maintain the traditional view contrary to ordinary logic and available fact. The Oxfordians simply introduce reliable materials uncomfortable to that view.

Mr. Reedy, (I should be more respectful in addressing your major effort though I differ with the results) you have already been informed of most of these Policy and Guideline issues. Since you and Bishonen seem to feel that there has been a lack of specifics, perhaps you will take an interest in the following:

1) Mizelmouse and others have raised the issue that the article uses non-neutral language, such as that non-Stratfordians "claim" and "assert" and "declare", rather than the more neutral "state". Add to that that Stratfordians "hold" and "consider" rather than "say" or "believe".  This is a clear violation of WP:WORDS.

First I will request that you address this one specific Guideline and then we'll move on to another. Start with the first line and move through the article. For example:

Line 1 - change "argument" to "debate";

Paragraph 2, final line - change "argue" to "believe", and "arguing" to "proposing".

Paragraph 3 - change "Mainstream Shakespeare scholars hold" to : "Many mainstream Shakespeare scholars believe" (this change address both WP:WORDS and WP:RELIABLE, specifically -

"Academic consensus: The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."

Paragraph 4 - change "Despite the scholastic consensus" to "Despite the traditional view" - same WP:RELIABLE and  "Academic consensus" issue as above.

Paragraph 4 - the final line is a mess, and there are multiple issue involved. As written, it appears to be more about the "supporters" than the theory itself, which is odd and does not contribute to explication of the subject matter. It may express your view of Oxfordians but that is not the purpose of the article, correct me if I have this wrong. The subject of the article is the theory itself, is it not? If you are attempting to show the current state of the debate, then this final line should instead say something like "In recent years, two universities began offering courses related to the issue, and a Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre has opened, an online list of doubters includes over 1800 signatories, and a major feature film Anonymous has been announced with the authorship question as a key element.' (At this point I have to mention that the present article is hopelessly out of date. Altrocchi, Whittemore, and Roe have made recent significant contributions to knowledge in the subject matter, not even mentioning dozens of articles in the Society and Fellowship journals. Part of the source of conflict is that Mr. Reedy has not availed himself of the numerous high-quality peer-reviewed works that comprise the Oxfordian position on Shakespeare authorship. That may involve a good deal of at first distasteful effort, then shocking surprise, but it is the responsible editor's duty if he means to write a balanced article.)

WP:LEAD states that the lead is to summarize the article. Specifically "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences."

A day's work would be getting the lead correct, with regard to WP:AVOID, complete with specific points and policy quotes. If I were to make these edits, are you going to revert them in toto on the pretext that they are pure nonsense or ludicrous, as you characterized my reasons for posting notice there is a neutrality issue? When a company lawyer before Chief Justice Warren made a complicated excuse for denying justice to the appellant, Warren responded, "But were you fair?" Show us that you WANT to be fair, and a major element of the communication gap will be reduced. Zweigenbaum (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum It is incumbent upon me to respond to the various charges and statements made by Bishonen, located before my previous post. Yes I see I treated the various remarks above like a Hydra with one name, Bishonen. Mr. Paul Barlow made the assertion that specialists only are sufficient as reference material (and what about Walt Whitman, poor unlettered unspecialist) and Mr. Johnuniq who opined that "Many people believe many things but it takes more than belief is needed to justify tagging an article". How true that is, and unfortunately everything I wrote in explanation for the need to utilize that neutrality dispute tagging has been diminished to the level of "that's just your belief". If you want to call it belief, all right, or call it what you will, numerous reasons were presented as per policy. That my remarks were ignored gave cause to the reverter to do his revert, and therein lies a clever misuse of rule. If you fall silent at a challenge, there is no discussion regarding the challenge, and you can argue the status quo ante is justified by "dormancy". Bishonen's main point appears to be that I cherry-picked the guidelines from the neutrality policy because I wished to use that device as a slap in the face to the article writer. This is a good bit of imputing motives. I need only remind the correspondent that there is a neutrality dispute and not having that notice gives the false impression of agreement among the parties and reliability of the article. To date there is no agreement, none, on even the most minor edits, which leads me to the inevitable conclusion the article is under dispute, and further that the original writer of the article will stonewall until the grave beckons. I invite one and all to consider the changes in the previous Zweigenbaum post regarding WORD and RELIABLE issues. Are loaded words and phrases out of bounds or aren't they? Are texts other than those favorable to the moving party non-existent, regardless of the years and conscientious scholarship that went into them? There is no more obvious way to test the good faith of the disputants than this simple improvement.

Regarding the general tenor of exchange, it may not be in the Wikipedia guidelines but I believe it is relevant: "My mind it scuffs at pettiness that plays so rough/Kick my feet inside handcuffs, say Okay I've had enough/What else can you SHOW ME." --Bob Dylan, 1965 76.102.211.42 (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you insist on using my title, it's Dr Paul Barlow, not Mr. However, I neer said that only Shakespeare specialists can be used as sources. There are complex rules about what sources can be used to say what in an artice such as this (see WP:FRINGE). What I said is that academic consensus is determined by specialists. If you want to know what the consensus view of some aspect of the life of Keats is you ask Keats specialists, not any old Eng Lit teacher. If you want to know what what the consensus view of some aspect of the history of Ancient Rome is, you ask specialists in ancient Rome, not any historian. This is obvious to anyone. You and Nina also appear to be confusing WP:NPOV (Wikipedia policy on neutrality) with the collquial sense of the word neutral, meaning "not coming down on one side or another". Wikipedia policy means we should present the views of experts are the most authoritative. So if there a theory that says the pyramids were built by aliens (which there is) we have every right - indeed duty - to quote experts who say that's baloney. Paul B (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum And if the experts have trumpeted up a mythology based on their belief in a ruse in place from the very beginning, that has proliferated over time and become the paradigm (David Roper, 'Great Oxford'), what then, are they still "experts"? I have read the aphorism that if you seek a hidden truth, your path will always be blocked by experts. This bears on the reliability of the accepted textual authorities, on whom you appear to rely. In that sense, you are relying on those who have erred just as you have. That questioners have been subject to suppression and condemnation, based on this misapprehension of the facts, will explain why there is such a preponderance of scholars who conform to the misapprehension. They know what they should say without being told. What the Oxfordian movement offers to scholarship is a major re-interpretation of the events and attributions based on overwhelming parallelism between Oxford and the plays and poems, and none between his stage-name's allonym Shakspere and those plays and poems. There seems to be a condemnation of circumstantial evidence, although thee is no better example of selective use of circumstantial evidence than the Stratford Horatio Alger cum supernal genius story. Circumstantial evidence is estimated to be decisive in 90% of legal cases. But that should not be all evidence in a detective story like this one. Corroboration in the form of stylistic similarities, word- and name- tricks in the writings, travel writings that confirm actual visits to the foreign soil,covert tributes from contemporaries, outright personal/literary allusions by Spenser, Nashe, and Sidney--these too are evidence and are reliable as such. But before presenting evidence, first the scholar must WANT to be fair. Does Mr. Reedy give any indication he wants to be fair? If not, the article will never achieve the kind of parity Dr. Barlow believes will happen as long as "we should present the views of experts [that] are the most authoritative." I'm sure he doesn't mean those who sound the most authoritative but those who marshall the facts into a coherent depiction of events.

Which leads us back to the main point. How is this accomplished? Are loaded words and veiled deprecations out of bounds or not? Are published peer-reviewed coherent depictions of events, with detailed sources both circumstantial and textual, worthy of being respected as scholarship, or not? If you constantly set the standards as being what you are comfortable with, e.g., the Stratford narrative, and those standards are grossly wrong on the facts, you will never achieve a corrected knowledge. Whatever "academic consensus" you tout as authoritative cannot be definitive if factually deficient.

Above all, one must love and seek the truth because it is the truth and not cling to a cultural fable in its stead. Comparing someone(s)' conscientious search for the truth with someone else prating aliens built the pyramids is one more example of a mentality that has little regard for truth or the establishment of facts leading there.

Bishonen, sorry I got you mixed up with Johnniq and Paul B. You each have a different axe to grind. What do you think substantively on the topic of achieving neutrality? The accusation of cherry-picking the neutrality guidelines is beginning to seem passe, as it seems clear to all that there has been ample discussion by me and others regarding the non-neutrality of the proposed article. I called a spade a spade. If that is illegal, take action and I will respond with the record. I think there is more important work to do. --Zweigenbaum 76.102.211.42 (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We use experts because if we don't people like you come along declaring that exopwerts are all wrong and make Wikipedia a farce. You can believe the experts are all wrong if you want to. It's a free internet. But Wikipedia cannot. The fantasy that experts are all sclerotic and you need some imaginative outsider to correct them is exactly that - a fantasy. Paul B (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum People like me? Dear me, I hope I haven't scared a spider out from under a rock. I'll have to ask you what an exopwert is, speaking of farces. The best course to explaining the paucity of factuality in the present analytical paradigm is to make an analogy with another faithfully felt paradigm, that the stars and planets revolve around the earth. This was in place for thousands of years or more, lacking means of a better perspective. Once Galileo realized, "They move!" speaking of the moons of Jupiter, the Copernican revolution was on. True Galileo was under house arrest for years even after he recanted his scientific discoveries. The heliocentric theory was in the air in Oxford's own time and society, hence the words of Hamlet: "Doubt thou the stars are fire? Doubt that the sun doth move? Doubt truth to be a liar? But never doubt I love." But uncertainty passed and by and by people saw a better explanation that corresponded in every detail with reality. Got them from place to place accurately for one thing. That is the objective here, to find the truth and honor the true author of an admirable body of philosophy and literature with all contradictions and anomalies removed concerning its origin and the author's experience and artistic motivation. And so the "experts" or "priests" of one discredited concept find their way to a newer more salient point of view they didn't themselves espouse, but they know one thing for sure, how to keep a job. Call it fantasy or call it Arthur from Canarsie, that is how knowledge advances despite institutional resistance. Get it?/got it/good. On, Wikipedia. Zweigenbaum (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Core of the Argument
In addition to the neutrality issue, we're going to have to get past this roadblock before we can make much real progress on the article. This paragraph in the current version makes the argument that it is disagreement as to 'the nature of acceptable evidence' which is at the core of the argument.


 * Standards of evidence


 * At the core of the argument is the nature of acceptable evidence used to attribute works to their authors.[25] 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.[26] By contrast, academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely on the documentary evidence in the form of title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies, all of which converge to confirm William Shakespeare's authorship.[27] These criteria are the same as those used to credit works to other authors, and are accepted as the standard methodology for authorship attribution.[28]

The core of the argument actually is the perceived lack of 'fit' between the author and the works, as set out in the lede to the article:


 * Scholars contend that the controversy has its origins in Bardolatry, the adulation of Shakespeare in the 18th century as the greatest writer of all time. To 19th-century Romantics, who believed that literature was essentially a medium for self-revelation, Shakespeare’s eminence seemed incongruous with his humble origins and obscure life, arousing suspicion that the Shakespeare attribution might be a deception.

We can't argue one thing in the lede, and something completely different later in the article. Agreed? NinaGreen (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Where does the second quote say bardolatry is the "core of the argument"? Bardolatry caused the perceived dissonance between the author as imagined from the works and the real life author (much the same could be said for many literary figures, such as Rimbaud or Rousseau). The nature of what constitutes acceptable evidence is what those sceptics fail to comprehend. Anachronistic expectations is what produces "new" arguments based on that type of evidence. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The quote doesn't say Bardolatry is the core of the argument. As you say, Bardolatry caused the issue of the perceived dissonance to arise. So the core of the dispute between the two sides is whether the perceived dissonance exists, and 'the nature of the evidence' which can legitimately be used to resolve that dispute is an important consideration, but it isn't the core of the argument itself. That's how I see it.NinaGreen (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An instigating point is not necessarily the core of the argument. I suppose we're actually playing out the differences in perception by this very conversation. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, you quote Shapiro (via Alter) in one of the footnotes to precisely that effect. See also this from Shapiro in the Alter interview:


 * [Alter] Are scholars still looking for more evidence that could settle the authorship controversy, or has everything been turned over repeatedly?


 * [Shapiro] We do find more evidence every few years that points to Shakespeare. I think it would be more valuable if scholars, rather than turning over the evidence again, looked more closely at the assumptions governing the way that they read and teach the works and try to find the life in the works. I think if you turn off that faucet and suggest that others can't engage in that fantasy either, I think that will starve the controversy of a lot of its oxygen.


 * Shapiro is very much of the view that the core of the dispute is the perceived dissonance, and that the more both sides continue to try to find the author in the works, the more fuel it gives to the controversy. So I'm merely echoing Shapiro's view, which you quote in the article, that the core of the dispute is whether the perceived dissonance exists. Anti-Stratfordians seek to prove their case via the perceived dissonance, while Stratfordians such as Shapiro want to turn away from the perceived dissonance, thereby 'starving the controversy of a lot of its oxygen'.


 * We're probably essentially saying the same thing, but I think Shapiro's statement has to be taken into consideration when discussing how the two sides differ in terms of evidence because Shapiro is saying, 'We're just not going to look at that type of evidence', while the other side is saying, 'But we have to look at it'. It's not the distinction between circumstantial evidence vs. direct evidence and that sort of thing. It's the two sides disagreeing on whether a particular type of evidence can be looked at at all. Shapiro is basically saying that a certain type of evidence is off limits because 'We tried it (via Greenblatt, Weis etc.), and it wasn't working for us'. :-)NinaGreen (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Upon my word this is astonishing. It appears that you truly don't understand what Shapiro is saying, both in the example you give from the interview and in his book.

The "perceived dissonance" is that between the sublimity of the works and the humble origins of the author. That is what started people wondering about the authorship, especially after Bardolatry elevated the author into a universal genius.

The differences in the nature of the evidence used by anti-Stratfordians and Stratfordians to attribute authorship is the "core of the argument", and it is very clear from that section what that is: anti-Strats construct a personality from the works and then find a match; Strats use the historical record, i.e. title pages, government records, and contemporary testimony. When Shapiro mixes his metaphors by turning off the faucet of biographical readings to starve the authorship theorists of their arguments, he is talking about the difference in evidence, not about Bardolatry.

You have yet to indicate that you've read the cites for that section. For convenience's sake here they are: McCrea 2005, pp. 165, 217–8.; Shapiro 2010, pp. 8, 48, 112–3, 235, 298 (8, 44, 100, 207, 264). the pages in parenthesis are those for your edition. Read those pages and notice every time the word "evidence" is mentioned; that is the section referred to by those cites. Here's an example from p. 207:
 * "'The Oxfordians have constructed an interpretive framework that has an infinite capacity to explain away information': 'all the evidence that fits the theory is accepted, and the rest is rejected.' When Boyle added that it was impossible 'to imagine a piece of evidence that could disprove the theory to its adherents,' Lardner asked, 'What about a letter in Oxford's hand ...congratulatiing William Shakespeare of Stratford on his achievements as a playwright?' Boyle didn't skip a beat, mimicking an Oxfordian response, '"What an unlikely communication between an earl and a common player! ... Obviously, something designed to carry on the conspiracy of concealment. The very fact that he wrote such a letter presents the strongest proof we could possibly have!"'"

and further down that same page:
 * "...by having judges rather than scholars with decades of expertise evaluate the evidence, amateurs and experts were put on equal footing, both subordinate to the higher authority of the court, and to legal rather than academic criteria for what counted as circumstantial evidence."

Both Shapiro and McCrea are chock full of examples of the differences in evidence and both say that is key to why anti-Strats and the academy, like east and west, will never meet. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, you're avoiding one of the principal points made by Shapiro throughout his book, which is his lament that Greenblatt, Weis and others ever got into the biographical interpretation of the Shakespeare canon, and that Stratfordians must stop doing that because it gives their opponents an advantage. In other works, Shapiro is advocating stifling a particular line of inquiry and is declaring a particular type of evidence 'off-limits.  Shapiro's position isn't reflected in the SAQ article, which draws a false dichotomy between the type of evidence used by the two sides, claiming that Stratfordians don't use biographical evidence when Shapiro's whole point is that Greenblatt, Weis and other Stratfordians have used biographical evidence, and it has weakened the Stratfordian position and MUST BE STOPPED. In the article you quote Shapiro from the Alter interview on this very point:


 * Alter 2010 quotes James Shapiro: "Once you take away the argument that the life can be found in the works, those who don't believe Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare don't have any argument left."


 * The way Shapiro is advocating 'taking away the argument' is by telling Stratfordians to stop using biographical evidence.


 * I quoted above another comment by Shapiro to the same effect from the Alter interview:


 * [Shapiro] We do find more evidence every few years that points to Shakespeare. I think it would be more valuable if scholars, rather than turning over the evidence again, looked more closely at the assumptions governing the way that they read and teach the works and try to find the life in the works. I think if you turn off that faucet and suggest that others can't engage in that fantasy either, I think that will starve the controversy of a lot of its oxygen.


 * This time Shapiro makes his point even more clearly. He's saying Stratfordians have got to stop trying to find the life in the works because it gives their opponents an advantage.


 * On p. 58 Shapiro says:


 * Only one thing could have arrested all of this biographical speculation: admitting that a surprising number of the plays we call Shakespeare's were written collaboratively. For there's no easy way to argue that a coauthored play especially one in which it's hard to untangle who wrote which part, can be read autobiographically.


 * Once again, Shapiro is making clear that his objective is to stop anyone, Stratfordians and Oxfordians alike, from using biographical evidence, and expressing his enormous relief that coauthorship studies have stopped both Stratfordians and Oxfordians alike from engaging in biographical speculation.


 * Shapiro's position is not reflected in the SAQ article. The creation of a false dichotomy in the SAQ article which states that anti-Stratfordians make use of biographical evidence while Stratfordians don't constitutes original research on your part, which Wikipedia expressly forbids. And the failure of the SAQ article to fairly present Shapiro's attempt to impose intellectual censorship on his colleagues so as to choke off the life from the authorship controversy means that the article is not neutral, again violating one of Wikipedia's policy pillars.NinaGreen (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I should have mentioned that Shapiro's not only upset with Greenblatt and Weis for engaging in autobiographical research. He's upset with everyone from Edmund Malone on down.  In the index of his book (p.332) he has this entry for Malone:


 * autobiographical allusions discovered in Shakespeare by [followed by a list of page numbers]


 * The SAQ article thus violates the Wikipedia policies of neutrality, original research and verifiability in creating a false dichotomy in which it is claimed that anti-Stratfordians use autobiographical evidence from the Shakespeare canon while Stratfordians don't.NinaGreen (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"The creation of a false dichotomy in the SAQ article which states that anti-Stratfordians make use of biographical evidence while Stratfordians don't constitutes original research on your part, which Wikipedia expressly forbids."

You are misrepresenting what the article says. It states that Strat scholars don't use biographical information gleaned from the works to attribute the works, but anti-Strats do. Have and do Strats use biographical speculation from the works to interpret them? Yes. Have they used to works to make biographical speculations? Yes, and that is what Shapiro objects to, beginning with Malone. Do Strats read a work, find a biography in it, and then use that information to attribute a work? No, they don't, but anti-Strats do. If it were a reliable way to attribute works there would only be one candidate instead of 50, 60, 70-something--however many there are. Your objections are invalid because you apparently don't understand the differences between how Strats and non-Strats use the works. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, that's mere cavilling. Shapiro devotes pages to Malone finding Shakspeare's life in the works. What is that other than attribution? If Malone or Greenblatt or Weis finds Shakespeare of Stratford's biography in the works, of course that strengthens the attribution of the Shakespeare canon to Shakespeare of Stratford. They weren't finding someone else's life in the works. They were deliberately finding Shakespeare of Stratford's life in the works, thus strengthening the attribution of the canon to him. Why else did Greenblatt write his book? You're engaging in original research here, ignoring Shapiro, and substituting your own opinion and synthesis of material to arrive at a dichotomy which is palpably false. It's a clear violation of three Wikipedia policies, neutrality, no original research, and verifiability.NinaGreen (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not cavilling at all. It's utterly central. If you have documentation saying that a historical person wrote plays, poems, directed films or whatever, then that's the person you attribute them to unless you have some very strong reason not to. Of course if you are writing a biography of that person you might use ther plays/poems/films to get some ideas about their personality, but it's a very dodgy method. If we had Chaucer's Canterbury Tales but no other information about the author how do you think we could identify his personality?: a bawdy miller fascinated by sex and farts; a pious anti-semitic prioress given to improving tales; a sexually ambivalent and amoral Pardoner? If we simply had Ridley Scott's films how do you think we could deduce anything about his life and personality from them, or even his nationality? Paul B (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, may I make a suggestion? Since Tom acts as though he owns the SAQ article and will not allow me to make any edits to make the article more neutral (and if I attempt to, he instantly reverts my edits), rather than arguing abstact points ad infinitum, and complaining pointlessly and erroneously on the Peer Review page about 'long rambling screeds of conspiracy theories', as you've just done, why don't you make some edits yourself to make the article more neutral, in line with the complaints by IronHand and Zweigenbaum, who wrote the comment at the top of this page? There's an obvious need for this to be done. Better yet, why don't you persuade Tom that you and he together should edit the article to make it more neutral. The rest of us would be happy to sit by and let that happen. You've been told by impartial bystanders (I don't know who IronHand and Zweigenbaum are, so I assume they're impartial) that it needs to be done. Why not get on with it, since neither of you will let anyone else do it?NinaGreen (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think that I am acting as if I own this article, then please initiate the proper dispute resolution process. I asked you several times to discuss major edits on the talk page before inserting them, and you replied above that "if a problem develops because of a particular edit, that edit could move to the Discussion page and be reverted until agreement is reached." I have reverted some of your edits, modified others, and left others alone, so I am not stopping you from editing the page, and I resent your accusation that I am.

'''Tom, you're being disingenuous. The only edits of mine you've left alone are those which tighten and improve the wording.NinaGreen (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

One problem seems to be that you can't focus on a single point for very long nor can you grasp overall principles. You seem capable of only concentrating on one minute detail at a time while ignoring other points that are brought up and obsessively discussing your objections using novel interpretations of policy. If you want to edit Wikipedia, take some time to learn how to do so in compliance with policy, and that includes using the dispute resolution process instead of endlessly badgering other editors and wasting their time that could be better spent editing articles. You post so frequently that I get edit conflict notices about half the time when I try to respond to your complaints. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, you consistently take the discussion off track with analogies which merely derail the discussion. No-one has time to explore Chaucer's Canterbury Tales here, or Ridley Scott, or the blood libel, or the claim that Obama wasn't born in the U.S. and is a Muslim, or any one of the off-the-topic analogies you bring up. Please try to stay on topic.NinaGreen (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to imagine that anyone can be this obtuse. The analogies are designed to show the irrationality of your argument. If you can't see that you will never understand why your position makes no sense. The point is you do not attribute authorship based on the type of person you think ashould have written something. It's an almost entirely useless method unless there is direct information in the literature - such as including the author's name, or details about a particular location. Of course Shakespeare regularly gives his name in the sonnets - Will - but that is dismissed by most 'authorship theorists' because it does not fit their preferences. The exception is Derbyites - because it does fit their preferences. That's the point. The approach adopted by your confreres is to choose it when you like it and ignore it when you don't. Paul B (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, if you could argue the point itself, you would. Instead you constantly resort to analogies which are so far removed from the topic under discussion that they're a complete distraction. They're not at all helpful.NinaGreen (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course the point can be argued through Shakespeare's own work and has been many many times. The purpose of the analogies was to point out that this is a general truth. You seem to find arguing about general points of method very difficult. I understand that you like concrete archival detail, but that does not make abstracting points about method irrelevant. If we had no biographical information from the authors of many creative canons we would be hard put to make meaningful judgements about their author's lives and opinions. We can easily recognise that fact by doing thought experiments of the kind I gave examples of. There is nothing at all unusual about Shakespeare in this respect. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Tom, that's mere cavilling." No, it's apparent that you can't parse my or Shapiro's meaning. Your representation of Shapiro is distorted, and that you apparently don't understand his statements is the crux of the matter. He spells out his position quite clearly in his book:


 * “Even if Shakespeare occasionally drew in his poems and plays on personal experiences, and I don’t doubt that he did, I don’t see how anyone can know with any confidence if or when or where he does so. Surely he was too accomplished a writer to recycle them in the often clumsy and undigested way that critics in search of autobiographical traces—advocates and skeptics of his authorship alike—would have us believe. Because of that, and because we know almost nothing about his personal experiences, those moments in his work which build upon what he may have felt remain invisible to us, and were probably only slightly more visible to those who knew him well.


 * “It’s wiser to accept that these experiences can no longer be recovered. We don’t know what we are looking for in any case, and even if we did, I’m not at all sure we would know how to interpret it correctly. In the end, attempts to identify personal experiences will only result in acts of projection, revealing more about the biographer than about Shakespeare himself. It’s worth recalling the experience of T. S. Eliot, who was struck by the inability of contemporary biographers to untangle the personal from the fictional: ‘I am used … to having my personal biography reconstructed from passages which I got out of books, or which I invented out of nothing because they sounded well; and to having my biography invariably ignored in what I did write from personal experience.’


 * “If we can’t get the autobiographical in Eliot’s poetry and drama right—though there are many still alive who knew him, as well as a trove of letters and interviews to draw upon—what hope have we of doing so with Shakespeare?” (269-70)

That is very clear to anyone who has no axe to grind. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, nothing could be clearer than Shapiro's comments in the Alter interview. He's telling the academy point blank to shut up about finding Shakespeare of Stratford's life in the Shakespeare canon because it hasn't worked for Stratfordians, so they shouldn't do it anymore because it gives anti-Stratfordians an advantage. Shapiro says point blank that that line of intellectual inquiry needs to be choked off. That's censorship, pure and simple. And for the SAQ article to ignore it in discussing the treatment of evidence by the two sides in the debate is censorship as well, not to mention the other Wikipedia policies ignoring it violates, such as neutrality.NinaGreen (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A point which needs to be represented in the SAQ article, and which is ignored in Tom and Paul's responses to my comments, is that Shapiro has deliberately and very clearly in his book and in the Alter interview taken the position that the academy should censor itself. No professor teaching Shakespeare at a university, according to Shapiro, should try to find Shakespeare of Stratford's life in the works, either when teaching his/her classes on whether researching and writing books and articles. Shapiro's deliberate recommendation to his colleagues that they choke off a particular line of intellectual inquiry is shocking, and to omit to mention it in the SAQ article would be a clear violation of the Wikipedia policy of neutrality.NinaGreen (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is Shapiro's view. It's a perfectly defensible position in some respects, but Shapiro is only referring to attempts to deduce Shakespeare's personal opinions and personal experiences on the basis of what he writes. He does not mean that no useful information can possibly be gleaned. Indeed he makes use himself of information about knowledge of grammar school set-texts that can be discerned from the plays. We all know that Shakespeare's plays have been described as Republican, Revolutionary, Royalist and even Fascist in their political content. There are so many characters expressing so many opinions about so many things! Paul B (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, great point. Shapiro himself does what he's forbidding his colleagues to do. He's convinced Shakespeare of Stratford went to a grammar school (rather than, say, having a private tutor), so he 'makes use himself of information about knowledge of grammar school set-texts that can be discerned from the plays'. I'd love to have the page reference for that tidbit. And of course it belies the statement made in the SAQ article about the types of evidence used by both sides in the debate.NinaGreen (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So to you, Nina, "use higher standards of scholarship" = "censorship". Somehow that's not surprising, given how these conversations tend to go nowhere with no indication that you understand anything except your own obsessive point. I'm going to recommend you explore all the various dispute resolution mechanisms available on Wikipedia instead of continuing to try to persuade me of your objections; I suspect I've probably already taken away whatever lessons there are to be learned from your endless soliloquies. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, in order to defend Shapiro's attempt to impose censorship on his academic colleagues you're willing to throw the great Edmund Malone, Greenblatt, Weis and dozens if not hundreds of other establishment scholars who looked for the life of Shakespeare of Stratford in the Shakespeare canon under the bus? In your view they didn't use 'sufficiently high standards of scholarship', and need to be brought to heel by you and Shapiro. It's becoming clear why the SAQ article isn't neutral. I think you're far too close to the article to see that it's not neutral, despite IronHand and others clearly pointing out to you that that's the case.NinaGreen (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)