Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 27

Proposed change - support
I want it recorded here that I think the change being suggested by Ssteinburg is well researched and very relevant/notable in the history of the controversy. His whole argument is cogent to my mind, and his wording is now well thought-out and reasonable, and I wholly support the suggeted change. [I don't think my support here will make any difference in the immediate outcome of this debate, but let it be known that this is not anymore the request of a single editor, that can be therefore simply dismissed as a disruptive one.] warshytalk 16:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it is simply dismissed as the usual knee-jerk endorsement. This article should deal with the main arguments by supporters and opponents of the various relevant positions, with an emphasis on the most current scholarship where possible. This is not and never was one of the main arguments and Gibson's position is wholly isolated and obsolete. Paul B (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Come now, Warshy. You at least have enough experience as a wikipedian to know that per WP:LEDE and WP:Fringe, one can't plunk into the lead a highly detailed sentence, for an ambivalent and picayune item from one unique source registered only in Gibson 50 years ago, of the kind suggested by Ssteinburg. The point Gibson culls is ignored by scholarship since, as far as I can see. For all these reasons, and the fact that Ssteinburg hasn't even troubled to punctuate his own horrible sentence, this is not a serious proposal.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So IOW you think that 41 percent (64 out of 157 words) of that lede paragraph should discuss a point that is so "very relevant/notable in the history of the controversy" that only two reliable sources (one from 50 years ago) have bothered to respond to it.
 * I am not opposed to reporting in this article that some anti-Stratfordians eccentrically interpret literary works to support their fantasy that Shakespeare's authorship was doubted (after all, 100 percent of so-called "evidence" they cite consists of outlandish interpretations), but what SSteinberg is doing is not the right way to go about it. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * When if first raised this topic nearly a year ago I was confronted with such animosity by these same editors that I allowed myself to be provoked and responded in kind. Realizing that I had done so, I felt it better to back away.  After a lengthy pause, I have returned to take up a number of issues I believe are worthy of discussion, intending that the tenor of the discussion, at least for my part, be worthy of a forum such as this (such as I think Wikipedia intends it to be).  But, I find myself confronted again by the same open animosity and hostility, with all manner of personal attacks and insults and, I must say, a whole array of double-standards.  I fear that merely expressing these concerns will elicit a rebuke and links to Wikipedia policy that I may, with these comments, be unintentionally violating.  Considering the insults leveled at me, I take that risk.  And, if I may continue for just a moment, I want to respond, for the purpose of example, to the objection regarding “punctuation” in my proposed edit.  I did not make an actual edit.  I presented a draft proposed edit for consideration.   Presumably, objections to the punctuation could, with a degree of courtesy (“good faith”), and suggestions for improvement, be easily resolved.  Instead, even this was taken as an opportunity to demean me and reject the proposal.  Now, it is not necessary to inform me that my proposal is being rejected on more substantive grounds than “punctuation”, nor do I need to be informed that those “grounds” have been adequately discussed here.   The truth and substance of the matter probably is, practically speaking, beyond recovery, not because of the “more than 10,000 words” that I am adding to, but because, as the many insults in the discussion above prove (to me at least), there is too much emotion and to little objectivity at work here.   However, if emotion can be put aside, I am still open to a discussion of a precise wording and “punctuation” that would be acceptable.  If that is not possible, we would need to take the next step. Ssteinburg (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Animosity. Just in case, at my age memory falters, I checked the OED, and it doesn't appear to mean 'rational discussion' or 'policy-based deliberations'.
 * Insults . .personal attacks. . .rebuke . .demean. If you have evidence of this don't whinge here, but go to the apporpriate complaint board, for such offences are sanctionable.
 * As to your proposed edit, it violated policy and practice for WP:LEDE, as I indicated.
 * By all means take the next step.Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The sooner the better. Do it today. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sir Thomas More Manuscript??
While looking through this article, and I found often asserted on "both sides" that manuscript evidence of Shakespeare does not survive, save for the six (or fewer) signatures. Has not the famous "Hand D" in Sir Thomas More been traditionally attributed to Shakespeare for some time now? I am not pushing this as conclusive for the whole debate, but nowhere in the article is this discussed, while most every other piece of writing attributed or speculatively attributed is at least mentioned. Or am I severely mistaken about the whole affair of that play? (If so, I would very much appreciate knowing now, I have done academic work on Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More in particular). The very recent New Cambridge Guide to Shakespeare has an article in which the play is used an object lesson in how Shakespeare's work reached print, indicating that at least some critical consensus still attributes the play to the man of the signatures.--Artimaean (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We have had this point raised before (Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_26). You're are right, but it's just not an issue that is very often raised in the literature on the topic. With the rare exception of Titherley, anti-Strats don't mention it, and mainstream critics of anti-Strat arguments don't usually bring it up. We have to stick to what sources say. Of course if you can find a source that discusses it, it may be wort noting.Paul B (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question : Defining the question
I proposed an edit to this page as follows :

"The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the sole author of the works attributed to him."

The current version The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him is problematic, since it excludes the possibility of co-authorship and limits the nature of the question.

Defining the SAQ in this way is not neutral since it narrows the terms of debate to those who are Stratfordians or non-Stratfordians.

I would submit that the more general statement I have proposed reflects more accurately the field of study without supporting any particular viewpoint over another.

I would be obliged by the contributions of other editors on this point.

Wightknightuk (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely on purely technical grounds your sentence doesn't really belong here. We know that Shakespeare was not the sole author of a number of the works in the Shakespeare canon: Pericles, Prince of Tyre, The Two Noble Kinsmen, etc. Even Macbeth as we have it is widely thought to include some material by Thomas Middleton. These textual questions, though, are nothing to do with the SAQ, which relates to the theory that, well, Will of Stratford didn't write the plays; Oxford/Bacon/The Man in the Moon did. Has anyone actually proposed, in a reliable source, the point of view you seem to be hinting towards - that Will of Stratford co-wrote them in collaboration with A.N Other? Or that they were produced by some committee somewhere? If not, this viewpoint is intriguing but hardly seems worthy of mention here. Moreschi (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is precisely about the debate between "Stratfordians or non-Stratfordians". Of course there are other, more "conventional" or mainstream, debates about authorship. We cover those in Shakespeare Apocrypha, Shakespeare's collaborations and in articles on specific plays and poems. The sentence you propose wont do, IMO, for several reasons. One is that some anti-Strat theories do involve Shakespeare as part author, adaptor or editor of the plays, so it's not really crucial to the definition of the SAQ. Another reason is that mixing up attribution issues with anti-Stratism just creates total confusion about the function of the article. The last is simplest. The article is not about co-authorship or debates about attribution. According to WP:LEDE the opening section should summarise the actual content of the article, not introduce material that is not addressed in it. Paul B (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Colleagues, I am writing respectfully and without a particular axe to grind. Neither do I bear the same scars I have observed from reading the reports of previous adjudications. You have my sympathies! However, I will with some reluctance proceed upon a path towards civilised consensus. Since you appear to have addressed your responses as the choir from a single church, I shall respond to your comments in totem rather than on an individual basis. I trust that will prove helpful to the resolution of this point.

You say on the one hand: "This article is precisely about the debate between "Stratfordians or non-Stratfordians". For that reason you suggest that the SAQ concerns itself with the idea that "Will of Stratford didn't write the plays".  However, you go on to say that some anti-Strat theories do involve Shakespeare as part author, adaptor or editor of the plays.  As it is currently drafted therefore, the statement you have as an introduction to this page is misleading.

By way of accommodation, taking into account the points you have raised, may I propose the following: "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the principal author of the works attributed to him."

A final note before signing off. In commenting on my edit it was said that "the point of view you seem to be hinting towards - that Will of Stratford co-wrote them in collaboration with A.N Other". That is incorrect. I have no agenda or axe to grind. I come to this debate from a position of neutrality and in the hope that I might assist in the process of allowing the SAQ to be represented on Wikipedia with accuracy and neutrality.

wightknight 14:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your proposed change still treads on the toes of Shakespeare collaborations. Again: not all the material in the Shakespeare canon is even thought to be principally by Shakespeare. Take Pericles, for example, or Edward III. Moreschi (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you have not resolved your previous contradiction. My statement did not refer to the authorship of any individual work but rather to the canon as a whole. Given that "certain anti-Strat theories do involve Shakespeare as part author, adaptor or editor of the plays" I would respectfully submit that my statement more accurately (and with more neutrality) reflects the current position.

Respectfully, I would invite you to read again and reconsider your position.

wightknight 15:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What you describe is simply not what the article is about. The point I was making when I mentioned that WS is sometimes included as a (minor) contributor to trhe works in SAQ theories is that his part involvement in authorship is not what defines SAQ. Almost all mainstream writers believe he contributed to some plays but was not their main author and also some (a small minorty) of anti-Strats believe he may have contributed in some ways, but that's not what defines the difference between the two positions, so that's not what the article is about. Your proposal is simply misleading and confuses the issue. Paul B (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, respectfully, the distinction I have made is subtle but important.

This article is introduced by the statement that: "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him". You have variously acknowledged that, as to part of those works, there is agreement that third parties contributed to various works, although disagreements about the extent of those contributions and those issues are properly addresses elsewhere.

However, your statement implies that the Stratfordian position is that Shakespeare wrote the entirety of the works currently attributed to him by mainstream academia. That is not correct. The amendment I have proposed does not undermine the Stratfordian position in any way, it does not 'tread on the toes' of the co-authorship debate but rather leaves room for that interpretation also.

I would submit, humbly and respectfully, that the statement: "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the principal author of the works attributed to him."

is a more accurate and less misleading description of the subject matter at hand.

I invite you to re-consider, without first dismissing the amendment as tainted because it may have been written by someone who holds views different to your own.

wightknight 16:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You can repeat yourself as often as you like, but you have already been answered. Your statement changes the meaning utterly, and it is an obvious stalking horse for obfuscating the issue by introducing mainstream arguments about attribution and collaboration, thus making the fringe theories seem linked to the mainstream. Paul B (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fringe vs Minority
I have read with dismay the sad history of this page which reflects poorly on many and informs greatly on the debate in general.

I do not wish to advance any particular view or theory but I wish to make an observation regarding the use of the terms fringe and minority.

It is true that certain groups might reasonably be regarded as 'fringe'. It might be reasonable that the Oxfordian view is regarded as 'fringe' but that is not a question I wish to address.

My point is rather that the subject itself, the idea that Shakespeare may not have been the sole author of the Shakespeare Canon, has gained sufficient ground that the question itself must reasonably be regarded as having reached minority status, even where there is no consensus that the views of any particular group represent more than a fringe view.

Would editors agree that summary to be a neutral consensus of the current state of the SAQ ?

wightknight 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh? The view that Shakespeare did not write all of the Shakespeare canon is not fringe, it is mainstream. We cover this at Shakespeare collaborations. That topic, however, has nothing to do with this. The article is specifically about the theories that proclaim that Will of Stratford did not write the plays, period. You are going off-topic and are at the wrong talkpage. Moreschi (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What you are saying is a bit like complaining that the article on The Holocaust does not include discussion of the Great Fire of Chicago, which was described as a holocaust at the time, along with other events that have been described as holocausts. It's not even a minority view that Shakespeare did not write every word in the canon. It's the majority view . Paul B (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I was not proposing a particular edit I hesitate from continuing further debate on this talk page. I am surprised at the unyielding reception to these comments which were intended as a helpful means of moving towards consensus by the use of appropriate terminology. I think that references in particular to the holocaust on this Talk Page are particularly unhelpful.

Let me put forward a modified statement for comment. Are you able to agree that:

"The idea that Shakespeare may not have been the principal author of the Shakespeare Canon, has gained sufficient ground that the question itself must reasonably be regarded as having reached minority status. Whereas, there is no consensus that the views of any particular alternative author represent more than a fringe view."

wightknight 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. What RS can you point to that say that non-Stratfordian theories are, even collectively, any more than fringe views? Moreschi (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean, one person might believe that no Jews at all died in the Holocaust, and another might believe that 100 million died, but that doesn't mean that their views have any greater merit collectively than they would individually. Moreschi (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

'''Further reference to jews and the holocaust is objectionable and offensive. Kindly desist.'''

Under Wikipedia's guidance on Fringe theories it is stated that:

Shortcuts:WP:FRINGE/PS WP:PSCI "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views."

This clearly contrasts the pseudoscientific with the academic and suggests that views from the academic community should not generally be regarded as fringe. I cited a reference to a New York Times survey identifying that a significant minority of academics believe that the authorship of the Shakespeare canon is a legitimate field of enquiry. A fringe theory is one where the view that contradicts the mainstream is not of an equal calibre.

The issue here is not Stratford v Oxford (or any other doubtful fellow) but rather certainty against reasonable doubt. The doubters now number a significant minority of academics specialising in that field. Whilst it is not mainstream, and whilst contradictory views are not mainstream, the field of study itself rises above the level of 'fringe'.

wightknight 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The NYT survey is worthless as evidence. That's not an academic source and the "survey" was largely arbitrary. In order to to demonstrate significant academic interest you would have to show that there are articles in mainstream publications in which this is debated by acedemics among academics. Your proposed sentences are deeply deeply misleading. ("The idea that Shakespeare may not have been the principal author of the Shakespeare Canon, has gained sufficient ground that the question itself must reasonably be regarded as having reached minority status. Whereas, there is no consensus that the views of any particular alternative author represent more than a fringe view.") That's outright false. pure and simple. The notion that Shakespeare may not have been the principal author of the canon has not gained anything like "minority status" among specialist scholars. Paul B (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And the survey is worthless because statistically, 13 people (5%) is within the margin of error of the survey, and cannot be related back to the population. There isn't a result to report back on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We disagree over the definition of Fringe vs Minority and I believe my own interpretation is more in keeping with Wikipedia's stated policies than your own. The NYT Survey is not an academic text. Not all sources on Wikipedia are academic texts. It is an independent text from a reliable source. Different groups may have different views on its interpretation. It may not be perfect as to its form but it is, so far as I am aware, the most significant survey of its kind that anyone has yet tried to undertake.

However, refusal to acknowledge the existence of this survey, and effectively suppressing its existence from the public consciousness, is a significant disservice to Wikipedia and presents a partial picture to the public at large.

Do you not agree that the appropriate route is for the source to be referenced in the main article and for concerns about it to be included within relevant footnotes?

Respectfully,

wightknight 16:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, if the survey actually gave the results you think it did. I think it's fairly clear that consensus is against your proposed changes, so perhaps you would prefer to drop it at this point. The actual academic credibility of the SAQ is an academic question that should be resolved using academic sources; this doesn't qualify. Moreschi (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I rather feel that I have gatecrashed someone's private garden party! The response I have so far received is out of keeping with Wikipedia's stated intentions and I am deeply concerned at the refusal to recognise a piece of independent research because it shows findings that are anti-Stratfordian. (There is much else that is published on the page that is less well-referenced). I believe that conduct should be challenged.

The appropriate way to proceed is to publish, to reference and to qualify. Agreeing a form of words about what the survey means is another matter. Attempting to conceal information from the public is intellectually disingenuous.

I invite you to re-consider how this discussion might better proceed towards consensus.

Respectfully,

wightknight 17:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It has long been recognised that newspapers are not good sources for academic topics. Even 'serious' newspapers sensationalise and often misrepresent scholarship. Newspaper reports are typically considered highly inadequate sources for scientific matters, for example. Of course if the report is of an entirely uncontroversial matter it may well be acceptable, as newspapers are at last accessible and convenient. But for anything controversial the standard view for some time now has been that the general press is not a proper source for content. If you look at the Reliable sources board when these matters come up you will see that this is a view commonly expressed. The flaws in the NYT survey are blindingly obvious to anyone who has any familiarity with the subject. incidentially "professors of Shakespeare" means nothing in this context since Niederkorn states that this means anyone who teaches Shakespeare in public or private colleges. Shakespeare is standard fare taught by any drama or eng-lit teacher who may have no specialist knowledge of the period. Paul B (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As you must well appreciate, the relevance of this Survey is that it establishes the (minority) level of validation that the Authorship Question has gained. Your criticisms and opinions about the Survey remain valid and the proper thing to do would be to express them as caveats or footnotes to the referenced survey.

Refusing even to permit the acknowledgement of the existence of the survey invites metaphorical comparisons that are unbecoming to civilised discourse.

wightknight 20:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wightknightuk (talk • contribs)
 * As I have pointed out above, the survey is referenced in the article, and in context. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

New York Times survey
There has been objection to an earlier revision I made to this page which stated:

"However, a substantial minority of Shakespeare professors feel that there is or may be good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon."

the source referenced can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/education/edlife/22shakespeare-survey.html?_r=1

The methodology used in conducting that poll was also contained in that source and is reproduced here for ease of reference :

"The Times survey of professors of Shakespeare was conducted March 5 through 29 from a random sample of four-year American colleges and universities offering a degree in English literature, drawn from a 2005 College Board survey of postsecondary institutions.

From each institution, the professor currently teaching a course on Shakespeare, or the professor who had most recently or most frequently taught one, was selected to take part. They were identified by checking schedules online or by contacting deans. These professors were sent e-mail invitations with a Web address for the online questionnaire. If a survey respondent completed the questionnaire more than once or was not part of the sample, responses were not included in the results.

Of the 1,340 institutions in the College Board data set, a random sample of 637 was drawn. Shakespeare professors were identified at 556, and 265 completed the questionnaire.

In theory, in 19 of 20 cases, overall results based on such samples will differ by no more than five percentage points in either direction from what would have been obtained by seeking out professors of Shakespeare at all American colleges and universities.

In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey of opinion may introduce other sources of error into the poll. Variation in the wording and order of questions, for example, may lead to somewhat different results."

The statement is independent and references a reliable source. It is neutral as to a particular view of authorship but provides evidence of the level of scepticism within academia, whilst acknowledging the minority nature of that scepticism.

My understanding is that the views expressed on wikipedia should be unbiased, accurate and supported. Would other editors please explain how they feel my proposed edit violates these principles or wikipedia's other codes.

Wightknightuk (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what's stunning is the way you've misrepresented the source. However, as you may be an arts grad and unfamiliar with statistics, let me demonstrate.....


 * There was over 50% rate of return which was good, but....
 * 94% disapproved of the theory, including 32% who said it was a waste of time. Only 5% said it was worthy of further consideration. That's 13 people.
 * The survey itself says "In theory, in 19 of 20 cases, overall results based on such samples will differ by no more than five percentage points in either direction from what would have been obtained by seeking out professors of Shakespeare at all American colleges and universities." Five percentage points. Only 5% expressed approval for the theory. That's within the margin of error.


 * So what your text ought to say is "out of a survey of 556 professors teaching a shakespeare course at a higher education institute, only 13 of the 265 who responded said that the theory had merit. This result falls within the 5% error rate that such surveys typically have, and the result should not be taken as typical of college professors of Shakespeare as a whole without further investigation."


 * Statistics are a bitch. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Let us not make any assumptions about what skills any particular editor might bring to the table.

You have correctly highlighted that there is a number of ways of interpreting data. First and foremost, can we agree that as an independent survey of Shakespeare professors by a reputable source, this survey is worthy of being referenced?

Secondly, a major element of debate is whether or not the SAQ itself merits academic debate. (The irony of the volume of the debate on the subject is irrelevant for these purposes). The question therefore is the extent to which recognised (impartial) Shakespeare professors regard the issue of authorship as one which is credible from the point of view of academic enquiry.

Are we able to agree those two points, in which case we might look towards a form of words which fairly and accurately reflects the current status of the debate.

wightknight 14:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This issue has been discussed over and over and over for many years, both here and on the talk page of the main Shakespeare article (e.g. Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive_20). The NYT survey is deeply flawed. The expression "Shakespeare professors" implies that the persons surveyed were experts on Shakespeare, but there is no evidence that this was the case at all (they were arbitrarily chosen). There is clear probability of selection bias and the phrasing of the question was (probably deliberately) ambiguous - designed to confuse mainstream attribution debate with fringe alternate-author scenarios. Humm, sounds familiar.... Paul B (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference to the alternative post. However, the deep level of debate over the issue does no more than evidence the intensity of emotion within certain camps. It is perfectly reasonably for any camp to express a view over evidence supporting one view or another but for one group to suppress evidence from Wikipedia seems entirely inappropriate.

I would submit that the survey should be referenced, probably within the main body of the page rather than in the lead, with a summary of its findings that fairly represents the position as it relates to the SAQ. Any concerns about the survey should be reserved to the footnotes in the way that criticisms of surveys are generally dealt with on Wikipedia.

Are able to agree that is an appropriate framework to move this forward? If so, then we could look constructively at alternative forms of words.

wightknight 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The survey is referenced in the article, and in context.
 * As has been pointed out by Elen of the Roads above, using one part of the survey out of context and casting it in your own words does not justify claiming that "a substantial minority of Shakespeare professors" believes anything, much less that the SAQ is not a fringe theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

[Tom Reedy] Thank you for your very useful contribution on this point. I acknowledge that there are difficulties with the interpretation of statistics and much of what [Elen of the Roads] has said is pertinent. However, we are somewhat talking at crossed purposes.

The Survey is strong testimony that the relevant academic community has little regard for this issue and it establishes that the prevailing view (by some margin) is the Stratfordian orthodoxy. The survey might even be said to demonstrate a lack of interest rather than a particular viewpoint.

However, it is equally the case that the survey is evidence that there is a significant minority of Shakespearean academics who would regard themselves as agnostic, sceptical or open-minded on the authorship issue. The Survey is not evidence that any particular non-orthodox view is anything other than a fringe view. However, it is evidence that the Authorship Question itself, and the preparedness to subject the question to academic study, has become an area of minority interest within the academic mainstream.

I have addressed this issue [|elsewhere] but I will not repost in full here for fear of breaching etiquette, which is certainly not my intention. I have also addressed in particular the issues concerning the post regarding the status of the question as being itself 'fringe' and so that discussion is relevant to that debate also.

Of particular relevance, however:

"It is suggested that the Shakespeare Authorship Question, the issue of whether or not William of Stratford was the principal author of the plays attributed to him, has moved from a fringe issue to a minority one. How can we verify that proposition? I would suggest there are three tests that one should properly apply: 1. Is there a significant population within the relevant academic community who consider the issue to be one that merits academic study? 2. Is the issue in fact one that commands or has commanded the attention of such academic study? 3. Is the issue one which has generated research by members of the relevant academic community?"

and

"However, we can also find good evidence of the Authorship Question being examined by more mainstream members of the academic community, for example: “The Truth About William Shakespeare: Fact, Fiction, and Modern Biographies” by David Ellis, Professor of English Literature at the University of Kent at Canterbury. Ellis’s book addresses directly the question of authorship and the academic processes used in Shakespeare biography. Of course, from a mainstream perspective the most significant work must be Shapiro’s “Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?" - James Shapiro, Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University.

Shapiro’s book is an oft quoted source that aims to challenge theories oppositional to the Shakespearean orthodoxy. However, the existence of such a detailed book, directly addressed to the issue at end, is strong evidence that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is being treated as a subject of interest to the established academic community. People no longer write books to prove that the earth is round, there is no need and no-one would buy them. Shapiro felt the need to address the Authorship Question by conducting new research on the point and publishing his findings for an eager public. This is a vital and ongoing debate to which, paradoxically, the works of the Stratfordian scholars are providing credibility.

This is consistent with the area being recognised as one which merits academic attention."

very respectfully.

Wightknightuk (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ellis’s book addresses directly the question of authorship
 * And you know this how?
 * And it doesn't make any difference what your criteria are for judging that the SAQ is a minority, not a fringe, topic in academe. I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:OR to learn why we don't impose our own views on what academe thinks or doesn't think. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, my comments were not WP:OR and I have observed with interest the treatment of WP:RS as it relates to this article. In assessing what is or is not 'fringe' I have referenced the established definitions on WP, albeit that they provide room for equivocation.

The weight of evidence, supported by the reliable sources as outlined above, amply demonstrates to any reasonably minded person that the authorship question is treated as a credible area of enquiry by a minority of the relevant academic community.

It is always open to any sub-set of the larger interpretive community to apply more limiting criteria for the purpose of excluding information unsympathetic to their general perspective. However, there is a duty on that interpretive community to take proper account of the reasonably held views of other academics and the misuse of pejorative words like 'fringe' is a political act which offends against WP:NPOV.

Let me once again be clear. My point is not that any particular viewpoint has become minority, nor even that to believe that Shakespeare of Stratford did not write the canon is minority. Rather, the reasonably held view amongst academics that it is legitimate to enquire into the Authorship Question is a minority viewpoint and it is improper that it should be grouped together with less credible theories as 'fringe' for the purpose of strengthening the Stratfordian position.

Wightknightuk (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So you haven't actually read David's book, have you?
 * Allow me to be clear: if you want the article to reflect that the SAQ is not a fringe theory among academics, you need to find an academic source that states that. We are not questioning that the topic has or has not entered academic discourse—it obviously has—but whether it is considered a fringe theory among academic Shakespeareans. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that it is considered to be a fringe theory among academics, not a minority view. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding David Ellis's book, it has only been published in the last few days and I have not yet read it. The subject matter has been identified by his publisher (who also publish on behalf of Shapiro, so I presume they can be regarded as reliable), as previously referenced. To quote:

"How can biographies of Shakespeare continue to appear when so little is known about him? And when what is known has been in the public domain for so long? Why have the majority of the biographies published in the last decade been written by distinguished Shakespeareans who ought to know better? To solve this puzzle, David Ellis looks at the methods that Shakespeare's biographers have used to hide their lack of knowledge. At the same time, by exploring efforts to write a life of Shakespeare along traditional lines, it asks what kind of animal 'biography' really is and how it should be written."

As I have previously stated, this is a treatment of the methodologies used in assessing the authorship of the Shakespeare canon. On the face of it, the book would appear to be somewhat critical of recent Stratfordian scholarship. No doubt it will find itself with an appropriate reference in this article in due course.

In any case, you are failing properly to distinguish between the SAQ as a fringe 'theory' and the SAQ as a fringe 'field of study'. In order to obtain a conviction for murder, one does not require the confession of the defendant if there is first hand evidence of him committing the very act of which he stands charged. It is not necessary that the Stratfordian establishment need admit that they are treating the SAQ as a subject of serious academic enquiry if we have direct evidence that is what they are doing.

Wightknightuk (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * >As I have previously stated, this is a treatment of the methodologies used in assessing the authorship of the Shakespeare canon.
 * Not exactly. You wrote "However, we can also find good evidence of the Authorship Question being examined by more mainstream members of the academic community, for example: “The Truth About William Shakespeare: Fact, Fiction, and Modern Biographies” by David Ellis, Professor of English Literature at the University of Kent at Canterbury. Ellis’s book addresses directly the question of authorship and the academic processes used in Shakespeare biography." Without having read it, you clearly believe the book relates to the SAQ, but I can assure you it doesn't. I have no doubt that anti-Stratfordians will shortly be trying to draft him as a Shakespeare doubter, the way they tried to do with Graham Holderness.
 * You seem to have a bad habit of hasty reading. First you claim that the the NYTimes survey proves that the SAQ is a minority view in academe; then you complain that the survey is not in the article; next you give Ellis' book as an example of the SAQ being an accepted academic topic, and now you misrepresent your own statement and clearly have not read the policy articles I linked to. I suggest you read those before you come back here and wave your hands again so you'll have at least a glimmer of understanding of what I'm referring to. Here they are in case you forgot: WP:RS and WP:OR.
 * I'll also quote you the entire section I referenced above: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors" (emphasis mine). If you don't understand how that relates to this discussion, don't hesitate to ask questions. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, very sadly, you are unable to read the comments of my posts without imputing to them characteristics that are reflective of your own standpoint on the authorship position. You seem unprepared to engage with the substance of the argument and repeat your previous statements in a self-serving way. The tone of your texts has become abusive and you are at risk of infringing the very policies that you complain others have not observed in the past.

You may not appreciate the subtlety of the point, but here is a review of the Ellis book which summarises positively the subject matter which it addresses: "Ellis ... takes on the spate of biographies of Shakespeare in recent decades. With incisive scholarship and wit, he demonstrates that most have been written in the absence of credible evidence: authors infer details of Shakespeare’s life and beliefs from information about the times, unverifiable anecdotes and jokes, sometimes even the sheer lack of evidence (e.g., Shakespeare must have been “discrete” and “concealing” because his name seldom appeared in the public records). Ellis reminds us that Shakespeare left no letters, journals, or diaries and that contemporary accounts of him are few: the last significant document about the man surfaced a century ago. ... One of the biographers Ellis skewers is Stephen Greenblatt, in whose popular Will in the World, Ellis argues, supposition typically starts as speculation but shifts to accepted truth as the book progresses. VERDICT Non-academics and academics alike should pick this it up; it’s a sleeper and strongly recommended." Greenblatt's book is an enquiry into the methodology of Shakespearean biography, a fundamental component of the SAQ. The orthodox position survives because it is unchallenged by credible authorities.  By highlighting the weakness of certain Stratfordian scholarship that has previously been held up as being beyond reproach, Ellis makes an important contribution to the SAQ.  (We don't need to wait for one of the existing (approved) Stratfordian establishment figures to say it - we have it in black and white).

What you have also repeatedly ignored is the subtle distinction between what we might call the SAQ Theory and the SAQ Problem. I appreciate that it presents an editor with a dilemma, if they are approaching the subject from a particular perspective. If one has no axe to grind, it is a relatively straightforward intellectual exercise to draw a distinction between the 'alternative theory' on the one hand and the general 'field of enquiry' on the other.

Wightknightuk (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have ignored nothing; you obviously have a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem. Why you are continuing to harp on Ellis is beyond me; we're not reviewing a book here. You stated it was about the SAQ without, apparently, even reading a review, much less the book; I corrected you. When you decide to argue on topic, I'm sure you'll let us know. Carry on with your hand-waving if it amuses you. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Argue is not a transitive verb.

You say "Why you are continuing to harp on (sic) Ellis is beyond me". Sadly you do not seem to appreciate the importance of interpretive theory and its role in the canonisation of authors and ideologies.

When you say "we're not reviewing a book here", I suppose you are giving that as a reason that any of Ellis's views should not be appropriately included in this article, undermining as they do not merely an individual Stratfordian author but rather methodologies of Stratfordian authorship.

The conduct identified by Ellis in his book is exactly the same kind of sophistry that appears to be taking place in relation to this article. Are you even now able to consider an alternative means of expression that is accommodating of a more neutral position?

Wightknightuk (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Argue" is both transitive and intransitive. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "harp on" Phrasal Verb: To talk or write about to an excessive and tedious degree; dwell on. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

As above, the statement in the Lead: "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims" is supported by a number of references. The last of these references states:

Gibson 2005, p. 30: "...most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp..."

It is submitted that the quotation does not support the statement to which it purports to relate. If anything, it does the opposite. By saying "most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp" the quotation implies that there are other great Shakespearean scholars who are not in the Stratfordian camp. Saying that most of type A are to be found in category X (where X is one category and Y is a category of all things that exclude X) is not to make any comment at all about the quality or nature of category Y.

For these purposes I do not question the integrity of the author or suggest that the quotation is not relevant to the article overall. However, the reference does not support the statement to which it relates.

It could be deleted or moved to support a different point in the article. The header could be amended to reflect this nuance. Or my view could simply be ignored.

What would be the consensus view on the best way to deal with this reference? Wightknightuk (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference should not be judged by the small extract shown in the footnote. Instead, the actual source needs to be read. Nevertheless, it may be of interest to know that the extracts have been reduced from previous versions. For example, the version at read "...most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp; but too much must not be made of this fact, for many of them display comparatively little interest in the controversy with which we are dealing ... they accept the orthodox view mainly because it is orthodox. The Stratfordians can, however, legitimately claim that almost all the great Elizabethan scholars who have interested themselves in the controversy have been on their side." Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

ooks
 * Tom Reedy: I think you misunderstood. The other guy was criticizing your grammar by claiming that you used "argue" incorrectly. I was pointing out that his complaint was invalid, since argue can correctly be used as a transitive verb, as in "argue the point." I was also trying to make two larger points, 1) that if he thinks he's such an expert on grammar but isn't, what else is he wrong about, and 2) I wanted to express support for the great job you're doing in arguing with this guy, since I wouldn't have the patience for it. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood (or thought I did!). That's why I added the "harp on" definition: he thought I had made another grammatical error when in actuality he just wasn't familiar with the term. So far he's an expert on Shakespeare, Early Modern attribution studies, grammar, critical theory, Wikipedia policy (even though he's a novice), and he has the super power of understanding books he hasn't read. Typical Oxfordian, IOW. And thanks for the kind words. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It is very helpful that you have reproduced a larger extract. However, I am not sure that this helps the case, in fact, I suggest it does the opposite.

In assessing relevance I believe we are examining whether or not the referenced quotation supports the statement: “all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims"

'''“...most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp” ''' I have addressed the problems with this above.

“but too much must not be made of this fact, for many of them display comparatively little interest in the controversy with which we are dealing” This is prima facie evidence that those Shakespearean scholars who identify themselves on either side of the SAQ debate, whether Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian, are themselves in the minority.

'''“many ... accept the orthodox view mainly because it is orthodox."''' This is evidence that the orthodox view is largely unchallenged and the mainstream of Shakespearean scholarship does not concern itself with the SAQ.

“The Stratfordians can, however, legitimately claim that almost all the great Elizabethan scholars who have interested themselves in the controversy have been on their side.” This is evidence that the greater weight of scholarship, indeed almost all scholarship, has been with the Stratfordian camp. However, it relates only to the scholars who have themselves been interested in the SAQ which the quotation suggests to be a relatively small number.

So what the quotation is actually saying is that the SAQ is a minority interest. Of those scholars who have addressed it most have been in the Stratfordian camp. It makes no assertion about the status of the ‘anti-Stratfordian’ camp that could not equally be applied to the Stratfordian camp.

Although at first glance the text may appear to support the referenced statement, on examination it is clear that it would be misleading to make that statement without significant qualification. Perhaps the quotation could be better used elsewhere in the article? Wightknightuk (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Of those scholars who have addressed it most have been in the Stratfordian camp. It makes no assertion about the status of the ‘anti-Stratfordian’ camp that could not equally be applied to the Stratfordian camp." This is a spectacular non sequitur. The anti-Strafordian camp is overwhemingly staffed with amateurs, not scholars. Gibson is one of many writers who are quoted to give support to the statement made. Yes, the phrase "most of the great Shakespearean scholars" might seem to imply that at least some have been of the other camp. Howeever, Gibson names no "great Shakespearean scholar" who has been of the other camp. I suspect he's just being a typical cultural historian - avoiding making absolutist assertions. Since he names no significant Shakespeare scholar with anti-Strat views we can't extrapolate from his phrasing the "fact" that there is some unknown unnamed scholar somewhere. It's just about possible that he is referring to Abel Lefranc, a scholar of the first rank and an expert on the period - but not a specialist on Shakespeare.  Yes, SAQ is a minority interest, but that's not why scholars ignore it. They ignore it because its proponents' methods fly in the face of scholarly norms. Most simply reject it out hand because it doesn't even begin to "talk to" scholars in a way that makes sense to them. That point is made in some of the other quotations in the collection used here. Paul B (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Engagement vs Acknowledgment
I have made efforts to engage constructively and in a civilised manner but so far I have been disappointed that the editors who appear to control this page are not prepared to countenance even the most innocuous and well-intended of amendments. Unfortunately, my limited experience bears out the warnings I received from third parties before making any contribution at all and demonstrates that lessons have not been learned following the earlier findings of the Arbitration Committee, which concluded unanimously that:

"The collaborative editing environment on Shakespeare authorship question has been dysfunctional for several years. A series of editors have behaved poorly, some of whom are no longer active. The problems are demonstrated by the fact that Talk:Shakespeare authorship question has 21 archive pages. Extensive and lively talkpage discussion on an article may sometimes reflect active, productive collaborative editing by engaged and knowledgeable editors happily working together—but not in this case. Rather, these talkpage archives reflect a miserable history of talkpage misuse and disruption, fully consistent with the troubled history of the article itself."

Notwithstanding that I am a new participant to this article, might I respectfully suggest three possible solutions:

(1) An improvement in engagement to allow the Page to reflect more accurately the state of the SAQ, albeit with due prominence and indeed pre-eminence to the Stratfordian position and the fringe nature of certain oppositional voices. (2) An acknowledgment in the Lead that the Page has been developed and maintained by Stratfordians and that the views of other interest groups have not substantially been taking into account in the publication of this article. (3) The provision of an appropriate 'walled-garden' within the article, including a relevant caveat or health-warning, such that other interests might have the opportunity to be properly represented without undue influence. Whereas the majority of the page would represent only the Stratfordian perspective, the 'walled-garden' might be an acceptable form of equivocation that would reflect the current state of flux within the SAQ community.

My preference would be for option 1, which best reflects the traditions of Wikipedia and its stated policies and principles. However, I am mindful of the troubled history and cautious of what might be achievable.

With respect and courtesy, I welcome the views of all editors of this page.

wightknight 17:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What a load of baloney. You are just attempting to mislead readers and alter text in exactly the same way that other editors have in the past, and so, of course, you have had the same replies (of course we have every reason to suspect you may be an old editor reappearing under a new moniker). Your account came into existence solely to make these edits, so it is unsurprising that you repeat the mantras that you have no doubt read on Oxfordian websites. You are of course at liberty to take your complaints to any relevant board. The quotation you repeat refers to the editing atrmosphere that the current restrictions were put in place to overcome. It led to the banning of several Oxfordian editors, not a single "Stratfordian" one. Paul B (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you for your courteous response. I think you have ably identified yourself as partisan in this debate.

I registered this account, my first and only account, because my research in this area encouraged me to become involved. I have no axe to grind. I owe no loyalty to any particular group. I am, however, keen to see the question properly represented and at the moment it is not being so represented.

Respectfully, whilst you suggest that I am attempting to 'mislead readers' it is the current editors who are determined to conceal relevant material to the extent that it is inconsistent with the Stratfordian position. I have approached you in a respectful and I have been met by derision and discourtesy. That has been a great disappointment.

Since you have encouraged me to escalate this matter to a 'relevant board' then that must properly be my next course of action.

wightknight 20:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am of couse a "partisan" of the mainstream view - since that is what the policy of the encyclopedia requires us to be, while also representing minority and fringe views with what is referred to as "due weight". I openly admit that I personally consider the anti-Strat view to be preposterous. The more I learn, the more ridiculous it seems. However, I also find it fascinating and am fully committed to its proper representation. You are probably unaware that Tom Reedy and myself have created more articles on anti-Strat writers and theories than all the Oxfordians, Baconians and Marlovians put together. As for concealing "relevant material", we could fill a library with all the anti-Strat arguments that have been put forward over the years, along with the rebuttals of them. It's impossible to find a "systematic" method to decide which arguments to mention and which to omit. We have to be concise and we have to portray the mainstream view as more prominent than the fringe theory. Them's the rules, as Louis VIV famously said before he disappeared from history when he realised he had become Louis minus I through excess of overdramatised faux-politesse. Paul B (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion on drafting style
From the point of view of brevity and elegance, rather than saying in the Lead:

“about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him”

would it not be preferable to say:

“about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the Shakespeare [|Shakespeare Canon]”

I suggest this might be helpful because the Shakespeare Canon is already a well understood term and has an existing definition on Wikipedia which might be of assistance to anyone coming to the subject for the first time. (I have no strong view on whether Canon should be a capitalised term or not).

Wightknightuk (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no "elegance" in your proposed sentence, with its confusing repetition of "Shakespeare". As for "brevity", you are replacing 17 words with 15. Hardly a significant improvement if it reduces clarity. I kind-of see your point, since over the years various works have been attributed to him which are generally not accepted as canonical, but I still think clarity of communication trumps pedantic precision if the latter is actually more confusing. We are not drafting laws, we are writing encyclopedic prose. Readers are not looking for loopholes, they are looking for useful information. Paul B (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Although the term is used throughout the article, I think using "Shakespeare canon" would lend a bit of subliminal confusion to the lede definition sentence, since the term implicitly assumes Shakespeare's authorship. It also wrecks the metre of the sentence, but that is not really an important consideration in an encyclopedia article.
 * And how exactly is this a helpful edit, anyway? Jesus, are we gonna have to go through this entire bullshit again? Every word of this article has been discussed, argued over, and vetted by more editors than probably any other article on Wikipedia saving the Israel/Palestine pages. Yet every time a new anti-Stratfordian shows up with such frivolous and unsubstantial edits as this one, along with a lot of double-talk about his or her highest and purest motives, we're supposed to go through the entire charade again. Really?
 * I'll tell you this, Wightknightuk: the tactics of attrition, distraction, and frivolous dispute resolution actions kept this article in the ghetto for years until just a over a year ago. They won't work anymore, so you might as well bring on your best substantive ideas—if you have any—quickly and directly and stop all this fiddle-farting around.
 * I also have a question: If anti-Strats are so concerned about the state of the authorship articles on Wikipedia, why in heaven's name don't they work on the other articles and get them in acceptable shape? The Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship is barely coherent. The Baconian theory article reads as if it were written as a kindergarten class project. The Ogburn articles, both père and fils, are in disgraceful shape, all the more so for their status as Oxfordian saints. Yet for some reason every anti-Strat editor believes that the way to begin their Wiki career is by "improving" a controversial Featured article in order "to progress [the article] towards neutrality by a process of discussion and conciliation". Can you answer that? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And just BTW, the term "canon" would not link to Shakespeare attribution studies. It would link to a section in that article. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Every anti-Strat editor, Tom? Peter Farey (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Every new one, anyway! Glad to hear from you, Peter. Cheers! Tom Reedy (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul B states: "over the years various works have been attributed to (Shakespeare) which are generally not accepted as canonical". The phrase "works attributed to him" is therefore misleading without significant qualification. The better way of dealing with the issue is to use an established and well-recognised term.

Paul B states: "Readers ... are looking for useful information". Providing a link to the relevant  section in the article on Shakespeare attribution studies would be helpful to the interested reader in this regard.

I do not see that the use of the term Shakespeare Canon, which is a commonly understood term in wide academic and non-academic usage would lead to "subliminal confusion to the lede definition sentence, since the term implicitly assumes Shakespeare's authorship". Wightknightuk (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"Shakespeare authorship question is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so."

'''"WP:BB" ''' Wightknightuk (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What would be the point of such a change? I agree with the others that "canon" is unnecessary confusion because any link to Shakespeare attribution studies in a definiton of "Shakespeare authorship question" is misleading—it suggests there is some connection between the meaning of SAQ and the question of which plays involved collaborative authorship. The wording "wrote the works attributed to him" is accurate, clear, succinct, and good writing—exactly what is needed, particularly in the first sentence. While many readers would understand "canon", it is unnecessary jargon that would misdirect readers. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Shakespeare Apocrypha is a group of plays and poems that have sometimes been attributed to William Shakespeare" according to the definition on Wikipedia.

The current definition of "works attributed to him" includes the Apocrypha. The Shakespeare Canon does not. The current definition is inaccurate. The suggested alternative is accurate and also benefits from providing a helpful reference for the interested reader.

The term "Shakespeare canon" otherwise appears 12 times within the body of the article and has therefore been treated as an accepted term when it has been used by one of a number of approved editors.

Wightknightuk (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an exercise in pole-vaulting over a rat turd.
 * The Shakespeare Apocrypha is a part of several anti-Strat theories and therefore changing the term would make the definition inaccurate. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think perhaps you have misunderstood the point. The current definition of "the works attributed to (Shakespeare)" is incorrect because "works attributed to (Shakespeare)" is an identifiable class that includes a subset (the Shakespeare Apocrypha) with which the Shakespeare authorship question does not concern itself.

It may be helpful to understand the matter thus: there is a class A that contains two mutually exclusive sub-sets, X and Y. When one is making a reference to sub-set X and describing it by reference to the generic class A one is incorrectly imputing  to that class the qualities of the other sub-set Y.

In other words: the works attributed to Shakespeare is a generic term which comprises two mutually exclusive sub-classes: (a) the Shakespeare Canon (the works generally accepted as having been written by Shakespeare); and (b) the Shakespeare Apocrypha (the works attributed to him but generally accepted as not having been written by Shakespeare.

To say the Shakespeare Authorship Question is concerned with (a) and (b) above is incorrect.

Allow me to provide a longer quotation from the Wikipedia article on the Shakespeare Apocrypha to assist:

"The Shakespeare Apocrypha is a group of plays and poems that have sometimes been attributed to William Shakespeare, but whose attribution is questionable for various reasons. The issue is separate from the debate on Shakespearean authorship, which addresses the authorship of the works traditionally attributed to Shakespeare."

The current version: “about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him” is clearly inaccurate.

Would you prefer: “about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him” which is at least accurate, albeit a little more unwieldy. It is an expression that seems to have been accepted as a means of describing the Shakespeare Authorship Question in the Wikipedia article on the Shakespeare Apocrypha.

Since the term "Shakespeare Canon" is used extensively elsewhere within the article I would suggest that the best alternative is: "about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the Shakespeare Canon”.

What is the consensus? Wightknightuk (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are the one who has missed the point. The reference to the SAQ in the apocrypha article is to distinguish the topics, not to say that the SAQ does not include the apocrypha. The SAQ is about the Shakespeare works being written by another, hidden author, and several SAQ theories discuss the apocrypha in those terms. The apocrypha is a group of plays that have been attributed to Shakespeare on questionable grounds. The distinction between the two topics is not difficult to grasp.
 * And I believe the consensus is quite clear. You have my permission to move on to another non-issue. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Your point is unclear.

At the moment the statement:

"about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him"

in fact means

"about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him, including the the Shakespeare Canon (the works generally accepted as having been written by Shakespeare) and the Shakespeare Apocrypha (the works attributed to him but generally accepted as not having been written by Shakespeare)".

That does not seem an accurate representation of the Shakespeare Authorship Question. Or are you in fact suggesting that the Shakespeare Authorship Question addresses itself to who wrote the Shakespeare Apocrypha? I would suggest it does not. the word "apocrypha" does not even appear in the article.

The statement is inaccurate and should be corrected. Which of the proposed alternatives do you prefer?

Wightknightuk (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Is your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT strategy deliberate? It makes no difference whether the article mentions the apocrypha or not. The phrase "works attributed to him" is all-inclusive for a reason. Surely, as a person who is attempting to reform the no-doubt many rhetorical and factual errors of this page, you are aware of the various SAQ theories that discuss the apocrypha, such as Sabrina Feldman and Dennis McCarthy's theories. These theories are not discussed in this general article, mainly because they are minor and have received little, if any, academic attention. But anti-Strats, as blind as they are to the obvious, are nit-pickers when it comes to "Stratfordian" facts and even more so when it touches their favorite candidate, and I can guarantee you that replacing the phrase with a specific term will result in yet further useless objections and debate.
 * And we are not buying a vacuum cleaner from a door-to-door salesman, so you can spare us the false dilemma closing technique, clever as it undoubtedly was when Moses first used it.
 * You have been given several valid reasons for the use of the present diction, and the consensus of the regular editors of this page is clear. I suggest you move away from this particular detail. Any further discussion along the same lines is blatant talk page abuse and a waste of time. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence is after all in the present tense. It refers to the works attributed to him, not to all the works that have ever been attributed to him. Complicating the issue will just produce confusion. Anti-Strats are also fond of adding the works of other authors to their particular darling's creative canon. Should we also add a phrase noting that it's not just the Shakespeare canon that's at issue? I don't see this as useful. At the moment the sentence is clear and it allows for the variety of theories to be represented. Paul B (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Shakespeare Apocrypha is referred to in the SAQ by the anti-Stratfordians as evidence that the attribution of a work is not conclusively determinative of its authorship. It is not mainstream to either the Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian position that the person who wrote the Shakespeare Canon also wrote the Apocrypha.

I am sure that the illogicality of the current wording was unintentional, nonetheless I have identified the problem clearly enough and no logical argument has been presented in rebuttal. I have presented two alternative forms of words and despite the fact that Paul B acknowledged that "I kind-of see your point, since over the years various works have been attributed to him which are generally not accepted as canonical" there has been no other attempt to improve upon what is already there.

You say that "the consensus of the regular editors of this page is clear". However, I have so far only seen responses from two such regular editors, one of whom acknowledged there was an issue to address. I am not familiar with [Pater Farey] but his comment was not antagonistic to my proposal.

I think it takes more than two editors to establish a consensus. Does anyone else have a perspective on this? Wightknightuk (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of good points made here by Wightknightuk over the last several days. Am I allowed to say that, or would this be considered talk page abuse? DeVereGuy (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can say it, but it doesn't help us much. Endorsement isn't a contribution. Paul B (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought you were looking for a consensus? Although I appreciate Tom Reedy's point about "regular editors" seems to suggest that in this crowd of equals some are more equal than others. I presume it is understood that on WP everyone speaks with an equal voice?

In any case, clearly this is not about 'votes' but rather achieving a consensus, an appreciably more challenging exercise!

I genuinely feel there is an unintentional error that would benefit from correction. Paul B seems to have acknowledged at least that there might be an issue. I have made two suggestions. Does anyone have another alternative?

Wightknightuk (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Surely you are intelligent enough to understand my comment. It's not that difficult. I was asking for a real contribution, not an empty endorsement of "good points" which are not even specified. How does that help? Peter Farey, by the way, is a leading Marlovian and is the principal author of the Marlovian theory page. On your main point, of course attribution does not prove authorship. Many works have been misattributed. A fair number of witty pronouncements never spoken by him have been attributed to Winston Churchill, for example. That is a fact. I don't think this fact has ever been used as evidence that his speeches were all ghost written. However, I don't deny that the misattribution of works to WS has been used as an argument by anti-Strats. The problem is that your proposed changes do not improve clarity or logic. You appear to be the only person who considers the current wording to be illogical. Paul B (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

[Paul Barlow] would you mind clarifying whom you are addressing, please. I presume DeVere Guy?

DeVere guy, perhaps you could clarify which version you prefer:

1. “about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him”

2. "about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the Shakespeare Canon”

3. “about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him”

Or is there a better form of words?

Wightknightuk (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I was addressing you, Wightknightuk. When a comment is inset directly under another, it is assumed to be a response to it. Paul B (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, thank you for your response. You will see that your "Endorsement isn't a contribution" comment was made directly beneath DeVere Guy's post. Your next comment ".. I was asking for a real contribution .." naturally appeared to relate to that conversation.

Yes, I find your arguments remarkably easy to follow.

Thank you for your response to my query. Wightknightuk (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How about learning how to indent your response beneath the appropriate post? As super intelligent as you are, it seems that you would have figured that out by now. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears then that you don't find my comments easy to follow after all. The "endorsement" comment was a reply to DeVereGuy. The "real contribution" comment was a reply to you, since your own remark "I thought you were looking for a consensus" could only reasonably be construed as a reply to mine (you referred to Tom in the third person), containing an implicit complaint that I was dismissing DeVereGuy's views. Paul B (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Returning to the matter at hand, you don't seem to have addressed the issue:
 * "I said: It is not mainstream to either the Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian position that the person who wrote the Shakespeare Canon also wrote the Apocrypha.  No-one appears to have disagreed with that."
 * Paul B acknowledged that "I kind-of see your point, since over the years various works have been attributed to him which are generally not accepted as canonical" and "DeVere Guy" also posted in support.
 * If it is your contention either that Stratfordians believe Shakespeare wrote the Apocrypha, or that anti-Stratfordians hold that view, then I may alter my position. Is that what you are saying?
 * [Tom Reedy] As a newcomer I would be delighted to receive any advice on etiquette from more seasoned hands. Feel at liberty to point me in the right direction and I will do my best to oblige.
 * Wightknightuk (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See? You figured it out, all you have to do is apply your powers of observation. Next you might want to tackle the line space issue.
 * > "It is not mainstream to either the Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian position that the person who wrote the Shakespeare Canon also wrote the Apocrypha. No-one appears to have disagreed with that."
 * There is no mainstream anti-Stratfordian position. Source.
 * I am in the unlucky situation of being ill for the first time in at least a decade with a flu-like disorder and will have to take a break from this fascinating discourse. Meanwhile, if you have questions about editing the encyclopedia, you might want to look at the help page. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wightknightuk (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See? You figured it out, all you have to do is apply your powers of observation. Next you might want to tackle the line space issue.
 * > "It is not mainstream to either the Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian position that the person who wrote the Shakespeare Canon also wrote the Apocrypha. No-one appears to have disagreed with that."
 * There is no mainstream anti-Stratfordian position. Source.
 * I am in the unlucky situation of being ill for the first time in at least a decade with a flu-like disorder and will have to take a break from this fascinating discourse. Meanwhile, if you have questions about editing the encyclopedia, you might want to look at the help page. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in the unlucky situation of being ill for the first time in at least a decade with a flu-like disorder and will have to take a break from this fascinating discourse. Meanwhile, if you have questions about editing the encyclopedia, you might want to look at the help page. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Tom. I'm sorry you are ill.  I hope it is neither a serious affliction nor one that will trespass overlong upon your faculties for rhetorical discourse and logical deduction.  Do get well soon.


 * The quotation of me regarding the Acopcrypha was a response to Paul concerning the fact that the current definition includes reference to the Apocrypha. There is no other reference on the SAQ page to the apocrypha (not a mainstream issue) and I was seeking clarification over the intention behind the wording.


 * Is it your contention either that the Stratfordians believe Shakespeare wrote the Apocrypha, or that the anti-Stratfordians hold that view? Wightknightuk (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This last comment of yours is remarkable indeed. Why on earth are you banging on and on about this trivial and almost wholly irrelevant issue? The contention has been from the beginning that the difference between the Apocrypha and the Canon is not a significant one for this article. One can believe that de Vere wrote every Elizabethan play and poem extant if one wishes. One can believe that Shakespeare wrote some or all of the Apocrypha. One can believe that he did not write chunks of the canon. None of this defines or helps to characterise the distinction between Stratfordians and Anti-Stratfordians, which is the topic of this article. Paul B (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, perhaps I've misunderstood. So you're saying that the issue of the Apocrypha is not relevant to this article? Wightknightuk (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. I have said that I see what you are getting at. You think that the we should not say that the dispute is about all the works that have been over the years attributed to Shakespeare, however fleetingly or implausibly. I have also said that the sentence is in the present tense, so it does not make any assertion about any or all works that have ever been attributed to him or ever will be in the future. However, it also allows one to to be more inclusive or more restrictive. Changing it to, say "traditionally" does not help. Who defines what is traditional? If a new play were discovered tomorrow would that have to be excluded from the debate, because it has not been "traditionally" ascribed to WS. In fact the debate is about the canon, centrally, but it can include or exclude other works, or even parts of the canon. And of course writings attributed to other poets get sucked in too. We know, for example, that Looney confidently asserted that The Tempest was not by Shakespeare/de Vere. And yet that's canonical and is "traditionally" ascribed to him. The earliest SAQ theorist, Hart, believed that WS himself wrote Merry Wives, but none of the other plays. Both Strats and Anti-Strats debate the limits of the canon according to their lights. The difference between Canon and Apocrypha does not define the debate. This point has been made over and over but you still don't get it, despite your apparently towering intellect. I'm not wedded to the current wording but I see no advantages to any of your proposed changes, nor do I see the point of this long debate that is so utterly marginal to the topic of the article. Paul B (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Wightknightuk, I think almost any change over the existing wording would be better. My immediate preference would probably be some combination of your 2 and 3, perhaps "...traditionally ascribed to the Shakespeare Canon" or something like this.

My real problem is that the reception you have received on this talk page and elsewhere, so poisons the atmosphere that it is hard to have any reasonable conversation. I didn't want to get into every one of your excellent points at this time, I just wanted to add my support and hopefully keep the process going, and I was directly told that I was unhelpful by Paul B. The attitude here is really what doesn't help us much and I don't see how anything useful can happen while it continues. DeVereGuy (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would support changing of the wording in the lede to:


 * "about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally ascribed to the Shakespeare Canon." This would have an appropriate link to the Shakespeare Canon page/article in WP. warshytalk 23:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The phrase "traditionally ascribed to the Shakespeare Canon" is turgid beyond words. How on earth does this improve the prose? The point is that there is a "Shakespeare canon", whoever wrote it, so saying Shakespeare did not write the works "traditionally ascribed" to THE CANON, implies that it the canon that is at issue, not the author, or maybe that he wrote a different Shakespeare canon. It's unreadable and illogical. Why all this fuss over phrasing that's perfectly simple and clear. I have seen no argument that the current phrasing is somehow subtly "biassed" towards a pro-Strat view, so I cannot understand the problem. Paul B (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a call for other opinions leading to a "consensus", then I support what Tom and Paul have argued.

Wightknightuk, I don't know who you are, and Wikipedia rules enjoin me to WP:AGF. But, just from the behavior I see, you seem determined to force a change to this article simply because you want one. The wording of practically everything here has already been disputed and hammered out and argued over countless times, over the course of years, long before I joined to help with my more modest efforts. (And I very nearly refrained from contributing precisely because of the behavior of others that strongly resembles what I see from you.) None of your points, no matter how often you repeat them in different guises, persuade me of the validity of any of your proposed changes. It's not only the time that Tom and Paul, and some others have put in; what for me lends weight to their arguments over yours is that clearly they have taken the pains to familiarize themselves thoroughly with the sources, the topic as a whole, and the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. You do not seem to have done this. Anyone may rationalize anything; it's not that hard.

I can't prove an actual "conspiracy", but the way DeVereGuy jumps in to support you strikes me very much as WP:TAGTEAM behavior. Wightknightuk, you hammer away at your "arguments" without really paying attention to what anyone else is saying, goading others into sarcastic rejoinders. And then DeVereGuy jumps in and points a finger at the uncivil reception you have received here. And then you defend him. I have seen all this before.

Both of your accounts seem to fall into the category of WP:SPA, and I can understand the suspicions that arouses.

WP:GRIEFING looks like one possible explanation of what is going on.

But, for certain, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is written across every "argument" you made since the first one was answered. And to me this all amounts to disruptive editing. Surely there are plenty of valuable contributions you could make to other articles, without wasting everybody's time here. --Alan W (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, well. I see that the admins have made all this moot. Maybe now we can get some useful work done. --Alan W (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

4.5 Authorship in the mainstream media
I note that the following has been added to section 4.5 'Authorship in the mainstream media':

"Also, in September, the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust project "60 Minutes with Shakespeare" was published on a Web page containing extensive audio and transcripts from sixty scholars, who served as significant rebuke in anticipation of the film's popularity. The speakers selected were well-known for venue leadership and defense of the Stratfordian position, including the Prince of Wales, president of the Royal Shakespeare Company, Stanley Wells, honorary president of Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, and Stephen Fry, celebrated British actor."

Should this not read "September 2011" instead of simply September?

I am not sure it is accurate to call all sixty of the participants scholars, although clearly some are. Would not "scholars and other celebrities" or "scholars and other notable individuals supportive of the Stratfordian position" be more accurate?

It it in fact accurate to say that: "The speakers selected were well-known for venue leadership and defense of the Stratfordian position"? I am not sure that 'venue leadership is a clearly understood term. Should this be clarified and or referenced?

I do not believe that all had a previous association with the Stratfordian position (certainly this appears to have been Stephen Fry's first major pronouncement on the subject). Would it not be safer to exclude that reference?

I am somewhat cautious of simply editing or deleting posts on the main page. Could one or more of the established editors please advise here on how best to proceed?

Wightknightuk (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The film, as it turned out, was spectacularly unpopular. This is essentially trivia. It might be worth a sentence, but not a paragraph. And what exactly does "who served as significant rebuke" mean? Is that English? Paul B (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul if you're gonna include that sentence then it needs to be followed by the "she said" component: the Coalition's mirror response. I really don't see the point in having the material—a minor hiccup—on this page anyway; it rightly belongs on the film's page. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the response is notable and citable maybe. I think the fact that it is an entry into "internet wars" actually is significant. Paul B (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know the SBT got their knickers all in a wad about the movie, but that certainly is not the first time they've responded to anti-Strat claims, and it pretty much went the same way the movie did: sunk without a trace. (It also had a buttload of errors, which is not surprising since academics really don't know squat about the SAQ. I had hoped that Shapiro's book would have drawn their attention, because there really are some worthwhile avenues to explore, but after a brief flash it appears that they went back to ignoring it.) Oh well, I've lived in the ghetto this long, I suppose I'll die in it. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact the more remarkable response was the strange street sign protest they organised. Putting up a webpage is just standard stuff these days, though the list of celebs and grandees was clearly intended to impress us all with the heavyweight forces of pro-Stratism. Now, can I think of another appropriate World War II analogy at this point...? Paul B (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tom that if there is a mention of the SBT's "60 minutes", then the SAC's multi-candidate response to it - being in my opinion no less notable - should be mentioned too. Unfortunately the fact that the SAC's rebuttal was completely ignored by the media and by the SBT itself means that one looks in vain for any reliable source (as the term is interpreted here) to prove that any such rebuttal was ever produced. Yet subscribers to Blogging Shakespeare are still being invited daily to sign up for "60 Minutes With Shakespeare", and most if not all of the main anti-Strat websites are still plugging the SAC's joint response. Incidentally, it was actually launched a few weeks before the film was generally released, and attacked Baconians and Marlovians as well as Oxfordians. The SAC's response was of course intended to show that it had actually failed to "rebut" any arguments.Peter Farey (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course the SAC were going to respond. IMO, their response was a series of tired and predicable clichés, but then the SBT's intervention was pretty tired and predictable too. It's not particularly notable that the SAC engaged in "web wars" about the film, since that has been their approach for a while. The article already notes this twice: "He [Ogburn] also kick-started the modern revival of the Oxfordian movement by adopting a policy of seeking publicity through moot court trials, media debates, television, and later the Internet, including Wikipedia" (this sentence might be tweaked, since it seems to imply that Ogburn himself had the idea of contributing to Wikipedia, which would have been remarkably prescient of him) and again in the next paragraph. So the SAC's webpages are just more of the same. What is unusual is the fact that heavyweight pro-Strat people were brought in to defend Moscow, as it were, even though the film turned out to be as threatening as the Italian invasion of France. Paul B (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My point was that we should either delete that bit or mention both sides as Tom suggested. Frankly, I don't give a monkey's either way. But I thought it would be sensible for that to be agreed before I amended what you had written about just the one. What I considered notable about the SAC response was the fact that so many organizations - who are no less opposed to the views of most of the others than you are - nevertheless managed to come together and agree the joint response in such a relatively short time. That we all find the arguments on both sides tired and predictable is hardly surprising, really, but the pieces aren't aimed at us, are they? Peter Farey (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not bothered about whether it's there or not, nor am I opposed to a phrase about the SAC response. My main worry is citation and notability. I know it's silly to demand a citation for something we all know exists, but if you cite directly to one webpage contrary to WP:RS it just provides a get-in-free ticket for other similar sources. Paul B (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that the primary criterion, in fact the reason for WP:RS, was verifiability. If one wanted to verify whether the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition posted something, wouldn't the logical approach be simply to check out their website, and not to ask whether Stanley Wells or any other arch-Stratfordian chose to have acknowledged the fact? I fear that we are yet again screwing things up by failing to distinguish between "what they say" and (as the Wikipedia policy was rightly designed to deal with) "whether what they say is right". Of course it is silly. As you said, readers are not looking for loopholes, they are looking for useful information. Peter Farey (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the point. We don't need any "arch-Stratfordian" super-villain to recognise the SAC's response's existence. Any normal RS will do. However, I was rather conflating notability with verifiability. I don't think it's particularly notable that they responded, and thought that a press report or other recognition would go some way to establish that. Tom is right that the website is reliable for the communication of its own view, but that also has to be shown to be notable, otherwise the argument that any website can be used as a source for the opinions expressed in it is a is way to allow in any and all arguments about anything from anyone. Paul B (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you have a good point. WP:V states that "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." Including the information that a rebuttal to the SAT was launched by the SAC is not likely to be challenged, and it is fundamentally different than some editor trying to include incorrect or fringe material on the basis that some web site published it. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I see them as two halves of the same story, Paul. And for us to accept the Strats' half because they managed to get a brief write-up in The Stage (and nowhere else that I know of), and reject the anti-Strats' half because it didn't, just seems unnecessarily biased to me. Peter Farey (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How about adding this to the Smith reference? "A complete transcript of all 61 items, together with an anti-Stratfordian response to each of them, can be read here." Peter Farey (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I have not been able to find any coverage whatsoever of the SAC response, although I did find their press release, so evidently after the Declaration they didn't get much media attention, probably because their response has absolutely nothing new in it or newsworthy. Since the notability is lacking and the SAT campaign was in response to the publicity surrounding the release of the film, I don't see any neutrality issues by not mentioning the SAC response, but I wouldn't be adverse to some sort of parenthetical mention, either here or in its dedicated article. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tom. Would my suggested addition to the references count as "some sort of parenthetical mention ... here"? Also thanks to Alan W for his latest edit, although in my defence I should mention that the phrase "audio web site" was actually lifted verbatim from the article cited. Peter Farey (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting and amusing, Peter, that about the "audio web site". I certainly did not mean to imply any criticism of you personally. They are the ones, I see now, who have come up with a term that I think would seem strange to most people accessing the Internet these days. Many web sites include plenty of sound recordings, accessed by links to audio files on the web server, but the practice is so commonplace that even if many are included, it would now seem odd to call such a web site an "audio" web site. The audio component is just a part of what a great many Web sites include. At least that is how I see it. --Alan W (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, Peter. If it doesn't have enough notability for its own sentence, then it could hardly serve as a reference or an external link. Both WP:NOTLINK and WP:ELPOV would apply. There's not a link to the SAT page, and for good reason: if we included it or the SAC link, then the link wars would be on. Wikipedia has long ago set out what links should and should not be included at WP:EL. While it may seem to be unnecessarily restrictive, I'm pretty sure the rationale is that time is better spent writing the encyclopedia than refereeing link wars between various factions. For an example of how that would work out, take a look at the SAQ article in its old state when the page was considered to be a hopeless case and avoided by most WP editors.
 * What I meant by parenthetical reference was something like "quickly followed by a rebuttal from the SAC" added to the sentence. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would certainly satisfy my concerns about it. Peter Farey (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference section style
I've changed the ref section a bit based on a suggestion by ManetteD over on the Macbeth talk page and that used on the William Shakespeare page. If anybody objects it is simple matter to revert, however I think it is a nice, functional style that should be made standard for all Shakespeare-related pages of G and FA quality. What say ye, page watchers? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No objections here. The new formatting seems to be spreading to more articles of a scholarly nature, and for the sake of editorial consistency it does look better to have a certain uniformity of appearance across articles in that way. --Alan W (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a bit bothered by those ungainly "[nb 1]", "[nb 2]" superscripts for the new notes. I have figured out how to change them to "[a]", "[b]", etc., without adversely affecting anything on the page. (This may be accomplished with the "efn" template; today's featured article gave me the idea.) Would anyone object to my doing this? I feel it looks much cleaner. If no one objects, I will go ahead and make the change. Then, if the consensus is that the transformation looks ghastly (or at any rate that the appearance is worse than before), my change can always be reverted. --Alan W (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. My finger slipped and my comment in the history is now a bit garbled. But you get the idea. --Alan W (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What direction does Wikipedia wish to go in?
You may be aware Columbia University professor James Shapiro criticizes Wikipedia in his book on this topic (Contested Will 2010). I suggest all editors of this page read what he has to say about us. Furthermore, If real documentary evidence cannot be produced to link the currently fashionable Oxford (or others) to the plays then this page should disappear or be at least labelled Shakespeare authorship conspiracy theories in line with those theories which dispute the 1969 Moon landing. I note that there is currently much pseudo-intellectual reasoning and absolutely NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE to link the plays and sonnets to anyone but William Shakespeare, born at Stratford. Stylistic analysis also refutes other candidates with definite conclusions. As Wikipedia has grown so large and influential and now appears first on Google searches, etc, it must start examining its responsibilities. Who agrees or disagrees (on the name change or deletion of this page)?--DMC (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, new comments go at the bottom of the page. Professor Shapiro's book was published two years ago. Wikipedia articles change constantly. In fact he has praised the current article, which is very different from the one which existed before he wrote his book. Per WP:NAME we use the most commonly used name for a topic. Paul B (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your response. If the book is old news and has been fully digested by the Wikipedia community then it would be good to see all of its illuminations reflected in this page.--DMC (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well you are welcome to contribute, but you must abide by the rules that Tom Reedy has already pointed to, as must we all. At the moment, the Oxfordian theory page is the one that need most attention. Paul B (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * DMC, here is the link to Shapiro's more recent comments on the page: . Wrad (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's on page 3 of the Web article in the link, where ABC News reports that Shapiro calls the "treatment of 'The Case for Shakespeare's Authorship'" in this article "compact, illuminating and trustworthy". Whatever Shapiro may feel about Wikipedia as a whole, unless he has changed his mind since he wrote his book, clearly does not extend to this article. --Alan W (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to see Wikipedia has improved to the extent of receiving Prof. Shapiro's approval. Basically I am not experienced at editing Wikipedia and only want to see it rigorous and accurate.--DMC (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

RIP Frank Wadsworth
I just now learned that Dr. Frank W. Wadsworth, the author of many articles and books, including one of my favorite authorship books, The Poacher from Stratford, died two weeks ago. His obituary is here. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried to gather info on him to write a wiki bio, but couldn't come up with much. Wonderful book, and a wonderful mind/character behind its drafting, which had this peculiarity - he had the inhumane patience to read through huge amounts of crap minutely (which usually makes for crabbiness) and yet, on writing on what he'd read, brought a deftly light touch, at times ironic, always tolerantly good humoured - no easy matter. Thanks for the link. On such occasions, one takes up the deceased books, and commemorates the memory by rebrowsing them for the underlined wisdom and insight.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He was also very active in supporting anthropological research. I've contacted his daughter for a picture to use for the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare and the Rigidniks
To all appearances, subject book does not betray any reason to believe it is WP:RS. What justifies its inclusion for listing in "Bibliography" section? Phaedrus7 (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Self-published, hard to find any third-party information about. Amazon.com lists this book, but has nothing to say about it: no image, no customer reviews, and it's "currently unavailable". It was only just added, by Knitwitted, with an edit summary that's not a really strong claim to being in a select bibliography. I've removed it. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Added P.S.: I've removed it along with the section "Bibliography", which was also new and where it was the only inhabitant. The article doesn't actually have a bibliography, it has a "References" section. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Because WP is Knitwitted's own personal playground and bulletin board. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good grief Tom. This is *the* best book ever which slam-dunks the anti-Strats. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? Dr. Shapiro should take a clue from this author on how to write a book. Knitwitted (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW Bishonen, Google Books has a bit more info. Knitwitted (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article should only list those books that are specifically used in the text. I've no doubt it's an immortal masterpiece that makes Shapiro read like a combination of the style of McGonagall and the intellect of Lennie Small. However, if there aint no cite, it don't make the list. Paul B (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie Paul, I agree that only cites should be listed in "References" but I've listed several books on the Oxfordian_theory and there's never been yack that that can't be done. Why a "Bibliography" for one article but not for another? What you say? Knitwitted (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any rigid rule. If there are only a few books about a subject it may be reasonable to list them. But with Shakespeare the lines stretch out to the crack of doom. As soon as you add a book or article because you just like it, you open the floodgates. Paul B (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But Paul, Bob's book is all about the SAQ *in general*. It should be appropriate to list it in a "Bibliography" on the SAQ page. If it were specific to Oxford or Bacon, etc., I would have listed on that appropriate page. Could we please have a vote as to why there shouldn't be a "Bibliography" section on the SAQ page? Thanks! Knitwitted (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's self-published and appears to have had no reviews. Maybe reviewers were rendered speechless by its brilliance, but while that remains the case, there's no way it's getting on here. However, you can tell your friend that your efforts were not in vain. I've ordered a copy of his slam-dunker. But first I have to finish reading The Master of the Ceremonies. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It wants editing, and it's based on an, er, idiosyncratic view of psychology, but the arguments are quite good. (I have an inscribed first edition!) Tom Reedy (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Paul, where did you find a copy? Bob offered to send me a free copy *if* I promised to refute it. hmm... Maybe I should've taken him up on it... Ciao Knitwitted (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevermind Paul. Found it... thanks anyway. Knitwitted (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From a Marlovian perspective, I think Bob Grumman is to be commended for being the only Stratfordian author to have made any serious attempt to familiarize himself with the theory as it is nowadays and to deal with at least part of that, rather than simply to assume that it is all still based solely upon the ideas of Calvin Hoffman or A.D. Wraight. Peter Farey (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @Knitwitted re "BTW Bishonen, Google Books has a bit more info." You think I didn't click on your Google Books link before I reverted you..? Of course I did. In fact it worried me a little because of the publication date (not the year, the date). :-) But after all the above comments I understand I worried about nothing. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Apologies Bishonen if I offended but I don't assume to know what you have done. Maybe you also checked the publisher's website which doesn't show the book. (I've not given the link in fear of further offense.) Obviously, you do realize the book is in the collection of the Folger Shakespeare Library. Again, I respectfully suggest a "Bibliography" section be added to this article and Bob Grumman's book be added as an appropriate and qualified reference. Knitwitted (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I misquoted the book's title... it is *Shakespeare & the rigidniks : a study of cerebral dysfunction*. Knitwitted (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read WP:RS? Yes, I know you've said you don't "have time", but surely it would be a lot quicker than repeatedly and pointlessly arguing for content that fails its requirements. Paul B (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral observation: Now might be an appropriate time to review WP:APR. Just a suggestion. DoctorJoeE  talk to me!  17:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Paul that's what I was pointing out earlier re "several books on the Oxfordian_theory". Are all of those books WP:RS? I'm guessing not. Isn't Wikipedia's readership sophisticated enough to judge whether or not a book may or may not be of interest to *that* individual? Or does Wikipedia insist on censoring people's reading habits? That argument is sorta kinda hell ya getting old. Knitwitted (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh really, not the old "censorship" cry. That argument really is sorta kinda hell ya getting old. I'm not defending the bibliography on the Oxfordian theory page, though WP:FRINGE allows the use of books that do not satisfy WP:RS on pages about fringe theories, if they are notable expositions of the theories, but only for that purpose. 'Allows', of course, does not mean 'encourages'. I suggest you review WP:OTHERSTUFF: Wikipedia only works because people choose to add alter or delete content. Lots of articles are cited to poor sources. That's not an argument for their use. If we had worlds enough and time we'd improve them all. Many of the books on the bibliography you refer to should be deleted. My guess is that they were once cited in the text, but are now mere vestiges of an earlier stage of evolution (I can think of no other reason why we list Duthie's 1941 book on Hamlet Q1 and an online essay about Shakespeare and Poland). Paul B (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Paul, you seem to be mixed up. I've never talked about Bob's book as a cite to this article nor am I arguing for cites to poor sources. Your "My guess is that they were once cited in the text, but are now mere vestiges"... again, I previously stated {{tq|. Question: Is Wikipedia supposed to be consistent from page-to-page or are its rules relevant only when it suits one group's viewpoint? Knitwitted (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Knittwitted, you seem to be mixed up. I was explaining that non-RS books can be cited in some circumstances and also that the bibliography you refer to on the Oxfordian theory page contains books that shouldn't be there because they are not cited (irrespective of whether or not they happen to be RS). Hence the statement "My guess is that they were once cited in the text, but are now mere vestiges of an earlier stage of evolution." Bob's book should neither be cited nor listed. Yoyu know perfectly well that "my group" would welcome the book if it were citable, so you are contradicting yourself. Regarding the fact that you have added books to lists on other pages without complaint, as I said, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Am sorry, but either both the Oxfordian theory page and this page should have a "Bibliography" or you should delete the "Biblio" on the Oxf theory page which I think is an awful waste of Wikipedia as a resource tool for your general readership. As I requested earlier {{tq|"Could we please have a vote as to why there shouldn't be a "Bibliography" section on the SAQ page? Thanks!"}} Knitwitted (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To repeat what I said aeons ago, I do not think there is a rule that bans bibliographies. However, "if there are only a few books about a subject it may be reasonable to list them. But with Shakespeare the lines stretch out to the crack of doom." And Bob's book would surely fail to make the grade even if we did have one. Paul B (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can Wikipedia seriously limit the number of books that have been published on a subject? The Marlovian_theory consists of a "'Marlovian' publications – in chronological order" and the Baconian_theory contains books I don't see as being referred to in the article. Can anyone help with how many books have been written generally on the SAQ that would limit which ones could be listed in a "Bibliography"? Knitwitted (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that a new "References in Popular Culture" section was added here. I have removed it. That looks like a "Trivia" section in another form, and violates the guidelines for articles at an advanced stage of development, particularly Featured Articles. See WP:Trivia. To me it looks like "the SAQ in popular culture" should have its own article (or at least maybe could have one, if you are interested in starting one, Knitwitted), not a section on the topic squeezed any which way into this article. --Alan W (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a section in the Baconian theory article, started by Knitwitted and expanded by me. I find these sections entertaining, but of course they should not form part of featured articles unless the subject has a significant role in popular culture; the article on William Blake in popular culture arises from the fact that this is an object of growing academic study. I don't think there is enough to justify an entire article on SAQ and pop culture, but there is plenty of evidence that Shakespeare in popular culture would be a legitimate subject. There are many books and articles about it. There's even The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare and Popular Culture. A section on SAQ in such an article would be entirely appropriate. Still, I've no idea why Knittwitted or anyone else would think that Shakespeare and the Rigidniks, an extremely obscure book, would, could or should be included in such an article. Paul B (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Paul's keyboard said: "I've no idea why Knittwitted or anyone else would think that Shakespeare and the Rigidniks, an extremely obscure book, would, could or should be included in such an article." Paul, ask Bishonen... he got the joke. Best, Knitwitted (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If that was a joke, I wouldn't suggest a career in standup. However, the article you just created on Shakespeare in popular culture surely is one. Paul B (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Paul, the book *is* the joke. Go back and read Bishonen's comment. Knitwitted (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh for God's sake, anyone with a brain bigger than pea gets it Knittwitted. We don't all have heads full of wool. Your wit is witless. Your contributions are a form of vandalism, just like the "article" you have created. I have bent over backwards to try to accept your concerns as legitimate, and I've just about had it with "assuming good faith". There is no good faith when you can disfigure Wikipedia with s**t like this. If you genuinely wanted to improve coverage of SAQ you wouldn't act in such an infantile way and you wouldn't create an 'article' on Shakespeare and popular culture that doesn't even try to cover the topic. Paul B (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Geez Paul. Was I expected to write an entire article in one sitting? Some people actually tend to start somewhere and go from there as time permits. Best of luck with your promotion of Wikipedia as being a collaborative effort. Knitwitted (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay -- a while ago I politely suggested a perusal of WP:APR by the above participants, which was obviously ignored. I'm now going to add WP:BATTLEGROUND to your suggested reading list. If you folks are going to continue trading insults ad infinitum could you please take it outside? Please. I'm begging you. DoctorJoeE  talk to me!  18:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In his references to me, Knitwitted may have meant my mention above of the publication date. A jocular date. Anyway, KW is now again topic-banned, so he won't be responding here. I suggest someone hat the thread. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC). {{hab}}

Recent Deletions
I would like to question the deletion of material here, that contained the edit summary:
 * "Reverting to earlier revision. Latest changes include mistakes in spelling, grammar, etc., as well as material which I believe was already decided by consensus years ago should not be here.)"

Having searched the archives, I see no "consensus" that the material deleted "should not be here". In fact, I don't recall Slater's "Seven Shakespeares" ever being mentioned before. I do see from the article and talk page histories that a short section on the group theory had long been a stable feature of this article, and that more recently, these mentions have been deleted, with very little explanation based in policy. I also see that Tom said


 * "I would have no problem with a few paragraphs about group theories if it met the criteria of a featured article and went through the collaborative editing procedure for this article as per the arb sanctions (i.e. 1. talkpage, 2. talkpage, 3. talkpage), but I see no reason to include a vague paragraph that doesn't add anything beyond establishing that such theories exist; we already have that. I would think it would begin with Delia Bacon's group and selectively bring it up to date, using reliable sources, but I don't really want to take the time to research and write it. Apparently no one else does, either."

I can only say that I have some interest in doing so, and would appreciate assistance from anyone that cares to give it. The item on Slater's "Seven Shakespeares" was a small step in that direction. Tom's suggestion to start with Delia Bacon's group I fully agree with. But the suggestion that every edit be talked and talked and talked on the talk page is not, what I believe the ArbCom was calling for. (Unless, of course, every minor edit is deemed "heavily controversial", a description I would have a hard time applying to this particular edit.) Smatprt (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

While we discuss this particular deletion, here is a very short starter section on the Group Theory that I plan to post to get things started. I think it adds good information, is well referenced, and uses Reliable Sources:


 * While more than 70 historical figures have been nominated at one time or another as the true author of the Shakespeare canon, only a few of these claimants have attracted significant numbers of followers. In addition to sole candidates, various "group" theories have also achieved a notable level of interest.


 * I wasn't referring to Slater's "Seven Shakespeares" but the Shakespeare Roundtable Web site, which others questioned a couple of years ago. As for the other things in my comment, well, it was a bit disturbing to see a Featured Article that had been polished with such care over years suddenly edited with phrases like 'in which Ms. Bacon expanded her the "group theory"' and spelling Edmund Spenser's name "Spencer". You may know better (I assume nothing, since I don't know you; I know you have a history working on this article years ago before I started working on it, but I haven't seen any new edits of yours before, to the best of my recollection), but it just looked bad to have this sloppy stuff wedged in here all of a sudden, looking like it was dashed off hastily. An FA deserves better.


 * As for the content of your edits, I leave that to others. I joined mostly to help with copyediting and the like. Now that a discussion has been started between you and Tom and Paul on this talk page, I will leave the rest to them, who know the sources a thousand times better than I do, and anyone else who cares to join in. --Alan W (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Group Theory
Collaboration in playwriting was common during the Elizabethan era, with writers such as Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, and William Shakespeare appearing as co-authors of plays. Recent scholarship has indicated that many collaborations went unrecorded, including a number of Shakespearean works. It is not surprising, therefore, that various group theories of Shakespearean authorship have been proposed. As early as the mid-1800's, authorship researchers have theorized that a group of writers was responsible for the Shakespearean canon. In 1857, the first published book focused entirely on the authorship debate, The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare Unfolded, by Delia Bacon, was printed, in which Ms. Bacon proposed the first "group theory", attributing the works to a committee headed by Francis Bacon and including Walter Raleigh, Edmund Spencer and Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, among others.

A group theory was also proposed by Gilbert Slater in The Seven Shakespeares (1931), in which he theorized that the works were written by seven different authors: Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere - 17th Earl of Oxford, Sir Walter Raleigh, William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe, Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke, and Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland. In the early 1960's, Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, Roger Manners, William Herbert and Mary Sidney were suggested as members of a group referred to as "The Oxford Syndicate". In addition, playwrights such as Christopher Marlowe, Robert Greene and Thomas Nashe have all been proposed as participants. Some variants of the group theory also include William Shakespeare of Stratford as the group's manager, broker and/or front man.

I look forward to your comments.Smatprt (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Smatprt, we discussed this a year ago. As I recall, no-one other than you wanted to add a section on the group theory. As usual, your version of the section was a thinly veiled promotion of variant Oxfordianism. This one is less direct, but still pretty thinly veiled to legitimise the theory by placing it in the context of Elizabethan collaborative writing - none of which remotely resembles the scenario envisaged by anti-Strat groupists. Some versions, btw, also have WS as a writer. Paul B (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually, there was a section on the group theory in place for years. And more recently, on two separate occasions, Tom said he just hadn't gotten around to the group theory yet. Also, in speaking for the both of you, he said "Neither of us have mentioned excluding a section about groupists; our objection is that what has been offered adds nothing at all beyond a celebrity endorsement". So, in the present version, the offending celebrity endorsement is no where to be seen, and the information on the re-occuring group theories certainly adds additional history and interest to the article, imho. As far as "thinly veiled to legitimize the theory by placing it in context of Elizabethan collaborative writing" - where else would one place it, contextually? The theory, if true, would be just another example of Elizabethan collaborative writing. Perhaps I am not understanding your complaint? Smatprt (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. - could you modify your tone in the future? Saying "As usual, your version..." is just picking a fight I have no interest in. Please just discuss the edit, and not my supposed motivations. Smatprt (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't tell me to "modify my tone" or my tone will become more high pitched. Paul B (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem including a group theory section (after all, Delia Bacon's was such), but it certainly should not be introduced as if it sprung from modern research on collaborations. IIRC all the groups had some political purpose--either cranking out propaganda for the government or against the government. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What book is by Wells and Orlin? This is referenced in a note in the new Group Theory section, but it doesn't lead to anything in the References section. Could somebody please provide a properly formatted Harvard reference for this book? This is what I mean by throwing in items sloppily. The note is incorrectly formatted, and it leads nowhere. I don't have access to this book, so I can't provide the proper reference or fix the note the way it should be fixed. --Alan W (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Same holds true for Messner and Vickers (not the same Vickers source as the one already given). Smatprt, you seem to have access to these sources. Could you please put them into proper Harvard format and add them to the References section? A long time ago it was agreed that we would use that format consistently in this article. --Alan W (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm still deeply unhappy about this section. Firstly, some minor issues: Delia Bacon's was not the first book wholly on the question. That was Smith's Was Lord Bacon the author of Shakespeare's plays?, though admittedly it was cobbled together quickly to spoil DB's claims to priority. Is there any justification for calling her "Ms. Bacon"? The removal of the claim that Raleigh was not the leading poet in her model would, I suggest, seem wholly absurd to anyone who has actually read DB. Raleigh is mentioned uncountable times. Oxford is mentioned once in the entire book, in the introduction, where she says "He [Raleigh] became at once the centre of that little circle of high-born wits and poets, the elder wits and poets of the Elizabethan age that were in their meridian there. Sir Philip Sidney, Thomas Lord Buckhurst, Henry Lord Paget, Edward Earl of Oxford, and some others, are included in the contemporary list of courtly company." That's it. Most of these people are never mentioned again the entire book. So I think we should look for what the consensus of reliable sources say about what her actual theory of authorship is. A more general problem is that there are many may variants of tthe group theory. I can see no reason why Seven Shakespeares is plucked out as somehow the main book after Bacon. Is there any specific rationale for this choice? Any source? Paul B (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Smith's publication was a 15-page pamphlet, not a book. He did follow up with a book a year later, but by that time Bacon (not Ms. Bacon; the term is a barbaric anachronism) had published her door-stop. Churchill and Gibson are good sources to use for the group theories, and yeah, Oxford was barely mentioned until the 1880s, and even then he wasn't a major figure in any theory until Looney invented his identi-kit methodology of literary attribution. Seven Shakespeares, which describes the various authorship theories up to 1931, said that Oxfordism been refined into a group headed by Oxford, and that it had supplanted Looney's single-writer Oxfordian theory by 1931. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose it depends on how you define a book. Appleton's Shakespearean Myth (1881) appears to be the first clear articulation of group theory (of course DB is so evasively waffley it's difficult to even know if she actually does have a "group" theory or not). MCcrea claims that Ziegler had a group theory, but that's not my memory of what he says. The we have Thomas W. White, Slater and W.M. Cunningham - all in the late 19th century. After Looney, Oxford gets to be a groupie. Percy Allen has him in a group in his later writings (with Will of Stratford as a fellow writer) and of course we have A. J. Evans's Shakespeare's Magic Circle (Derby + Oxford with a little help from their friends). Michell seems to be pro-group too. So we could have a rough model of the evolution of the most prominent group theories. Paul B (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tom and Paul, your edits have made my concerns about "Wells and Orlin" and a second "Vickers" moot. And "Julian Messner" turns out to have been the publisher of that book actually by Calvin Hoffman. I've regularized the citation of that book. Re "Ms. Bacon", you know, that was bothering me too, but I couldn't quite grasp what was wrong with it. "Barbaric anachronism" is a good one, Tom. :-) I can guess why Smatprt wrote "Ms. Bacon": to distinguish her in the sentence from Francis Bacon. But there are other ways to avoid that confusion. And we wouldn't write "Mr. Looney", so why "Ms. Bacon"? Her contemporaries would have called her "Miss Bacon", of course, but that's still not right in this context. --Alan W (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For information, Calvin Hoffman's book was published in three versions. The first was by Max Parrish in London in 1955 and was called The Man Who Was Shakespeare; the second was by Julian Messner in New York in 1960, with the title The Murder of the Man Who Was 'Shakespeare'; the other was a paperback version of the second, published by Grosset & Dunlap, New York, in 1965. I've added the details of the original to the article. Peter Farey (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Peter: Thanks for this additional information. You can help even more with this item. Right now, since no one but, apparently, you, has ready access to the books directly (the only text we have now is an excerpt published on the Web by PBS), if you can provide the page number of the edition you feel is best that has the information cited (I am referring to the citation later on, in the new group-theories section), together with the proper title and publisher and so on, we can change the bibliographical information in the References section to that of that book, and not have to refer to the Web version at all. Both the books and the Web excerpt are valuable sources ("primary" sources in this case, but I think acceptable in this context), but the one on the Web is a degree removed from what is most desirable. Better to cite the book directly. Either you can make the changes yourself, or you can put the information here, and I will be happy to add it. Oh, and to be clearer, we don't need both Hoffman editions in the References given that this article is not primarily about Calvin Hoffman. Let's consolidate them into one, the edition you feel is best. (And we need that page number for the group-theories citation.)


 * Also, I see that Jehochman has reverted one of your edits, and it's true that you shouldn't have removed the Schoenbaum citation. But we can add back a citation to Hoffman's book at that place, without removing that to Schoenbaum, pointing to the improved entry in the References for Hoffman, once you provide the information. --Alan W (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer Paul's question, from above, "I can see no reason why Seven Shakespeares is plucked out as somehow the main book after Bacon. Is there any specific rationale for this choice? Any source?" - Paul (resisting the obvious "plucking jokes") :-)  I cited Seven Shakespeares because it, in turn, is cited by just about all the recognized RS's in this article, Gibson (devoting 19 pages to it!), Schoenbaum, Shapiro, and even the Claremont study. You have been quoting these books for years, dude :-) Smatprt (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

But seriously, yes, I agree, there should be more examples cited. Smatprt (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A somewhat odd argument. It's "cited" - i.e. referred to - in several books we use. All of the books I mentioned are are also referred to the sources we use, so I'm somewhat perplexed by this argument. Paul B (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Kinney & Craig's Book
Perhaps this has been discussed before, but it surprises me that there is no mention -- or maybe there is, and I'm missing it -- of Kinney & Craig's book, Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship, in which they employed computational stylistics to demonstrate to most people's satisfaction -- mine, certainly -- that Shakespeare was the author of his own works, and nobody else.

So, while the content of this article is still worth discussing from a historical perspective, shouldn't the article adopt that perspective, now that there is valid scientific evidence -- dare I say proof? -- that neither de Vere of Oxford nor anyone else deserves credit for Will's life's work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorJoeE (talk • contribs) (Apologies for my brain fart in forgetting to sign this... DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  21:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC))


 * Interesting, but does the book address Oxford, Marlowe etc? It can't address some candidates, such as Derby, because we have no works by Derby to compare with Shakespeare's. It's unlikely to look at Bacon as he too is not known as a poet or playwright. Paul B (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Really it just demonstrates (again) that the works, excluding the collaborative parts, are the product of one author. It also demonstrates that the STM fragment is by Shakepeare and that he revised Kidd's Spanish Tragedy. It's very convincing, IMO. (And it does address Marlowe's contributions to the H6 plays, IIRC.) Tom Reedy (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is indeed convincing; perhaps I should whip up a brief summary for the article. Another book that deserves mention, which I don't see referenced, is James Shapiro's excellent ''Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? -- which explores the additional question of WHY Shakespeare's authorship has been contested, and why such speculation persists, despite the abundant evidence that Will wrote his plays, and a complete lack of evidence that anyone questioned his authorship during his lifetime.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  21:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it would get more than a sentence or two, if that. My memory fails me, but I don't believe they mentioned the SAQ at all. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Shapiro is referenced many times. I'm surprised you say you can't see it. Paul B (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops. I thought that was his other ("Year in the Life") book.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  21:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Seven Shakespeares group theory
I've been reading Slater's Seven Shakespeares and so far what I've picked up is that Slater agrees with Delia Bacon's theory of a group or writers producing the works, with the substitution of Oxford as the chief executive of the group and the substitution of churning out propaganda plays for the government in place of setting the stage for democracy. He says that the plays exhibit different characteristics, that Bacon wrote R2 and R3, LLL was written by Derby, and Hamlet written by Oxford, etc. IOW he creams off the biographical arguments from all the single-author theories and says they're all correct. Interestingly, he appears to accept the positive evidence for Stratford Shakespeare as well, imagining that Oxford met the actor William Shakspere (of course, it's always "Shakspere") through Robert Greene and recognized his genius and enlisted him to polish the works of other writers, later on to botch plays together, and then gave him a free hand to write plays on his own. After Oxford's death Shakspere went his own way by writing romantic plays instead of patriotic propaganda.

Slater, who was an economist, gives a very good economic analysis of Elizabethan policies at the beginning, but then when he gets into talking specifically about the theatre and Oxford he takes Ward's biography--all of it, including the Interludes--as gospel, so pretty soon you don't know what information to trust. He makes a very convincing argument that Shakespeare's Italian geography is accurate, and his style is a pleasure to read compared to Looney, the Ogburns, Anderson and Stritmatter. I'm only 50 pages into the book and so far I haven't had to grit my teeth at the style or throw the book across the room at some idiocy, and I'll probably finish it in the next day or two. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please review for WP:RS/AC and WP:WEASEL
Regarding the tags that were removed after I placed them here: ,I added them because the current article is not in compliance with either WP:RS/AC or WP:WEASEL. Please review the WP:RS/AC policy. Keep in mind: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." In this context "directly" it means "precisely" or "exactly". There is nothing precise or exact about:
 * "Shakespeare scholars see no reason to suspect that the name was a pseudonym or that the actor was a front for the author" (all? some? no reason? They all say that?)


 * or this sweeping statement:


 * "Anti-Stratfordians rely on what they designate as circumstantial evidence" (according to whom? All Anti-Strats? Some? What about physical evidence or documentary evidence?). Your citations don't answer these questions.

And any weaselly phrasing (as per these examples found at WP:WEASEL: "some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says ...") needs to be addressed. Smatprt (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've never been a fan of WP:WEASEL, since it's open to misuse as if it implies that one simply should not say that "some people assert X". In fact of course it states ""Weasel words" are statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite, or stronger in the way they are made". In other words is not weasely at all if some, most or all experts really do say X according to reliable sources. I don't quite know how these statements can be made more pracise. Do you want the exact percentage of Shakespeare scholars who say this? Are you denying that anti-Statfordians use the term "circumstantial evidence" on a regular basis? Do they also claim to use "physical evidence"? Maybe, but frankly, I don't know what that would be. As for documentary evidence, clearly they refer to documents, but this is usually to discover some hidden meaning in them. That's not what the phrase "documentary evidence" standardly means. You are asking for information that is not in the sources and then - apparently - blaming the use of the sources because it's not there. Paul B (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And yet somehow this article achieved FA status with those statements there.
 * The lead is overly cited and makes clear that the vast majority of Shakespeare scholars (those who have thought about it, at least) agree with the statement. You can probably count on both hands the number who disagree, as the lead references make clear.
 * As to circumstantial evidence, there is no documentary or physical evidence that proves Shakespeare was written by someone else, it is all "circumstantial", except it really isn't in the real sense of the word. It is mostly speculation, misreading, special pleading, distortion, anachronistic interpretation, and flat-out making things up that are used to support anti-Stratfordian theories.
 * This is simply more of the same strategy you employed to keep this article from being improved and promoted to FA. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't really have a dog in this hunt -- i.e. my contributions to this article have been minimal, so far -- but my neutral observation, FWIW, is that your examples of WP:WEASEL are not weasel wording at all. Mostly, they are accurate summaries of source material, which in effect is exactly the opposite.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Anti-Stratfordians rely on what they designate as Circumstantial Evidence" -  What's weaselly is the entire construction of the sentence, which implies that anti-strats only use circumstantial evidence, and in the context of the paragraph, implies that academics only use documentary evidence. Neither is the case as my recent edit shows. That version also implies that all anti-Strats are the same and use the same techniques. Diana Price, for example uses nothing but documentary evidence to draw her conclusions, as the regular editors here know.


 * A neutral summary would state that anti-Stratfordians present a combination of documentary evidence, including title pages, family records, and written statements made by 16th century commentators and literary critics; physical evidence, such as Bacon's note book, Marlowe's coroner's report or Oxford's Bible; and circumstantial evidence, such as similarities between the characters and events portrayed in the works and the biography of their preferred candidate; literary parallels with the known works of their candidate; and hidden codes and allusions in Shakespeare's own works or texts written by contemporaries. And academics use circumstantial evidence as well - including textual studies of every kind. It's completely weaselly to lump all anti-strats together and make such sweeping statements. Smatprt (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Reverted. You need editorial consensus before you make such (ill-written) changes to an FA article. Academics don't need circumstantial evidence to establish Shakespeare's authorship, which is what this article is about. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of current wording
I sincerely question the accuracy and NPOV of the following statement:
 * "At the core of the argument is the nature of acceptable evidence used to attribute works to their authors. Anti-Stratfordians rely on what they designate as circumstantial evidence: similarities between the characters and events portrayed in the works and the biography of their preferred candidate; literary parallels with the known works of their candidate; and hidden codes and cryptographic allusions in Shakespeare's own works or texts written by contemporaries. By contrast, academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely on documentary evidence in the form of title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies. All these converge to confirm William Shakespeare's authorship. These criteria are the same as those used to credit works to other authors and are accepted as the standard methodology for authorship attribution."

As written, the graph implies that Anti-Strats use ONLY circumstantial evidence. This is incorrect and is a generalization that also implies that all anti-Strats use the same methods. Consider these rebuttal points:
 * Anti-Strats also use documentary evidence to build their various cases. This includes written reports from contemporary commentators such as Webbe and Puttenham. Anti-Strat researcher Diana Price, a published expert on the subject, for example, uses documentary evidence on a regular basis. Price is a RS for this article already, and her work is well known to the editors.
 * Anti-Strats have used Bacon's personal notebook and Oxford's personal bible, which is certainly documentary, if not physical evidence (depending on the argument being made).

As written, the graph implies that Shakespeareans and literary historians use ONLY documentary evidence. This is also incorrect and implies that all these researchers use the same methods. Consider these rebuttal points:
 * Experts in authorship attribution, including Shakespearean attribution, regularly use Stylometry, which is a form of circumstantial evidence. In attributing Edward III, for example, common techniques used have been variously referred to as "stylistic analysis", "textual comparison", "verbal parallels", etc. - the same kind of "literary parallels" that, when used by anti-strats, are correctly called "circumstantial". This double standard certainly needs to be addressed.
 * In their attempts to attribute Sir Thomas More to Shakespeare, experts used these techniques: "Spellings characteristic of Shakespeare", "Stylistic elements similar to Shakespeare's acknowledged works" and "audience perception" - all forms of circumstantial evidence.

Thus my recent edit and current suggestion:
 * "At the core of the argument is the nature of acceptable evidence used to attribute works to their authors. Anti-Stratfordians present a combination of documentary evidence, including title pages, family records, and written statements made by 16th century commentators and literary critics; physical evidence such as Bacon's note book, Marlowe's coroner's report or Oxford's Bible; and circumstantial evidence, such as similarities between the characters and events portrayed in the works and the biography of their preferred candidate; literary parallels with the known works of their candidate; and allusions in texts written by contemporaries. Academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely on documentary evidence in the form of title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him. Academic researchers also use circumstantial evidence to bolster their case, including biographical parallels, contemporary allusions, and textual and stylometric studies. These criteria are the same as those used to credit works to other authors and are accepted as the standard methodology for authorship attribution."

I look forward to comments and suggestions for alternative wording. Given this information, how to structure this paragraph is anyone's guess. Attempting to define the "core of the argument" is tricky enough, without adding opinions stated as facts, and sweeping POV generalizations. Smatprt (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Smatprt, since you've gotten back from your latest topic ban you've done nothing but relentlessly and aggressively attack the SAQ pages to try to make them reflect your point of view. In fact, that's a fair summary of your entire Wikipedia editing career, which has earned you numerous blocks and literally years of topic bans. What you've really accomplished is demonstrate that you really don't have a good grasp of the topic beyond what the fringe literature says and you don't really understand the WP POV policies. This latest complaint is nothing more than an attempt to disrupt a featured article and divert us into even more time-wasting wrangling.
 * As you have been told above, the documentary historical record established Shakespeare's authorship. All those "biographical parallels, contemporary allusions, and textual and stylometric studies" are scholarly inquiry, and not used (except peripherally) to establish Shakespeare's authorship of his canon, which is assumed. Anti-Strats do not rely on the historical record; in fact they reject the historical record and bring distorted and perverse readings into play to try to find "evidence" for their man. The text as it stands is correct and reflects the scholarly consensus and the references in the article.
 * You need to step back and stop this endless nit-picking nonsense. The Arbcom decision is still in effect. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yawn. (keeping in mind that dee l'huomo costumato astenersi da molto sbadigliare, (a well-mannered man should refrain from yawning overly).Giovanni della Casa,GALATEO overo de'costumi, in N. Bettoni, (ed.)Prosatori del secolo XVI, Milan, 1831 p.249.
 * "As written, the graph implies that Anti-Strats use ONLY circumstantial evidence."
 * In fact this is how Oxfordians frame their arguments. I.e. (to cite sources that are unreliable for Shakespeare but reliable for what the kiddies in the hermeneutic sandpit toss up
 * "'Looney had said that a case based on circumstantial evidence must stand or fall depending on whether it finds corroboration by turning up more and more coincidences that fit the established pattern or runs into a dead end by turning up facts that undermine the case.'Warren Hope,Kim R. Holston, The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Authorship Theories,McFarland, 2009 p.93"
 * "Shakespeareans reply that there is not a shred of documentary evidence linking anyone else to the authorship of the plays, advocates of rival candidates respond that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence-and, moreover, many reasons to doubt Shakespeare's claim.' James Shapiro,Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, Simon and Schuster, 2010 p.8"
 * "'De Vere's candidacy as an alternative Shakespeare is bolstered by an imposing cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence that demands serious evaluation.'William Farina,De Vere As Shakespeare: An Oxfordian Reading of the Canon, McFarland 2006 p.11,"
 * "'the nature of the evidence that will result from this method is circumstantial rather than documentary. Warren Hope, Kim R. Holston,The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Authorship Theories, Farland, ‎2009 p.75"
 * "'anecdotal evidence does not substantiate a claim to authorship in this case, if it cannot be supported by further evidence. This could for example be documentary proof in the shape of a body of facts, or it could be circumstantial evidence.’ Sten F. Vedi,Elsinore Revisited, 2012 p.20"
 * "'The case for Oxford thus far is circumstantial. But the principal reason that I question Shakespeare's authorship in the first place is a matter of evidence. If Shakespeare was the author the title pages proclaim him to be, then he would have left behind some personal evidence with which to support one simple statement: He was a writer. There's the rub. He is the only Elizabethan playwright of any consequence whose life as a writer is unsupported by any documentary evidence to support his alleged career as a professional writer.Diana Price Letter to the New York Times.New York Times, 24 February 2002."
 * "'In the past 50 years, hundreds of scholarly articles, some with near-smoking-gun quality, have provided abundant circumstantial evidence in favor of Edward de Vere as Shakespeare. Lay persons tend to think that circumstantial evidence is weaker than direct evidence but the converse is often true, as taught in all law schools.'Paul Hemenway Altrocchi,Malice Aforethought: The Killing of a Unique Genius, Xlibris Corporation, 2010 pp.25-6"
 * "'Although often derided by mainstream academics, the case for Edward de Vere as the man behind the “Shakespeare” mask—first advanced in 1920—is based on an overwhelming body of circumstantial evidence.'Mark Anderson, Shakespeare By Another Name, ‎Untreed Reads Publishing 2011p.x"
 * "'THE THESIS OF THIS BOOK, THE “OXFORDIAN” PROPOSITION THAT Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built upon circumstantial evidence. There is no single “smoking gun” document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc.' Mark Anderson, Shakespeare By Another Name, ‎Untreed Reads Publishing 2011 p.382"
 * "'We invite readers to weigh the enormous volume of circumstantial evidence offered in support of de Vere.'Richard Malim, 'Introduction', in Richard Malim (ed.) Great Oxford: Essays on the Life and Work of Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604, De Vere Society/Parapress 2004 p.8"
 * "'Curiously, however, the gradual accretion of circumstantial evidence seems to be producing a biography of de Vere that could inform and and transform our understanding of the writing of Hamlet.’p.192 Eddi Jolly,'THe Writing of Hamlet', in Richard Malim (ed.) Great Oxford: Essays on the Life and Work of Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604,De Vere Society/Parapress 2004, pp.180ff. p.192"
 * "'Based entirely on circumstantial evidence, this still-popular theory overlooks the fact that Bacon never wrote blank verse.'R. Kent Rasmussen,(ed.)Critical Companion to Mark Twain: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work, ‎2007 p.584"
 * "'The question of the authorship of the poems and plays is to be determined only by the weight, not of direct, but of circumstantial evidence. John H. Stotsenburg,An Impartial Study of the Shakespeare Title,Morton, 1904 p.370."
 * "“There’s an awful lot of circumstantial evidence – obviously, there’s no absolutely documentary evidence on either side – but there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence that connects the Earl of Oxford to those works,” Beauclerk noted.'Rebekah Hearn 'Circumstantial Evidence? Author promotes alternative Shakespeare theory,'"
 * This last instance is clear evidence that Price doesn't understand the distinction made in most other sceptic sources, but underlines that all the sceptics have to go on is what they call 'circumstantial evidence'.Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop wasting editors' time, etc. Everything Tom wrote there reflects with judicious precision the state of the art with regard to those who, airing their eccentric fantasies, play high Shakespearean stakes with that old fart.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So we are supposed to entertain Smatprt's "proposal": "At the core of the argument is the nature of acceptable evidence used to attribute works to their authors. Anti-Stratfordians present a combination of documentary evidence, including title pages, family records, and written statements made by 16th century commentators and literary critics; physical evidence such as Bacon's note book, Marlowe's coroner's report or Oxford's Bible; and circumstantial evidence, such as similarities between the characters and events portrayed in the works and the biography of their preferred candidate;". This makes absolute nonsense of the phrases "documentary evidence" and "physical evidence". If I am accused of shooting you, then blood-splatter on my clothes would be physical evidence, and a letter expressing my intent would be documentary evidence. A copy of a book interpreted to contain a secret cipher unintelligable to anyone but the interpreter is not "physical evidence" just because a book is a physical object, and it is not documentary evidence just because a book is also a "document". You may as well say that the First Folio itself is anti-Stratfordian physical evidence and documentary evidence, because it's a book. We all know that that there are no "title pages, family records, and written statements made by 16th century commentators and literary critics" saying that anyone other than Shakespeare wrote the canon. None whatever. This is now entering the land of Oz. Or rather it is deeply, deeply disingenuous misuse of the English language. Paul B (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Check your Stratfordian privilege! Don't you know that Oxfordian scholarship is exactly the same as academic scholarship, except when it's different? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 'This is now entering the land of Oz.' Jeez, that's pretty rough on the Aussies who might, despite their larriken insouciance to everything but grog and skirt, accidently turn up, chuck a shufti at the page, and feel somewhat offended. They identify with the able lout Magwitch, not that pompous aristocrap.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Those Aussies know their munchkins from their elbows, and Jack Maggs would never squeal even on a pommie toff. Paul B (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Where I have difficulty with the words as they stand at the moment is in the alleged "contrast" between circumstantial evidence and documentary evidence. Circumstantial evidence is normally contrasted with direct evidence and (as Paul B. reminds us) documentary evidence with physical evidence.
 * In fact most of the circumstantial evidence offered by anti-Stratfordians is documentary, and most of the documentary evidence offered by Stratfordians is circumstantial. Each school uses its own set of circumstantial evidence to develop corroborating evidence. I think that Tom's own words in his and Dave K's "How do we...?" illustrate why I say this about Stratfordians too. "It's true that no one single document states categorically that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote Hamlet and King Lear, but then no such document exists for any other playwright of the time either. The evidence is cumulative and interconnected, and taken as a whole it leaves no doubt that a single man was actor, author, and Stratford property owner."
 * The problem is that the current wording encourages the reader to misinterpret the phrase "documentary evidence" as meaning "direct evidence". That there is some direct evidence on the Stratfordian side is not disputed (at least not by me); it's just that it's not direct evidence for the conclusion that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works attributed to him, only for other conclusions from which that final one can be inferred. Peter Farey (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Peter. I think what you miss here is Tom's careful qualification of 'circumstantial evidence' with 'what they designate as . .' In writing what he wrote, Tom simply took the kind of source evidence I provided above (see now James Shapiro, above p.8), where the anti-Stratfordians explicitly state that their approach is based on (inferences from) circumstantial evidence. They have no documentary evidence, whereas formal Shakespearean scholarship has explicit documentary indications corroborated by a mass of circumstantial evidence that confirms what, at least in standard historical method, the period sources state quite unambiguously. The rule is, we write according to what the parties argue, and there should be no doubt here that by the ipsissima verba of the doubters, there is no 'smoking gun' (physical evidence), and we only have conjectures based on counter-hypotheses that are grounded on a thorough going Pyrrhonism with regard to normative rules of historical analysis. Smatprt's argument flies in the face of what prominent representatives of his own position clearly affirm, and is, for that reason, based on the kind of 'craven scruple' over commonsensical interpretations that Hamlet complained of. Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't miss the careful inclusion of the words "what they designate...", nor your selection of examples demonstrating this. In fact I am quite happy to acknowledge that my own version of the Marlovian theory is based entirely upon circumstantial evidence. What is simply not true is your claim that anti-Stratfordians have no "documentary" evidence as such, since any inquiry into a subject like this is inevitably based mainly upon historical documents, from which both circumstantial and direct evidence are taken.
 * What you clearly mean is that they have nothing equivalent to the title pages, for example, where the name 'William Shakespeare' is given as the author, thus providing direct documentary evidence that someone called William Shakespeare was being presented as the author at that time. But this difference is neither accurately nor adequately described by the alleged "contrast" between the two types of evidence, circumstantial and documentary.
 * I'm not sure why you include yet another attack on Smatprt in your response to me, by the way. I thought that my comments were just as critical of his version as they were of the existing one! Peter Farey (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes the phrase, "no one single document states categorically that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote Hamlet and King Lear ..." true is "of Stratford-upon-Avon". We have many documents stating that William Shakespeare wrote Hamlet and Lear, and many documents calling Master Shakespeare the author, but what was being addressed in that sentence was the anti-Stratfordian insistence that the name coupled with his permanent address was necessary to identify him as the author.
 * To address Peter's concern I see no problem with expanding the sentence to read "direct, documentary evidence". But in my understanding documentary evidence is a document whose contents plainly states whatever point is being contended, such as the Stationers' entries that name Shakespeare as the author of his plays. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No Tom, as I understand it those Stationers' entries are direct documentary evidence that someone named Shakespeare authored the plays, and therefore excellent circumstantial evidence that the guy from Stratford did. Peter Farey (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This point is the entry into the anti-Stratfordian mindset. There is nothing circumstantial about a document explicitly naming the person who wrote a play. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. And the Stratfordian mindset appears to be simply to ignore the detail of whatever any anti-Stratfordian says, just because that's what he is. Is there any chance of someone responding to the specific points I have made about the problems with the current categorization of the types of evidence as if I were a reasonably intelligent human being, rather than yet another barmy anti-Strat? Peter Farey (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Peter, according to your usage of the term, every type of evidence would be classified as circumstantial. What, in your opinion, would count as direct, documentary evidence? Would your birth certificate count? It seems to me that if the official governmental entries naming William Shakespeare as the author of, say, Lear would not be direct, documentary evidence, then your birth certificate would not be either. It would be merely direct documentary evidence that someone with your name was born, and therefore excellent circumstantial evidence that you were born--or maybe just direct documentary evidence that the document exists? This lawyerly hyper-literalism parses meaning so close as to render it meaningless. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tom, before reacting, why don't you spend a moment rereading what I have actually said? For example I did say that "those Stationers' entries are direct documentary evidence that someone named Shakespeare authored the plays". The relevant point, as you nearly got right when you said "documentary evidence is a document whose contents plainly states whatever point is being contended" is that, other than the word 'document', this is precisely what direct evidence (either documentary or physical) actually is. Whether it is direct or circumstantial depends solely upon just "whatever point is being contended".
 * All I am saying is that, as it stands, the article appears not to have a clue about about just what the different types of evidence are, and that this confusion is most evident in the bit espousing the Stratfordian position. If you disagree with the way in which I have interpreted those types, then please tell me why. Peter Farey (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The article states, "...academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely on documentary evidence in the form of title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him ..."

What exactly is inaccurate about that? The only direct evidence we have is documentary, since all of the people with first-hand knowledge are dead.

I offered above to change that to "direct, documentary evidence".

It also says, "Anti-Stratfordians rely on what they designate as circumstantial evidence ...", implying that their designation stretches the meaning of circumstantial evidence, which is the case, since most of the "circumstantial evidence" consists of speculation treated as established fact. I.e., if the plays directly reflect events in the author's life, then the fact that Oxford was waylaid by pirates is alluded to in Hamlet.

I don't see the confusion, myself. Instead of going around in pointless semantic circles, let me ask you this: how would you write the sentence? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The distinction in 'types of evidence' does not, as far as I can see, reflect any understanding of the historical method. It reflects the rules of evidence in a case of law, as is almost invariably the case in what the SAQ theorists write. The rules of evidence in law are not those used in historical analysis, for the simple reason that (a) no lives are at stake (b) no one is to be deemed guilty or innocent (c) the evidence of history is not 'verifiable', it's just what happenstance leaves behind in the records, (d) there are no possibilities of interrogating reflexively the witnesses. You therefore go on the 'evidence', documentary, circumstantial, etc., that exists, and do not proceed, as all sceptics do, on the basis of the premise that the evidence itself is dubious.
 * To go back to your lawyerish conjunction of WS/Hamlet/Lear and the Stratchap. If (a) the title pages of Hamlet Q1,Q2 gives William Shakespeare as the author, as does the First Folio, and (b) first folio contains Ben Jonson’s praise of William Shakespeare as the ‘Sweet swan of Avon’, then you can only challenge the inference that (b) corroborates (a) and allows us to identify WS of the theatre with the Stratford monument's writer, by turning up from the archives hard evidence that raises serious doubts over the equation historically made between the 'two' Shakespeares. Scholarship has that hard evidence, scepticism has nothing but a suspicion that it's somehow all 'circumstantial'.
 * Please note that on one equivocation of the word 'circumstantial evidence' in one line of a long article, you deduce that the whole article appears not to have a clue about just what the different types of evidence are. Disappointing, Peter. The article reflects faithfully what the best scholarship states and, has passed intense scrutiny by a lot of very cluely wikipedian FA experts from a large variety of backgrounds. What you are saying is that the historians, lawyers, English professors, scholars et al., who produce this kind of discourse are clueless. That may be possible. But, as Aristotle said, history is based on what occurred, not on what on what might have happened. If you prefer the latter, then poetry is what you should write. Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I echo Peter's request that you respond to the specific issues being raised? To recap:


 * The article implies that all anti-Strats use the same methods, and only use circumstantial evidence. I have cited the work of Diana Price as an example of an anti-strat researcher that uses documentary evidence.
 * The article implies that Stratfordians use only primary evidence, in contrast to the circumstantial evidence used only by anti-Strats. I have cited the attribution process of Edward III, which relied on style and verbal comparisons, as an example of standard attribution techniques used by mainstream scholars.
 * Why is it that when Stratfordians use stylometrics, it's called "documentary evidence", and when anti-Strats use stylometrics, its called "circumstantial"? How can you "contrast" these? Isn't this a double standard?
 * Would it be possible to address these points? Smatprt (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you're wasting our time. Attribution methodologies such as stylometry are not used to identify Shakespeare as a writer of the canon in the SAQ sense of the word. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That, of course, is nonsense. Jeez, it's even discussed here in your own article, for god's sake ("as well as modern stylometric studies"). And again, you fail to address the specifics being raised. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comes to mind. So, again I ask: how come when Strats use stylometrics it's not circumstantial evidence, but when anti-Strats do, it is? And how is it, for example, that when McCrea uses Shakespeare's supposed "Warwickshire dialect" as one of his proofs, how is it that isn't "circumstantial". Are you really sticking to your position that defines such evidence as "documentary"?  Smatprt (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * REad the entire sentence. It does not make the claim that stylometric studies are "documentary evidence", although I suppose if we went by your understanding it would be, since the words are printed on paper. And attribution studies are not authorship studies in the SAQ sense. McCrea is not using dialect words to attribute the works to Shakespeare. He's using them to show that the author had special knowledge usually known only to Warwickshire natives. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So you do admit that stylometric studies are, indeed, circumstantial? Smatprt (talk)


 * Still silent on Price, I see. You just can't admit that she uses documentary evidence, can you? Smatprt (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a debate forum. Price qualifies the documentary evidence to suggest that Shakespeare was a con. In effect, her study proves that if you disqualify all the documentary evidence for Shakespeare's authorship, no documentary evidence for Shakespeare's authorship exists. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed the sources and they support the wording of the passage in question. If you want to dispute the edit, take it to the boards and we'll waste another week there. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My difficulty with the current version is solely to do with a "contrast" being apparently drawn between circumstantial evidence on the one hand and documentary evidence on the other. Which type of evidence is typical of which theory had nothing to do with it, but the impression given that one of them is not "documentary" and the other not "circumstantial" cannot be right. Tom asks how I would write the sentence. How about:
 * "By contrast, academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely mainly on direct documentary evidence—in the form of title page attributions and government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office—and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies." Peter Farey (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. The use of dashes makes it a bit more comprehensible as well. You could probably leave out "in the form of" because the dashes make it clear that what follows are examples. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I apologize to any historians, lawyers, English professors, scholars et al. who may have been offended by my remark about the article appearing not to have a clue about about just what the different types of evidence are. Any such offence was entirely unintentional. Peter Farey (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No harm. Peter, if you dislike the language, write a note to the de Vere and Baconian societies to notify them of the confusion in the way they represent their methods. The distinction made is one that sceptics use, and we, as the page authors, can hardly complain about their usage, since we are obliged to reproduce it accurately. They say their argument is circumstantial, as opposed to the documented case that Shakepeare wrote Shakespeare. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that anti-Stratfordians could be used as reliable sources for information about any case other than their own. In fact I see that no source is given for the sentence in question, unless it is covered by the reference to Shapiro and Love further on. I know nothing of the latter, but Shapiro mentions "documentary evidence" only twice in the section cited, neither of which could be considered a source for the words in our article. Peter Farey (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "I wasn't aware that anti-Stratfordians could be used as reliable sources for information about any case other than their own."
 * Quite true. I used them as reliable sources for information about themselves: the sources cited amply confirm that they regard their arguments as 'circumstantial' as opposed to 'documentary', in the sense that the latter word bears in S.Schoenbaum's, William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life, (1975). Normative historical science accepts that the documentary record amply underlines and corroborates the accepted historical and contemporary identification of the London playwright with the Stratford Shakespeare. In writing: 'Shakespeareans reply that there is not a shred of documentary evidence linking anyone else to the authorship of the plays ; advocates of rival candidates respond that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence—and, moreover, many reasons to doubt Shakespeare's claim.'(p.8), Shapiro is contrasting what normal scholarship does, with what counter-factual speculation does. I note that Smatprt remains silent on the fact that his argument has been shown to be specious, since the evidence shows that de Vereans and Baconians accept their case is purely 'circumstantial', and therefore, to attempt to equivocate by asserting that, to the contrary, their case shares the same methods as standard scholarship, whereas in fact their method defies the documentary record, is just wasting people's time. The distinction 'documentary/circumstantial' contrasting normative Shakespearean studies from fringe studies is everywhere attested, and it is faux naif to pretend that no such distinction exists.
 * You differ, in that, while acknowledging the reliably unreliable sources I cited do indicate that what Tome wrote faithfully reproduces what these guys do, you ask us to provide an academic source that makes the obvious point. You are not then contesting the truth of Tom's draft, but rather that it is unsourced (or that, you'd prefer a legalistic definition of terms which, however, in historical scholarship, are used with less forensic rigour. It's rather like asking an astronomer to document the statement that the earth moves round the sun, since a fringe biblical view argues the contrary, and since the fringe view exists, the universal facts have, by parity of proof, to be confirmed by reference to RS.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If we need to tinker with the passage, I suggest that we use Harold Love, Attributing Authorship:An IntroductionCambridge University Press p.199 to gloss 'documentary evidence' ('clear documentary evidence' being what Love describes as the material 'orthodox scholarship' refuses to discard p.199) and pp.203-207, for 'circumstantial evidence', esp. where Love writes
 * "'The Shakespeare Authorship controversy is an appropriate place to review the role of circumstantial evidence in scholarly reasoning, since most of the proposed demonstrations are of this kind. The presentation of circumstantial evidence usually takes the form of the bringing together of a series of indications which in themselves are not strong or convincing in the hope that they will be more impressive as a unity.'p.203."
 * I.e. rather than 'direct', 'clear' can gloss 'documentary evidence', and for 'circumstantial evidence' as the basis of sceptical arguments Love's text pp.203-7, esp. p.203 can be introduced as a reference, with Shapiro's remark on p.8. as a further ref.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Both Shapiro and Love are already cited. Smatprt's complaint is not that the statements aren't reliably sourced. His complaint is that we're not presenting the fringe view with equal status and with parity of methodology with the academy's, which is his definition of NPOV. In his view the page should be a debate. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I know. I was replying to Peter, who can understand the arguments, and raised some queries.Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No. My complaint is that you are applying a double standard in this section. And that this section is not written from a neutral point of view. You have written this section and cherry picked your sources to support your own viewpoint, instead of a neutral overview. Smatprt (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Your opinion has been stated, answered, reformulated, refuted, and restated, and rebutted. Next.Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The noticeboard is that way ⇒. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Smatprt, Wikipedia rules require us to adopt what you call a "double standard" with regard to fringe topics. We have a different standard for fringe authors than for WP:RS authors. Frankly I can barely understand some of your points. Whoever said that stylometrics constitutes "documentary evidence"? It's no such thing and never was. Yes stylometrics is used by what you call "Strats", but it is not used to identify WS of Stratford as the author of, say, Edward III. It is used to argue that passages in Edward III are probably by the same author as the canon of Shakespeare's works, identified as WS of Stratford because that's who everyone who commented at the time said he was. As for Price, she doesn't use documentary evidence, she tries to find arguments to discount documentary evidence. Paul B (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nishidani. As I suspect you know very well, my words "I wasn't aware that anti-Stratfordians could be used as reliable sources for information about any case other than their own" were in response to your clear indication that the words "documentary evidence" were employed because "They say their argument is circumstantial, as opposed to the documented case that Shakepeare wrote Shakespeare." I was not asking for a source, only pointing out the lack of one which could have negated that indication. Frankly, I don't see what objection you can have to my preferring Tom's suggestion of "direct documentary evidence" anyway. That part of the lede which presumably summarizes this bit calls it "direct evidence" after all.
 * Meanwhile I did, at Tom's request, suggest how the sentence I object to—an objection which has nothing at all to do with my stance on the authorship question—might be slightly amended. I would appreciate it if someone would respond to that suggestion. Peter Farey (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Misprisions abroad, then. I see them in others, as others in my responses. Sorry if that is the case here. Peter, I don't mind 'direct.' I suggested 'clear' because it is thus used in Love, and sources were called for. My point was simply that Tom's original draft hewed close to the sources, and (b) 'circumstantial' and 'documental' evidence has a different valency in historiographical as opposed to legal language. I eschew speaking of anti-Stratfordians generically, because I think the only interesting position there is that for Marlowe, the rest is hysteria generated by, mainly, lawyerly minds with an affective afflatus, a sense of victimization for an unsung hero, and an inability to understand that arguing a case in a modern court uses a form of paranoid scepticism about the truth status of the given evidence that, were it applied, rather than used uniquely with regard to the figure of Shakespeare, to historical studies across the board, would lead to absolute pyrrhonism. The deVerean/Bacon line is not tenable for this reason. It implicitly recognizes two methodologies, a unique one for documentary evidence regarding the historical Shakespeare based on modern criminal law, while accepting that the normal methods for evaluating the probative value of historical evidence hold for the rest of historical research, where hermeneutic paranoia and casuistic doubt in defense of an improbable theory is not standard. I don't see this strain in Marlovian studies, which was why I was surprised to observe you adopting the juridical style re evidence so beloved of the other camps. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not intionally juridical, I assure you. But as soon as I see something said to be "by contrast" to something else I expect to see them more or less mutually exclusive, which documentary and circumstantial evidence (as I, with no legal background whatsoever, understand the terms) are certainly not. If you wish to use the term "documentary evidence" in any other sense than the legal, then I would recommend that you remove the link to the Wikipedia mini-item about it (or, better, rewrite that item!), which at the moment certainly fails to support any other interpretation.
 * I'm glad to see that someone appreciates the difference in the approach adopted by most of the more prominent Marlovians these days to those of the other more popular persuasions. Pity that Shapiro assumed otherwise! Peter Farey (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Circumstantial evidence' requires inference, in contrast to documents like the title page of Hamlet (1605) which ascribes the authorship of Q2 to William Shakespeare, which prima facie does not oblige us to infer that William Shakespeare was the author. That's the contrast Tom's point marks out. Of course documents can engage in false attribution, something which we catch out when circumstantial evidence undermines the documented ascription: Jean Hardouin anticipated all of these fellows, since he thought nearly all ancient literature was falsely ascribed, and concocted just a few centuries before his own time. He had no circumstantial evidence for the position. I often think this whole challenge (apart from Marlowe) is a rerun of Hardouin, mutatis mutantis.Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Peter, I did respond, and Love is all we need to support the statement that anti-Stratfordians rely on what they term as "circumstnatial evidence". He devotes several pages to that. And the term "documentary evidence" I think is accurate, even in the legal sense of the word. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tom, my apologies. It having been suggested to me a couple of years ago that it might be more helpful if I didn't insert my comments within the previous text—as I was used to doing in hlas—I tend not to look for anyone else having done so, and miss it if it has been superceded by a later edit when I log in.
 * Just to ensure consensus, therefore, is it ok for the rest of you if I edit it to the following?
 * "By contrast, academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely mainly on direct documentary evidence—title page attributions and government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office—and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies."
 * I see no particular reason for adding to the sources already provided, but if anyone thinks that more is needed, please go ahead! Peter Farey (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I just made the edit before reading your response here, Peter. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And I usually check the history page for changes for the very reason you mention--I've missed a few response myself in the past. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And just FYI, Peter, the Love section "Circumstantial evidence" starting on page 203 begins, "The Shakespeare authorship controversy is an appropriate place to review the role of circumstantial evidence in scholarly reasoning, since most of the proposed demonstrations are of this kind. The presentation of circumstantial evidence usually takes the form of the bringing together of a series of indications which in themselves are not strong or convincing in the hope that they will be more impressive as a unity." After giving some examples, he remarks that "all of them [links] are so extremely fragile that only the prior assumption that Oxford was the work of Shakespeare's works would have allowed them to be accepted for a moment.... This is not the stuff that conclusions are made on and if the gallant colonel [B.M. Ward] applied the same kind of reasoning to military intelligence received in the field his regiment must have waited a long time between victories." Tom Reedy (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tom, thanks for editing that sentence, and for your quotation from Love. Whilst interesting, I note that he seems to be restricting his comment in this case just to Oxfordians, and (even if it does apply to all of us!) I think one should be careful not to use such remarks to tar all anti-Stratfordians with the same brush. One further point. You reverted the latest edit by Smatprt (which I found quite helpful) saying that it "is covered later in the article", and that "this section is about use of evidence, not 'beliefs'." I'd like to know just where it is covered, if you wouldn't mind, as I haven't been able to work out quite which bit you mean. And, as regards the second part, I would have thought that your inclusion of the words "what they designate" (given your apparent reasons for including it) must make at least that bit about the "beliefs" of Oxfordians. Peter Farey (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Here you go, Peter: Shakespeare_authorship_question. And note that Love writes, ""The Shakespeare authorship controversy is an appropriate place to review the role of circumstantial evidence ...", not "The Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship is an appropriate place to review the role of circumstantial evidence ..." Love also dissects such use of circumstantial evidence and shows that it really is not what it is presented to be because it depends on incorporating false assumptions as part of the "evidence" chain, hence the "what they designate". Tom Reedy (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It may have been helpful to you, but, I think, not to the page. Smatprt continues to defy the known criteria agreed on for writing the page, i.e., peer-reviewed academic sources. His two quotes are from unreliable sources, and he is so indifferent to consideration of others that he refuses even to format his poor sources according to our standard template. If anything this deliberate defiance of a community rule shows he doesn't even take his own edits seriously, since he knows that this kind of edit will not be acceptable, if only on formal grounds. This contempt for consensus, despite several years of trying to reason with Smatprt, continues. Unless he comes up with something new, I don't think we are obliged to respond any more.
 * When we have an academic source that finesses the internal differences over hermeneutic strategies between Marlovians and the rest, we can cite it. As to the second point, 'what they designate' refers to a rhetorical practice, not to the beliefs of those who indulge in it. p.s. have you read J.A. Downie's Reviewing What We Think We Know About Christopher Marlowe Again?. The evidence, direct or indirect, linking him to his own plays, using the criteria expected of Shakespeare attribution, wreaks even more violently pyrrhonistic conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I still believe the section is not written in a neutral manner. It still implies that anti-strats use only circumstantial evidence, when that is obviously not the case. Similarly, what precisely is the "contrast" between both sides using stylometrics, for example? Any proposal on how to address this? Smatprt (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For the moment, some parts of the planet, including the WWW, are democratic, and therefore you are entitled to your 'belief'. You yourself, like most true believers, are not neutral. The points you raise have been answered, however, and you keep failing to listen. As Tom said, take your personal beliefs to the appropriate board if you are unconvinced. It's pointless rehashing for the nth time what has been rehashed here, and in the world of scholarship for, what is it, 13+152 =165 years, without achieving anything more than a yawn from an exhausted technical community that has more interesting things to do than listen to a broken disk of a popular LP. Nishidani (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We've been through this bullshit since Day One: anti-Strat claims POV because he doesn't like the wording, the source is quoted in the ref to show that the article is following the source; then he goes to another section to make the same complaint. Later on he complains about too many source quotations in the references. It is nothing but unnecessary disruption to try to exhaust the editors, which was the prevailing strategy before this article was brought into policy alignment and promoted to FA status. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)