Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 20

Logical Fallacy
Article features a classic Appeal to Authority and clearly does not reflect that the authorities have gone conspicuously silent of late.

Google Books links
I'm… ambivalent… about the Google Books links. For one thing, as far as I know, links to Google Books are not stable; they can go invalid at any time. For another, we're giving preferment to one commercial actor by linking to Google Books rather than some other service. And finally they're redundant with the automatically generated Special:Booksources from ISBN, DOI, or other identifiers. I don't generally mind linking to online material as an aide to the reader, but here I feel the problems outweigh the benefits. On the other hand, I know this has been discussed in various relevant venues; and while, I believe, there has been some considerable fuss expended on this, I believe the conclusion in various FACs was that there is no actual rule against it. My gut feeling is that a FAC review may end up noting this—with some reviewers against including them—but it would not actually be prejudicial to achieving FA. Trawling the recent FACs may give you a firmer grasp of what the current consensus on this is (my own opinion is formed by a random and shallow sampling, so not to be relied too heavily on). --Xover (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Those links are furnished for the convenience of the reader, and all of them are pared down to the basic address sans any search terms, as required by Wikipedia when using external links. A lot of those books don't have ISBNs (I think the Booksources ISBN system is quite clumsy and complicated anyway, but that's just MHO). I haven't heard any complaints about the instability of Goggle addresses any more than I have of the instability of Wikipedia's, so I can't respond to that. Neither of them are comparable to GeoCities or AOL, and are not likely to be, but stranger things have happened. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly support the links. If they are kept to the basic page address, they do seem pretty stable. I don't see any preferential treatment of Google books: we link to them so much from Wikipedia pages simply because Google's collection is much better than any other web resource for books. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations lacking publication dates
The Kathman cites lack a year of publication, which leads to oddities like referring to them as "Kathman (1), David" etc. Can not actual publication dates for these be found? For instance, all three of the referenced web pages have a Last-Modified HTTP header value of "24 December 2010", which, lacking better information, would be an appropriate publication date to use. The cites would then be to "Kathman 2010a", "Kathman 2010b" etc. --Xover (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See and : "For web-only sources with no publication date you should include a "Retrieved" date instead, in case the webpage changes in the future. For example: Retrieved 2008-07-15." Tom Reedy (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of editorial insertions in source names
In the article there are several instances of editorial insertions in the citations: “Baldwin, T[homas] W[hitfield]”, “Churchill, R[eginald] C[harles]”, and even “Gibson, H[enry] N[orman] (2005) [1962]”. While I understand the motivation of being clear, I think these are confusing and unaestethic. Unless there is some actual doubt as to the author of the work in question, we should just give the name of the author in the form suggested by practice (e.g. E.K. Chambers and S. Schoenbaum, but Harold Bloom and Andrew Gurr); or at a pinch, if one feels very strongly about this, give the bibliographic details exactly as given in the work. The editorial insertions seems to try to do both, and then failing at either. The date of original publication should, IMO, be spelled out as suggested in the template documentation, so that we don't give two years immediately next to one another with no explanation. For the Gibson mentioned above, that would be something like |origdate=First published 1962. --Xover (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Both the LoC and the British Library practise some type of initial expansion for their catalogue sytems. I'm OK with losing them, though, not having any strong feelings on the subject. IMO all we really need is the author, title, date of publication, and journal name, if any. Any semi-competent person should be able to find a source with those three bits of information. But I'm not the arbitrator of those standards. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Section 3 (Evidence for Shakespeare's authorship)
(Just thinking aloud.) Xover argued at the Peer Review page that this section could or should be cut. Tom and Nishidani argued against. Might there be a third way? Remove section 3 more or less as it stands to its "Main article" own page, as Xover suggested, but leave a very short summary in the SAQ article - a sequence of bullet points, even? I'm not sure that I'm competent to reduce it in that way, but I could have a go if anyone thinks there's any merit in the suggestion. --GuillaumeTell 16:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, that section is half the topic and follows the WP:FRINGE guidelines for articles dedicated to fringe topics, which is why I oppose it and don't understand why its presence is a problem. I think moving it to its own article would constitute a POV fork myself. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, I do not see why it should be cut. The article should present both sides of the argument.
 * However, I notice a bias in the section headings. On the one side we have "Arguments against Shakespeare's authorship", and on the other we have "Evidence for Shakespeare's authorship". Is that NPOV? Poujeaux (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno. The "arguments" are specifically against the evidence of Shakespeare's authorship, and are the basis for all alternative authorship cases. The evidence is not an argument, except in its use to counter the anti-Stratforidan arguments. What would you substitute? (I'm canning salsa today and have my laptop on the counter, so I'll be online for a while.) Tom Reedy (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno neither. But I feel that the section headings as they stand create a perception of bias, by implying that one side only has 'arguments' and no real evidence, whereas the other side has solid historical evidence (of course, this may be true!). I wonder whether, in the interests of being squeaky-clean on the NPOV front, the same wording should be used in each heading. But I can't think of anything other than 'evidence' or 'arguments', and I expect you would not agree with either of these. Poujeaux (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ref cleanup?
Xover, what is the purpose of expanding the refs to take up more lines? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Readabiliity of the wikicode, and thus easier to find errors or missing data. It doesn't contribute to the length of the article in any relevant way, so I can't imagine it'll be a problem; but if you feel strongly about it I can collapse it to single lines again once I'm done going through them. I'd prefer to stick to the multi-line format while working through them though, simply because it makes the job easier. --Xover (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I've got no strong feelings either way; we want the best format possible. My only concern is to keep them in alphabetical order easily, for which I move the last name file to the beginning when I insert another ref. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead ref to number of candidates
The lead has:- "more than fifty authorship candidates have been proposed" In the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates Tom and I proposed, I think we totalled 75. Most sources are relatively old and refer to 56, or 60 odd. The 'more than 50' reflects sources like McCrea (I think) used before we came out (after adding to Elliott and Valenza's 2004 listing) with the figure of 75. This was not original research but simply a matter of updating the various lists from RS, and happens to be a wiki first. Therefore I think 'more than fifty' is rather dated, and there is no substantial reason why 'more than 60' (Elliott and Valenza) or 'more than 70', which is effectively what the RS data tell us, cannot be written.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm of two minds about this. "more than 50" is exactly what Shapiro says in the reference cited. By the same token, "the term 'original research' refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by or detailed within the sources." I think we should adhere to a strict interpretation of policy on this and not get into any gray areas.
 * On the other hand, verifiability is the policy on sourcing, and simple facts don't need to be supported. But this is not a well-known fact such as the sun rising in the east or 2+2=4, and given the contentious nature of the topic I think we should stay well inside the bright line when it comes to policy. In any case "more than 50" makes the point just as clearly as "more than 70." I daresay some writer will pick it up soon enough and it can then be changed. We're asking for trouble and accusations of opportunistic interpretation otherwise. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need go for the higher figure. It's safer to stick to 50. What difference does it make? There could be a footnote discussing the numbers issue. Paul B (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The published paper by Elliott and Valenza (2004) lists 58 candidates. So I think "more than 50" is fine (and E&V could be cited). Poujeaux (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The authoritative Bibliotheca Anti-Stratfordiana(scandalously not cited in the bibliography of  an article which professes, after its peculiar fashion, to discuss the Shakespeare Authorship Controversy.)may be found on microfilm at Columbia University.Shapiro's reference to nearly fifty candidates may indicate that he possibly gave it  a peep.On the other hand this bit of information was very widely publicized in late 1949  by the Saturday Review of Literature,America's then most widely read literary review.The author was Bergin Evans and Shapiro generally slapdash methods of research would naturally attract him to the more superficial source.If he consulted the  Biblioteca itself there would be no excuse for scores of superficial errors with which his work is littered.Odd Nishidami never singled out a single one of these iin all the time he claims to have spent editing this article..Charles Darnay (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not All Authorship Theories Postulate A Conspiracy
This statement in the SAQ article isn't supported by the facts or the cited footnotes:


 * and they all postulate some type of conspiracy to protect the author's true identity, a conspiracy that also explains why no documentary evidence exists for any other candidate and why the historical records confirm Shakespeare's authorship.[21]

Footnote 21:


 * Love 2002, p. 198; Wadsworth 1958, p. 6: "Paradoxically, the sceptics invariably substitute for the easily explained lack of evidence concerning William Shakespeare, the more troublesome picture of a vast conspiracy of silence about the 'real author', with a total lack of historical evidence for the existence of this 'real author' explained on the grounds of a secret pact, kept inviolate by a numerous and varied group of collaborators."; Shapiro 2010, p. 255 (225): "Some suppose that only Shakespeare and the real author were in the know. At the other extreme are those who believe that it was an open secret, so widely shared that it wasn't worth mentioning."

Nelson (2004), p. 153:


 * Unfortunately there are almost as many answers to this question as there are Oxfordians, and each has his own account of the historical circumstances presumed to lie behind the "authorship question". One prominent Oxfordian thinks, for example, that only two men, Oxford himself and William Shakespeare, knew that Oxford was the real author; another thinks it was an "open secret", known to all but spoken by none. Between the absolutely closed and the absolutely open "secret" lie indefinitely numerous and varied possibilities.

Both Shapiro and Nelson mention two Oxfordian views, one that only Oxford and Shakespeare of Stratford knew, another than it was an "open secret". Neither is a 'conspiracy'.

I'm not familiar with the 'conspiracy' theories for the 50+ different candidates, nor, I suspect, is any editor of this page, and I strongly doubt that 'conspiracy' theories have been mentioned in connection with the overwhelming majority of them. Wadsworth's statement that there is 'invariably' a 'vast conspiracy of silence' in connection with every authorship candidate is contradicted by Shapiro and Nelson. The Wadsworth citation should be deleted, and the statement in the article amended to reflect the reality as stated by Shapiro and Nelson. I'd do it myself, but I know my edit would be instantly reverted.NinaGreen (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:V. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, we all know about WP:V, but the issue is not WP:V because all three sources, Wadsworth, Shapiro and Nelson are WP:V. The issue is that it is the responsibility of editors of this page to present the most accurate information. When a source such as Wadsworth, which is half a century old, is shown by Nelson and Shapiro to be misleading and inaccurate, it's the responsibility of editors of this page to drop Wadsworth and add Nelson so as to present accurate information to readers of the SAQ article.NinaGreen (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The most accurate information is not necessarily just what two most recent authors say here. Wadsworth was summing up the state of the art for some 50 candidates, including de Vere in 1958. It happens to be the position showcased by the Shakespeare Oxford Society as witness the following: 'Austin, the writer/producer of the much-watched The Shakespeare Mystery segment of PBS’s Frontline, aptly summed up the Shakespeare authorship problem in an article that accompanied the original broadcast in 1989: “Those who believe de Vere was Shakespeare must accept an improbable hoax, a conspiracy of silence involving, among others, Queen Elizabeth herself. Those who side with the Stratford man must believe in miracles.” Shakespeare Oxford Society. Altrocchi in 2003 was still speaking of a monstrous conspiracy. Bevington in his two books (2005, 2010) still speaks of a 'theory of a widespread conspiracy of silence', and many other recent sources could be adduced to show that scholars accept as position not far from Wadsworth's.
 * One could of course write 'They generally' 'They have generally'. or something else. But the fact that many Oxfordians have learnt to step round arguments that have demolished their general view (stigma of print) and individualize their positions today, does not mean the historical verdict of scholars completely at home in the bulk of the literature is errant. Nishidani (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, Wadsworth's generalization was never true. That doesn't affect WP:V, but it does affect the responsibility which rests on editors of this page. This is merely one instance of a lack of neutrality which permeates the SAQ article. Editors WANT to make a particular statement because it makes proponents of the authorship controversy look bad, so they cherry-pick sources which confirm that statement, even though much more recent and equally if not more reliable sources contradict those cherry-picked sources. It is impossible to assume good faith when this sort of thing permeates the SAQ article, and in fact both you ('this ideological mania') and Tom ('a crank theory') have admitted bias. Your bias also shows up in the phrase' 'the fact that many Oxfordians have learnt to step round arguments', in which you accuse Oxfordians like me of having 'learnt to step around' the alleged conspiracy theory held by Oxfordians when in fact I have never subscribed to any conspiracy theory concerning the authorship since I began researching it in 1988. You and Tom do not assume good faith on the part of any proponent of the authorship theory, yet you want others to assume good faith on your part in the face of your own admitted bias and in the face of biased statements on your part on this Talk page such as the one I've just noted. In sum, the Wadsworth generalization was never true of all authorship theories or of all who subscribed to any particular authorship theory, and it should be deleted from the SAQ article along with the false statement in the SAQ article which it purports to support. I'd delete it myself, but I know my edit would be instantly reverted.NinaGreen (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful for you to name an authorship theory that doesn't include some type of conspiracy to suppress the identity of the true author. Not that we need it; the statement is amply cited according to Wikipedia standards, which is—the last I checked—the site of this article we are trying to write. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom, this is yet another example of Tendentious Editing on your part in your refusal to provide sources or to support the sources you've cited in the SAQ article. You or Nishidani put the statement in the SAQ article, you or Nishidani sourced it to Wadsworth, a book which is more than half a century old. It is up to you to establish that Wadsworth's statement covers the broad generalization concerning the current state of the authorship controversy today for which you are citing him. That's what the Wikipedia policy on Tendentious Editing requires.NinaGreen (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina you are operating under a misunderstanding of what tendentious editing is, as well as what the responsibilities of an editor are. I suggest you finally take the advice that has been given to you and read out the Wikipedia polices and procedures, beginning with those links in the Welcome section of your talk page.


 * Tom, please stop your incessant scolding and false allegations. I have read the relevant policy on tendentious editing and it directly supports what I have said, namely that you cannot require other editors to search for sources to support text that you have added. The policy in questions states that you are engaging in Tendentious Editing when:


 * You demand that other editors search for sources to support text that you added


 * The relevant policy goes on to state that:


 * Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it.

NinaGreen (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody is asking you a cite for anything; you are claiming that the refs don't support the statement, which is incorrect, as I added the quotation from Love (2002) in response to your complaint (the ref was already there, but you obviously either had not consulted it or didn't have access to the source, which can be read on Google books or the Amazon preview). If you have any further problem with it, I encourage you to take it to the proper noticeboard, in this case, WP:RS/N, and stop crapping up the talk page with your repetitious posts.

Last night I added the quotation from the Love (2002) ref that was already cited for that statement. It is sufficient for WP:V and your accusations of tendentious editing (which are becoming very tiresome) are baseless. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, it is NOT sufficient for WP:V because the sources you cite are contradictory. Shapiro (2010) (whom you cite) contradicts Love (2002), as does Nelson (2004), whom you don't cite, but should cite. Thus, the statement you have added to the article is supported by two older sources, one more than half a century old and one almost a decade old, and contradicted by two more recent sources. No statement in a Wikipedia article should be sourced to sources which contradict each other. The statement you've made in the article thus constitutes WP:OR original research, and needs to be amended to reflect the fact that the sources contradict each other on the point in question, with the more recent sources not supporting the statement. And in any case the Wadsworth citation from 1958 should be deleted, as it cannot in any way possibly represent the current state of the authorship controversy.NinaGreen (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And please stop outdenting for every post and don't break up another user's text; post in chronological order, You have been asked to do this several times now. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, please refer me to the Wikipedia policy which restricts the number of outdents I can use (and, incidentally, to the number you can use as well). As for 'breaking up another user's text', I didn't deliberately do that. There was an edit conflict, and my comment ended up in the wrong place, and I then moved it. That will add to the total number of edits I've made today, and doubtless be grounds for more scolding from you on the number of edits I've made. Do you never tire of scolding on the most trivial points? It's been constant for weeks now, and it needs to stop.NinaGreen (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the layout clear: Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out, using standard indentation and formatting conventions. Avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions. Talk pages with a good signal-to-noise ratio are more likely to attract continued participation. See Talk page layout. I suggest you read the whole page more than once. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, you're off topic. There's nothing on that page which limits the number of outdents, and in my view my outdents help to keep the layout clear. You use them yourself. In fact I learned how to use them from you.NinaGreen (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks,Nina, for your patience and common sense.It is sad that Nishidami and Tom believe this article is merely a long running exercise of their megalomania.

Take this recent gem from Nishi."The most accurate information is not necessarily just what two most recent authors say here. Wadsworth was summing up the state of the art for some 50 candidates, including de Vere in 1958." Where does Nishi get off claiming(a) that Wordsworth ever read the Bibliotheca Anti-Stratfordiana(the only source for the 49 authorship figure)and(b) then followed its references to fifty candidates(many confined to brief monographs or,sometimes,mere letters to the editor.I know.I spent three years of my spare time at Columbia doing exactly what Nishidami fantastically asserts that Wordsworth did Does Wordsworth even claim to have based his work on  the Bibliotheca?  Certainly Nishi isn't.He and Tom didn't even cite it in their bibliography and I gave them most of a year before weighing in on this.
 * Nishidani has willfully invented numerous discussions involving conspiracy theory in places where it would have been physically impossible to print such and which he certainly

never attempted to read.Apologize,Nishi,confession is good for the soul.And promise us you are going to stop Tendentiously Editing.Charles Darnay (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wadsworth Reference Should Be Deleted For Everything But The History Section
The Wadsworth reference, which dates from 1958, should be deleted from everything but the History of the Authorship section of the SAQ article. There is nothing in Wadsworth which can possibly reflect the current state of the authorship controversy, and the citation of him so many times in the SAQ article is a primary cause of the confusion which permeates the article concerning whether a statement pertains to now, or more than a half century ago.NinaGreen (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you open a case up at WP:RS/N and cite some type of policy besides your own opinion. If you're not willing to do that, then please withhold any more commentary about it. It just creates a wall of text that gets in the way of productive editing. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, the fact that Wadsworth is a work more than half a century old is a FACT. It is not 'my opinion. Why have you cited Wadsworth time and again in the SAQ article as a source for statements in which you purport to be describing the CURRENT state of the authorship controversy? If there is no CURRENT source which you can cite for those statements, you should delete them because in that case they obviously constitute original research on your part.NinaGreen (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, → WP:RS/N. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Something this obvious, citing a source more than half a century old purportedly to support statements concerning the CURRENT state of the authorship controversy, should not require taking up other editors' time on WP:RS/N. This is an excellent example of your constant engaging in Wikilawyering to avoid having to deal with substantive issues.NinaGreen (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So you don't understand the term "Wikilawyering" any more than you do "tendentious editing". Tom Reedy (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, you'll say anything to avoid dealing with the substantive issue. This has happened time and time again on this Talk page. I raise a substantive point which would improve the SAQ article, you talk around it endlessly, raising quibble after quibble and irrelevancy after irrelevancy, and the substantive point gets dropped.NinaGreen (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it has not been dropped; it has been answered. Your complaint has no substance. The citation of Wadsworth is justified in the statements he is used for, and the statement about every SAQ theory containing a conspiracy is correct and amply sourced. It is tiresome having to repeat the same answers over and over and it is tiresome that you keep repeating the same complaints. It is unproductive and disruptive to the talk page. It is all of a piece with your endless arguing over NOPV and your accusations of being defamed when the character of your repetitious and disruptive postings are pointed out to you.
 * If you have a complaint about another editor, go to the proper dispute resolution noticeboard and make your case. If you have a problem with content in this article, go to the proper dispute resolution noticeboard and make your case. You have no special privileges at Wikipedia and it would be best for everybody concerned if you began editing according to the policies and regulations. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, the substantive issue has NOT been answered. Firstly, the citation of a source which is more than half a century old for a broad generalization concerning the CURRENT state of the authorship controversy is original research WP:OR on your part. Nothing said half a century ago can possibly apply to the a generalization concerning the CURRENT state of the authorship controversy. If you don't wish me to repeat myself, stop repeating YOURSELF and deal with the substantive issue. It is a simple matter to delete the Wadsworth (1958) citation since the Love (2002) citation covers your contention. Why are there multiple citations for everything in this article anyway? That's another whole issue in itself. It seems to be that you wish to drive every negative point home in spades so you don't merely cite one source which covers the point, but instead cite source after source, each one more negative than the last. Secondly, as I've pointed out, you've also cited Shapiro (2010) for the same point, and Shapiro says NOTHING about conspiracy. In fact he says quite the opposite -- only two people involved, or an 'open secret', neither of which is a conspiracy. Wikipedia policy does not permit contradictory :::To repeat my earlier point. Wadsworth summed up a century of speculation, most of which is being recycled in the contemporary fringe literature. He read more widely in those fringe sources than most authorities on the issue to this day. He is still frequently cited in contemporary sources (I haven't Shapiro with me, but anyone can check). The repeated request that it be removed smacks of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. The article surveys the whole field historically, not just what Shapiro says (and yet earlier you complained there was a Shapiro bias here). You cannot say, in one thread, there's too much Shapiro here, and the next minute, complain, we only need Shapiro here, without giving the impression you are using sources selectively, and tactically.Nishidani (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, it does not in the least smack of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, which is just Wikilawyering on your part. There is real confusion throughout the SAQ article in terms of statements which pretend to represent the current state of the authorship controversy but which instead conflate the HISTORY of the controversy with the CURRENT situation. I've already identified two of them on this Talk page, but there are more. You exhibit a lack of understanding of this problem when you state that 'the article surveys the whole field historically'. That's clearly wrong. The statements and generalizations in the MAIN BODY of the article should portray the current state of the authorship controversy and be sourced to the most current references possible, while the HISTORY OF THE AUTHORSHIP section should deal with the historical aspect. Wadsworth (1958) belongs only in the HISTORY OF THE AUTHORSHIP SECTION. The SAQ article could be vastly improved if you would take cognizance of the confusion between the historical and current situation which runs throughout the article, and make the appropriate changes (or let me make them if you feel disinclined to do it yourself.


 * Also, please try to pay attention to what I actually say, and not put false statements into my mouth. I did not state that there was a 'Shapiro bias' in the SAQ article. I said that the History of the Authorship section of the SAQ article makes so much use of Shapiro's actual work that it verges on plagiarism, not necessarily intentional plagiarism, but plagiarism nonetheless.


 * Also, you wrote:


 * [Wadsworth] is still frequently cited in contemporary sources (I haven't Shapiro with me, but anyone can check).


 * I just did check, and Shapiro doesn't include Wadsworth in the index of his book. You state that Wadsworth 'is still frequently cited in contemporary sources'. Such as? NinaGreen (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Until you calm down and quit posting every other minute I'm not responding any further. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, you post within SECONDS of my posting anything. Perhaps you YOURSELF could 'calm down and quit posting every other minute'. But it's certainly a useful ploy in terms of avoiding the substantive issue.NinaGreen (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tried to post three times before I finally was successful, all of them blocked by an edit conflict. This is not a newsgroup, where you can expect answers within minutes.
 * And FYI McCrea cites Wadsworth, as does Schoenbaum. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For Chrissake Nina. Don't keep hairsplitting to pick up scoring points when a simple, quiet sober google would tell you the point you are tempted to make is (a) not worth making and (2) if made, only wastes editors' time, already under stress from a year of dedication to this article, to which, be it noted, you are not supplying any new insights or sources from RS, but simply nitpicking in an unproductively POV and harping manner. I got sick of typing after justv excerping a few of the following examples of Wadsworth being cited recently.


 * 1) Roland Mushat Frye, Shakespeare: the art of the dramatist,2005
 * 2) Rajeev Shridhar Patke Robert Lumsden, (eds.) Institutions in cultures: theory and practice, 1996 (Still the most useful account of the controversies over Shakespearian authorship is that of Frank W. Wadsworth.The Poacher from Stratford).
 * 3) Michael Warren, Shakespeare: life, language, and linguistics, textual studies, and the canon : an annotated bibliography of Shakespeare studies, 1623-2000, 2002
 * 4) Scott McCrea, The case for Shakespeare: the end of the authorship question, 2005
 * 5) Marjorie B. Garber, Shakespeare's ghost writers: literature as uncanny causality. 1987
 * 6) Ralph Berry, Michelle Lee, Graham Bradshaw (eds) Shakespearean Criticism: Excerpts from the Criticism of William Shakespeare,1999
 * 7) Samuel Schoenbaum, Shakespeare's lives, 1991
 * 8) Jean I. Marsden, The Appropriation of Shakespeare: post-Renaissance reconstructions, 1991
 * 9) Marjorie B. Garber Profiling Shakespeare 2008
 * 10) Michael Keevak, Sexual Shakespeare: forgery, authorship, portraiture, 2001
 * 11) K. K. Ruthven, Faking literature, 2001
 * 12) Juliet Dusinberre (ed.) As You Like It, Simon & Schuster, 1984
 * 13) Folger Library Series, The e Tragedy of Richart the Third,1992
 * 14) Folger Library ed.Henry V, Simon & Schuster, 1988
 * 15) John Andrew, William Shakespeare: His work, Scribner, 1985
 * 16) Northrop Frye, The Harper handbook to literature, 1997
 * 17) Paul Aron Mysteries in history: from prehistory to the present, 2005
 * 18) Marilyn Randall Pragmatic plagiarism: authorship, profit, and power, 2001

I can see all the ways one can begin to challenge this, and burden us with a humongous new thread. Don't please. This is already repeating the waste of time caused by your demand that Tom provide examples of the use of 'lunatic fringe', which he provided to no effect.Nishidani (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, would this be an example of the 'Google scholarship' Tom recently derided on this page? This sort of 'Google scholarship' is as useless in this case as it was in the 'lunatic fringe' case because it omits context. In this case, the context is the problem I've drawn attention to in the SAQ article that Wadsworth is cited as an authority for the CURRENT status of a particular aspect of the authorship controversy which is an absurdity when a book is more than half a century old. Thus, simply citing references to Wadsworth as you've done above proves nothing unless you provide context which demonstrates that these books cite Wadsworth as an authority on the CURRENT state of the authorship controversy. This is merely another example of Wikilawyering.NinaGreen (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You left out the anti-Oxfordian book Nina (or was it Zweigenbaum? No matter.) brought up a while back, Spearing the Wild Blue Boar (2009), by Frederick A. Keller, who cites the very same Wadsworth quote as we do in the lede (258-9). Tom Reedy (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer Nina's "substantive" points from above:

“Nothing said half a century ago can possibly apply to the a generalization concerning the CURRENT state of the authorship controversy.”

You’re wrong; it tells us that the opinion of the Shakespeare establishment hasn’t changed.

Tom, you're once again demonstrating that you don't understand the purpose of the SAQ article. In the main body of the article, the purpose is to provide Wikipedia readers with the CURRENT state of the controversy. The historical section of the SAQ article is intended to deal with the status of the authorship controversy IN THE PAST. If you could get that simple point straight, the SAQ article would not be as confusing as it is.NinaGreen (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

'''“Why are there multiple citations for everything in this article anyway? That's another whole issue in itself. It seems to be that you wish to drive every negative point home in spades so you don't merely cite one source which covers the point, but instead cite source after source, each one more negative than the last.”'''

Because your predecessor (both temporally and stylistically) challenged every source as being “cherry-picked” so yes, citing source after source is meant to drive home the point that the references supporting the statement are not outliers, but indeed are the considered consensus opinions of the Shakespeare establishment. And they are not negative; they are factual (although I suppose those terms are synonymous to Oxfordians).

Tom, I have no predecessor. I'm me. Stop trying to link me with any other editor. But thanks for admitting that the citation of multiple sources is entirely unnecessary and redundant. Choose the best one for each point you're trying to make and DELETE the rest. It will vastly improve the article, and shorten it to boot. No Wikipedia article should contain almost more footnotes than text.NinaGreen (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

“Secondly, (I think you probably mean "thirdly", but let that pass) '''as I've pointed out, you've also cited Shapiro (2010) for the same point, and Shapiro says NOTHING about conspiracy. In fact he says quite the opposite -- only two people involved, or an 'open secret', neither of which is a conspiracy.”'''

I thought you said you’d read Shapiro? I suppose if your comprehension of Shapiro is like your comprehension of your claimed reading of policy, one can’t be too surprised at your statement. Because in fact, if you go to the page cited, THE SENTENCES PRECEDING THE QUOTATION IN THE ARTICLE SAY:
 * “Those who question Shakespeare’s authorship of the plays never get around to explaining how the alleged conspiracy worked. There’s little agreement and even less detail about this conspiracy, despite how much depends on it, so it’s not an easy argument to challenge.”

So your statement that “Shapiro says NOTHING about conspiracy” is wrong, in spades. And why, pray tell, did you make such an erroneous statement? Because you didn’t look up the page given and you demand that everybody else do your work for you—SOP for you on this page.

No, it's not wrong in the slightest. As is blindingly obvious, I was referring to the sentence from Shapiro you cited in your footnote. If you want to cite some other sentence, go ahead, and I'll deal with it once you've cited it. Don't expect me to deal with sentences you HAVEN'T cited in your footnote!NinaGreen (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Now since that section wasn’t quoted in the cite, the reason it was put in had to be for some other reason, since the other refs sufficiently establish that all anti-Strat theories use a conspiracy theory. What was it? Why, it must have something to do with what was actually quoted!!! And what was in the Shapiro quote? The wide variation between the theories!!! So what part of the statement was the Shapiro cite given to support???? Let’s read the statement again and take a wild guess:
 * “they all postulate some type of conspiracy to protect the author's true identity, a conspiracy that also explains why no documentary evidence exists for any other candidate and why the historical records confirm Shakespeare's authorship.”

Why, my guess is the phrase “SOME TYPE” as in “some type of conspiracy”!!! That has to be it!!! His quote talks about the wide variation of the conspiracy theories, so it’s there to support “some type”!!! Now that you know how this works, maybe next time you can actually pull the book off the shelf and read the page cited!!! (What a novel concept, huh?) Then, is you think you can duplicate the exercise I outlined above, try to match one part with the other part. If you need help, maybe ask a few friends. Maybe somebody on the list-serv group you run will be able to figure it out. BUT STOP WASTING OUR TIME HERE!!!

Tom, it's you who are wasting our time. Do you really expect the average Wikipedia reader to parse these obscurities? Who are you writing the SAQ article for anyway?NinaGreen (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope my explication has been helpful.

Oh, one more point:

“Wikipedia policy does not permit contradictory sources to be cited in support of a statement.”

Please direct us to where you found that policy gem. My bet (going by experience) is that you made it up. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Gladly. It's in WP:OR:


 * Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments.

If Wikipedia policy insists that statements in an article should not rely on 'inconsistent passages' it stands to reason that relying on inconsistent sources is equally verboten. And please note that statements in an article should not rely on 'passing comments'. I'd be willing to wager from what I've seen that a number of the sources you've cited in the SAQ article rely on passing comments. That's the very definition of 'cherry-picking' of sources.NinaGreen (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be yet another tactic used by your predecessor. I urge you to read all the cited references, which one would think you would have done before beginning yet another tedious section about alleged editorial malfeasance. If you had done so at the beginning of this section it would have saved us all another impenetrable wall of type. (I'll not midpost further, in accordance to Johnuniq's request, and this will be the last I say on this particular matter.)Tom Reedy (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote:


 * That would be yet another tactic used by your predecessor.

This is another ad hominem attack as well as a violation of WP:AGF. I have no predecessor. I am an editor in my own right, with no link to any predecessor. Please desist from your repetition of this ad hominem attack.

You have deliberately refused to respond to the fact that you are clearly in violation of WP:OR:


 * Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments.

As I've indicated above, the passages you've cited in Love (2002) and Wadsworth (1958) are inconsistent with the passage you've cited in Shapiro 2010.

20:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the following an accurate summary of the issue? If not, please provide a concise update.
 * The Wadsworth reference is from 1958 which predates current SAQ sources. Wadsworth should therefore be deleted from everything but the history section.
 * Shapiro says nothing about the conspiracy, and his cite should be removed.
 * The history section verges on plagiarism because it uses too much of Shapiro's work.
 * This discussion is exploring too much, with insufficient details. Give one or two examples of text in the article which should be changed, and explain why. Arguing in general terms about whether it is logically possible to use a 1958 reference is not productive. It would be highly desirable to focus on one issue at a time (either, one small section of the article, or one article-wide issue—don't discuss Wadsworth and Shapiro unless it is in connection with a single point). To remove a Wadsworth reference, we would need to show that it is not justified for the referenced statement.
 * Regarding whether too many sources are used: The history of this talk page has numerous examples of people disputing statements in the article, so the use of multiple sources is highly desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, you wrote:


 * This discussion is exploring too much, with insufficient details. Give one or two examples of text in the article which should be changed, and explain why.

Are you being deliberately ingenuous, or have you just not been paying attention? I've done just that, and the reason everything has piled up as you noted above is that Tom Reedy and Nishidani have stonewalled and talked around every legitimate point I've brought up. Get Tom and Nishidani to deal with the legitimate points brought up if you want the problem resolved.NinaGreen (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Shapiro says Nothing about conspiracy. 'Nina Green"

When asked by the Wall Street Journal's Alexandra Alter about why the SAQ debate was still alive, Shapiro said recently, and it is what you would call a current scholarly generalization, Nina:
 * "It may have something to do with what it means to live in a culture saturated by memoir and shaped by an Internet in which conspiracy theory really thrives.' Wall Street Journal, 9 April 2010."Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nishi, be fair, Nina was clearly talking about the book. But the Google books link is useful here. Click on it and search for 'conspiracy' and it comes up 21 times (including "Twain also suspected that Milton became involved in the Shakespeare conspiracy", "the justices also made clear that they believed that the case before them was essentially a conspiracy theory", "Conspiracy theorists chalked up another victory..." and the one Tom mentioned above). I am not a big fan of the C word - it is usually used to denigrate a theory one disagrees with. Poujeaux (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that Nishidani's comment is off-topic. I was not only speaking of Shapiro's book, as I said earlier on this page (like Bishonen, I hate having to repeat myself), as is blindingly obvious, I was speaking of the precise sentence from Shapiro quoted by Tom in the footnote, which is inconsistent with the sentences quoted in the same footnote from Love (2002) and Wadsworth (1958), and is therefore a clear violation of WP:OR, also quoted above, a point which Tom and Nishidani refuse to address.NinaGreen (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * But wouldn't it be nice if someone showed Nina how to use Goggle? It would save us all a lot of time not having to do it for her. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, another of your ad hominem attacks intended to disparage me, and in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. In fact it's difficult to find a single comment of yours on this entire Talk page in which I am mentioned in which you do not indulge in an ad hominem attack on me, which administrators deign not to notice.NinaGreen (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Threading
Would anyone mind if we stick to normal talk page procedures and make posts strictly chronological (oldest on the bottom) and normally indented? If anyone accidentally posts in the middle of someone else's response, I would like to refactor the discussion and move all the new posts to the bottom. I, and presumably others, would like to follow discussions later, and the above is too confusing (I had to go the history and look at the diffs to see what had happened). Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In principle that's a good idea, but often there is more than one discussion going on at the same time, so users add their comments where they think they will be most intelligible. In general, I'm not sure it would be a good idea to rearrange the posts after the event, because some of them would be taken out of their context. Where someone "accidentally posts in the middle of someone else's response" then I do agree with fixing that. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, however the above section (and several before) illustrate a significant problem. Presumably the two people initially involved can readily work out who-said-what at the moment, but it is difficult for a third party. More problematic is the fact that there is now no useful way anyone could add to the discussion. Suppose I wanted to comment on one of the replies: where would I put my reply, and what indent would I use? I think the result would be even more impenetrable for other readers. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh god I hate having to repeat myself all the time. Bishonen | talk 18:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Of course the threading is a mess because other editors and administrators continue to allow Tom and Nishidani to stonewall every legitimate issue for the improvement of the article I raise and to litter every comment they make with ad hominem attacks on me to many of which I'm forced to respond because if I DON'T RESPOND, then the statements made in these ad hominem attacks are allowed to accumulate until Tom takes them as 'facts' and tries to initiate Wikipedia actions to have me banned from editing.NinaGreen (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

More disorganization and POV complaints

 * Nishidani made this comment earlier on this Talk page:


 * article surveys the whole field historically


 * As mentioned earlier, this confusion about the purpose of the SAQ article needs to be addressed as a high priority item. The article goes back and forth between the CURRENT state of the authorship controversy (which is clearly what Wikipedia readers will be interested in) and its HISTORICAL aspects without clearly distinguishing between the two, despite the fact that there is a lengthy History of the Authorship section in the SAQ article and despite the fact that there is an entirely separate main article linked to the SAQ article whose stated purpose IS to deal with the HISTORICAL aspects (History of the Shakespeare Authorship). This repetitiveness, lack of clear focus, and disorganization is one of the most significant problems with the SAQ article, and it absolutely needs to be addressed as a high priority (like Bishonen, Oh how I hate repeating myself!). As things stand, the article merely contributes to a proliferation of confusing duplication on Wikipedia, and in no way benefits either Wikipedia itself or Wikipedia readers in so doing.NinaGreen (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina I have specifically asked that the section above be kept clear of anything save specific suggestions of what needs to be done. Please respect my request. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A modest proposal
I'm just wondering why Bacon, Oxford and (the mind boggles) Marlowe all have a Wikipedia page explaining that each was the true author of Shakespeare's plays, but there is apparently no such page for Derby. If nobody these days thinks that Derby and/or his clique is worth a separate WP page on the SAQ, why not knock references to him off this page - the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates already includes him along with Sir Thomas Bodley, John Donne, Elizabeth I of England and Queen Victoria (oh, no, sorry, she wrote In Memoriam)?

If there really are people who think that he is a respectable candidate, how about a link to William_Stanley,_6th_Earl_of_Derby to correspond with the links to the SAQ pages of the other three? --GuillaumeTell 00:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Either way would work for me. I don't remember why we added Derby; probably just to put in another aristocrat with circumstances similar to Oxford in terms of travel, playing companies, family connections, and play writing evidence. Derby does have a few web sites, but you hardly ever read about him. His was the first candidacy I ever heard about, in 1980. I was viewing a picture of him in the National Gallery when a tall, angular, gray-haired man with a strange gleam in his eye tried to strike up a conversation about how Derby was the True Author of Shakespeare's works. I just nodded, mumbled "Is that right?" and slowly backed away. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One problem was that, since these are fringe theories, promoted in the main by people with no historical understanding or formal training in the disciplines of Elizabethan historical research, mentioning them on the candidates own pages tends to turn neat biographies, using serious scholarship, into pages full of speculative nonsense. Look at Sir Henry Neville, one of the most recent candidates. It is devoured by the theory, and the actual life is swallowed up by James and Rubenstein's speculations. Generally, if there is a significant amount of fringe material, not taken seriously by academia, on an historical person, I think it should be dumped on a subpage, if only to withhold from readers the eyesore of amateurish divagations and irrelevancy.
 * With Derby, he may be prone to anglocentric bias here, since the theory apparently had greater influence on the Continent than it did here, though Dover Wilson found something of profit in LeFranc's work. None of these are respectable candidates, and their fortunes wax and wane. Bacon was huge, and then was demolished by Robertson, and never revived. This page has to comprehend the main candidates historically proposed, and not be caught up in WP:Recentism. If one shifted Derby to his page, it would destablize it. I am for retaining these four, I'd add Neville were not space a real problem, to show the variety over time. But I think the suggestion useful, and, like Tom, could go either way if it came to a vote, depending on arguments.Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, you wrote:


 * One problem was that, since these are fringe theories, promoted in the main by people with no historical understanding or formal training in the disciplines of Elizabethan historical research, mentioning them on the candidates own pages tends to turn neat biographies, using serious scholarship, into pages full of speculative nonsense. Look at Sir Henry Neville, one of the most recent candidates. It is devoured by the theory, and the actual life is swallowed up by James and Rubenstein's speculations.


 * This comment demonstrates the bias on your part ('this ideological mania') which leads you to make statement after statement on this Talk page which fails to assume good faith on anyone's part WP:ASG. How many editors of this page, who have taken upon themselves the refutation of authorship theories, have 'historical understanding or formal training in the disciplines of Elizabethan historical research'? I would guess there is no editor of the SAQ article who has such training. So if those who have taken it upon themselves to refute the authorship theories have no such training, why the gratuitously snide comment about those who promote the theories? This is the sort of thing that makes this Talk page a battleground. Secondly, you couldn't have picked a more unfortunate example, since Bill Rubenstein is a historian who teaches at a university.NinaGreen (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nina it would be helpful if you would stay on topic within a section instead of continuing to go off on the perceived bias of the editors.
 * And FYI. Rubenstein's specialty isn't English Renaissance or Elizabethan history or literature, nor does he meet the specious qualifications you argued for in the past, "the field in which they have a Ph.D., has to be the literature of the Elizabethan and early Jacobean period." When it comes to authorship he's just as at sea as all the other speculators. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, bias IS the topic, in this instance evidenced by the refusal on Nishidani's part to attribute good faith to any proponent of the authorship controversy, and also evidenced by Nishidani's biased requirement that those who are proponents of the authorship controversy must have 'historical understanding or formal training in the disciplines of Elizabethan historical research' while those who oppose the controversy, such as you and Nishidani, do not need to have that formal training. And speaking of staying on topic, you have taken up Nishidani's biased point about the need for training in 'Elizabethan historical research', and have tried to turn it into a discussion of training in Elizabethan literature, a completely different topic from the one Nishidani brought up. You might try staying on topic yourself before scolding others. And speaking of staying on topic, do we really need to know that you're 'canning salsa today', and that your laptop is on the counter?NinaGreen (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the topic is Stanley's presence in the article. You have turned it into another repetitious attack on another editor, which seems to be your only purpose in commenting in this section. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nishidami continually repeats nearly exactly the same verbal tics,as you do your self ,Tom,involving "facts" on which you both have repeatedly been corrected.The best way to stop this would by ceasing to publiish the same erroneous statements and the same tired verbal gymnastics.Charles Darnay (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way the Stanley section is terrible but quite up to Nishidani's consistently muddled editorial standards.Example:E.A.Honigmann is cited as the source for the MSND being performed at the Stanley-Vere Wedding.It was Sir Sydney Lee(a pseudonym of Solomon Levey) who first promulgated this extremely arguable hypothesis about 1895.It was to Lefranc's great credit that he provided in both Engllsh and French(1921-1950)  numerous pictorial demonstrations of the theory from contemporary prints.These were received with universal commendation, as no such "lunatic" assessment oof anti-Stratfordianisn then widely existed among the better educated classes,contrary to the historically false claims which you and Nishidani have published in this discussion.Charles Darnay (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, if the topic was Stanley's presence in the article, why didn't you scold Nishidani for his off-topic comments? To ask the question is to answer it.NinaGreen (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no particular reason why Derby does not have his own authorship page. It's just that no-one has created one. Wikipedia works that way. Only one person is responsible for the fact that Bacon has his own authorship page. It's very difficult to understand why Derby has so few 'fans' these days. He was big in the mid-twentieth century. He is also the only candidate who has been supported by a major scholar of Renaissance literature - Abel Lefranc. It's very difficult for an 'outsider' to understand why Oxford is so popular these days given the very obvious dating problems. Clearly de Vere inspires an emotional attachment that Stanley cannot. I think he still counts as one of the major candidates because of the substantial literature about him. However, it appears to be true that there are few supporters out there in web-land - at least none committed enough to argue on Stan's behalf here. The Derby page was almost wholly ignored until I greatly expanded it a little while back. I would willingly move the authorship material to "Derbyite theory" page. Paul B (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I've gone ahead and created the Derbyite theory of Shakespearean authorship page. I don't know about the title. For consistency it should end in "ian", as in Baconian, Marlovian and Oxfordian, but somehow "Derbyean" (Derbyian?, Derbyan?) just doesn't sound right. I think it's the I sound after the Y. Anyhow, it appears to be the standard term . Paul B (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice job, Paul. I added a few links. If anybody's interested the Baconian theory needs an overhaul to get back up to GA status. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Currency of Wadsworth reference, and common features of authorship theories
This paragraph requires sourcing in compliance with WP:OR, which reads: 'Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments'.


 * Anti-Stratfordian arguments share several characteristics.[20] They all attempt to disqualify William Shakespeare as the author due to perceived inadequacies in his education or biography;[21] they all offer supporting arguments for a more acceptable substitute candidate; and they all postulate some type of conspiracy to protect the author's true identity, a conspiracy that also explains why no documentary evidence exists for any other candidate and why the historical records confirm Shakespeare's authorship.[22]

As I mentioned in an earlier discussion on this Talk page (which I can't now locate in the archives - any help with that would be appreciated), it's original research and in violation of the Wikipedia policy quoted above to attempt to pass off Wadsworth (cited in footnote 20) as an acceptable source for a broad generalization of this nature since this statement applies to the CURRENT state of the authorship controversy, and Wadsworth wrote more than a half century ago when many of the CURRENT authorship candidates had never even been proposed. To cite Wadsworth as the sole authority on the alleged shared characteristics of authorship candidates who were entirely unknown to him is obviously original research, and a logical absurdity to boot.

Footnote 21 is a reference to a footnote in Matus, and thus also violates WP:OR which states that a source, particularly for a broad generalization of this nature, cannot be to a 'passing comment'.

Footnote 22 also violates the same policy in sourcing to inconsistent passages, as has been explained in detail earlier on this page.

If the shared characteristics actually DO constitute shared characteristics COMMON TO EVERY SINGLE AUTHORSHIP THEORY, as the statement in the SAQ article alleges, then there must be a WP:RS source out there which can replace these cited sources, none of which meets WP:OR criteria in terms of the policy quoted above.NinaGreen (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom has twice moved this from the list of things to do and has incorporated into it an ad hominem attack in the use of the word 'Complaints' in the heading. It is an legitimate item stating the grounds on which an entire paragraph violates WP:OR. It is thus appropriate that it be addressed, and included in the To Do list. Under what Wikipedia policy is Tom authorized to remove a legitimate issue requiring attention from the To Do list, and to incorporate an ad hominem attack into the new title he has given the section?NinaGreen (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Get a consensus of editors to agree with you and we will add it to the list. You have brought this up several times, with no other editor supporting your complaints. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not going to try and wade through the incomprehensible archives of this page. And the SAQ is (thankfully) not my field. As an outsider, my initial reaction is that Nina's suggestion, that there needs to be a more recent citation for the "shared characteristics" claim, is a reasonable one. The concern re footnote 21 appears unfounded. A footnote is not the same thing as a passing comment. Our concern is reliable sourcing of reliable research, not whether it is in the body text or elsewhere in a source. As to the later comments: Nina, Tom has the support of several editors in his approach to the article and the talk page; if those editors don't like it, I expect they'll chime in. I for one have no issue with it at this stage. As I said, I'm not re-reading the whole sorry mess above, but I have been monitoring it in general terms, and he appears to be remaining on the right track. Yes, his language sometimes sounds like he is trying to WP:OWN this page, but my reading each time has usually been that he is trying to defend a reasonable position based on WP policies and consensus. I have jumped in and commented on the rare occasions when I think he hasn't been doing so (as re Wadsworth, in this case), but otherwise, I can assure you that he and Nishindani are not the only editors supporting the general approach: in my case, silence has been consent. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hamiltonstone, thanks for supporting the suggestion that 'there needs to be a more recent citation for the "shared characteristics" claim. Maybe now we'll finally get somewhere on this issue.NinaGreen (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * @NinaGreen: If you are unhappy with the section title "More OR complaints", please just change it. Headings should be short and neutral, perhaps "OR in overview"? At any rate, the "Things to do" section should be kept short and free from back-and-forth, particularly back-and-forth about issues that have been previously discussed. Regarding the issue: Do you think the text is actually wrong? Or just inadequately sourced? Do you have a suggestion for new wording? Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq, why don't you tell Tom Reedy to just leave my posting alone and not move them to new sections and rename them in insulting terms, rather than ragging on me? There is no Wikipedia policy which authorizes him to do so, as you well know.NinaGreen (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy where precise rules cover every situation. This "More OR complaints" section is already 5K characters which clearly shows that it would be unhelpful to include it in a "to do" list. There is no actual problem: we are each free to raise issues regarding the article; if a discussion concludes something needs to be fixed, an item can be added to the "to do" section (if not already fixed). It is best to focus on improving the article rather than worrying about which section on the talk page contains a discussion about possible OR in the overview. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, so how about lending your voice to the suggestion that this particularly OR complaint is a valid one, and that the problem needs to be addressed forthwith, rather than wasting space on this page defending Tom?NinaGreen (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cites already added. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the up-to-date cites - Nina, I'm not sure if I've lost the thread here, but the complaint as I understood it was not about OR: it was a cite that was too old to support the claim in a high quality WP article - which Tom has addressed. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Nina's main complaint is with the use of the word "all" three times in this paragraph. These are very strong claims. Let's look at them one at a time:

1. "They all attempt to disqualify William Shakespeare as the author due to perceived inadequacies in his education or biography;" I don't know if this is true but I suspect it would be possible to find one that didn't (a challenge for you Nina!). Whether it's true or not, the cite from 1958 can't really be used to support "all" since so many of the cases have come up since then.

2. "they all offer supporting arguments for a more acceptable substitute candidate;" This one has no refs and is demonstrably false, see for example http://doubtaboutwill.org/declaration, so I suggest this is deleted.

3. "they all postulate some type of conspiracy to protect the author's true identity," disputed by Nina here. Again Wadsworth (1958) shouldn't be used. Love and Shapiro don't seem to claim "all". Nishidani says one could use "They generally". Again I suspect that "all" is not true - I suspect that some just ignore the question of how it actually worked.

I propose deleting 2 and using "generally" or "most" for 1 and 3. Poujeaux (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a good beginning before attempting to discover the truth through research would be to read through the cites given and see if they justify the statements as per WP:V.
 * As to (2) above, it is self-evident that any theory seeking to replace Shakespeare for another candidate would ... well, attempt to replace Shakespeare with another candidate. The Dec-o'-Doubt concerns itself only with trying to establish through popular vote that good reasons exist to doubt Will of Stratford's qualifications, IOW it relates to (1) above, not (2), and takes no stand on who the True Author is, but all involved have their favourite pretender.
 * Whether "all" is literally true or not is beside the point; the refs I added use that language. If an RS somewhere says "all but a few" or "most", I don't know it, but I certainly would be willing to conform to that language. And I would be hard-pressed to find an anti-Stratfordian theory that posits William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom is right in the sense that if the references say "all", then we are simply following the references. However, the phrase "they all" is in any case redundant, as the whole sentence begins by saying that the arguments "share several characteristics", so it is in any case explicit. In order to be slightly less emphatic - and to avoid sidetracking enthusiastic editors on a mission to find an exception that can then be used to argue the toss here - I have copyedited the sentence with the effect of removing the repeated "all"s. I don't see a problem with Wadsworth being used alongside other references if Wadsworth's scholarship remains significant, though it would not have been sufficient on its own (as I commented yesterday). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Very Solomonic solution, which we should have been able to arrive at if our heads had been clearer. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Wadsworth has now been supplemented with up-to-date references, and the language has been revised to remove the explicit suggestion that "all" authorship doubters have exactly the same features in common. Can we now archive this bit of the discussion? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm happy with your version, removing all the alls. Poujeaux (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Things to do
The article is progressing nicely and thanks to all the editors who have pitched in. There are still a few points remaining to be settled before nominating it for featured status.


 * 1) Ref cleanup. Xover, do you need help with that? Can you explain what need to be done?
 * 2) (see comment below) --Xover (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Use of the terms “Stratfordian” and “anti-Stratfordian”. Should this be noted in the text just as a fact of the SAQ jargon that has evolved instead of being in a note?
 * 4) One-sentence paragraphs. I think I've got them all but they should be checked again and edited if any are found.
 * 5) Embedded links—first use only. Dupes needs to be de-linked.
 * 6) Section titles: "arguments" vs. "evidence". Any suggestions? Or is this a problem?

Anything else?

And please don't bring up any POV or RS complaints. Those have been discussed to death with apparently no complainant thinking them serious enough to take it to the appropriate noticeboard. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikilawyering.NinaGreen (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 6. Repeated use of 'all' in sec 1.1. These are strong claims and hard to justify. More detail below. Poujeaux (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Poujeaux thanks for finding the dupes. Is that all of them? Tom Reedy (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly not! I have done Stratford, and just done First Folio, and will try to do all systematically. Poujeaux (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 7. Consistent use of italics. I think all play titles, books, journals should be in italics and I have fixed some. But what about Shakespeare's Sonnets, or TV programmes... Poujeaux (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When Shakespeare's Sonnets refers to the publication itself, then it is italicised; otherwise no. TV programme titles are italicised. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ref cleanup The ref cleanup is mainly about adding missing bibliographic details, linking authors/publishers/presses, and making sure the formatting is consistent (e.g. the short refs are sometimes missing the terminating full stop). I'm planning to do the lot of them, but there's no particular reason (except the obvious potential edit conflicts and toestepping) someone else can't chip in. I'll likely do them in batches semi-offline, so if anyone notes here that they intend to have a go I can post a warning here before starting a batch. Incidentally, there's bound to be some detail of it that someone will take issue with (e.g. like the Shapiro ref problems with two editions discussed way below here, or the single-line vs. multi-line wikisource issue elsewhere), which I'm prepared to clean up afterwards as consensus dictates; but it'll be much easier to do with a consistent starting point. --Xover (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tools to efficiently massage text, and can do grunt work accurately. So, please say if you want something like all 'harvnb' changed to 'Harvnb' (or vice versa), or all citations split the way you did for the first few, or all the US page numbers removed from the Shapiro cites (I would make a table for the talk page comparing the UK/US numbers since that information is valuable). I haven't yet had a chance to carefully inspect the citations, but I think one job was to put the fields in a standard order? If such an order can be specified, I could do that. The fields were in an order to assist keeping the citations in alpha order which seems desirable, but the title could be put first, at least temporarily, if that is helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum It should be on record that the main mover in this enterprise, Tom Reedy, has stated no one has appealed the neutrality and reliable sourcing errors to the appropriate notice boards. Towit:

"And please don't bring up any POV or RS complaints. Those have been discussed to death with apparently no complainant thinking them serious enough to take it to the appropriate noticeboard."

I have taken these issues to the appropriate notice boards. They have not been resolved. My contributions have been systematically ignored, indicating that the issues are not being seriously considered. The December 2010 neutrality suggestions resulted in a few changed versions of "said". The footnoting issue was peremptorily confined to reducing text rather than fairness in selection of sources. The matter of few scholars supporting a Shakespeare authorship question was never resolved. The reliabiity of the anecdotal examples placed as authority for the statement is questioned on the appropriate notice board. The issue of the speed-up archiving without consensus discussion has been effectively ignored. Finally the Bardolatry concept is unsupported by historical fact, hence unsupported by academic consensus.

Now Tom Reedy has misrepresented his wish as fact: that no one took NPOV or RS issues to notice boards. It is false representation of fact. 98.248.218.131 (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. I overlooked the WP:POV/N request that you posted on 3 Jan, a week before I created this section. Sorry about that; I obviously wasn't thinking. Your other WP:RS request, however, was only posted a day or so ago. Since you've gained some experience with dispute resolution, perhaps you could help Nina with taking her issues to the various dispute resolution boards, such as the [[WP:OR/N|original research noticeboard].
 * Also when you quote someone and the identity of the poster you are quoting is obvious, the automated signature does not have to be included. Doing so only confuses other editors who might think that the person plopped a message down right in the middle of your's. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum 'Sorry about that' is hardly remorse for a command you had no right to make to begin with. In the few weeks I have followed this process, you have demonstrated beyond doubt that you and the rest of the gang are not about to discuss anything contrary to your purposes. Failure to discuss equals no discussion issue. No discussed discussion issue equals no need to consider competing facts, the essence of the discussion format. In short, nullification of that format by default. This appears to be the main point to emphasize before an arbitrator. There was no discussion of the substance of whatever I posted, only rejection on spurious or technical grounds. The suggestion above to assist Nina Green in dispute resolution of course is gratuitous. If you are interested in fairness, do so yourself or, more appropriately, make dispute tactics unnecessary. That would show good faith.

Returning to the substantive features of my previous post, (ignored by yourself once again), the assertion that there was no contemporaneous doubt or questioning of the Stratford authorship is patently false. I showed contemporary evidence to that effect. To date it is ignored. You are perpetuating the patent falsehood.

It is also a fact that in the period of time (mid-nineteenth century) the sub-section concentrated on to show "Bardolatry" in conflict with skepticism, there was no such dichotomy. There was open skepticism within the academy itself, before the Stratford idea had congealed into dogma. Towit:

"W.H. Furness, the father of the great Shakespeare editor H.H. Furness, expressed the following doubts: “I am one of the many who has never been able to bring the life of William Shakespeare within planetary space of the plays. Are there any two things in the world more incongruous?” (quoted from Brief Chronicles I, editors’ preface, 2009)

No skepticism in response to Bardolatry. Just simple curious doubt.

No fact has changed in the intervening years. There is no clear and convincing evidence that Shakspere ever wrote a line. That was impossible because he was not a writer. What has changed is institutional closing ranks to save face about it, with episodic exposes of ignored data from non-conforming investigators.

And as proof the Bardolatry phenomenon never had backing in modern academia, that Shapiro's ad hoc notion came out of a vacuum, please read this credentialed individual's perspective, apropos of the early doubting of the Stratford narrative, which appeared in the 1985 SQ.:

“Doubts about Shakespeare came early and grew rapidly,” wrote Folger Library Educational Director Richmond Crinkley in a 1985 Shakespeare Quarterly review of Charlton Ogburn Jr.’s The Mysterious William Shakespeare. “They have a simple and direct plausibility. The plausibility has been reinforced by the tone and methods by which traditional scholarship has responded to the doubts.”

I think he is talking about your predecessors who methinks protest too much. I would suggest you drop fire-engine chasing after Shapiro, which is what this section of the article amounts to. It has no dignity as scholarship and no credence in the documentary record. But I fear that, instead of re-writing it to accord with the documented record, you have decided that it is too much expended work to abandon. If you wrote it, it's right, a few quotes, end of story. This is the very status quo excuse for maintaining the Stratfordian mythology. 98.207.240.11 (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Cowell Manuscript
I've changed the wording from 'exposed it to be a forgery' to 'claimed it to be a forgery' since Shapiro's findings are merely a claim, and he has not produced any definitive proof. In particular his 'evidence' concerning the use of the word 'unromantic' is highly questionable since the word was used by Swift, according to the OED, in 1731, almost a century before the Cowell manuscript. From the OED:


 * 1731   Swift Let. to Gay & Duchess of Queensberry 28 Aug.,   I own it is a base, unromantick spirit in me.

NinaGreen (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You can't use OR to disallow a statement. Shapiro states flatly that it is a forgery, but I have changed it to the more scholarly hedge "likely". Tom Reedy (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Shapiro provides no definitive evidence that it is a forgery, merely speculation, and in particular his claim concerning the currency of the word 'unromantic' is entirely indefensible. How can Shapiro know that a word was 'not yet in currency' in 1805 when the OED gives an example of its use by Swift in 1731? Moreover tests of the paper have already been conducted, as Shapiro himself admits elsewhere (although strangely not in Contested Will!), and the paper has been found to be of a type produced circa 1805. At the very least, Shapiro's statements concerning the testing of the paper not found in Contested Will need to be included in the SAQ article. Accepting Shapiro's claim as a fact in the SAQ article without including a citation to his statements re the testing of the paper constitutes original research WP:OR or suppression of relevant evidence or more likely both.NinaGreen (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nina, if you will read the pages cited, it is not limited to Shapiro, it also includes Wright, which is why it is attributed to "recent findings" instead of a person. A claim is an assertion without evidence, and both Shapiro and Wright offered up evidence, and Shapiro's statement that it is a forgery has been echoed by several scholarly reviewers who find his evidence to be probative. All of your objections above are not sufficient grounds to delete a statement supported by a reliable source. Do not remove reliably cited material. Articles on written on what the sources say, not whether we like or dislike what they say. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(1)"Nishidani, Wadsworth's generalization was never true"


 * Tom (Oh how, like Bishonen, I hate repeating myself) you need to cite Shapiro's article in which he says he had the paper tested and it tested to the correct period. You can't just cite Shapiro's account in Contested Will, which omits any mention of his having had the paper tested. They're both WP:RS, and in a sense they're contradictory and unclear, thus violating the policy I quoted earlier on this page from WP:OR.NinaGreen (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(2)"Shapiro's findings are merely a claim, and he has not produced any definitive proof. In particular his 'evidence' concerning the use of the word 'unromantic' is highly questionable"


 * See what you are doing Nina? You are judging RS by your personal research, claiming the peer-reviewed book content cited is not 'true', 'inadequate' or false and then, at a second remove, using a variety of claims about wiki policy to suppress, elide or get removed material that disagrees with your own belief or rresearch about the subject. You have done this so often, here and on the de Vere page, that people tend to overlook the fact that such personal challenging of RS are not within any editor's remit.Nishidani (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, Nishidani, I'm not judging it by my own personal standard. There is an accepted standard within the scholarly community for declaring manuscripts forgeries. Shapiro himself has admitted in another article that the paper tests to the correct period. He has also admitted in that same article that he has not conducted further tests. That article should be cited in the SAQ article, rather than merely citing his statements in Contested Will (which is what I said above, if you'd read it more carefully).NinaGreen (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to read Shapiro, so I am prepared to be corrected, but Tom Reedy appears correct above in his explanation of how WP policy applies regarding the citations. I have no idea what the discussion about "unromantic" is about, but Nina Green in this case does appear to be engaging in her own research rather than using a WP:RS to raise questions about something that (I assume) is evidence presented in a reliable source currently cited in the WP article. The WP article must reflect the evidence in the reliable sources. My reading as an outsider is that the current text does this. On that basis I would support Tom Reedy's reversion just undertaken. (Incidentally, I agree with Nina that the history section is too long and full of too much detail). hamiltonstone (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hamiltonstone, I'm not engaging in my own research. The SAQ article only cites what Shapiro says in Contested Will. It should also cite what he says in his article, which includes the fact that he had the paper tested and it tests to the correct time period. You wrote:


 * The WP article must reflect the evidence in the reliable sources.


 * Yes, and there are two reliable sources, both by Shapiro, containing differing accounts, and Tom Reedy has only cited one of them. He needs to cite the other.NinaGreen (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment about OR was directed to the argument about "unromantic", as I thought the structure of my para made clear. Going back to your point about Shapiro: the SAQ article says this: "recent findings have exposed it as a likely forgery probably designed to revive Bacon's flagging popularity in the face of Oxford's ascendancy". If that accurately relfects Shapiro's conclusion (and that of scholars cited in Shapiro), and if there are not significant scholarly sources contradicting it, then it does not matter what the details are. The level of detail you are talking about would further expand an already overlong section - to no effect, if the scholars in question have concluded it is "likely a forgery". (Whether that is what Shapiro says in the book in question, I will leave to those reading it). hamiltonstone (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hamiltonstone, I'm suggesting two things. The first is that the SAQ article should reflect what's in the Wikipedia article on James Wilmot:


 * The authenticity of Cowell's "Reflections", accepted by Shakespearean scholars for many years, was challenged in 2002/3 by John Rollett, Daniel Wright and Alan H. Nelson. Rollett's investigations revealed that no records exist of either Cowell or of an Ipswich Philosophic Society or its alleged president, Arthur Cobbold, in 1805. Reporting on Rollett's findings, Wright suggested that a Bacon supporter might have forged the manuscript and added it to the archive of Edwin Durning-Lawrence, a leading supporter of Bacon's authorship. However Wright asserted that prior to declaring the manuscript a forgery, it was vital that the paper be dated by an expert.[4] James S. Shapiro has since suggested that anachronisms in the text imply that the document is a forgery.[2][5] However, Shapiro had the paper tested by Peter Bower, an expert in paper history analysis, who stated that the paper is of a type which first appeared in the mid-1790s, and that the pages on which the manuscript was written were probably made not long after that.[6]


 * Footnote 6 refers to Shapiro's article in the Times Literary Supplement, March 26, 2010, pp. 14-15.


 * I don't think the SAQ article should hide the fact that Shapiro himself has partly established, by having the paper tested by Peter Bower, that the manuscript is NOT a forgery. That's not original research. That's merely reporting what Shapiro himself did and said.


 * The second point, about the DNB citation of the use of 'unromantic' in 1731, also reflects what Shapiro himself has said. On p. 12 of Contested Will, Shapiro writes:


 * The word "unromantic" in the same sentence should have tipped me off, though there was a recorded instance of its use before 1800, it wasn't yet in currency at the time Cowell was supposedly writing [=1805].


 * The Wikipedia policy I quoted earlier [WP:OR} states that sources shouldn't be used if they're 'unclear or inconsistent', which Shapiro clearly is because the OED is a far more reliable source WP:RS in the case of historical word usage than Shapiro is, and for Shapiro to state that the OED says the word was in use in 1731 but he (Shapiro) says it wasn't, is about as 'unclear or inconsistent' as it gets.


 * Incidentally, before I could finish making an edit to this message to incorporate the actual wording of the WP:OR section, Tom jumped in with the two edits below. If anyone wants to know why the threading on this page is such a mess is that not a NANOSECOND goes by after I've posted anything (and often before I've finished making any necessary edits to it) before TOM JUMPS IN WITH HIS OWN POSTING, thus messing up the threading. tom is thus one of the principal causes of the very problem he wants to take me to some dispute resolution site about. How ironic. If it weren't so sad, it would be funny.NinaGreen (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)NinaGreen (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not read the Shapiro source nor do I have access to it. Most forgeries use period paper, usually a blank sheet cut out from a book. If that is all the new information in the source, I hardly see how it is relevant, unless Shapiro or someone else specifically says it contradicts his conclusion in his book.
 * IMO the last sentence you quoted from the Cowell article should be deleted. It's obviously included to hint at a conclusion that has not been made. And your reasoning above is WP:OR. see synthesis. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, all of this appears to be too much detail for the article on the SAQ. It appears to involve expanding a section that should be being shrunk. Second, this article should not reflect the text in another WP article: it should reflect the best use of the reliable sources for the prupose of this subject (SAQ). Those points aside, Nina's comment "...Shapiro himself has partly established, by having the paper tested by Peter Bower, that the manuscript is NOT a forgery" is completely wrong. All it established was the age of the paper. That need not affect the conclusion that the evidence on balance indicates that something is (or probably is) a forgery. There doesn't appear to be an inherent inconsistency there. Nina may have a point re the "unromantic" thing, if it is absolutely clear that these are two contradictory reliable sources, but since it all seems to relate to detail that shouldn't be in the article anyway, I'm not sure what the practical effect of this might be. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not our job to point out in a Wikipedia article that the OED contradicts one part (not by any means the main argument) of Shapiro's case for forgery. And I agree it's too much detail for this article anyway, which is a description, not a debate. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom wrote:


 * It is not our job to point out in a Wikipedia article that the OED contradicts one part etc.


 * No, it is not the job of the SAQ article to point out contradictions in sources. But it IS the job of the SAQ article NOT to CITE a source (Shapiro, 2010) when that source is 'unclear and inconsistent' on a particular point because to do so contravenes WP:OR. Thus, when Shapiro cites the OED, the most reliable source on the history of word usage, and then in the next breath contradicts the OED, the SAQ should not cite Shapiro on that point because Shapiro is 'unclear and inconsistent'. Similarly, when Shapiro refers in one source (Contested Will, 2010) to Wright, who states that the paper must be tested to prove whether the MS is a forgery, and Shapiro in another source (his TLS article) says he has HAD the paper tested and it tests to the correct period, these two sources are again 'unclear and inconsistent', and the SAQ article shouldn't cite one of these two Shapiro sources and deliberately ignore the other. There seems to be a real desire on the part of editors to jump on the 'forgery' bandwagon here, citing Shapiro, but Wikipedia policy says this is not appropriate because Shapiro is unclear and inconsistent, as I've demonstrated. There is no requirement that the SAQ article make ANY statement on the forgery issue, and unless a source can be found which is clear and consistent on the forgery issue, there shouldn't be any statement about forgery in the SAQ article. The Wikipedia article on James Wilmot article covers the topic.NinaGreen (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not editing; this is trying to win an argument by using newsgroup rhetoric that pays no attention to anything but scoring points by any means whatsoever.

It is policy that determines content, not an individual editor's opinion about what should and shouldn't be in an article. If this article is to reflect the current state of the authorship field, it can hardly leave out the major authorship discovery that overturned an 80-year-old belief and that comprised the entire prologue of the major work of 2010 dealing with authorship. There is nothing unclear or inconsistent about Shapiro's narration of the Wilmot forgery or his conclusion or his method. Stitching together three different sources to make it appear that Shapiro has refuted his own conclusions is disingenuous WP:OR and stretches Wikipedia policy into incoherency. Tom Reedy (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, that is precisely the point, and the SAQ article takes little if any cognizance of WP:OR:


 * Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments.

The discussion of the Cowell manuscript has focussed the spotlight on this policy. It is not original research for editors to examine the statements in a source to determine whether the statements in that source are unclear or inconsistent, or whether a particular point is made merely in passing and is not a fully developed argument. What I've seen repeatedly on this Talk page is recourse to WP:RS and the argument that it doesn't matter whether a statement in a source is true so long as it's verifiable. I have no quarrel with that policy whatsoever, but it is very important to note that WP:RS is balanced by the above-quoted policy in WP:OR. Editors cannot cite sources (or makes statements in the SAQ article based on sources) in which the point under consideration is 'unclear or inconsistent' in the source, or in which the statement is a mere 'passing comment' in the source. Many of the cited sources in the SAQ article need to be re-examined in light of this policy, including the statements in the SAQ article concerning the Cowell manuscript.

You wrote:


 * Stitching together three different sources to make it appear that Shapiro has refuted his own conclusions is disingenuous WP:OR and stretches Wikipedia policy into incoherency.

No, that is precisely what the WP:OR policy quoted above REQUIRES editors of the SAQ article to do.NinaGreen (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no source conflict re "unromantic". I have just confirmed from the URL to the Google preview that on p.12 of Contested Will, Shapiro writes:
 * The word "unromantic" in the same sentence should have tipped me off; though there was a recorded instance of its use before 1800, it wasn't yet in currency at the time Cowell was supposedly writing.
 * Obviously Shapiro found the earlier instance recorded by the OED (he acknowledged it in the above quoted text). Shapiro does not explain how he knows that the word "wasn't yet in currency", but he is the reliable source, and there is no source with a contradiction. An editor claiming that "unromantic" was in currency cannot overrule Shapiro's conclusion.
 * There is also no problem about the paper testing. If Shapiro previously wrote about that testing, clearly he was aware of it in Contested Will where he declares the manuscript to be a forgery. Editors cannot overrule Shapiro's conclusion by pointing to what is claimed to be an inconsistency (particularly when the author had obviously taken the paper test into account). Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, you didn't need to retype the sentence from Shapiro. I provided it earlier in this discussion, where I also pointed out that for Shapiro to state that the OED records an instance in 1731 and then in the next breath to state that the word 'wasn't yet in currency' in 1805 is 'unclear and inconsistent' because Shapiro is noting the evidence provided by the acknowledged highest authority on historical word usage and then denying that evidence on his own unsupported authority, and for editors of this page to cite Shapiro under those circumstances is in violation of WP:OR.

As for the paper testing, the wording of the statement in the SAQ article claims that all recent 'findings' have proved that the Cowell MS is a forgery whereas Shapiro's article in the TLS states that the paper testing established the opposite, i.e. that the paper was of the correct period, disproving forgery.

You wrote:


 * Editors cannot overrule Shapiro's conclusion by pointing to what is claimed to be an inconsistency (particularly when the author had obviously taken the paper test into account).

That is precisely what the policy quoted above requires editors to do, i.e. refrain from citing a source when there is a clear inconsistency. The policy does not require that editors 'overrule' Shapiro, but it does require that they take note of inconsistencies in Shapiro and refrain from citing him when there are obvious inconsistencies.NinaGreen (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting story. So in his 2010 book, Shapiro (a) omits any mention of the fact that the paper was found to be genuine (b) gives the impression that he discovered that it was a forgery when in fact this was found by a physicist (Rollett) he doesn't mention, at least 7 years previously. It makes one wonder if Shapiro is a RS! Poujeaux (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I find "exposed it as a likely forgery" rather comical. Tom added what he called 'the more scholarly hedge "likely"', but that isn't suggested in the one source relied on, and to my way of thinking a document can hardly be "exposed" as a likely forgery, any more than a man can be exposed as a likely murderer. If "recent findings" refers to Wright as well as Shapiro, that should surely be cited? Moonraker2 (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Shapiro's conclusion is based on the overwhelming direction of the evidence, including the fact that there was no such society as the one to which the paper was supposed to have been delivered and no such person as the author! No-one disputes that the forgery is very good. How else would it have deceived scholars for so long? Period paper was very very easy to obtain at the time the forgery was made. The use of the word 'unromantic' is accurately discussed by Shapiro. The expression "in currency' means a word that people would commonly use rather than an obsure or idiosyncratic coinage. Indidentally, Shapiro does mention Wright and Rollett's priority, but only in an admittedly obscure footnote. In the main text he does give the impression that it was his own discovery. Of course he may well have discovered it independently, and only become aware of Wright and Rollett's article later. But that's neither here nor there. The evidence of forgery was accepted by both anti-Stratfordians and Stratfordians! And yet Nina still wants to contest it. Also, it was Shapiro himself who published the information about the study on the paper, not anyone else, so it's a bit rich to suggest he somehow hid it! That was in his detailed articles in the TLS. The book just gives a summary. Paul B (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Paul do you have that article? Tom Reedy (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What, the TLS article? It's in the uni library. I can pop over and get it. Paul B (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Poujeaux, you can read about Rollett's investigation here. He was the one who discovered that the Ipswich Society didn't exist at that time nor could he find any documentary evidence that Cowell ever existed, nor of the purported president of the society. He alerted Dan Wright, who examined the document and announced plans to have the paper and ink analysed and dated and the hand examined by a paleographer. This was in 2003, and whether he did in fact follow through I don't know, because he never published anything about it. Both Rollett and Wright stopped short of calling it a definite forgery, as well they should have.

Shapiro used internal evidence from the paper to declare it a forgery. Far from depending on the use of the word "romantic", he instead noted the anachronistic discussion of facts about Shakespeare's life that had not been discovered or published at the purported time the document was written. As far as dating the paper, I haven't read the TLS source, so I don't know if that was done before or after the publication of the book. In any case, it has no bearing on whether the paper is a forgery. If the paper had dated to the mid- or late-19th century, that would certainly prove it a forgery, but it cannot be proof it wasn't a forgery, since forgers usually try to use old paper and have even been known to make their own ink according to period recipes.

Tl; dr: Shapiro definitely called it a forgery; his claim has been accepted by several Shakespearean reviewers knowledgeable of the historical facts that Shapiro bases his claim on, and the paper dating cannot prove it to be genuine. and yes, Shapiro, as one of the most respected academic Shakespeareans of our day, is certainly a reliable source. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now had an opportunity to read Shapiro's TLS article, and one part should be quoted here.
 * But Bower also noted that this was drawing paper, not writing paper, and that he knew of no instances where someone would use paper of this type and thickness for writing out a long lecture. So while it was possible to find old paper, the forger must have hoped that nobody, a century or so later, would have been able to tell that it was the wrong sort of paper. Ink and handwriting analysis, which have not yet been conducted, may well cast additional light on the forgery.
 * So once we hear the rest of the story, it puts a different light on the dating of the paper and how it affects the case for forgery. Instead of contradicting the rest of the evidence for forgery, it in fact supports it. Why that information has been withheld from this discussion we can only guess. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, it also puts a different light on your original research earlier on this page when you wrote:


 * Period paper was very very easy to obtain at the time the forgery was made.


 * Obviously your original research on how easy paper of the right type was to obtain was flat-out wrong. But do we hear a word of that from you? No? Secondly, whether the paper was art paper or other paper, the point is that the paper tested to the correct period, and thus cannot be used as evidence FOR forgery. It is evidence AGAINST forgery. Moreover Shapiro himself states that 'Ink and handwriting analysis, which have not yet been conducted, may well cast additional light on the forgery'.NinaGreen (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I said that, not Tom. It happens to be true. The usual technique is to cut out spare sheets from the back of old books, diaries etc. I have a copy of Hogarth's prints published in the 1760s in this very room. It has two empty pages at the back. I could cut them out right now and write a letter purporting to be from Wilmot to Burke stating that he has discovered a cache of manuscript plays written by Oxford which are so witless he has burned them to preserve the Earl's reputation (Wilmot was always burning evidence of course). If I can do that now, consider how easy it was back then, when old books were more freely available and libraries had almost no security to speak of. Yes, it was easy. What is notable here is how you try to deflect evidence of your own blatant misrepresentation of sources by inventing spurious criticisms of other editors. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mince words, but what it puts a different light on is the motive of an editor who would withhold information in order to score a point. That is the very definition of tendentious. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Paul, whoever said it, it turned out to be completely false in terms of the Cowell MS, which is not written on the type of paper you alleged was 'very very easy to obtain'. Yet we heard nothing from you on that point. No admission that you were flat-out wrong in terms of the Cowell MS, even though you got the article for Tom from your university library.NinaGreen (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nina, this is baloney. I said nothing about a 'type' of paper, just that period paper was easy to obtain. It is period paper. It was easy to obtain. You are making up the claim that a particular type of paper was mentioned. It was not. Drawing paper was easy to obtain. Writing paper was easy to obtain. Probably pink paper with pictures of teddy bears on it was not. So what? Paul B (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom, give up on the 'withholding of information' nonsense. My point was that the paper tested to the correct period and thus was evidence AGAINST forgery, which it is, despite your best efforts to muddy the point by trying to claim that paper which tests to the correct period is evidence FOR forgery(!).NinaGreen (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's evidence for forgery because it is an inappropriate type of paper for the purpose according to the expert. Of course there was no law against using drawing paper for lectures, so it's not proof, but evidence is one thing, and proof is something else. Paul B (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Paul, stop engaging in original research. Bower merely said, in response to a question from Shapiro, 'that he knew of no instances where someone would use paper of this type and thickness for writing out a long lecture'. The fact remains, which is the point I was making, that the paper tested to the CORRECT PERIOD, and that FACT can in no way be construed per se as evidence FOR forgery, irrespective of what type of paper it is, the type of paper being an entirely different point. There is thus evidence which might raise the possibility that the MS is a forgery (all of it 'negative evidence'), and there is evidence which suggests that it is NOT a forgery (and this is the only 'positive' evidence, i.e. an actual 'finding' by an expert, rather than a failure to find something, as with Rollett's failure to find mention of Cowell or the Ipswich Philosophical Society). According to WP:OR a source should not be cited when the source makes statements which are unclear or inconsistent, which Shapiro's statements certainly are in flatly claiming the MS to be a forgery when the expert HE HIMSELF HIRED established a specific FACT suggesting that the MS is NOT a forgery, and in citing the OED use of 'unromantic' by Swift and then contradicting the OED by claiming the word was 'not yet current' in 1805.NinaGreen (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is pathetic. The source says it, not me. Shapiro says it, based on Bower's statrements. No-ne except you says it is evidence of authenticity. You are engaging in OR and are ignoring the overwhelming evidence compiled by all the researchers who have looked at this. Any forger who hopes to succeed would use easily obtainerd period paper. You are just repeating youself ad nauseaum and ignoring ALL the other evidence. There is no point in discussing this with you futher. You are incapable of rational debate. Paul B (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you continue to engage in WP:OR by weighing the evidence and concluding that it's 'overwhelming', and by telling us how easy it would have been for a forger to obtain the necessary period paper. That is NOT your job as an editor. And stop the personal attacks. You are in violation of Wikipedia policy.NinaGreen (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've revised the statement in the SAQ article to reflect all that can legitimately be said on the subject without engaging in original research in violation of WP:OR, and added a ref to the Shapiro TLS article. The statement now reads:


 * However recent investigations have raised questions concerning the authenticity of the manuscript.

Shapiro's statements are unclear and inconsistent, and do not give credit where credit is due (to John Rollett in particular), and thus should not be used in compliance with WP:OR cited many times earlier on this page, nor does the SAQ article give proper credit to John Rollett, who was the first to raise questions concerning the Cowell MS.NinaGreen (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That is not acceptable. The evidence is overwhelming. Shapiro's credit giving or lack of it is utterly irrelevant. You are using the fact that he skimps on credit for the first person to identify it as a forgery as a reason to try to deny that it is a forgery!! Paul B (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, your comment that 'the evidence is overwhelming' is clearly WP:OR, and in violation of Wikipedia policy. It is not an editor's job to determine whether evidence is or is not 'overwhelming'. That's WP:OR. It an editor's job to determine whether a source contains unclear or inconsistent statements, which the two Shapiro sources definitely do, and then to state only what can legitimately be stated concerning the situation in the SAQ article. I've reverted your edit.NinaGreen (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What is overwhelming is the editorial consensus of the editors of this page that the source is RS and the summary in the article is accurate. The WP:RS source unequivocally states that the Cowell MS is a forgery. The article cannot and should not delineate every detail of the case, which for the most part can be found summarised in the Wilmot article. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, the issue is not whether the source is WP:RS. The issue is whether WP:OR applies. I've not seen any evidence that you understand the significance and importance of WP:OR in terms of editors of this page NOT citing sources which contain unclear or inconsistent statements. I've demonstrated that the two Shapiro sources DO contain unclear and inconsistent statements, with Shapiro citing and then refuting the OED (the most impeccable WP:RS source on historical usage of words which can be found), and also citing and refuting his own expert on the FACT that the paper dates to the correct period and is thus evidence AGAINST forgery.NinaGreen (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The main issue here is that the consensus of the editors don't go agree with your rather inventive interpretations of both the source and policy. A major edit cannot be based on an inaccurate and tendentious summary of a source. Your unwillingness to edit collegiality (or even to follow conventional talk page formatting conventions after being asked several times) is a major source of disruption on this page and this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, drop it with the defamatory 'major source of disruption' statements and the incessant personal attacks generally. The reason nothing gets accomplished on this page is that you, a biased editor by your own admission ('a wacky theory'), want to control, and DO control, every syllable in the SAQ article. As for the policy, it says what it says, and I have not interpreted it in any way, 'inventive' or otherwise. WP:OR does not permit the type of editing you've done consistently throughout the SAQ article, cherry-picking passing statements by authors and statements which are unclear or inconsistent with other reliable sources and then invoking the WP:RS statement that it doesn't matter whether something is true so long as it's verifiable. No wonder you're uncomfortable with my introduction of WP:OR into the debate because WP:OR balances WP:RS by stating that if there are unclear or inconsistent statements in a reliable source or among reliable sources, or if there's merely a passing mention of something in a reliable source, you CAN'T CITE IT. As in this case, with the Cowell MS. Given the lack of clarity and the inconsistency in the two Shapiro refs, the most that can legitimately be stated in the SAQ article is what I put in my recent edit, that investigations have raised doubts concerning the authenticity of the Cowell MS. To state more is to violate WP:ORNinaGreen (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nina, I don't think any of us are happy with the tone of debate in this section, but I agree with Tom and Paul B about how the article is summarising the reliable source on this (based on comments from all parties in the course of the above exchange, I am proceeding on the basis that everyone agrees Shapiro is RS). Unless there is a reliable source of more-or-less equal stature that explicitly argues against the "likely forgery" conclusion, the article should reflect the conclusion of Shapiro. Maybe it would help if I tried to explain the reason that some editors are levelling a charge against Nina of WP:OR. Let's use the example of the OED and "unromantic", since that seems to have caused some contention. Let us say that the OED reports the usage of the word as occurring in 1731 (or whenever). Citing that at WP would not be OR per se. BUT, for a WP editor to use that information to then argue against a conclusion reached in an RS is WP:OR. This is because an editor is then applying published evidence to form a new argument about the credibility of a source. If you wanted to claim that the OED evidence raised an issue with Shapiro, you would need a scholar to have looked at the OED, concluded that there was a discrepency between, say, Shapiro and the OED, and then have published their view (ie. that there was a discrepency) in a reliable source. Then, and only then, could we use that evidence to modify what would be summarised at WP from Shapiro. I hope this explanation clarifies rather than obfuscates - it wasn't easy to set out. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hamiltonstone, I appreciate your weighing in and trying to sort things out here, but as I said earlier, the issue is not whether Shapiro is WP:RS. The issue is how WP:OR affects reliable sources. It's no wonder it's a novel point here because the way in which WP:OR affects reliable sources has been completely ignored in the writing of the SAQ article. WP:OR says that a reliable source may, in certain instances and on certain topics, contain unclear or inconsistent statements or statements which are merely a passing mention of something and do not constitute a well-developed argument covering the point. In such instances, the reliable source can't be cited for those statements or points. That's the case with Shapiro when he himself (not me) states that there is a recorded instance of the use of the word 'unromantic' prior to its use in the Cowell MS, and then goes on to contradict the OED (to which he's clearly referring since it's the uber-source for all historical records of word usage) by saying that the word 'unromantic' was 'not yet current' in 1805 when the Cowell MS was written. This inconsistency in Shapiro's statements, in which he himself quotes the most reliable known source on a particular point and then contradicts that reliable source is a prime example of what WP:OR means when it says that even if a source is reliable, it can't be cited on points on which it makes statements which are unclear or inconsistent. You mention above that there would need to be some independent scholar who has noted the discrepancy between Shapiro's statement that there is a recorded usage of 'unromantic' prior to the writing of the Cowell MS and Shapiro's statement that the word 'unromantic' was 'not yet current' at the time of the writing of the Cowell MS, but WP:OR states that that is the job of Wikipedia editors. If they note a discrepancy of that sort, i.e. inconsistent statements, in a reliable source, they must refrain from citing the reliable source on that point, although the reliable source can certainly be cited on points for which no such discrepancy exists.NinaGreen (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please re-read my explanation above. I still think it shows why you are wrong on this point, and, having read you post above, I still think you have the wrong end of the stick on this. It does not matter whether Shapiro quotes the OED: for the WP article to use language that implies there is a contradiction / doubt of any sort, there must be another reliable source directly addressing the point. The fact that the OED lists a 1731 usage, even if Shapiro notes this, is not enough by itself. We would need a published RS saying something like "Shapiro's conclusion blah blah is apparently contradicted by the OED's entry that says blah blah". We cannot join those dots ourselves, because that would disregard the reliability ascribed to Shapiro's scholarship that is given by his work's status as a published reliable source. I don't know how I can make this clearer. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hamiltonstone, I'm not wrong on this point. If I were wrong, WP:OR would be redundant. Wikipedia policy allows editors to make judgments about whether there are inconsistent statements on a particular point in a source which is otherwise a reliable source, and when such inconsistencies are found, Wikipedia editors cannot cite the source in question on that particular point, reliable as the source might be. There is no requirement in WP:OR that some outside scholar or some other reliable source has to address the inconsistency. Wikipedia editors are allowed to spot it for themselves and must then refrain from citing the source on that particular point. You wrote: 'We cannot join those dots ourselves'. On the contrary, WP:OR says we editors CAN and MUST 'join those dots ourselves'. The clear purpose of WP:OR is to prevent Wikipedia editors from citing otherwise reliable sources on points on which it's self evident to anyone reading the source that it's NOT reliable because of inconsistencies or unclear statements on a particular point, or because the source makes only a passing mention of a point without fully developing an argument on it. Considering the endless hectoring about Wikipedia policy that's gone on on this Talk page, it's surprising that WP:OR is new to editors of the page and has never been cited before.NinaGreen (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take this to WP:OR/N instead of repeating your arguments ad infinitum. I'm sure the uninvolved editors there will give your policy interpretation the attention it deserves. You don't have editorial consensus on this and you're not likely to get it by incessantly repeating the same thing over and over. Please read this, especially the paragraph headed "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people." Tom Reedy (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, drop the this nonsense. You've ignored that key line in WP:OR throughout the SAQ article. No matter how inconsistent two sources are, you've frequently cited them both for the same point. Similarly, no matter how passing a mention is given to a point in a reliable source, you cherry-pick it, and cite it in the SAQ article. In both cases, you're completely ignoring that key sentence in WP:OR because it doesn't suit your purposes.NinaGreen (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Nina Please don't exaggerate: WP:OR would not be redundant: one line within the entire policy would be. Look, I don't have Shapiro, but I'm not seeing evidence presented above as enough to invoke the relevant section of WP:OR: the evidence that would be needed would be of the type I have already described. I presume Shapiro is making a scholarly assessment based on a range of evidence including the OED (itself a tertiary source on which I doubt Shapiro would exclusively rely, but that it is another matter). Of course, it is also possible that I have misrepresented the arguments of other editors here when I have tried to clarify the argument about the application of OR here, in which csae I apologise. Let me conclude by returning to the broader issue, and my final comment on this: as I understand the original source (ie. based on the talk page and WP article), any suggestion that the WP text should be expanded is wrong - it should be being shortened; and as far as I can see, whatever issues editors might be able to identify, the basic conclusion stated by Shapiro, unless contradicted by a scholarly source of similar stature, should stand. I am out of here (post-edit conflict PS: Tom's suggestion might be the right one: raise it at WP:OR/N). hamiltonstone (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone, you wrote:


 * Nina Please don't exaggerate: WP:OR would not be redundant: one line within the entire policy would be.

And that's of course exactly what I meant. That line in WP:OR would be redundant unless it means what it clearly says, that Wikipedia editors should not cite a source as authority for a particular point when they can see that the statements on a PARTICULAR POINT in an otherwise reliable source are unclear or inconsistent, or are merely a passing mention of something. It amazes me that I'm having to explain such a basic and commonsense policy to experienced Wikipedia editors (and explain it over and over to boot!).

You also wrote:


 * I presume Shapiro is making a scholarly assessment based on a range of evidence

That's not the issue we're talking about. The issue we're talking about is Shapiro inconsistent statements in which he says the OED cites an occurrence of the word 'unromantic' prior to 1805, and then says the word 'unromantic' was 'not yet current' in 1805. How much more inconsistent can one get? This example fits that one line in WP:OR policy to a 'T'.

You also wrote:


 * any suggestion that the WP text should be expanded is wrong - it should be being shortened

I'm not certain what you mean by 'the WP text', but if you mean the text on the Cowell MS should be shortened, not lengthened, I agree completely, and my edit did just that (until Paul twice reverted it).NinaGreen (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of anything else, you are missing the main point, which you did not comment on, and that is that you don't have an editorial consensus supporting your interpretation. Now since a consensus cannot override Wikipedia policy, you need to take your argument to the proper noticeboard and give it a hearing. Why you refuse to do so is a mystery to me, because if your argument is correct, it will be a cinch to overturn the editorial consensus on this talk page. Until you open a discussion at WP:OR/N, like hamiltonstone I'm out of here. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, please stop wasting our time with Wikilawyering. Wikipedia policy, whether it's the particular line we've been discussing in WP:OR is what it is, and is not subject to either 'interpretation' or to 'editorial consensus' on this page.NinaGreen (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Claims of OR are not correct
The argument that OR precludes a certain statement (that a document is a forgery) is not correct. The argument is: The OR noticeboard is the place to discuss whether WP:OR applies in this situation. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The source (Shapiro 2010) declares a document to be a forgery. The source makes several points about how the forgery is detected, and notes The word "unromantic" ... should have tipped me off ... though there was a recorded instance of its use before 1800, it wasn't yet in currency at the time [that the document was supposed to have been written].
 * An editor points out that the OED states that "unromantic" was first used in 1731. The editor interprets that as an "inconsistency" in the source (the claimed inconsistency is that the source acknowledges the word was used before 1800, but then makes an assertion based on the word's lack of "currency").
 * The previous "inconsistency" point is not correct because (1) the "unromantic" usage was only the thing that should have tipped off the author—the forgery claim does not rest on whether or not "unromantic" was not in currency; (2) the author reached his conclusion after acknowledging the earlier usage, so it is original research for an editor to say that the author was mistaken about the word's currency.
 * WP:OR says that statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments, or on passages open to multiple interpretations. None of these points apply to the statement in question (that the document is a forgery). The source is very clear and emphasizes the point; the source admits only one interpretation. Finally, the source is consistent: it does not rely on the "unromantic" usage, but merely regards it as something that should have tipped off the author; further, the source acknowledges that the word was first used earlier than the document. It is not an editor's role to contradict the source's conclusion that the word was not in currency (and it would not matter even if the source were wrong on that point).


 * Johnuniq, do you seriously think other editors on various noticeboards have nothing to do but monitor everything that goes on with the SAQ article? If I were to count the number of times you and Tom Reedy have suggested taking something to some noticeboard or other so other editors could waste their time on an article they couldn't care less about, it would run into the HUNDREDS by now. Isn't it time editors around here grew up and tried to handle problems here rather than trying to fob everything onto some noticeboard when they're losing an argument?NinaGreen (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be desirable to engage with the previous comments. This talk page is to discuss improving the article and should not be used like a forum. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq, if this Talk page is 'to discuss improving the article', why is it filled with defamatory comments by Tom Reedy, Nishidani and Paul Barlow, and why you have you not objected to those defamatory comments filling this Talk page? As for 'engaging with the previous comments', I have engaged with them. I think it's childish that editors of this page tell other editors to take it to some noticeboard or other every time they're losing and argument. It's just Wikilawyering, and does nothing to 'improve the article, and it would waste the time of countless other editors on various noticeboards if anyone took seriously the hundreds of directives by Tom Reedy et al to 'take it to such and such a noticeboard'. It really is time we grew up around here and learned to handle problems with the editing of this page ON THIS PAGE.NinaGreen (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Shapiro refs and cites
The Shapiro book was published simultaneously in the UK and the US in two very different editions (the U.S. edition uses much cheaper paper and crams more type on the page and uses an uncopyrightable image for its cover, plus its list price was higher). Since the pagination varies, I took the UK version as having priority by listing it first (on the same principle that we use British English in the article), with the US in parenthesis following. I don't know what problems the ISBN number is causing, but I thought I'd explain the set-up we used now, which was done for the convenience of readers in both countries. If there's any better way to solve the problem or if there's a Wikipedia policy that addresses that, we can change it. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is this citation:
 * If you click the link for the ISBN numbers you see that it is broken; I could see no clean way to have two ISBNs. Sorry about my edit; I was going to ask here first, but then thought it easier to "fix" the citation rather than to explain my intention. The problem with my removing the UK ISBN is that cites like "Shapiro 2010, pp. 238 (209–10)" are not effective. Johnuniq (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see that any of the ISBNs are effective. The DOIs are, but when I click on the ISBNs I get taken to teh page and hitting the search button just reloads the page.
 * ISBNs are optional anyway, aren't they? The Shapiro cites have to show both page numbers, otherwise readers are going to be scratching their heads trying to find the passages cited. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked for help here. If there's no way to solve this then I recommend we use only the UK ISBN, since the title link goes to the US version. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked for help here. If there's no way to solve this then I recommend we use only the UK ISBN, since the title link goes to the US version. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As I see the other discussion has provided too, the road to hell is paved with good intentions: the main point of WP:V is say where you read it, everything else is detail. In this case, we could happily have cited from both editions alternate times, so long as both editions appeared in the Sources section (it'd be confusing, and we should avoid it, but we certainly could have). The ISBN, then, is actually the critical piece of information, because it's what allows us to distinguish between the two. The problem of getting a different edition than what is actually cited in the article will be pagination and possible undocumented differences between editions. For instance, this is why we should specify the precise editions (1st, 2nd, etc.) used; otherwise spelling corrections, mistakes fixed, etc. could cause the cite to fail verification. IOW, we should pick one edition (I suggest the UK version), cite to that (with ISBN!), and give only the page numbers for that edition. The US edition can be placed in Further reading or the Talk page with a note about the page numbers issue. And it's good that you brought this issue up, as it's something I would have otherwise have had to tackle while going through the refs.  --Xover (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There are 60 refs like this:

One approach would be to include the UK citation and the US citation separately, and replace the above with something like:

Pretty ugly! I'm only mentioning this to cover all possibilities. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This came about because Tom used the US, I the UK, edition, while we codrafted the article from ground up. Tom then devised the combination to make it accessible to a global readership, since the page gaps are notable in these two editions. I don't think he or I care one way or another. All we need to know is what reviewing FA editors would prefer. If that can be ascertained, one will adopt the suggestion and adjust. It does seem though fair to give both versions. Wikipedia is a global, decentered encyclopedia and priviliging one edition or another amounts to choosing which nation's publishing industry you wish to back. Systemic bias :)Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I care very much that the refs cite both versions so that readers on both sides of the pond can check them, and I think it's important. Both are first editions; the layout is different because they were published simultaneously by two different houses (there are some slight textual differences also, but none that are of concern). The method we have now is very convenient. I propose we de-link the ISBN numbers from where ever it is they go when you click on them (when I click on them they go to the explanation age, and reclicking on the number just reloads the page; perhaps it's because I use Mozilla.) I'll try to find a work-around later today. And if any edition should be privileged, it should be the UK edition, since the article privileges British English as per some kind of Wikipedia convention. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One other thought: if we go with only one set of page numbers, sometime in the future some well-meaning editor is going to go "Huh?" and start a project to "correct" all the cites. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom, you need to click on them, then scroll down the page and you can get a whole load of useful stuff eg the google link, amazon, and lots of other databases. It's a fairly trivial point, someone just needs to figure out how to hack the code to allow two ISBNS for shapiro. I tried and failed. Poujeaux (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks! That must be the new thing I learn today. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnuiq, it appears you have solved the problem! Hooray! I knew someone could fix it without having to hand-enter 60+ references. Thanks very much. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Bardolatry and the authorship question
This article is mostly very well written, and it is immediately obvious that an enormous amount of work has gone into it, mostly with excellent results. I won't comment at length, as I'm sure most relevant criticisms have already been made in the peer review. I do have one or two points to make about wording that bothers me. I have a special interest in the English Romantic period, and what I'm about to point out doesn't sound quite right to me. In the lead, it is stated:


 * 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.

While not entirely false, to put it this way is misleading. Bardolatry existed for over half a century before anyone thought of questioning Shakespeare's authorship. I think the next sentence gets closer to the matter:


 * Shakespeare's eminence seemed incongruous with his humble origins and obscure life, arousing suspicion that the Shakespeare attribution might be a deception.

I can't imagine that the scholars cited really mean to contend explicitly that Bardolatry caused the emergence of the anti-Stratfordians, which is what the wording "had its origins in" seems to suggest. Rather, as the philosophers might say, Bardolatry was one of the necessary conditions for the emergence of the authorship question; but it was certainly not a sufficient condition. One might as well claim that ice cream had its origins in the heat of summer.

Another point is that, while Bardolatry might have begun in the 18th century, it did not blossom fully until the 19th, so in a space as constricted as the lead, that is the century that should be mentioned.

So I think that this passage should be reworded. I may eventually take a crack at it myself. But I want to post this here first, partly because I see that this article is not yet quite stable (to put it mildly, in light of all the contentions in progress) and is being worked over very seriously and thoroughly by those who have a much more solid grounding in the source material than I do. In fact, any changes might be better made by someone who does have that grounding.

Also, I see that this idea has been expressed much better in the section "Precursors of Doubt", so that might be a good reference point for any alterations made to the lead. --Alan W (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * By all means take a shot at it. You might want to float your idea on the talk page and get some input before pasting it on the main page. The main problem writing a lede is constructing a compact sentence that includes all the nuances. It approaches poetry, IMO, because when it's done right every word counts with all surplusage eschewed, as a famous anti-Stratfordian once wrote. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I fully agree about the ideal nature of a lead/lede. I've been wrestling with this kind of thing elsewhere on Wikipedia in the past couple of months. A lead should encapsulate the essence of what follows, but in far fewer words. Very late in this part of the world, but I will mull this over and try to come up with something in the next couple of days or so. Meanwhile, keep up your own good work! (By the way, I can't say I catch the "surplusage" allusion. Ah, wait, I've got it: Mark Twain! [My hunch has now been confirmed by Google.]) Regards, Alan W (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a fresh perspective is exactly what is called for, as was proved today/yesterday? by hamiltonstone. Cheers! Tom Reedy (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Alan, and thanks for chipping in here. I'll grant that I'm not sufficiently deeply versed in the topic to make an authoritative assertion here, but I'd like to suggest you keep in mind that this relatively direct link (which can be read as alleging a causative link) from Bardolatry to Authorship is a common formulation from the various sources that discuss the topic. What immediately springs to mind is S. Schoenbaum's Shakespeare's Lives—but I'm fairly certain I've read similar elsewhere—that uses wording substantially similar to what's in this article (IIRC, it's been a while). Logically I agree with you that this link is necessary but not sufficient, but without looking into this specifically my inclination is that this merely reflects the sources. However, do, please, go ahead and have a stab at this: I'm not here intending to present an argument against, merely providing a warning that it's possible (but not certain) there's a reason above the editor's momentary choice of wording for the current formulation. Tom or Nishidani, who have read extensively in the relevant sources, can possibly chime in to correct me on this if I misrecall this or have read too few sources to accurately reflect the field. --Xover (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Alan, thanks for your helpful comments. Note that this question was raised just a week ago by Nina Green here. There was also a phrase about early 19th century romantics thinking literature was about self-revelation which I deleted.  I think that Bardolatry should not be in the lead.  My view is that even if it is true (and you have expressed significant doubt), it is not such an essential part of the subject that it needs to go in the lead. I proposed a shorter version.  Please do post your revised proposal here. Poujeaux (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * '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.'
 * The only thing I find really troublesome there is 'the greatest writer of all time.' English writers, though Ben Jonson is the exception, were at the time hailing his English genius surely, Shakespeare as the finest writer of the English tradition. 'has its origins in' is meant to be understood, as 'developed against the backdrop of bardolatry'. I look forward to Alan's suggestions, since the phrase we have might be misconstrued, but bardolatry is there in good part because the very long and intricate revision history of the play highlighted, and then weeded out, much about Keats, Wordsworth, Coleridge and others many of whom were cited for the proposition that Shakespeare's works were an allegory of his life, and the sonnets a key to unlocking his heart. In the FA revision nearly all of this has disappeared, and we have just Shapiro's summary judgement. It's one of the problems in editing here that the text comes out of intense negotiations over material that, in turn, is subsequently elided and substituted. The theory did arise against the backdrop of the entwined phenomena of bardolatry and Romantic myths of the poet as self-dramatiser. He is the greatest, poets dramatise themselves, we have no knowledge of Shakespeare's life that would link him to the material he wrote, ergo we must find the real Shakespeare in the works. That is the logic that made many from Emerson to Henry James exposulate on the great mystery, which isn't a mystery if one does not have in one's cultural expectations that combination of belief in biographical allegory and overadulation common to the 19th century. Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's fair to say that Bardolatry has been closely linked to the emergence of the controversy by several authors. It's a specifically Victorian variant, as epitomised by Carlyle, so the fact that the phenomenon has its origins in the 18th century is not important. I don't think we can say whether Bardoloatry was just a necessary or a sufficient condition. In any case "bardolatry" is just a simple word for a complex range of related views and attitudes. To say that "Bardolatry existed for over half a century before anyone thought of questioning Shakespeare's authorship" is to imply that it is a single idea that came into being fully formed. The type that leads to doubts is the type you get when you read Ruskin quoting Shakespeare, in which he creates the impression that Bill's a Biblical prophet. While it's true that Wordsworth said that Shakespeare unlocked his heart in his sonnets, he also said they were worse than a puzzle-peg, whatever that means. German critics, who, after all, essentially invented the concept of the "romantic", may be more pertinent. However, all we need in the lede is a short account of the conditions in which the Great Doubt emerged, and the term boardolatry pretty well sums that up.  Paul B (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The tipping point of Bardolatry is considered to be marked by Johnson's 1765 edition and Garrick's 1769 Stratford Jubilee (about which someone needs to create an article). No matter what the range of opinions, I'm interested in reading what Alan comes up with. We need a fresh perspective that might improve the article; we're all suffering cabin fever by now. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tipping point, yes, but Garrick does not treat Shakespeare as a sage. Consider the following, written by Coventry Patmore about Macbeth: "Whenever Shakspere [sic] has elsewhere embodied superstitions, he has treated them as direct and unalterable facts of human nature; and this he has done because he was too profound a philosopher to be capable of regarding genuine superstition as the product of random spectra of the fancy, having absolute darkness for the prime condition of their being, instead of seeing in it rather the zodiacal light of truth, the concomitant of the uprising, and of the setting of the truth, and a partaker in its essence. Again, Shakspere has in this very play devoted a considerable space to the purpose of suggesting the self-same trait of character now under discussion, and this he appears to have done with the express intent of guarding against a mistake, the probability of the occurrence of which he foresaw, but which, for reasons connected with the construction of the play, he could not hope otherwise to obviate." That was written in 1849. It's this kind of commentary that leads directly to Delia Bacon. You would never find Johnson or Garrick writing stuff like that. Patmore's Shakespeare is a 'philosopher' with a message to impart. If we read his work rightly will will correctly interpret the message. I think we should drop the reference to the 18th century in the intro. It's just confusing. Paul B (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think Garrick proves my point. The other essay certainly calls him a philosopher, but goes on to say we read insights from him with "leisure and delight". It's very different from the laboured bombast of Patmore, in which Shakespeare carefully prepares his half-hidden message "guarding against mistake". The 18th century essay retains elements of Milton's Shakespeare - the 'untutored' natural genius who just flowed with creative energy: "as a poet, therefore, Shakespeare did not need books, and in no instance where he needed them as a philosopher or historian does he appear ignorant of what they teach". His 'philosophy' here is the Enlightement conception of general knowledge. Of course there are links to what Patmore says - the oration is transitional. My point was that it is the "full blown" mid-19th century form of Bardolatry that gives rise to Doubt, not the type represented by Garrick's effusions or this anonymous writer. What I am saying is "OR", of course, but I'm not suggesting it be included in the article, just that we drop the words '18th century'. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope all this yammer hasn't scared Alan away. We should really learn to brook our comments. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm still here, though a bit stunned, I confess. I just left a note on Xover's talk page (the only one in this crowd with whom I've worked before, if only briefly) mentioning that I entered this arena with some trepidation. It's like stepping onto a minefield, and you never know when the bullets will start flying overhead. I think I'm bleeding already, though I feel that it is from friendly fire, as I take this explosion of collegial debate as a kind of welcome. Thank you. Little did I know what I would set off! I'm more used to working in the quiet backwaters of Wikipedia.


 * I don't intend to do anything major here. But if, as in cases like this, I can raise a point or two worth raising, and make a small edit here and there to smooth out some rough spots, I'll be happy to lend a hand. I will say that I'm impressed by the collective learning I see around me, as well as the dedication to Shakespeare and the topic at hand. It's humbling to be in this company, and I don't know, really, how much I can add. All I have to offer is some knowledge of the Romantic period. I also know Shakespeare a little (compared to most of you, I'm sure), and have read some of the criticism, particularly that written in the Romantic period.


 * These are good comments. Right now, I will say that I have no intention of trying to remove Bardolatry from the SAQ picture. But, and I think that Paul B was getting at this, Bardolatry is not just one thing, operating at a fixed intensity, that sprang into being all at once. As I recall, our Wikipedia article on it is a good one, and we can let that tease out the nuances for those who are interested.


 * Another point raised has to do with, as someone has put it, the Romantic idea that authors reveal themselves in their work. That statement alone is so fraught with ambiguity I hardly know what to make of it. Furthermore, "the Romantics", even those of a given nationality, did not all think alike. Yes, "self-revelation" is a major theme of the writing of that time (and long afterward), but it emerges in very different ways. Neither did they all think alike regarding what authors of previous ages would have revealed in their works. We have to make distinctions, at least implicitly. There is the self entering into a literary work unconsciously; there is overtly autobiographical writing; and then there is, what I sense is especially important here, the attempt to hide the real self, combined with a covert real-self-revelation in some kind of cipher in the literary text. All "self-revelation", yet all really different, if often overlapping, things.


 * In the end, we have to consider what the average Wikipedia reader would understand from reading about "Bardolatry" and "self-revelation" according to "the Romantics".


 * Now I am going to go and attempt to recoup my energy and try to recall what I was intending to do here in the first place. :-) Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I've taken a shot at it. I understand that it still might not be exactly what is wanted, and I will understand if further editing needs to be done. To me, after having read all the rest of the article in the past few days, what I've said makes what is to come clearer to the average reader looking to get the gist of the controversy. And I have tried to bring that paragraph in line with what is said later, in "Precursors of Doubt". I have had to remove one Shapiro citation, where he makes what I think is a misleading statement that may read better when seen in context. (I'll have to read that book one day; it's obviously made quite a splash.) Nishidani, I have not meant to ignore your comment about "greatest writer of all time", but I thought it best to leave that in place, at least for now. After all, to many Bardolaters, I think he was considered the greatest writer of all time, even though I'm sure they never read possible contenders for that title who wrote in languages few in the Western world understood. Judgments were more ethnocentric in those days. I am interested to see where all this is heading, and I will certainly stay tuned. Regards, Alan W (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alan's revised version of lead paragraph 2 is very nice, though it is rather long. Also, none of the learned discussion above addresses the question of whether the jargon term 'Bardolatry' belongs in the lead at all. WP:Lede says: "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction.  Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked". The word 'Bardolatry' is a specialized term and not essential.  It is perfectly possible to say the same thing without using the word, which would also have the benefit of making the lead a bit more concise. Poujeaux (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For example, here is a specific suggestion, Alan's version with suggested cuts in brackets:
 * "The Shakespeare authorship question was first posed in (the middle of) the 19th century. By then, (Bardolatry, the) adulation of Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time had become widespread and its expression often extreme.[4] It was (also) noted(, however,) that Shakespeare's eminence seemed incongruous with his humble origins and obscure life,[5] and some began to suspect that the man known as Shakespeare might not have written the works attributed to him, with the real author hiding behind the name.[6] Thus began a controversy that(, in the century and a half since then,) has spawned a vast body of literature.[7]..." Poujeaux (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I like some of it, but the wording needs a bit of work (beginning a sentence with "It was noted, however" is hardly ever a good idea, and "its [bardolatry's] expression often extreme" seems redundant, since bardolatry is an extreme expression), and I'm even OK with losing the word "Bardolatry" if need be. But let's figure out exactly what we want to say first and worry about the language afterward. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing like outside perspective on outside perspective. I fully agree that "It was noted, however" is not the ideal choice of words in that place. I will not be upset to see that go if the sentence is made better by the excision. As for the Bardolatry, I have not yet read everything added to this page since yesterday, but I do think that something might be said that implies that Shakespeare was somewhat idolized, maybe at times excessively, starting in the 18th century, but the idolization reached absurd extremes (not that I would put it that way in the lead; just thinking out loud) after another century had passed. It's not the word but the idea that is important to convey here. --Alan W (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum According to Stratfordian authority H.N.Gibson (frequently cited in this very article) the controversy began quite early, with John Marston and Joseph Hall in 1597 which view was even more fully affirmed by Stratfordian authorities Garnett and Gosse over fifty years previously. According to Stratfordian Richard Simpson, arguably the most intelligent Stratfordian, aside from J.Payne Collier, in nineteenth century Stratfordian criticism, the Shakespeare Authorship controversy began contemporaneously to your preferred figure, with Robert Greene's "Farewelle To Follie" c.1587-88 (but not actually published til 1592), and according to Dowden of Trinity, Shakspere's most popular academic biographer ever, and others writing in 1869, it began with the publication of Narcissus (registered Fall,1593 but the only know surviving copy is dated 1595). The author then named either Oxford or Bacon as the author. If this article is to be accurate, then should not this specific information be included as opposed to a novel theory? Otherwise, are we not cherry-picking sources to smooth out and avoid glaring contradictions?

Also, if there is no consensus among scholars regarding the Bardolatry connection, the best we can say is "Some scholars believe..., while others have written that the controversy began in the late 16th century" or perhaps "According to Shapiro...., while Gibson believes that..." Wouldn't that be a) more accurate, and b) more neutral?

This Bardolator versus Skepticism historical theory--does it have the backing of a consensus of Shakespeare scholars and specialists in the field, indicated previously to me the only acceptable material for the article? Without that tradition, it is a catch-all concept to assert everything was fine until 1850.

With due respect for the work advanced so far, the discussion seems to suffer from a lack of factuality and from self-serving blind spots in the history. It creates the model of Romantic "Bardolatry" some time in the past and posits a more modern skeptical reaction to that trend. It also says that there was no doubt about the Shakespeare authorship until then, asserting also that there was no problem during the Tudor era either. As shown below, these constructions are factually insupportable.

It would be more historically accurate to note that when the intellectual classes in England and the United States began to read critically, questions about the received Shakespeare narrative began to appear. Emerson in the United States wrote, in 1847, "The Egyptian verdict of the Shakspeare Societies comes to mind, that he was a jovial actor and manager. I can not marry this fact to his verse. Other admirable men have led lives in some sort of keeping with their thought; but this man, in wide contrast." Hawthorne and Melville already perceived that another figure was central to the mystery, the latter including Edward de Vere in his novel 'Moby Dick'. This indicates neither god-like worshipping Bardolatry on the part of the Shakespeare societies nor a reaction to it by the American intellectuals, but simple acceptance on one side and simple doubt and curiosity on the other as to the actual author, the latter attitude based on the poor fit between biography and work.

It is likewise a fundamental historical error in the proposed article that until the last 150 years there was no doubt about the Stratfordian narrative, specifically that "he" was accepted as the author by his contemporaries. Just the opposite is indicated by this clear contemporaneous reference by John Marston to Oxford, whose name began and ended with the letter "e" and whose name was said here to be silenced:

.......Far fly thy fame, Most, most of me beloved, whose silent name One letter bounds. Thy true judicial style I ever honour, and if my love beguile Not much my hopes, then thy unvalu'd worth Shall mount fair place when Apes are turned forth.

The "Apes" refer to imposters. Jonson referred to Sogliardo as a pretender and imposter, attaching the Shakspere motto, Not without right, in the satirical reference, Not without mustard, -the color of the arms.

Further evidence of Oxford contemporaneously identified as the Shakespeare figure to the exclusion of any other would be Richard Barnefield's tribute:

Shakespeare..... Whose Venus and whose Lucrece (sweet and chaste) Thy name in fame's immortal Book have plac't Live ever you, at least in Fame live ever: Well may the Body die, but Fame dies never

de Vere's pseudonym in 'A Hundredth Sundrie Flowres' was Ever or Never, a simple anagram of his name. Here the name Shakespeare is identified with the early pseudonym of de Vere and the epic poems issued under the name William Shakespeare.

Do I understand that this material will be ignored in the creation of your Bardolatry model? If so, it may be a shapely castle made of sand. I recommend more fact-based language and a more nearly neutral balancing of selected sources.98.248.218.84 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Zweigenbaum Sorry, I should have included this website, which seemed informative on the progression in the debate:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Shakespeare_authorship_question#Alleged_early_doubts

The detailed history there has one probable drawback regarding its utility in this discussion group, in that it gives the lie to the Bardolatry notion. At first Shapiro used this notion as a way to set up dramatic historical contrast between the rightos and wrongos in the authorship debate. Now it appears to be embraced as factual within one part of the discussion group, though as I said, I do not see any consensus among the specialists in the field. This leads me to the question, is this article original research posing as "history"? One author does not an era make. I realize Shapiro gave a compliment to Tom Reedy about another Shakespeare subject, The Tempest I believe. But purposive ad hoc creations are suspect as history, even those proposed by a commercially successful scholar. The historical record doesn't give it much support, which is a definite weakness. Hence my recommendation to stay closer to the record.98.248.218.84 (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
Paul and Nina, stop reverting each other, please. Nina, you made a WP:BOLD change. That's all right so far, but if it's reverted, as it was, you are not supposed to re-revert, but to discuss on the talkpage per WP:BRD. Your change will be accepted if and only if you can gain consensus for it. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Bishonen, I made a change and put my new version up for discussion on the Talk page. Paul reverted my edit without discussion. Your comment should be directed at Paul. He had no right to do that.NinaGreen (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Where? I wasn't able to find anything like that on this page, and I doubt anybody else was, either. Are you referring to the statement you made at the very end of the huge section "Cowell manuscript", and at the very end of your longish post there? Please try to put yourself in other editors' shoes before you expect them to locate that. (I found it now by performing a search of the page.) I'm sure you're doing your best to make your comments possible to find, but it's not working. May I suggest this way of "putting up a new version":
 * Start a new section with an informative header.
 * State that you have made a change in the article, giving a diff so that people can find it, or, if you have trouble with diffs despite my advice here, say where in the article the change is and quote the whole of it. That's "putting up" a new version on Talk without wasting too much of other editors' lives. Then they will be able to read and discuss your version without digging it out of the History, which is a messy business at the best of times (especially if somebody else has already changed what you wrote). And yes, he had the right to do that. If you had started a (findable) discussion of your particular change, and had gotten consensus for your version, I would happily have instated that version myself. In the meantime, there was nothing wrong with Paul restoring the original version. Once, that is. I'm not happy with him reverting you twice, that's why I told you both to stop reverting. Now do please explain how egregiously I have misunderstood policy and how much better than me you know what it really says. I always look forward to that part. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Bishonen, I can certainly follow your suggestion about putting up a new section in future, but Paul certainly knew where the new version was, and so did Tom. As for 'gaining consensus' for any edit of mine, please let's try to ground ourselves in the real world here. Neither Tom Reedy, nor Nishidani, nor Paul Barlow will EVER agree to any substantive edit of mine, and they pound on any suggested edit of mine so hard and so furiously as soon as I mention it that no other editor wants to have to deal with them. You know as well as I do what's going on here. And why do you ignore Tom and Nishidani and Paul's defamatory comments and relentless personal attacks on me while fussing over whether I should or should not have reverted Paul's revert of my edit? And why do you ignore Paul's weighing of evidence in contravention of WP:OR in the comment to his revert, while taking me to task for reverting Paul's revert?


 * I'm glad you're not happy with Paul reverting my edit twice. Neither am I.


 * You wrote:


 * Now do please explain how egregiously I have misunderstood policy and how much better than me you know what it really says. I always look forward to that part.


 * I'm glad to see you're developing a sense of humour. :-)NinaGreen (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would people please stop implying that certain named editors are making defamatory comments. First, such claims are prohibited (see perceived legal threats). Second, it is a personal attack to make a serious accusation without evidence (see what is considered to be a personal attack?). Third, this is not the page to discuss other editors (see WP:TALK). For issues regarding other editors, see WP:DR.
 * Also, WP:BRD is clear: a bold change may be made once; if consensus does not support the change, see WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, the comments made by certain editors on this Talk page and on my own Talk page are clearly defamatory. In fact, since I posted a reply to Nishidani's latest defamatory comments on my Talk page, he appears to have voluntarily silenced himself because I required that he back up his defamatory comments. You would do better to read up on defamation than to try to defend (and repeat, as you've done more than once) the defamatory comments made by editors of this page.NinaGreen (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not voluntarily silence myself. You have spoken of defamation repeatedly, complained of experienced editors repeatedly, spoken of 'hundreds' of requests, of 'defamation' against you being 'rife'. I desisted from replying to your inflammatory accusations and insinuations I lie because I see no point in being strung along on what struck me as clearly a request to identify myself, something User:BenJonson, and yourself tried to do on this page in the past. If this goes to arbitration, then I shall be willing to email arbitrators with the details of my quite innocuous engagement with you on a forum well over a decade ago regarding Shakespeare's identity, to which I alluded, and which you take as 'defamatory'. In the English language to say one has come across a person (in an online discussion), and exchanged a few words with a third party in email contact with that person, is not defamatory. Let this be the last word. This is getting beyond hallucinating for the way mountains are made out of molehills, and is, if I read this drift correctly, driving off several independent reviwers who have offered to help in polishing this page, but who, understandably, do not enjoy the spectacle of litigiousness, baiting over trivia, repeated refusals to listen, and unilateral attention to one's own talking points to the complete neglect of what other editors actually argue. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, you brought all this stuff up, not me. If it ends up that you have to identify yourself to editors of this page in order to support your defamatory allegations concerning an incident which happened 12 years ago, and which no-one else, including me or the unnamed 'acolyte' whom you also defamed in your remarks, knows anything about, and if it ends up that you have to identify yourself to editors of this page in order to support the gratuitous claims you've made concerning your academic qualifications and your having been published in peer-reviewed journals which you have used as a bludgeon to denigrate and defame other editors on this page, so be it. It's your doing, not anyone else's. You didn't need to make those claims. But you did make them, of your own volition. And now you need to support them. Wikipedia policy does not permit the use of an alias for these purposes.NinaGreen (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nina, your substantive edits at the Edward de Vere article have largely been accepted. If your edits were not clearly in contravention of policy (not to mention logic) they would stay. Your approach, like that of your predecessor, is attritional. You seem to think that if you just keep repeating the same points over and over and over you are therefore "discussing" the edit, so it should not be reverted and eventually others editors will give up. That's wikilawering. The only OR here is yours, since you, on the basis of your personal argument, challenge what the source asserts and what all other recent reliable commentators now accept. Paul B (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to associate Nina with some alleged 'predecessor'. Poujeaux (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop commenting about matters of which you know nothing. Paul B (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you wrote:


 * Nina, your substantive edits at the Edward de Vere article have largely been accepted

As was very clear, I was not speaking of my edits on the Edward de Vere page (where I essentially wrote the entire article as it now stands, and where other editors were having great difficulty with writing the article because they lack detailed knowledge of Edward de Vere's life) but of the refusal by you, Tom Reedy and Nishidani to allow a single one of my substantive edits on this SAQ article to stand, and of the unrelenting attacks on any of my suggested edits by all of you the second I put them up for discussion on the Talk page, with the result that other editors are reluctant to deal with you. Just look at your rude comment to Poujeaux above. I have no predecessor, and it is defamatory of you and Tom Reedy to keep linking me on this Talk page with some earlier editor in order to diminish my work and to imply that I cannot think for myself. Someone should put a stop to what you, Tom Reedy and Nishidani are doing here, but I don't know who it's going to be. Administrators seem content to let all of you say whatever you feel like saying, no matter how defamatory.NinaGreen (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nina. Enouigh of the heroics. We had no difficulty writing that or any page, and I left because travelling has taken me for several months far from my library. I told you I'd be back to that article in february and you said you'd probably give the article a rest until that date. The page is nowhere written to minimal standards. It will be, collaboratively, when I return.Nishidani (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, enough of the heroics on your part. The editing you did on that page demonstrated in spades how little you know or understand of Oxford's life or even of Alan Nelson's depiction of it. If you get back to the Edward de Vere article in February, heaven help the article! And since you're obviously back in the fray after a breathing space of a few hours, you need to provide the information I requested in response to your defamatory comments on my Talk page. You claim to have academic credentials and to have published in peer-reviewed journals, and you have used your allegedly superior academic credentials to defame me in comments on my Talk page. Fine, back up your statements. What is your academic training? What university or universities did you teach at? What books have you published? What articles have you had published in peer-reviewed journals? You cannot boast of your superior academic credentials in order to disparage mine as you've done on the Edward de Vere article Talk page, this Talk page and my Talk page, and not back up your boasts. Let's hear what they are.NinaGreen (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Assume good faith does not state that we cannot point out bad faith when it clearly exists. The evidence of it is plain for all to read. My comparison of your conduct to Smatprt's was entirely legitimate. I know of no policy that proclaims such comparisons inadmissible. My point in mentioning the De Vere article was that there is no "automatic" objection to your edits. They are objected to when there is reason to object. Paul B (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, yet another defamatory comment from you. The defamatory comments from you, Tom Reedy and Nishidani never stop, and no administrator steps in to stop them.NinaGreen (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are in no position to lecture anybody about wikipedia rules given your violation of wp:civil above. Poujeaux (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Civility is a matter of give and take. I take the view one responds in the spirit of the original. My own language mirrored yours exactly. As I said, I know of no policy that proclaims such comparisons inadmissible. Indeed, pointing out that this self-same tactic was used by an editor who Nina knows has been topic-banned is an entirely legitimate way of drawing attention to the dangers of the approach to herself as well as its inappropriateness. Paul B (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you are completely and totally out of line. Whether I know a particular editor has been topic-banned is of no relevance to anything. You are merely using the fact that another editor, who has nothing to do with me whatsoever, has been topic-banned to attack me personally and defame me by implication and be rude to Poujeaux to boot. Sooner or later some administrator or other is going to take action concerning the defamation and personal attacks on the part of you, Tom Reedy and Nishidani with which this Talk page (not to mention my personal Talk page) is rife, hopefully sooner rather than later.NinaGreen (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The worst offenders in this area of personal attacks appear to be regarded as the Establishment of the page, which is odd, to say the least. It is bad enough when abuse is hurled at someone which is to do with what the person concerned has said or done. Beyond that, see association fallacy. Guilt by association shouldn't be acceptable, but when there isn't even an association, anyone promoting such notions should be told plainly to stop it. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are fallaciously using the concept of association fallacy. When the same techniques are used, it is perfectly logical to make a comparison. It is not, for example, 'association fallacy' to compare a dictator to Hitler, or a freedom fighter to Spartacus. If I criticised someone because they were born in the same town as Hitler, that would be association fallacy. Criticising someone for using the same tactics would not be because it is the tactics themselves that are objected to. Paul B (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Moonraker, yes, it is odd, and ironic and counterproductive, since it undermines their side of the argument, encouraging neutral observers to wonder why they feel it necessary to behave in this way. It is quite a common phenomenon though (for example, the global warming debate).  There should be a term for it (perhaps there is) - the unnecessarily aggressive response of supporters of a mainstream theory towards those who hold a minority view. Poujeaux (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Poujeaux, editors on both sides have overacted at times, both now and in the past. What I can't understand is why Nina keeps repeating charges of "defamation" in the clear absence of any that I can tell. Nishidani mentioned that he had had a debate (whether online, in person, or in print I can't discern from his comments, though I might have missed it) with one of her followers, and immediately she uses the strongest and most violent language to pounce on his statement and accuse him of stalking and defamation, neither of which are justified by what he said, and making demands that he out himself, clearly a violation of Wikipedia policy, as I'm sure you well know. No, he didn't use the friendliest tone, but their communication has been marked by an unfriendly tone for months now. It appears to me that she makes accusations against other editors here using the flimsiest of excuses, yet she consistently refuses to clearly list the specific nature of the offending passages.
 * Nina was welcomed very cordially when she began editing under her own name. (Previously she had edited under an IP address and received a block for refusing to explain some edits she had made, but Wikipedia culture doesn't hold grudges against editors for being blocked, since it is so common.) The relationship between her and other editors slowly deteriorated, mostly as a result of her refusing to conform to Wikipedia editing conventions in both content and style, and I cannot see that she has done anything to try to improve it, insisting that she is right and all the other editors are wrong, even though their complaints against her behaviour are remarkably similar. Two against one: bullying; three against one: maybe an off-line plot; but an overwhelming number of regular editors, a few admonishments from admins, all abut the same behaviour, sprinkled with comments from several uninvolved editors? That's more than a wake-up call, that's a code red emergency vehicle sounding an ear-splitting klaxon pulling up to your front door, and any assistance you can give her on dealing productively with it would help her and all the other editors on this page.
 * The allusion to a previous editor, Smatprt, is in terms of her style of editing and the similarities in editing behaviour and attitude, and should be taken as an example of what that style of editing leads to no matter what side of the debate one is on. I don't know if you're familiar with the case, but if you want to read it you can find it here. I warn you that you might feel a strong compulsion to shoot yourself before you're halfway finished. I can only counsel against doing so, and if you feel faint or otherwise discombobulated, stop reading and get out into the open air.
 * This page needs to calm down. Nobody has impeccably clean hands here and continuing this spiteful dialogue is counterproductive and does nothing to improve the article. A good start would be to limit our discussion to the content of the article from here on out. Any more discussion of an editor's behaviour should be done at that editor's talk page, including any reactions to this post. Thank you, and let's try to work together. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, the problem you, Nishidani and Paul Barlow have is that you've grown so accustomed to making defamatory comments about other editors on this page that those defamatory comments appear to you, and to administrators monitoring this Talk page, as normal discourse. If you don't understand defamation, you need to consult a lawyer. As for Nishidani, he has twice brought up an incident which he won't prove in any way happened, and has defamed both me and some unnamed 'acolyte', as Nishidani terms him. Moreover Nishidani has several times claimed the 'fact' of his superior academic qualifications and the 'fact' that he has been published in peer-reviewed journals as his justification for denigrating and defaming my qualifications and those of other editors. However Nishidani refuses to provide any proof that he in fact has those academic qualifications or that he has ever published in a peer-reviewed journal, and in the face of that, one can only wonder whether he has made all this stuff up. You called him 'Nick' elsewhere on this Talk page, and there is no record of a 'Nick Nishidani' having had any academic career or published any book or been published in any peer-reviewed journal.

You wrote:


 * Any more discussion of an editor's behaviour should be done at that editor's talk page, including any reactions to this post.

Coming from you, that's amusing. If I were to count the number of times you've used my name on this and other Talk pages, it would number in the hundreds if not thousands, each time accompanied by a personal attack or defamatory comment by you.19:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added back in Tom's deletion of his having called Nishidani 'Nick' elsewhere on this Talk page, and of the fact that no-one named 'Nick Nishidani' can be found anywhere on the internet having any academic qualifications or career or having published any book or been published in any peer-reviewed journal. It's becoming clear that there is something very peculiar going on here in terms of Nishidani's gratuitous comments on this and other Talk pages concerning his claims concerning his alleged background and experience and academic qualifications, and the reality of his background, experience, and academic qualifications. Wikipedia does not permit the use of an alias for that purpose. Nishidani needs to provide proof that he actually has the academic qualifications and the record of being published in peer-review journals which he has used as a bludgeon against other editors on this and other Talk pages.NinaGreen (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom Reedy Has Edited An Archive
I just searched the archives for Tom Reedy's statement to Nishidani in which he called him 'Nick', and I see that, in direct violation of Wikipedia policy, Tom has made a change to the archive. The archive search still yields the statement worded 'Nick, because that's her stock in trade', but Tom has edited the Archive itself. Editors who wish to see this for themselves can used the search function at the top of this page to search for 'Nick', and the relevant hit will come up to Archive 18, including the name 'Nick'. But when one clicks on the search result and goes to Archive 18 itself, Tom has deleted the name 'Nick' from the archive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_18

What do Wikipedia administrators intend to do about this?NinaGreen (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing. There's nothing wrong with that edit although an admin might want to oversight it if there is an outing issue. BE——Critical __Talk 22:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Becritical, there is clearly not an 'outing' issue here, and therefore Tom should not have edited the archive, in violation of Wikipedia policy, UNLESS Tom actually believes that Nishidani's real name is 'Nick Nishidani', the name which Nishidani has set up as his "real name" in an e-mail account outside Wikipedia. There is clearly no such real-life person as 'Nick Nishidani'. The name is merely an alias Nishidani uses outside Wikipedia, just as he uses 'Nishidani' as an alias within Wikipedia. So Tom's slip of the tongue, as he calls it, didn't reveal Nishidani's real name in any way, and since Wikipedia policy says nothing about 'outing' another alias a Wikipedia editor chooses to use outside Wikipedia, Tom had no right to edit the archive. But one cannot help but wonder what we're dealing with here when Nishidani has other Wikipedia editors believing his real name is an alias he uses for e-mail outside Wikipedia, and boasts of academic qualifications it appears he cannot in any way establish which defaming other editors of the SAQ page and trying by every means possible (as does Tom) to drive them away.NinaGreen (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Becritical, this is obviously something which is not an 'outing' issue. Tom Reedy thinks Nishidani's real name is 'Nick Nishidani' because Nishidani uses an e-mail address in which his "real name" is shown as "Nick Nishidani", but a quick search on the internet shows that there is NO-ONE with the real name 'Nick Nishidani' who has academic qualifications or has been published in peer-reviewed journals, so Tom knows Nishidani under the name 'Nick Nishidani', which is merely yet another alias, and one which Nishidani uses OUTSIDE Wikipedia. There's something very peculiar going on here. Very few people have e-mail addresses which are merely aliases.NinaGreen (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do. And that edit is non-controversial in my opinion. BE——Critical __Talk 22:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Becritical, just to be clear. Are you saying that, like Nishidani, you have an e-mail address set up under an alias which you use to communicate with other Wikipedia editors outside of Wikipedia so that those other Wikipedia editors will assume that that e-mail address (which is an ALIAS) is your REAL NAME?NinaGreen (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, at least a couple. I do that as standard policy, due to some problems with outing and a threat in years past.  Anyway, this is not something that should effect how one is seen on Wikipedia. Edits here stand on their own merits and most actions off-site are not, or should not be, relevant.  Even COI policy is based on edits here being non-NPOV.  And re the current issue, simply taking that out of an archive is non-controversial.  BE——Critical __Talk 23:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Becritical, thanks for the helpful clarification. It shows that this is not an issue in any way involving WP:OUTING, which only sanctions revelation of the following information:


 * Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not.


 * Since 'Nick Nishidani' is not Nishidani's real name but merely an e-mail alias he uses, Tom's 'slip' in calling him 'Nick' didn't reveal ANYTHING about Nishidani's real name, and Tom therefore had no right to edit the archive, particularly since the policy if an editor makes an inadvertent slip which might 'out' someone provides for a different course of action than the one Tom took (see WP:OUTING). However the real issue remains. Nishidani has boasted that he has superior academic qualifications and has been published in peer-reviewed journals to the extent that he can freely defame and denigrate other editors who he says don't have his credentials, and he needs to establish that he's telling the truth. He didn't need to make those statements, but now that he's made them, he needs to back them up. How he does that is his problem.NinaGreen (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, his credentials and any POV based on them need to be completely ignored. Any edits to article space based on them need to be vetted for NPOV and sourcing the same as the edits of any other editor.  Just ignore any mention he makes of his credentials; they are irrelevant here except as his experience may make him able to be a better editor under WP policy.  He's no more or less than any other editor here, and certainly claims of credentials aren't necessarily to be believed, see Essjay. BE——Critical __Talk 00:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Becritical, if Nishidani's credentials are irrelevant on this Talk page, and on my Talk page, and on the Edward de Vere Talk page, why has no administrator monitoring this page told him to shut up about them? Secondly, why have administrators monitoring this and other Talk pages allowed Nishidani to get away with using his alleged qualifications to defame and denigrate my qualifications?NinaGreen (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember I haven't read them, so assuming your characterization is correct, administrators don't have that function except as senior editors. Secondly, assuming your characterization is correct, it's something you need to take to AN/I. But of course, it's probably not as cut and dried as that, and he probably hasn't crossed any major lines. Anyone can blather on about how smart or educated or accomplished they are, and the only thing that matters is if they make good edits. BE——Critical __Talk 01:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Becritical, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so I don't know how all this stuff works in terms of Wikipedia policy, but it seems to me a matter of common sense that if someone makes a defamatory personal attack on another editor based on his alleged superior academic qualifications, he should be required to establish those alleged qualifications. If not, then Wikipedia is just a free-for-all, in which editors can say anything they like, true or not. Nishidani has certainly crossed lines. He posted this link on my Talk page indicating that personal attacks are something of a specialty with him:


 * Certainly. Happy to oblige. It's becoming a meme round here, to cite that record as proof I am an editwarrior. Smatprt used it first I think. Michael Price does the same regularly on the Ebionism page.Nishidani (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC) NinaGreen (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if they accept the arbitration case, you'll certainly have a chance to prove your point. Start collecting diffs which prove your points. BE——Critical __Talk 03:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom Reedy's Request For Arbitration
I received this notice from LessHeard on my Talk page, and as noted below, since Tom Reedy's allegations are all over the place, and I have no idea what the issue is which is to be arbitrated, I've replied to LessHeard as indicated below because an arbitration should obviously have a clearly-defined issue, and there isn't one.


 * You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Shakespeare authorship question and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

* Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration; * Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.


 * Thanks, and if you are aware of any other parties who might be usefully added, please note them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

LessHeard, I have no idea what this arbitration is about. Tom's allegations are all over the place. Please define the issue which is being arbitrated. It cannot be an 'outing' issue because there IS no outing issue. Firstly, Tom's alleged 'slip' only revealed an e-mail alias Nishidani uses outside of Wikipedia, and did not reveal any personal information concerning Nishidani as defined in WP:OUTING at all. Secondly, I am not trying to get Nishidani to reveal any personal information as defined in WP:OUTING. I am merely trying to get Nishidani to back up (1) his gratuitous statements concerning an alleged incident which he claims took place involving me and some unnamed 'acolyte' 12 years ago which I have no knowledge of, and (2) his gratuitous statements that his superior academic qualifications and publication record in peer-reviewed journals justifies his defamation of my academic qualifications. There is no 'outing' issue there. Nishidani made the statements gratuitously. He needs to back them up. So, as mentioned earlier, please define the issue being arbitrated, and how it got to arbitration.NinaGreen (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This is what I just posted on the Arbitration page:


 * Statement by Nina Green


 * LessHeard should have opened this with this statement:


 * However, there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to defame, demean, disparage and discourage all anti-Stratfordian editors of the SAQ article and drive them away so that Tom Reedy and Nishidani, who have both admitted to bias in the editing of the SAQ article (Nishidani terming the authorship controversy 'this ideological mania' and Tom Reedy terming it 'a wacky theory'), can continue to own the article contrary to Wikipedia policy WP:OWN, and prevent any substantive edit being made to the article other than one which Reedy and Nishidani either make themselves or personally sanction. This bias on the part of Nishidani and Tom Reedy motivates them to incessantly subject editors of the SAQ article who are not of their persuasion to personal attacks, defamation, and endless wikilawyering and other forms of harassment designed to drive those editors away from editing the article which are so numerous that it would be impossible to list the literally hundreds of them found on the SAQ Talk page and elsewhere in recent weeks. Not one of these defamatory attacks on anti-Stratfordian editors of the SAQ article has been commented on by any administrator monitoring the SAQ article, although the most minor technical infraction by anti-Stratfordian editors has been instantly jumped on by administrators monitoring the SAQ page. Moreover Nishidani and Tom Reedy's relentless ridiculing of any suggested substantive edits to the SAQ article by anti-Stratfordian editors and their instant reversion of any substantive edits to the SAQ article by anti-Stratfordian editors despite those edits being put up for discussion on the SAQ Talk page either before or immediately after such edits were made has resulted in NOT A SINGLE SUBSTANTIVE EDIT BY AN ANTI-STRATFORDIAN EDITOR BEING ALLOWED BY TOM REEDY AND NISHIDANI IN THE SAQ ARTICLE DURING THE PAST MONTH, a situation which is clearly untenable and in clear violation of WP:OWN. Wikipedia administrators monitoring the SAQ article have likewise ignored all complaints by anti-Stratfordian editors that the SAQ article has been exclusively 'owned' by Tom Reedy and Nishidani in violation of [[WP:OWN].


 * Had LessHeard framed the arbitration request in that way, there would have been something to it. Moreover LessHeard should also have mentioned in his framing of the arbitration request that Nishidani has already been banned from numerous Wikipedia pages for personal. Nishidani himself posted this on my Talk page confirming that he is known for his personal attacks on other editors:


 * Certainly. Happy to oblige. It's becoming a meme round here, to cite that record as proof I am an editwarrior. Smatprt used it first I think. Michael Price does the same regularly on the Ebionism page.Nishidani (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

NinaGreen (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to correct the links on that. WP:OWN and "Certainly. Happy to oblige. It's becoming a meme round here, to cite that record as proof I am an editwarrior. Smatprt used it first I think. Michael Price does the same regularly on the Ebionism page.Nishidani (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC) "BE——Critical __Talk 03:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Both involved and uninvolved parties can make suggestions to the scope of any accepted case, and present evidence to support their claims. ArbCom habitually reviews the entirety of an issue - since it is very rare that there is one individual or group of like minded individuals that is entirely at fault. It is not "LessHeard vanU's Request for Arbitration", nor "Tom Reedy's Request for Arbitration" but Wikipedia's Request for Arbitration - all parties may contribute. All supported allegations will be reviewed upon acceptance of the case, and a decision will be made on the basis of allowing as many editors as possible to contribute in the most appropriate manner possible. This is the basis of a consensual collegiate editing project - which is why we are all surely here in the first instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re Outing - although I am not able to comment on the specifics of the outing I referred to, I can confirm that it is not in respect of you and Nishidani; I was unaware of the ANI discussion while I was compiling the Request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)