Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1

Off-topic and meta-discussion moved from main page
This sounds like even further censorship by Wikipedia. Facts are facts. This article was tagged by Adam Gopnik in a February 14 article in the New Yorker as one of the two most contentious articles on Wikipedia and a constant battleground. For Wikipedia to grant it Featured Article status when the edit history of the article establishes that the entire article was essentially written during the past few months by two editors, Tom Reedy and Nishidani, stridently vocal proponents of the orthodox view of the authorship controversy, while everyone of the opposite view was constantly reverted by them, actively discouraged by them from participating through endless equivocation on Talk pages, or outright banned from editing through their machinations in concocting spurious complaints, would be to violate everything Wikipedia allegedly stands for in terms of its principle of neutrality. It's bad enough that the article is now the playground only of those who champion the orthodox view of the authorship controversy, with everyone of the opposing view prevented from contributing to it and restoring it to neutrality. To grant it Feature Article status while those conditions obtain would indicate just how far Wikipedia has strayed from its alleged principle of neutrality.72.234.212.189 (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is what Gopnik said (in an interview), and it is exactly why we need to show that we can create a stable article that reflects real-world scholarship: "What worries me is the spread of information (I cited Shakespeare authorship and the Shroud of Turin in the piece) where the truth is known but the lies keep coming. Evolution and creationism. A kid going on line to do research on the Second World War is one fatal click away from negationism. That's worrying." . If we can bring this article into the "featured" fold it will be a triumph for the wiki-way that will go some way to allay these very fears. Paul B (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Xover argues for the nomination on the grounds that "Tom has put in a tremendous amount of effort [into the article] over the past year." This is like my students arguing that they deserve an A because they worked really hard.

Its clear that Tom has worked really hard: through his industriousness, along with impressive contributions by "Nishidani," Paul Barlow, and perhaps others, the article has been well scrubbed. It is now a shiny new used car with a broken engine. Anyone who believes that conformity to established doctrine is a higher value than critical thinking should vote in favor of the motion.

Others may wish to pause before doing so. The article has a long and tumultuous history which, contrary to Tom's implication, is highly relevant to the present nomination. Most recently, informed parties who would have been involved in the editing process and helped to provide a more objective content, not to mention less awkward prose, have been bullied into leaving by Mr. Reedy and "Nishidani." Tom's reference to "high degree of stability" is an illusion, if not a *de*lusion*. Within the next six months, at least four new books, all of them endorsing or supporting an Oxfordian authorship candidacy are set to appear, some by major publishers.

The current bibliography of the article contains only a single reference the (multiple) works of Sir George Greenwood and fails to note that the arguments of J.M. Robertson, are from a historical perspective frequently unimpressive beside Greenwood's powerful cross-examination, as any number of more contemporary literary historians, such asHope and Holston From the perspective of intellectual history this is nothing short of pathetic.

If we examine the article from a more contemporary point of view, the same prejudicial deficiencies are glaring: Mark Anderson's "Shakespeare by Another Name," arguably the most important book (along withSaint Shapiro) on the subject written in the last six years, is not only scrubbed from the reference section but is not mentioned in the entire article! There is no reference to the establishment of Brief Chronicles or The Oxfordian, both peer reviewed journals of authorship studies. There is no reference to the contemporary dynamic circumstances of the Shakespearean industry, as exemplified, for example, by William Leahy's newShakespeare and His Authors: Critical Perspectives on the Authorship Question.

It should also be noted, for the record, that the nominator has a conflict of interest. Having been party to the negativism, lack of good faith, and etc. which has brought the article to its present uncomprehensive, pedestrian and prejudicial state, when the *application* of good faith might have produced more impressive results, he now wants his handiwork to be treated as a model of Wikipedia process.

In short, the article has suffered markedly from the single-minded prejudices of the recent crew of editors, and I would have concur with contributor 72.234.212.189, regardless of the circumstances of his or her situation, that the article hardly qualifies for nomination to this category let alone "election." Thank you for your thoughtful perusal of these comments.--BenJonson (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * note: the principle on which the footnoting is undertaken is in conformity with WP:RS and WP:Fringe. James S. Shapiro is an acknowledged Shakespeare expert. Mark Anderson (writer) is a journalist with no expertise in 16th-17th century literature, as are most of the "peer reviewers" on the board of Brief Chronicles. These are matters that have been discussed elsewhere. There may be legitimate criticisms to be made about the structure of the article or the use of sources, but we need helpful input, not disruption and walls-of-text from editors who have had plenty of opportunity to contribute to the article and recent discussions. Paul B (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Response: Mr. Barlow again illustrates a prejudice that seems to interfere with his understanding of simple factual matters that are beyond reasonable dispute, viz:


 * including the general editor, there are twelve members of the editorial board of BC. Of these,at least seven are either fully qualified experts in early modern English literature or have published (sometimes extensively) in topics on early modern English literature.


 * Five are full professors, one, Professor Ostrowski, at Harvard, where he will be this fall teaching a course of the authorship question. Professor Regnier has published extensively in several peer reviewed journals on the subject of Shakespeare and the law. There is no person in the world more qualified (some may be *as* qualified) to hold an informed opinion on the intersection between law and literature in the Shakespearean canon.


 * Two of our board members are recognized experts in the topic of pseudonymous literature: Michael Hyde, PhD Hyde served as the sub-editor for Walter Houghton on The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals (from 1974-1980), a massive five volume compilation of more than thirty leading British-Scottish-Irish magazines published between 1800-1900. Georgetown adjunct Waugamun is a leading theorist on the subject of the relevance of psychoanalysis to literature and has written at length on the relevance of psychology generally and psychoanalysis in particular to the study of pseudonymous texts. Some of his many relevant publications are available on his website, which is at oxfreudian.dot.com. I attempted to insert a link to Dr. Waugaman's site, BUT, journalists take NOTE, this cleanup crew at Wikipedia has been so THOROUGH that Waugaman's site is blacklisted from Wikipedia. WOW! Way to go, guys!  (n.b. I attempted to discover the problem with this and the site is not listed on any of the wiki Blacklists, so this MAY be some sort of bug. I sure hope so.)


 * Professor Gilbert, a man at most in his early forties, holds an endowed chair in theatre history at the University of Guelph; Professor Londré is Curators’ Professor of Theatre at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and Honorary Co-Founder of Heart of America Shakespeare Festival. She was the founding secretary of the Shakespeare Theatre Association of America. She is the editor of a selection of critical essays on Love's Labour's Lost, Love’s Labour’s Lost: Critical Essays published by Garland (1997) and Routledge (2000). Dr. Carol Chaski, one the members of our board who has not published in early modern studies, is a world recognized expert not only in forensic linguistics but in Frye standards for evaluating the authority of expert witnesses in the courtroom! Are you telling us that her area of expertise is not relevant to issues of authorship?


 * All of this information is readily available on the BC website. I don't know why it seems necessary to repeat it hear, except that some persons who might be too busy to visit the site and discover it for themselves might be tempted to think that you have any credibility.


 * Paul, leading aside your blind faith in Shapiro's expertise, which has been widely punctuated in numerous reviews and commentaries readily available on the internet, your willful misunderstanding of the relevance of the expertise of BC board members to the interdisciplinary mission of the publication, and your ironically pedantic efforts to deny Mr. Anderson his rightful place in the current discussion, based on the merits of his work and not his "professional" qualifications, in what universe do you subtract five from twelve and get the answer "most"? --BenJonson (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would take several volumes to unpack the deceptions and disingenousness here, but suffice it to say that it is largely irrelevant to the issue we should be discussing here, and is typical of the Phil Spector-like strategy adopted by Oxfordians here to utterly drown useful discussion in a sea of verbiage so that once one steps in to this incarnadine ocean, returning is as infinitely tedious as go o'er. Paul B (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Waugaman's blog (if that's the site Ben means) is not blacklisted . Paul B (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Who is correct, Barlow or Oxver? You are contradicting one another. Please consult and get your story straight. Thanks.
 * There is no "story" to get straight. If you read what people say instead of jumping straight to paranoia mode, you would see that I was referring to http://politicworm.com/oxford-shakespeare/ while Xover was speaking of www.oxfreudian.com: though the latter was mistyped in an apparent Fraudian slip. Paul B (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note self-identifies as Roger Stritmatter, the General Editor of the journal Brief Chronicles he is here advocating, and has been made aware of the WP:COI guideline. The journal has been discussed at WP:RS/N twice and rejected as a WP:RS except in extremely limited circumstances. The mentioned blog, “oxfraudian.com”  “oxfreudian.com”, is currently on the blacklist due to cross-wiki spamming. --Xover (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @Xover: Perhaps you would care to explain why you find it pertinent to comment on my identity while ignoring the content of my remarks.  Nor do I have a clue what you mean by the phrase that "he is here advocating, and has been made aware of the WP:COI guideline." This sounds like bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. Do you mean that I am advocating the COI policy? That's what it sounds like. But then you follow this by saying that "[he] has been made aware of the guideline."  Huh?  What's with the third person pronoun. I'm right here, and you can dignify me with a direct response instead of pulling this sort of "I'll loud talk you into going away" nonsense. The mentioned blog is not, as you so cleverly name it, "The Oxfraudian." Its "The Oxfreudian."  Do you even know what that means? Do you find your own jokes entertaining?

I sure hope so because I find them juvenile. Regarding the statement that the journal has been rejected as a [WP:RS]] I will confess that not being a Wikipedia junky I was not aware of those discussions. Nevertheless, it does interest me a great deal that you would ignore the substance of my comments above regarding the standing the journal is achieving within the scholarly community of which it is part and go on insisting that just because a group of Wikipedia editors who are for the most part wholly uninformed of the content of the journal, and have never made any credible criticism of its content, that that is some sort of credit to Wikipedia. Its merely an indication of how incompetent Wikipedia often is at adjudicating complicated questions and how easily epithets replace real discussion on controversial topics. Your response is no more credible than your initial opinion, on which you have not yet commented, that it would be a good idea to approve this as a featured page because Tom put so much work into it. I can hear the violins playing in the background. --BenJonson (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

REQUEST: I would like to request that commenters refrain from talking about Nishidani and Tom Reedy or any other user and focus only on the article itself. I find such personal talk unprofessional, unhelpful, and annoying in this space. All of the stuff about Tom and Nishidani and the rest was settled in the Arbcom case. Everyone had their "day in court." Now it is time to talk about actual content. If you want to talk about editors, rather than content, there are other places for that. Wrad (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrad: Reedy and Nishidani have made themselves the subject of this discussion, by refusing to act responsibly as editors dealing with a controversial topic. For a very recent example, just check out the recent talk thread conversation between myself and Nishi. Within 5 minutes of my supplying two footnotes to an un-footnoted controversial claim, which passed muster all of the lo these many months when I have avoided this page like the plague it was turned into, apparently approved of by Nishi, Reedy, and the rest of the gang who has made this entry their own private playground by hounding anyone with alternative perspective,  was still surviving and alive, but with no footnote! I can only conclude that Mssrs. Reedy and Nishidani either do not understand that controversial claims require clear documentation, or perhaps think that they are above the principle that on any controversial topic it is incumbent  on the editors to chose as examples of documentation the strongest possible arguments on both sides, and not, as Reedy and Nishi prefer, to go about erecting straw men at every possible juncture in the discussion so that one side can be made to appear foolish and the other omniscient. Ha! According to ANY reasonable scholarly practice the sentence I edited REQUIRED a footnote, and I supplied TWO (with a slight amplification of the sentence to reflect more accurately the nature of the claim being summarized). Both references were to a peer reviewed journal, Brief Chronicles, which has Wikipedia entry and a prestigious line up of academicians on its editorial board, including one from Harvard.


 * The first issue of BC has had excerpted from it by Gale publishing, in their annual Shakespearean Criticism (2011, forthcoming in April) an article by Dr. Earl Showerman, MD, on the classical sources of Much Ado About Nothing. Shakespearean Criticism is an annual academic publication sold exclusively to University libraries, published by the largest and one of the most prestigious publishers of academic series and textbooks in the world, that has published 57 volumes. This year they are publishing not only Showerman's article but another by Charles Burford, an outspoken and articulate advocate of the Oxfordian position, on the psychology of feudalism. According to Nishi's logic (if it prints something I don't like), SC would not be "RS" -- and his bizarre claim that BC isn't either is followed with a "You should know this" sneer. Do you think its possible that just perhaps Nishi and Mr. Reedy have been so busy editing this page that they don't have a clue what is actually happening in the outside world of Shakespearean scholarship? Sounds that way to me.


 * The result of months of domination of this article by Reedy and Nishidani is eloquently summarized below by 72.234.212.189 "It does not present any of the essential arguments which make the non-orthodox view compelling, and which gave rise to the authorship controversy in the first place and which have kept it an ongoing topic of interest for decades." Nishidani's reflexive censorship of my attempt to supply a footnote only confirms how thoroughly and savagely this practice has been enforced for far too long by these two (aided and abetted by others).


 * I don't know how it can reasonably be expected that persons actually knowledgeable of the subject under discussion should continue stuff rags in their mouths about this kind of misbehavior out of some sort of alleged loyalty to the "principle" of never criticizing such perverse and damaging actions. I'm sure that in some other universe Nishidani is a perfectly lovely human being. As an editor of this particular Wikipedia page he is neither competent nor civil. Indeed, he seems to adhere without deviation to the principle that he is always right, and anyone who questions him will be contradicted and insulted. Well-intentioned attempts to find common ground, such as by supplying appropriate documentation to unsourced claims, are rejected with bogus definitional arguments that never engage the substance of the issue.


 * Wrad, with all due respect, this sort of thing is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. I, too, would prefer to discuss content. But Reedy and Nishi have made that all but impossible to do so, by various means including (very frequently) imposing arbitrarily and typically false definitions on key terms like "RS" without any discussion or defense. The motive is very clear from the pattern they have established over many months: to censor the voices of those who have something significant to say on this topic and preserve the dogma of an entrenched paradigm, whatever the cost to Wikipedia or to the values of informed discourse on questions of significant intellectual and public matters. This is vulgar and should stop. You should not condone it.--131.118.144.253 (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors are relevant. Tom Reedy brought them up: 'an intensive editing process by many excellent editors'. This is manifestly not the truth. The edit history of the article shows that it is the product of two editors, Tom Reedy and Nishidani, both indefatigable proponents of the orthodox view. Their view is that anything which opposes the orthodox view is the pushing of a non-neutral point of view, which is manifestly ridiculous in an article which is purportedly about the authorship controversy. The reality is that the article as it now stands does nothing but disparage the non-orthodox view. It does not present any of the essential arguments which make the non-orthodox view compelling, and which gave rise to the authorship controversy in the first place and which have kept it an ongoing topic of interest for decades.72.234.212.189 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Cardinal to the claim that this Wikipedia Article warrants featured article status is the assertion that the Shakespeare Authorship Question constitutes a 'fringe belief'. This by itself suffices to disqualify the claim on the grounds of non-neutrality. If someone were to claim that Shelley had written Lord Byron's works, that would certainly constitute a 'fringe belief'. But it is clear that the two situations are not the same, because the questions about the Shakespeare Authorship not only show no sign of diminishing after at least 150 years, but are increasing in scope and influence year by year. When a major best-selling orthodox Stratfordian author like James Shapiro sets aside four years of his life to write a novel type of 'refutation' of anti-Stratfordian theory ('Contested Will'), and when more of the masters of evidence of the US Supreme Court lean towards authorship scepticism, than towards orthodoxy, along with innumerable other signs, then this is blatantly no longer a 'fringe belief', but rather a 'minority belief'. It is indeed a kind of bunker mentality, supported by circular definitions of legitimate scholarship, that denies this obvious and ever more overwhelming flood of data. Featured Article status must therefore be opposed on the grounds of the article's clear non-neutrality.Sucamilc (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note the account was registered today and has made a single edit on Wikipedia: the comment above. --Xover (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

'Be open and welcoming.' (Wikipedia guidelines.) Thank you, Xover. Sucamilc (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Rm from main page by Bishonen: Thank you for confirming that on this subject Wikipedia has wholly abandoned its ethical responsibility to allow all sides of a discussion to be heard. The only saving grace of course is that the entire transcript is archived. I suppose to be consistent you should probably delete this comment also. Best regards,--BenJonson (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC), MA, PhD, Associate Professor.

''Continued below. Not relevant to reviewing the article. Please post that type of discussion here in the first place!''
 * @BenJonson: you misunderstand, or fail to read, Andy Walsh's comment. Nothing has been deleted. Your axe-grinding has been moved to the talkpage. To this page. See where Andy Walsh says so? The talk or "discussion" page is the place for discussion, but please beware of disruption and personal attacks on the talkpage also. Standard discretionary sanctions apply to this article. Bishonen | talk 02:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thank you for the clarification. I suppose I mistook the astounding remark "I've just moved volumes of nonsense to the talk page I will consider administrative actions for disruption applied to involved individuals" at face value as being the sort of thing a responsible administrator writes in a "community" that is seeking the truth. "volumes of nonsense?" "consider administrative actions for disruption applied to involved individuals?" Really now, LaserBrain, was it necessary to categorize the material you removed in such a prejudicial mannner and to issue these threats against people who are merely standing up for common decency? Apparently so. And that's a damn pity. I apologize for misunderstanding, but this kind of high-handed admining does nobody any good and gives Wikipedia a bad name. If you need to move something, why not just say "I moved XYZ" instead of writing your own prejudice all over the page that remains so that anyone turning to the now moved material will already know what he or she is supposed to think about it? Bishonen -- you're a hero for the neutrality of your correction. Please consider applying your own comments about disruption when you review the history of the editing of the page in question. 95% of the disruption has come from the parties now controlling the editing. Thanks.--BenJonson (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * [Counts on fingers. ] OK.. so in your opinion a maximum of five percent of the disruption came from the editor who was banned for a year? I have in fact followed the history of SAQ talk, and also the arbitration case, and I find your opinion quite surprising. Bishonen | talk 04:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Ben, I apologize for characterizing your rhetoric as "nonsense". It's clearly not nonsense, and I clearly have a flair for the dramatic hyperbole. However, my point remains valid. Whatever wars have been fought over this topic, their aftermath is unwelcome at FAC. Since I also happen to be an administrator, I will not hesitate to act in that capacity when the need arises. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

My moderate argument about the absence of the criterion of 'neutrality' was also included in the designation of 'nonsense', something which would seem to confirm the point made. In the case of Shakespeare, Doctor Johnson gave as the criterion of an established author that "He has long outlived his century, the term commonly fixed as the test of literary merit." (Johnson, 'Preface to Shakespeare') By the same criterion, the Shakespeare Authorship Question has long outlived its century, and shows no sign of diminishing, as I pointed out. This is directly relevant to the question of 'neutrality', in relation to the claim of 'fringe beliefs', one of the issues on which comment was INVITED, yet adminstrators immediately moved it, by a sort of conditioned reflex, to this talk page. The standards of logic employed on behalf of orthodoxy here are infantile. Any sensible and even-handed Stratfordian would squirm to observe - only thay cannot, because it has been moved to this backwater - the tactics employed on their behalf.Sucamilc (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the extremely heated nature of the debate on this subject in the past, couching any statement in personal attacks or delivering it in a way that shows a disregard for Wikipedia's civility rules is ultimately unhelpful and merits blocking. It is absolutely necessary that everyone involved stick completely and totally to the content of the article and not cast aspersions, assume bad faith, or issue personal attacks.
 * In other words, commentary on content is invited, but a lack of civility will result in a block. Wrad (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, if you ban, or remove from this page, all dissenting positions, you can achieve ‘stability’, and eliminate ‘edit wars’. But this is manifestly Orwellian strategy (in the sense of 1984). Of course, by the same token, by the mad logic of Wikipedia procedures, I do not doubt it will prevail. Yes, indeed, we love Big Brother.Sucamilc (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sock/meatpuppets
I've blocked Sucamilc as a disruptive SPA and obvious sock/meatpuppet. I second the request first placed on this nomination not to engage these types of accounts—it only encourages them when they realize they have an audience. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from PametPuma, 4 March 2011
Comment: I'm fully aware of all the work that has gone into this very comprehensive article, but I wonder if readers will wonder about its balance and neutrality when they check the footnotes and find that of the 232 footnotes 222 (96%) are for sources that support Shakespeare of Stratford and/or argue against an alternative candidate. And of almost a hundred references only eight are anti-Stratfordian, which appears to be the subject of this article. And only one of four external links is anti-Stratfordian. No one would expect a 50-50 split, but the emphasis seems so lopsided as to appear to betray a (hidden?) bias. Appearances do matter, especially if this is going to be a featured article. I'm not sure what we can do at this point, but I fear that the credibility of the editors and indeed of Wikipedia itself and how its policies and guidelines are applied in controversial articles may risk coming in for some significant criticism. Should we re-visit this article and its sources? PametPuma (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

PametPuma (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Almost all reliable sources (WP:RS) are "Stratfordian". Paul B (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I.e., Editors have used, following the guidelines for this kind of subject, sources written overwhelmingly by competent, recognised scholars who have taken the trouble to master the methods required of any academic study of an historical field. This has imposed a particularly strenuous burden on those who have undertaken to write and improve the article. If there is some fault, it lies not with wikipedia, but, as is often asserted by 'anti-Stratfordians', with the structure of modern historical sciences as they are taught at university level, which requires severe tests for acceptance, such as earning a Phd. and submitting one's work to peer-review, rather than to the opinion of vagarious friends, or members of private cultural groups or societies.Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your comment/feedback isn't actionable unless you provide examples of mainstream (meaning, not fringe), reliable sources that haven't been represented. Simply stating that the majority of sources support such-and-such viewpoint is not actionable. The majority of sources at Elvis Presley support that he's dead. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Most anti-Stratfordian sources are either primary sources, self-published and promotional sources, or otherwise non-reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. While I understand that Oxfordians and other authorship advocates think the article is biased because it includes the evidence for William Shakespeare instead of concentrating on making the various arguments is as persuasive manner as possible, the article is meant to be descriptive of the general nature of anti-Stratfordism and the academic response, as required by Wikipedia policy as set down in the guideline WP:FRINGE.
 * Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and I daresay anybody would be hard-pressed to find another encyclopedia that gives as much space to the various anti-Stratfordian theories and other fringe theories as it does. That it does not parrot the arguments of the various Baconain, Oxfordian, and Marlovian web sites is not a valid complaint. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Since this edit request is under discussion, and doesn't seem to be in the right place, I'm untranscluding it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Re the issue of "balance": Wikipedia reports information from reliable secondary sources, with a due balance between significant views that are discussed in scholarly secondary sources. Wikipedia is not like a befuddled media outlet that "balances" each story by giving equal time to the pro and con sides. See WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and WP:SECONDARY. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Both Schoenbaum's Lives and Wadsworth's The Poacher from Stratford are surveys of the various anti-Stratfordian theories. While they make it clear in the final few pages that they agree with the academic consensus, neither of them make any arguments for Shakespeare or against the other candidates. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Metadiscussion on behaviour (moved from main page)

 * I also submit that an article should be lauded as a Featured Article not only for its content and style, but for its development process. A particularly contentious article is likely to suffer from problems of WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY, and the process followed by the SAQ article editors has been exemplary of this problem. Is it possible to edit such a contentious article while also adhering to Wiki ideology? SAQ may prove it is nearly impossible in certain situations, but it would be a shame to flaunt such a conclusion by making this FA.Jdkag (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is looking for 'praise' (lauded). The article has not suffered from any notable contentiousness for almost seven months now, as more than a dozen editors of widely differing backgrounds and expertise have come to it to scrutinize and purge its defects, and improve its qualities. Subsequent editing has shown no problems of incivility or ownership, and WP:AGF hasn't arisen because all are editing to the article, not against each other. The process has been notably civil, esp. since Arbcom stepped in. Finally generic objections repeated against an article whose many editors have demonstrated a willingness to undertake whatever third party experts ask of them so that the criteria of the encyclopedia's highest expectations are fully met misses the point. There are many articles in this 'controversial' area desperately requiring a clean-up and dedicated redaction to meet minimum standards. Rather than harp continually about the putative failings of the one article that has so far received thorough community-wide attention per a strict reading of the relevant policy protocols, it would perhaps be more productive to tackle those that fail every test of WP:NPOV such as the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Few love to hear (or to admit) the sins they love to act.Jdkag (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, do you have any specific actionable objections? This is not a discussion page. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All candidates at FAC are judged on the criteria in WP:WIAFA, which does not include the development process. As far as objecting, you need to give specific actionable requests, not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Further reason for opposition: behavioral problems. A particularly contentious article is likely to suffer from problems of WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY. The process followed by the SAQ article editors has been exemplary of this problem. It may not be possible to edit SAQ in line with Wiki ideology, but it would be a shame to flaunt such a conclusion by making this FA. Restored from Discussion. Jdkag (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And returned. "Behavioral problems" are not part of the featured article criteria, and thus should not be discussed on the main review page. You're welcome to participate in the review, but you must keep your comments there on-topic and provide specific, actionable reasons for your opposition to the article's promotion. Failure to do so will likely lead to your oppose being discounted by the delegates, and continued behavior-related posts will result in you being barred from participation in the review process. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Good behavior/process (e.g., adherence to WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY) is a fundamental WIKI requirement for all articles, one that is not met by the SAQ page. Given the assumptions of the current editors regarding editors of differing viewpoints and regarding how those differing viewpoints should be treated, it is not likely that the SAQ page will meet fundamental WIKI requirements in the near future." The effort to push this through is an ideological attempt of one party to the dispute to prevail in a power struggle that has nothing at all to do with an article that actually meets even a minimal standard of competency. I would merely add the prediction that should this nomination go through, it will in the future only harm Wikipedia, especially in view of the history of bullying behavior documented on the talk pages of the entry. Is that specific enough? Or do I need to start citing all the authorities who have been removed or misrepresented from the article in the attempt to bring it into ideological conformity with the assumptions of the editors who have recently pushed everyone else out of the way? --68.55.45.214 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Moved from main page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There you go again, Paul. I cite facts; you label me. What is conspiratorial about noticing that certain facts correlate? We all know that correlation is not causality, but causality does require correlation. I hate to think of the state of human knowledge if we all applied your apparent belief that correlation should be ignored because it might lead to theories about causality about which we happen to disagree. That way lies totalitarianism. As you can tell, I am myself less interested in how Wikipedia defines "actionable" than in having a real conversation in which reason prevails over insults. So far, one party to the conversation isn't doing to well in that project. As has been stated repeatedly, I "wonder what that means"? Should I be banned for not jumping through your hoops? Others far more knowledgeable of, and interested in, Wikipedia policy have already stated in various wikipedially correct terms why the nomination for FA status of this article is wrong.--131.118.144.253 (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * These types of discussions belong on the SAQ talkpage, not at the FAC. This particular complaint hardly rises to the level of FAC criteria. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Exchange moved from main page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

4) Bullying: When I attempted to repair a few of these grammatical faults (I teach grammar for a living), someone immediately reverted them without explanation and I was labelled a "vandal". Methinx (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Moved from main page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Knitwitted, 15 March 2011
edit semi-protected

I don't understand why Hope & Holston's book The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Authorship Theories, 2d ed. (2009) is not listed as a reference. It is the best source for the authorship question as it was written from a neutral point-of-view. And I don't understand why Shapiro's book is accepted as a reliable source. The book is not footnoted at all. Failure to properly document one’s work is a big no-no in the world of historical research. No one knows what "facts" in his book are derived from which source. Wikipedia may be misattributing "facts" with Shapiro's book when the "facts" should be attributed to their original source(s).

Knitwitted (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 'neutral point of view?' Have you read the book? Or its programmatic declaration that in their summaries 'People who have been denounced as lunatics are seen as truth-seekers . .Cranks  become respected authorities and respected authorities become cranks.' (p.3)
 * The reason why we don't include it is because the writers have no background in Shakespearean studies. Kim Holston has written biographies of Susan Hayward and Richard Widmark. Warren Hope has done some critical studies of modern poets. Their summaries are wholly skewed to their belief that Clifford D. Simak, a science fiction writer, got it right when he depicted in a futuristic novel Time University as one where de Vere's true authorship had been established. Shapiro's book uses the endnote system to provide the bibliographical basis for his chapters. He's a recognised authority on Shakespeare.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From the author's bios: Warren Hope is an adjunct English instructor and lives in Havertown, Pennsylvania. Kim R. Holston has written or cowritten several books for McFarland. He is a part-time audio-visual librarian at Chester County Library, Exton, Pennsylvania. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nishi, you're really one to talk about "skewed." Has it ever even entered your mind that just perhaps the definition of "skewed" is what is at issue here? To you, its not "skewed" to accuse, overtly or by innuendo, your interlocutors of being holocaust deniers. Your summary of the argument of Hope and Holston's bibliography entry is just another absurd straw man argument. The authors of course say nothing of the sort. Your lack of qualification for passing judgment on what constitutes "skewed" looks worse and worse as time goes on. Tom would have it that simply because someone does not have some undefined particular professional label, he cannot be RS. So let's recall what Tom leaves out: Warren Hope has a PhD in English (Tom does not). Warren Hope has an extensive track record of teaching at the college level (Tom has, to my knowledge, none). Warren Hope is an award winning poet and the author of numerous articles in early modern studies (to my knowledge, Tom has no record as a practicing poet and has published one article in the field of early modern studies (one primarily aimed at calling yours truly and Lynne Kositsky names and parading an impressive resume of specious arguments to support them)). So, here's my question Tom, aside from the requirement that the author come to the same conclusion that you hold on this topic, what sort of qualifications would allow his or her source to be considered RS. You don't like Brief Chronicles, although the editor (unlike Hope) is a tenured professor at a 4 year University. Would you admit, perhaps, that Felicia Londre's volume of essays on Love's Labour's Lost (http://www.amazon.com/Loves-Labours-Lost-Shakespeare-Criticism/dp/0815309848) could be considered RS. Londre holds an endowed chair in theatre history at the University of Missouri Kansas City. Is that highfallutin enough for you?  Or are the only sources that are allowed to be RS written by scholars at Columbia, Yale, or Harvard?  If so, you might wish to consult the footnotes to Marc Shell's Children of the Earth, which will tell you that even that reductio ad absurdum won't keep your little myth safe from contamination by a contrary voice. I'd really like to read Nishidani accusing Shell of being a holocaust denier. Meanwhile, clarification would be appreciated. What are the criteria, in your mind, for an RS source, in terms of the "authority" of the author?  Thanks. Visit any time, by all means. I especially recommend this morning's post, "I Tremble Every Day: A Brief Survey of Honest Stratfordians" http://www.Shake-speares-bible.com --BenJonson (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the second paragraph on p. 281 (the first page of his "Bibliographical Essay"), Mr. Shapiro writes "For those seeking an overview of the controversy, there are a number of fine surveys, all of which I have found helpful and reliable: ... Warren Hope and Kim R. Holston, The Shakespeare Controversy (Jefferson, N.C., 1992)..." And thank you for your clarification regarding Shapiro. Yes, he is a recognized authority on Shakespeare... not an authority on the authorship question. Knitwitted (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hope and Holstein is an Oxfordian work, as you know. And indeed, your cohort BenJonson told us you would be coming here. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're really funny sometimes, Tom. I noticed that Denton was a frequent visitor.--BenJonson (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do check me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Knitwitted . Thanks! Knitwitted (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as an "authority on the authorship question" in the sense you mean, since the "authorship question" is not an academic subject except as a rather marginal object of study. We don't accept Alfred Rosenberg and Hans Gunther as experts on the "Jewish question". We do accept historians who study the period. Paul B (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, now we come to the nub of the position advocated by Paul, Tom, and the ever-mysterious "Nishidani." At Wikipedia, there is no inhibition on vulgar speech like comparing anti-Stratfordians to Naziz. This will be allowed and sanctioned. Mr. Barlow, Mr. Reedy, and "Nishidani" will be promoted and supported by Wikipedia admins while leaving behind themselves a paper trail of such vulgarities. Ben-Jonson et al., on the contrary, will be threatened with expulsion, if not actually expelled, for pointing out that this is vulgar, ad hominem, nonsense, which reflects more on the poor judgment and empty rhetoric of the speakers, than on the supposed objects of its description, and, insofar as it is sanctioned by Wikipedia, on the organization itself. Every once in a while, Paul, I actually thought you were worth paying attention to.  The longer you speak, and the more you demonstrate what seems to be a deep seated character flaw that prevents you from understanding the subject you think you are discussing, the less you impress me. You yourself don't know enough about the period in question to distinguish scholars "who study it" from those who don't. You defend a guy, apparently because he's from Columbia, who can't even get the most elementary facts (http://shake-speares-bible.com/2010/04/18/james-shapiro-and-the-notorious-hyphen/) in his book correct, and then have the audacity to compare those who have pointed out these shameful error to Nazis. That is just pathetic.--BenJonson (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My argument is that I'm well-qualified to judge the soundness of a supposedly historically-written book. Mr. Shapiro's book lacks proper documentation. I believe his undocumented book would be mightily thrown back regardless of his credentials had he submitted it to any historical group including fringe groups such as http://www.bcgcertification.org/ . Knitwitted (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If Shapiro is a reliable source then his assertion that Hope & Holston are a reliable source regarding the authorship question should be satisfactory. And, no, I don't know that Hope, et al's book is "an Oxfordian work." Kindly quote your source. Knitwitted (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A polite remark does not mean more than the fact that an author is being ... polite. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By "Oxfordian work" I mean it promotes Oxford-as-Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And how is Tom Reedy an authority on what constitutes an "Oxfordian work"? Knitwitted (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The preface mentions "Oxfordian" 4 times, but none of the other candidates. The Introduction says "We too are convinced that Time will eventually establish that William Shakespeare was Edward de Vere". I have not read any further so I don't know if the book is worth citing but it is undoubtedly Oxfordian and you certainly can't claim that it is NPOV. Poujeaux (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * User Poujeaux has read parts of the preface to Hope and Holston and has counted some words. That's an argument? Anyone who uses the word "Oxfordian" is an Oxfordian?  I know that Wikipedia depends on volunteer labor to function, but that's setting the bar pretty low if you ask me. To clarify, Hope and Holston do indeed conclude that Oxford was probably or certainly the author of the Shakespearean canon. Shapiro doesn't exactly *conclude* the contrary position -- he assumes it -- although as Knitwitted has pointed out, he confers an authority on Hope and Holston that editors here, who haven't read the book, seem unable to.--BenJonson (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW... Shapiro also cites three other books plus two bibliographies as being both "helpful and reliable" regarding the authorship question. I'm not familiar with any of these. Knitwitted (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But perhaps these sources plus Hope & Holston would be better starting points for your article rather than Shapiro. Knitwitted (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One author's reliability does not give him/her dictatorial powers to assert it in others, though, of course, that is not what Shapiro is doing. He does not tailor his language to suit the requirements of WP:RS! In any case what he means by "reliable" here is irrelevant to what is meant by it on wikipedia. He presumably means that the authors don't lie. WP:RS is something different. It is about how we make assessments of publications, and includes the point that authors can be relied upon to make judgements (which is not to say that their judgements are necessarily correct, but that they have authority). Your last sentence is bzarre. The logic seems to be: Shapiro's reliability means that these other guys are reliable therefore we should bypass WP:RS and not be using Shapiro! Paul B (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't ya'll just say what you really mean: Professor Hope (PhD, English, and award winning poet) has written a book we don't like. It comes to a conclusion we don't like. Therefore it is not RS. This is an honest summary of your arguments.--BenJonson (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I admit it would be a bit "bizarre" for Wikipedia to cite those "reliable" publications as cited in Shapiro's book rather than his own book which is basically a compilation of prior research. Knitwitted (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course he relies of earlier research as all scholars do, but it is anything but a "compilation". In fact most of the books you refer to are better described as "compilations", since they are summaries of arguments that have been made over the years. I don't think you understand thr concept of Reliable Source as it is used here. A scholar who studies - say - the history of scientific ideas in the Victorian era will - and should - use as sources publications by writers of the time. In a sense, of course, the writers studied are coming up with the "original" ideas, but the scholar is commenting on them; looking at what kind of evidence was available; why certain ideas caught on, or were ignored; how they fitted attitudes of the time etc etc. That's the point of historical scholarship. He may also compare these writers with modern scientific knowledge in the area. This is pretty much what Shapiro does. It does not make the work of a Victorian scientist "reliable" in Wikipedia's sense if a modern scholar uses their work as a source and states that it is a "reliable" account of what the author thought at the time. These are two quite different concepts. Paul B (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is pretty much what Hope and Holston do. But since they offer a different point of view from Shapiro, one that you don't like, they are not RS, but you will go out of your way to make all sorts of lame excuses for the quite manifest, gigantic errors and leaps of judgment in the Shapiro book. No one here is saying that because Shapiro made a fool of himself in his book he should not be cited at Wikipedia. After all, he teaches at Columbia. So why is it that you are so focused on issues of external prestige that you seem unwilling to deal with the actual merits or particular arguments?--BenJonson (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume everyone here has seen Dr. John M. Rollett's criticism of Shapiro's book at http://www.amazon.com/review/RK5WBY736S24H/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=94&cdPage=10&asin=1416541624&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1SUA70OJAGSC#Mx1SUA70OJAGSC . In my opinion, errors and omissions (including a lack of attribution to proper sources) such as those pointed out by Dr. Rollett taint Professor Shapiro's credibility. Knitwitted (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A review on Amazon.com has absolutely zero status. IMO, Shapiro could have been more generous to Rollett and Wright, but he does mention them and this has no relevance to the criteria of WP:RS. Rollett only displays his own ignorance. He repeats the long-debunked view that the Labeo referred to by Hall is the lawyer Marcus Antistius Labeo. In fact it refers to a bad poet, Attius Labeo, satirised in Hall's principal source, the Roman writer Persius. Also Shapiro quite explicitly denies that "doubts about Shakespeare" began in 1750 (he mentions a bad joke in 1759, which has nothing to do with doubt). Rollett is all over the place. He's right about just one thing though - the hyphen. That's a Shapiro slip. He's really explaining the printed use of the 'e' contrary to the typical manuscript spelling. Paul B (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. If I believe Wikipedia, then I do believe Prof. Shapiro has trumped Dr. Rollett. Per Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wilmot#Supposed_Shakespeare_research, "In 2010, James S. Shapiro declared the document a forgery based on facts stated in the text about Shakespeare that were not discovered or publicised until decades after the purported date of composition." Again, if my beliefs are correct, I believe that is sufficient evidence to burst Dr. Rollett's 2002 bubble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitwitted (talk • contribs)
 * I've no idea what you are trying to say now. The James Wilmot article gives due weight to Rollett and Wright and identifies the chronological sequence of research and publications. Rollett and Wright are given more space than Shapiro and appear first. You must know this, since you've quoted from the article. Paul B (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you give the link to the 2003 article so people can read for themselves what was reported? Wright never made any statement stronger than "probable". Excerpts from the two articles (emphasis mine):
 * Wright reported on continuing research into a discovery first made by Dr. John Rollett of Ipswich, England, namely that the entire story of Wilmot having searched for years for any news of the Stratford man—and finding nothing—may have been a 20thcentury fabrication.
 * Professor Wright acknowledges that a definitive case for establishing the Cowell report as a forgery has yet to be made, if it can be made, given that the challenge may require the task of proving several negatives.
 * Dr. Wright cautioned his audience that further research and undertakings—such as dating the paper and ink of the alleged 1805 report—would be necessary, but he felt that he and Dr. Rollett had made enough progress to date to make the story public.
 * We await with excitement the work, insights and discoveries of Drs. Wright, Rollett and Rubinstein in their continuing inquiries into this likely Baconian fraud, and we look forward to Professor Wright’s planned transcription and publication of this document with a revelation—if a revelation is possible—of who may have written the mysterious manuscript that fantastically appeared without any provenance in the Edwin Durning-Lawrence library at the University of London in 1932.

Wright had seven years to research and publish, as he had said he planned to do. That he didn't is no one's fault but his, and nobody would expect Shapiro to sit on his original contribution that proved it was a forgery Tom Reedy (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So, because he did not publish, Shapiro is allowed to write a book that presents himself as having discovered, a la the great genius, the significance of the document all on his own? And will be rewarded for his dishonesty by seeing his book advanced to the authoritative source sine qua non on Wikipedia? You seem to be trying to shift attention away from the real issue, which is whether Shapiro's account of this event possesses even a modest degree of credibility in this regard. It does not. He manifestly attempts to fool the reader into thinking that he himself discovered that the document was a "forgery," and conceals the truth: he read about the likelihood that it was a forgery in a publication that you guys now say is not "RS." It's obvious why you do so. If its not "RS" then wikipedia will forever be prevented from correcting Shapiro's self serving and partial account, and hence will effectively be colluding with the Columbia prof. in misrepresenting the history. I'm surprised you aren't quoting "A reader from Brooklyn" as your source. He's RS, right? He agrees with you and everything he says sounds just like your hero, Shapiro. --BenJonson (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you even bother to read the articles? I even linked the relevant article above. I've no idea whether or not Shapiro read Rollett and Wright before or after he developed his own suspicions about Wilmot. IMO his lack of reference to them in the TLS article was rather churlish, though I think it was understandable that he placed them in the reference section in the book. But none of this is relevant. Shapiro's status as an RS is not affected by the fact that he makes the most of his own input. It's not how we determine a reliable source. Academics bicker over priority all the time. Reliability is determined for Wikipedia by prcedures that are described in the relevant policy statements. Paul B (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: no consensus. Please remember that the edit semi-protected template should only be used to suggest specific, "X" to "Y" changes, per the template documentation. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 17:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

reply to Jdkag
I've interleaved responses to Jdkag's comments. Paul B (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC): Actionable items: Paul B (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * article's first line opens with a negative term (argument) instead of a neutral term (theory, belief, etc)
 * why is "argument" a negative term? It seems neutral to me.
 * ”Shakespeare’s authorship was first questioned in the middle of the 19th century” – according to whom? Other views? “Some scholars believe that…” would be more NPOV. (Also, the anomalous lack of records, which was noted by early biographers, is equally relevant to the subject.)
 * This is not disputed since the identification of the Wilmot forgery. Of course reliable sources prior to that do date it a bit earlier.
 * no statement in lead as to why the four candidates are mentioned
 * The statement is made later. It would just clog the lede.
 * "Shakespeare’s authorship was not questioned during his lifetime" – Other views? How can this be a proven fact? Shouldn’t it be “As far as scholars have been able to determine… although authorship doubters believe…”
 * Reliable sources assert this. Of course fringe ones claim that all sorts of coded messages exist in virtually every 16th and 17th publication. We go by what reliable sources say. To add "As far as scholars have been able to determine" is weasely. It would be like saying "as far as scholars have been able to determine the Bush administration did not blow up the twin towers on 9/11."
 * lead ends with “They campaign for public acceptance of the authorship question as a legitimate field of academic inquiry and to promote one or another of the various authorship candidates”. This is an article about the theory. It’s not about the doubters themselves. This line does not belong in the lead.
 * I don't see this line as necessary, but I don't see what's wrong with it. The article is about the theory and its history, which includes the campaigns, lawsuits, publicity etc. These are all discussed.
 * ”Anti-Stratfordians claim that this indicates a person very different from the author reflected in the works” – use of “claim” is not neutral. Suggest “believe” or “say”.
 * Fine, no problem. Change it.
 * Case Against Shakespeare section: There is an editorial voice present, which is effectively refuting the case while it is being presented. The "case against" should be summarised baldly, without comment; the refutation is part of the "case for".” I believe this especially applies to the first two sentences in the section, which serves as a set-up for the “case for”.
 * This has already been dealt with. See the talk page.
 * History and particulars of the “group theory” are inadequate, both in the history section and the alternative candidates section. The various group theories have received much attention over the years. One would not know it from this article.
 * This is a matter that could be debated till the proverbial cows put their feet up. It would be impossible to come up with a solution that would satisfy everyone about which theories or arguments are more or less important. However it is a fact that it is individual authors who have created followers. Group theories have cropped up on and off, but have never developed major followings. They are duly mentioned.
 * Baconian and Oxfordian theory sections are too long and detailed. They are not summaries and do not even follow the basic technique of Wikipedia Summary Style. Why is the unpublished George Frisbee given so much weight, for example? Major arguments surrounding the candidacies are also missing, such as Oxford’s bible, Bacon’s Tempest connections, etc. In short, expert opinions on the minority viewpoint are not represented accurately, if at all.
 * Why are they "too long"? They are longer than the other two because more has been published on these two candidates. And how do they not "follow the the basic technique of Wikipedia summary style"? Again, it is impossible to prove which arguments are most or least important. "Oxford’s bible" is a recent argument devised by Roger Stritmatter (aka user:BenJonson). Our old friend Nina Green dismisses it. It has had no significant historical role in the creation and maintenance of the theory, so most RS do not discuss it (though it is briefly discussed by Shapiro). "Bacon’s Tempest connections" are mainly a preoccupation of user:Barryispuzzled, which is why they feature so heavily in the current Baconian theory article, which he created. They have not played a major role in the history of Baconism.
 * The article is quite long, especially the history section, which has its own article. Again, summary style is not being followed. The "case for" section is also incredibly long and throws the weight of the article out of balance. Perhaps the section needs its own article?
 * The balance of content should favour the mainstream view, per policy.
 * Process: The preface to the list for featured article criteria, states that these criteria are: "in addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles." Good behavior/process (e.g., adherence to WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY) is a fundamental WIKI requirement for all articles, one that is not met by the SAQ page. Given the assumptions of the current editors regarding editors of differing viewpoints and regarding how those differing viewpoints should be treated, it is not likely that the SAQ page will meet fundamental WIKI requirements in the near future.
 * Editors with different viewpoints are welcome. POV pushing is not. That is policy.

Response by jdkag: Editors with different viewpoints are welcome? First, I have no interest in this subject other than in providing information to Wiki readers. However, when I added one reference to one candidate citation on the SAQ list page, increasing the number of references from 33 to 34, I was immediately reverted, and I was accused in the ensuing discussion of bookspam, of trying a publicity stunt, of pushing POV, of edit warring (a false accusation, as I did not revert), of trying to reduce the level of Wikipedia by citing self-published work (also a false accusation), and in general of violating Wiki standards. Paul, you also accused me of not really wanting to improve the article; Nishidani stated near the beginning of the discussion that I would probably ignore whatever he said and try to edit the article anyway; Tom said I was wasting everyone's time. It's all here. Anyone who has studied the SAQ issue and found it plausible is automatically considered an unreliable source by the current tag team of editors, the result being that the article cannot accurately present the reasons for which the SAQ issue exists. Over the centuries, many educated people, fully capable of reviewing the evidence for Stratfordian authorship (as Nishidani calls them, "sundry lawyers and judges," though the list also includes university presidents, academics, scientists, and historians) have come to the conclusion that the evidence is wanting. The article portrays such people as being argumentative and self-serving and the general tone of the article is one of blunt disrespect for the issue. Editors who want to change the article, in order to treat the subject with more respect, are shown the same disrespect that I was shown.Jdkag (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed repeatedly. In this article we have tried to stick to reliable sources. The book you wanted to add was clearly not RS by any standard. Why do you keep harping on this? If you feel strongly about it, take it to one of the relevant discussion boards to get the input of the community as a whole (Reliable sources/Noticeboard; Fringe theories/Noticeboard). You state that I "accused" you of not wanting to improve the article. For the record, I responded to your inaccurate assertion that editors were not giving "both sides of the story", since all candidates were treated equally. I wrote, "you are not remotely interested in giving both sides of the story, since you do not add books on any other candidate. If you showed good faith by collating material on all the candidates (where possible, of course), finding when they were first proposed and identifying prominent literature promoting their claims, you might improve the article by giving the reader more comprehensive information than a mere list of names." I also added "If Jdkag genuinely wishes to provide information to the reader he/she will add the relevant literature on all of the candidates, where is it accessible. Adding one example of advocacy for one candidate does not help". Paul B (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, you did not revert? What is this and this? I suggested three times that you open up a case at WP:RS, 1, 2, 3, in accordance with the final decision of the recent arbitration case. You chose to ignore my suggestions (or anybody else's, a prime example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), and instead repeated the same comments over and over, resulting in an impenetrable wall of text, the type of editorial disruption that is specifically addressed in the sanctions. Your actions here at the FAC are similar, ignoring Nikkimaria's instructions and reinserting your content that she had moved. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those reverts were before the discussion was opened; once discussion began I did not revert. But there's no point in our arguing over the discussion that took place; it's all recorded for anyone interested in knowing what took place.Jdkag (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Jdkag -- this is just a brief note of thanks for the degree of impartiality you have provided on this topic. Those of us who actually do have some authority on the topic (notwithstanding Paul Barlowe's vulgarity in calling us "Nazis" (since when is that allowed at Wikipedia?))do respect your assistance and your commitment to insuring that the article should be improved rather than degraded by those with a primarily ideological position. The ideological character of the position is evident, I submit, in so many ways that they cannot be counted, but one could easily start with Barlowe's comparison of Hope and Holston to two infamous Nazis. Talk about not having an argument. Thanks for holding us all to a higher standard.--BenJonson (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OOOh what a naughty fellah you are. No-one called you Nazis. No-one, never. I assume you're are referring to my analogy with the concept of a "Jewish question". Any unbiassed reader will easily understand the purpose of the analogy. They will also understand how utterly you misrepresent it. Poisoning the atmosphere of discussion is counter-productive. Paul B (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BenJonson, your Nazi accusation is better suited to WP:WQA or a noticeboard (with a specific and recent diff, of course), and most of the rest of your comment above belongs on Jdkag's talkpage. Please remain civil and constructive. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact about half the comments on the FAC page belong on talkpages or newsgroups. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of PametPuma's oppose (moved from main page)

 * Tom: If you'd start supporting even some minimal standards of human decency, you wouldn't be all alone rolling that stone with only a few fellow travellers: http://shake-speares-bible.com/2011/03/18/in-praise-of-honest-stratfordians-part-i/#more-2282. But since you've made it clear that you tolerate and condone the equivalent of hate speech, some of us are a little less interested in contributing to your project than we might otherwise be. You guys can't seem to open your mouths without introducing failed historical analogies of the most grotesque sort or accusations of "conspiracy theory." This sort of argument by trying to define your opponents with labels that don't fit only damages your own credibility in the long run and makes it very difficult for you to retreat from claims that in the long run are wholly untenable. It commits you to one Pyrrhic victory after another. You deserve better, so does Wikipedia, and so do those whom you so readily heap your contempt upon.--131.118.144.253 (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone's position is clear by now. This is no place for persisting with rumour-mongering, insinuations, personal attacks (WP:NPA) or rhetorical exercises in hyperbole (totalitrianism, Nazi, hate speech etc). Could you please restrict your future comments to specific issues that might assist editors in improving the text? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "accusations of conspiracy theory". Noone is suggesting that the SAQ advocates are part of a conspiracy. It is SAQ advocates who have claimed that conspiracies existed to conceal the truth. The nature of this conspiracy varies, depending on the theory. But most involve some sort of conspiracy, and many require it. Surely this is not in dispute. You comment that "the licenser George Buc was removed from his office for 'senility'", clearly suggesting that there was some hidden reason why he was "removed", and that this is all deeply suspicious. Why else mention it? It seems odd to hint heavily at dark forces at work and then become outraged when your hints are commented upon. Either you want to say something useful or you do not. This kind of foggy "discussion" goes nowhere because there is no clear and open exchange of suggestions for improvements. Paul B (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Ogburn even goes out of his way to explain that no conspiracy is needed. The C word is used mainly by the Stratfordians to disparage the other side. Poujeaux (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's completely untrue. I've just been reading Allen's biography of De Vere. He talks about plots and conspiracies all the time. In any case, what other word is appropriate to describe a group of people getting together to hide the truth and create a false story? That's the very definition of the word "conspiracy". Ogburn fils is just one writer. Ogburn pere et mere are quite clear about the existence of conspiracies. As for the "Prince Tudor" aficionados, they find conspiracies everywhere, and are quite open about it. Please do not misrepresent the facts. Paul B (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Warshy (moved from main page)

 * Moving Warshy's polemic, which explicitly "leaves aside the specific merits or clear weaknesses.. of the proposed article", from the main page. I have no idea what it was doing there, it's a ridiculous place for it. Also moving Paul B's response to Warshy.  Bishonen | talk 15:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC).


 * Oppose. If you want to see the real rationale for trying to promote this article now to FA status you will see it clearly spelled out by the main proponent above here.

More specifically I am referring to the following statement by Tom Reedy:


 * Whether we achieve FA status or no[t - sic!), I don't think any of us knows how much impact this article will have in the future, especially after Emmerich's movie is released in September and people will be searching for an accurate and reliable account of exactly what the Shakespeare authorship question is.

This is the last step of the long struggle (14 months, according to the same proponent in the opening paragraph of the proposition above) of a group of editors' concerted effort to first take control of the page, and then to rewrite it with the specific goal of creating a 'written-in-stone' (i.e., a stable, FA status article) document on Wikipedia. The goal was therefore, from the beginning, to be able to pre-empt any future attempts, after the release of the movie, to review and/or to revise the "official," accepted, mainstream version of the history and status of the SAQ/question.

Now this is obviously a very skillful and talented group of experienced and committed editors ('professional' editors, of the type that are online daily for many, many hours, actively editing for those many hours; as opposed to 'amateurs' such as myself, editors who edit mainly during the weekend and who are constantly struggling with the technology/wiki) that is supported by a considerable number of mainstream administrators inside Wikipedia, as one can readily see by reviewing the development of the recent ArbCom case on the controversy regarding the same page/subject/article here. They are all identified with one side of the SAQ controversy, the so-called "Statfordian" side.

This group of committed "Statfordian" editors have managed in the process to take control and complete ownership of the page; and they have also managed to completely muzzle and ban from it any opposition that remained within it to their ultimate goal spelled above. They managed to achieve these non-trivial goals through skillful and relentless litigation against their opponents (the "Anti-Stratfordians" or "Oxfordians," so to speak) within all the available instances of Wikipedia, culminating in the ultimate instance already mentioned (ArbCom), which finally endorsed all their initial goals and purposes.

This here is just the last hurdle on their path to achieving their ultimate goal on a rather timely fashion, considering the rather 'sensitive' deadline or target date spelled out above.

Now, leaving aside all these political and legal processes for the generation of social knowledge, and even leaving aside the specific merits or clear weaknesses and strong biases of the proposed article, my question to any independent and uncommitted editors still following this process now, as I have for the past 5 or 6 months, is rather simple:


 * Is Wikipedia's own ultimate interest and purpose, that of being a reliable source of impartial information on any given subject (and certainly including this particularly controversial one) really being served by granting this article FA status, and by thus endorsing the proponent group of editors' own particular preconceived views, biases, and goals?

Not in my view. (Disclosure - I am a skeptical in my basic philosphical and historical outlook; this is not my field of specialty and I don't have any a priori ideological committment in the core controversy. I don't know if Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare or if anybody else did it using his name as a pseudonym instead, for whatever reason. It is indeed, in my view, a very interesting historical mystery. I did not directly edit the page. I was involved in the talkpage discussions for a short while and I was nominated in the initial ArbCom request for arbitration as one of the 'outside' editors supporting the minority skeptical opposition views.) warshytalk 02:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are objecting because Tom had the villainous plan of creating "an accurate and reliable account of exactly what the Shakespeare authorship question is."? He wanted Wikipedia's article to be something that the Wikipedia community could be proud of when a film is released which creates a fictional narrative in which the Earl of Oxford is portrayed as the illegitimate son and also lover of Queen Elizabeth I. To me that seems to be an entirely honourable aspiration. BTW, "committed Strafordians" is a nonsensical label. The academic community as a whole are "committed Strafordians". If there were serious academic debate, then we would represent that fact. Paul B (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Barlow has a strange idea of what "the Wikipedia community...could be proud of." If in fact all the communications relevant to this discussion, including Mr. Reedy's extensive email communications with Professor Shapiro, prior to the time during which he and others larded the new page with numerous references to Shapiro's book (demonstrated in numerous circumstances to be a book which makes mistakes which no graduate student would make, were made available it would suggest a different conclusion: Mr. Reedy et al wanted to create a page that Professor Shapiro would be proud of.--BenJonson (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since BenJonson has evidently refused to retract his remark after I asked politely, I need to set the record straight. His statement about any "extensive email communications with Professor Shapiro, prior to the time during which he and others larded the new page with numerous references to Shapiro's book" is a lie, nor did I or anyone else want "to create a page that Professor Shapiro would be proud of." I would also like to assure readers that in my experience BenJonson's behaviour and tone are not typical of tenured professors (or assistant professors). Tom Reedy (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I should note, since I am mentioned in the same message from Ben, that I have no connection at all to professor Shapiro. The only person cited on the page with whom I have had any contact is Stanley Wells, with whom I had a brief email exchange regarding portraits of Shakespeare over a year ago. That is all. Shapiro is footnoted so much because he is the most recent reliable source on the topic and his book has been widely and positively reviewed. Paul B (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 'the long struggle (14 months) . . of a group of editors' concerted effort to first take control of the page.'
 * Setting aside questions of the awkward phrasing here, that sounds like, in your view, several of us have engaged in an epic journey not dissimilar to that of the Chinese Communist Party's 長征 during WW2, a band of ideologically driven people who have waged a momentous struggle to wrest control of the once democratic article, and are now asserting dictating, if not dictatorial, power over it. Such a grandiose historic simile might sound like a backhanded compliment, but hyperbole, a form of discursive inflation, can paradoxically deflate the effect of its flattery.
 * Neither Tom, Paul nor myself, despite this repeated furphy, took control of anything. Given the opportunity to write alternative versions to the preexisting conflicted, shabby mess of a page, both Oxfordians and the Gang of Three had 6 months to come up with a better product. The Oxfordian camp abandoned that collective task to just one editor User:Smatprt, who, understandably, given his reservations about the decision and his isolation, just copied the old page and did some small tweaks. We thoroughly revised the whole article from top to bottom, introduced strict criteria for evidence, uniformity in sourcing, and demanded of each other that wiki's best practice be applied to every sentence. Both versions were then made available to the wider community, and outside editors chose our version. Having done so, the wider community then subjected, for several months, the article to very severe testing, to ensure that WP:NPOV was faithfully respected. That is, wikipedia took control of our version, and ratcheted it up to conform with what it considers to be the kind of article that meets the criteria of FA class writing.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As to the intimation this was written to preempt the effect of Emmerich's forthcoming film, the dates don't coincide. We were working on this long before Oxfordians like User:Australiansofarabia and Softlavender were editing that kind of information onto the wiki article dealing with that film. The ambition of this article has been to set the facts straight, rather than queer the proliferating factoids. That this is a cause for Oxfordian anxieties is unfortunate - Nina Green herself mentioned the same fear back in December- but I think it an unwarranted worry. I very much doubt whether the global public, dazzled by Emmerich's swashbuckling epic of incest, authorship and court intrigue, will take the onerous trouble to check Wikipedia and slowly read through a long, scrupulously footnoted excursus on the realities of our knowledge of things Elizabethan. I once had to tell an American, who stopped me in Rome, to enquire about directions to the Vatican, that Charlton Heston's tomb for Rex Harrison was actually for Pope Julius II.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If I thought it would do any good, I'd reply to the objections of the opposition voters, but I don’t see much reason to respond, since they are exactly the type of vote-stacking that was brought up as evidence at the arbitration.


 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Six edits, five of them to this FAC.
 * 14 edits since 2009, all of them apparently to "[add] information strengthening de Vere claim…".
 * 132 edits, all but 43 concerning the SAQ and its "POV" issues for reflecting the academic consensus.
 * Two edits, both to this FAC.
 * 49 edits, not one of them an article edit, 20 of them to this FAC or FAC talkpage.
 * Four edits, all of them to this FAC. Currently blocked as a disruptive SPA and obvious sock/meatpuppet.
 * A committed Oxfordian who appears to be working with Knitwitted to call in opposition voters.
 * Eight edits, all to this FAC and talkpage.
 * }
 * 49 edits, not one of them an article edit, 20 of them to this FAC or FAC talkpage.
 * Four edits, all of them to this FAC. Currently blocked as a disruptive SPA and obvious sock/meatpuppet.
 * A committed Oxfordian who appears to be working with Knitwitted to call in opposition voters.
 * Eight edits, all to this FAC and talkpage.
 * }
 * Eight edits, all to this FAC and talkpage.
 * }
 * }


 * To my mind there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the purpose and policies of Wikipedia, especially of the first of the Five Pillars and of WP:ADVOCACY, and that misunderstanding seems to me to be the cause of most of the objections. Trying to usefully address such misunderstandings has proven to be impossible, and I don't see that arguing here will do anything to improve it. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This list illustrates the extent to which certain editors on this project confuse accusations with truth, and freely substitute various categorizations of their opponents with arguments. This is just pathetic. There is no evidence that I have "called in opposition voters." And I HAVE NOT DONE SO. What I have done is to use my resources to provide some commentary on the dismal anti-intellectualism, absence of historical perspective, name-calling and threats that have been brought to bear on the questions under discussion. I intend to continue doing so as time and opportunity permit. --BenJonson (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection?
This was semi-protected by on March 3 diff; the semi-protection was for 2 weeks and expired on March 17. Given the above chart, would it make sense to semi-protect again? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dunno how much it'll help, but ✅. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was also wondering about making a SPI request based on the above chart. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, dunno how much it'll help, but you're welcome to try. From what I can tell there are a few SPAs being recruited off-wiki, not just one person on multiple accounts. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that some of these look more like meat puppets than socks, but given the history there may be some quacking going on. Will try to do a SPI in the next 24 hours. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to check it against a similar chart on the arbcom case, users from that case who have been blocked , as well as against known socks User:ItsLassieTime and User:Barryispuzzled. Wrad (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - very helpful. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked, who is a Check User, to look at the tables and let me know if an SPI request for Check User was in order or not. Versageek went ahead and ran Check User on the possible candidates and did not find anything on the contributors here. Versageek did find and block two previously unknown socks of - see here. Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm responding here to the response to my post on the main discussion page (which seems now to be locked) which claims my suggestion would be a "clear violation" of Wikipedia policy. Pillar five of Wikipedia’s Five pillars states: “Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not carved in stone” and that “the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule”. It goes on to say, “be bold”. I’m suggesting we be bold enough to admit that, on this subject, “neutrality” (objective of the second pillar) is a virtual impossibility in a unified article. If we cannot achieve “neutrality” we can achieve the “spirit” with a solution that is fair with a two-part article divided between the two opposing points of view. A feature article controlled by Stratfordian partisans (as it is now) will violate the "spirit" of Wikipedia and create an even high level of animosity between the two sides. --Ssteinburg (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This has no relationship whatever to the "spirit" or the letter of the policy. We do not give equal time to fringe theories. We would not give featured status to an article on evolution that gave half the space to Creationists. Indeed a good case could be made that this artixcle shoud treat the subject in a descriptive and cultural-historical sense entirely. The current structure gives actual space to the arguments of the fringe. Paul B (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I want to note I may have posted to the wrong heading here, but I trust that will be forgiven. I’m new here. Who is “we”? Are you in fact speaking on behalf of Wikipedia and are you going to be deciding who and what will be getting or not getting “equal time”? A “featured article”, according Wikipedia’s “Portal: Feature content”, states that “featured content” is the “best that Wikipedia has to offer”. I think Wikipedia is wonderful thing (problematic as it is), but the idea of “featured content” is something I find dangerously problematic, evidenced, if nothing else, by the ownership and partisanship displayed in the article in question, the accompanying discussion, and language such as “fringe” and the comparison of anti-Stratfordianism to “Creationism”. I don’t see how such blatant partisanship can be squared with Wikipedia’s second “pillar” of “neutrality”. Or, does neutrality not extend to “featured articles”? I wouldn’t want to be perceived as an advocate for Creationism, however, the comparison is useful if we consider what would likely ensue if a similar attempt were made to craft a “neutral” article on the subject of evolution versus creationism. It would be an exercise in futility. In my opinion, that is what we have here. This will end either in recognition of that or with Stratfordians being victorious. I fear it will be the latter. If that is “the best Wikipedia has to offer” where does that leave us with regard to controversial topics? Does Wikipedia want to set itself up as the arbiter of truth in every controversy? Obviously, it leaves us with Wikipedia violating its tenet of “neutrality”. So, I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not just objecting to this particular “featured article”, but to the concept of “featured articles” in general that deal with controversial subjects. Again, this can only be mitigated if the end product is, in fact, acceptable to both sides. You say, “a good case could be made that this his artixcle shoud treat the subject in a descriptive and cultural-historical sense entirely”. I’m inclined to agree with you, however, I think that, in that case, you’ve dispensed with any justification for a “featured article”. One final thought. Whether we are speaking of anti-Stratfordianism, Creationism, or whatever, what has been set in motion here is a bit like a court procedure where the defendant must depend on the prosecution to make his case. It a fundamentally absurd proposition. --Ssteinburg (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your idea of what is meant by "neutrality" is skewed. Neutrality doesn't mean that each side is presented as if each were of equal merit; in fact Wikipedia requires that the academic consensus be privileged over any other perspective. What neutrality means is that an article cannot advocate any position, but must instead describe both sides without any editorial cheering. If one side has no evidence as is generally understood by the term "evidence", then saying that in the article (as long as a reliable source has said it) is not a violation of neutrality. The idea that an article has to be acceptable to both sides of a controversial topic is very much mistaken. As I noted earlier, most of the objections betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by the policies of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V, and your comments illustrate that. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, as you well know, or should, your notion of what is meant by neutrality is particularly skewed by your inability to even start to admit the gratuitous errors of your hero's book. I provided a link above to a detailed analysis of a number of Professor Shapiro's errors on his book. Please explain why anyone should take a book that builds extensive arguments on these kinds of elementary errors, and contains no footnotes, should be regarded as RS. The article as presently edited most certainly DOES advocate a point of view. It is your point of view. You and your colleagues have made it nearly impossible for editors with a contrary view to participate in shaping the page. You have effectively established "ownership" by one side in the debate and proceed from that to preach at us about the five pillars, etc. --BenJonson (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I’m trying to understand, I really am, but frankly, your argument seems to me like special pleading for a “skewed”, vague ‘academic’ definition of “neutrality”. I find nothing in Wikipedia’s information pages that supports what you’re saying. Granted, Wikipedia’s stated mission goals are problematic. I sympathize and I expect the process to be imperfect. I would expect acknowledgment of the obvious however. The article as written is not “neutral”. Again, the only way that it could be so viewed is if both sides agree to what is written. That isn’t about to happen and, as you say, that isn’t the objective. In fact, one side is very angry about the current state of the article. However, that leaves me (again) with a big problem with your characterization of the state of article and the state of cooperation. If, as you say, “the idea that an article has to be acceptable to both sides of a controversial topic is very much mistaken”, that does pretty much leaves you as the arbiter of truth doesn’t it? In which case, the idea of cooperation is nothing but a pretense that serves the promotion of your point of view. As I’ve been saying (or trying to say), it is one thing for you to state your point of view and to claim that authority is on your side. It is quite another to claim that you’ve produced a “neutral” perspective on this subject and to give it special status and endoresement as a featured article. That is my objection. In view of the transparent partisanship we see here (on both sides), I encourage all involved to simply admit the obvious and stop pursuing the impossible. But again, I think one side smells victory, and I am not hopeful of an outcome that is consistent with Wikipedia’s goals or the pursuit of truth. --Ssteinburg (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies as interpreted by admins and dispute resolution are the arbitrators of acceptable editing practice (not the "truth") on Wikipedia, not any individual editor. When one particular point of view depends upon a suspension of accepted scholarly practices in order to make its case, it's no surprise that insistence on following Wikipedia policies results in anger. And again, you misunderstand what is meant by a neutral POV. My suggestion would be to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policies, especially WP:NPOV, which begins "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Tom Reedy (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I’ve studied the policy. I see nothing but polemic in your responses, and, as close to victory as you appear to be, I would expect nothing else. I’ve stated my objections. Enough.--Ssteinburg (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It may clarify things to look at how much time, indeed years, a dozen committed editors here have taken from their leisure to work on this encyclopedia. It's one of the things newcomers critical of work in here should check. You might like to fix the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. It's badly in need of editing and none of those who protest at this article seem to trouble themselves to improve a page which gives extensive coverage of the de Verean speculations.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded. It amazes me that "Strafordians" are the editors who actually make the effort to improve articles on aspects of Oxfordian history and theory. Paul B (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ssteinburg, I'm not sure Tom and Paul agree, but in my view, the central Wikipedia guideline which applies to the SAC article, and very much to your objections, is WP:FRINGE. Please read it in good faith and with care. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC).

Thank you. On the basis of the “Fringe theory” information, I withdraw my specific complaint regarding the use of the word “fringe” (though I do think the term is inappropriate and misleading in this case). However, my objection to Mr. Reedy’s mischaracterization of the “consensus” that has been reached on this article still stands, as does my concern that Stratfordians are attempting to use a featured article to endorse their point of view. The information you directed me to affirms (to me at least) that neutrality and consensus are central objectives/policies. The fact of the matter is that this article has become a battle ground. Contributors have been banned. Animosity and resentment are highly evident. If a modicum of “consensus” is not possible, the article should be tabled. It should definitely not be granted featured article status claiming a “consensus” that does not exist. --Ssteinburg (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I expect this will be my last post to the wondrously mysterious and ironic Wiki-world, an Orwellian dimension where “neutrality” is enforced by censorship, where allegedly open and collegial intellectual discussion is channeled by means of terminology such as “fringe” and “sockpuppets”, where dissenters are bombarded with bureaucratic double-speak. “Read the rules!” “Read the rules!”  And then be whisked away! But, let me speak directly. Tom. I had been careful not to tamper with your precious “article” (yet). I hadn’t actually expected that expressing opinions about it would be punishable offense. I see I’ve made the mistake that many before me have made: I took Wikipedia’s “Five pillars” seriously. Silly me. Silly me for believing that “flexible rules” and invitations to be “bold” meant what they mean in the dictionary. Those who want to play this game will need “read the rules” and “read” YOUR dictionary. But then, we are talking about the Stratfordian Tradition aren’t we. And what’s happening here is so very consistent with the scholarship of that “tradition”. Publish your article Tom. Publish your article. (If this ends up posted twice, I apologize)--Ssteinburg (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Professor Stanley Wells, Chairman of The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust.
 * Jimmy Wales, co-founder and promoter of Wikipedia.
 * Wells? Wales? Coincidence? I think by now you know better. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Edited and sectioned FAC
I don't know if it would be useful to anyone else, but for my own convenience I have copied the FAC to my sandbox page and edited it into three sections: Comments, support, and oppose, and also numbered the latter two. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No longer there:  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Some editors have been notified of the discretionary sanctions
I saw the table in Tom Reedy's comment at which lists everyone whose good faith has been questioned regarding their participation in this FAC. I've left a notice about discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBSAQ for each person listed in that table (except the IP), with a message that is based on uw-sanctions. If the editor listed in the table continues to make inappropriate comments after this notice, they are eligible for being reported at WP:Arbitration enforcement. In my opinion, if there is reason to move someone's comments out of the FAC because of behavioral issues, the following notice may be left on their talk page by any editor (not just an admin):

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question.

-- EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Good Faith/Advocacy of SAQ Editors
Ed, see my response here: User_talk:Jdkag. I think you have overreacted to Tom's accusations.Jdkag (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please use permalinks when linking to off-FAC commentary:  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, an inappropriate over-reaction to Tom's black list; if you want to strengthen these people's persecution complex, you are going about it the right way. Poujeaux (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted my response | here. Thanking you in advance for your attention to this matter. Knitwitted (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please use permalinks when linking to off-FAC commentary, since FACs endure in archives long after talk pages are archived.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia response to Ruhrfisch
General comment about the progress on this FAC. Many of the Opposes entered are not actionable, although some actionable comments have not been addressed on this page. That some arguments have been visited and revisited in talk archives, or some comments have been reviewed on talk, doesn't resolve actionable concerns raised on this page. Because the FAC to this point includes mostly unactionable opposes, with some actionable commentary unresolved here (another reviewer expressed my concern that the lead is argumentative), it is likely that I will restart the FAC once Ealdgyth's comments are resolved to everyone's satisfaction, and authorize Nikkimaria to more aggressivly move unactionable opposes off the page, while asking nominators to address actionable issues here (not on article talk), if any remain. I am concerned that the Lead/Overview seem to be covering the same territory, and my one and only source check ("... a relatively small but highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters, including some prominent public figures, ) didn't seem to support the text, although I could have missed it. Please ping me once Ealdgyth is satisfied, and we'll see where things stand.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It would help if you could say why the source did not support the claim about a "relatively small but highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters, including some prominent public figures". The source lists various famous people who have shown interest in the idea, referring to them in the following words: "These are essentially celebrity endorsements: none of the above, with the possible exception of Freud, could be called a Shakespeare scholar." This seems to support the sentence which states that Shakespeare scholars have taken the "Stratfordian" view, but that opponents are "highly visible" "including some prominent public figures." The source does not explicitly say that their numbers are "relatively small", but that is, I think, implicit. If that phrase is the problem, it can be deleted. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything there that supports any of that wording ("relatively small", "highly visible" or "diverse")-- ya'll know better than I, but my concern is that the one and only source check I did left me confused. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the "relatively small"; though it's true I don't think we need to say it. I think "highly visible" is just another way of saying "celebrity", the word used in the source. "Diverse" simply refers to the fact that we have a jumble of names from a wide variety of professions. The opening sentence of the source is "What, aside from international fame, did Mark Twain, Helen Keller, Henry James, Sigmund Freud, Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles have in common?" I take this to be a rhetorical way of saying that they have very little in common - they are "diverse". Paul B (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

General response to SandyGeorgia's general comment: Sandy, your proposal has some practical advantages, but seen from the angle of the creators of the article, it amounts IMO to rewarding Randy in Boise for disruption, and asking an unreasonable amount of doubled work from Tom Reedy, Paul Barlow, Nishidani, Johnuniq, etc—in short, from the mainstream Shakespeare scholars that Wikipedia is fortunate to have. (No telling how many we'll have after this FAC.) I wouldn't be surprised if Tom is about ready to throw in the towel at the prospect of starting over, and at the failure of the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question arb case and its discretionary sanctions to have the effect arbcom expected and desired. I'm far from sure that the FAC will actually "restart" even if it "is restarted": the nominators may withdraw it instead. The best specialists aren't necessarily the most patient ones. Bishonen | talk 04:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC).
 * I have to agree - there are 8 supports, one leaning support and Nikkimaria's comments were satisfactorily addressed. While there are also 8 opposes, all but one of them are either SPAs or self-identified proponents of the Anti-Stratfordian theories. The nominators have been good at responding to most actionable requests - could you identify the ones they have not yet responded to instead? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Allrighty then, instead I'll have to go back through the Opposes and pull out anything that looks reasonable (although it may not be), but hasn't been addressed. That might not be fair either, and it might save time if nominators will revisit some of the Opposes and respond to items here rather than on talk (even with links to talk sections so reviewers don't have to trudge through all of the article talk archives).  There were some valid concerns raised in a few opposes that have gone unaddressed here. I agree we shouldn't reward Randy in Boise for disruption, but neither should we pass a FAC without scrutinizing the Opposes just because most of them are disruptive. I'm thinking of the Intelligent Design FACs and FARs, where the core contributors had become so defensive that good-faith editors couldn't even ask for consistent citation formatting without being dismissed or attacked as POV (BTDT) -- I don't want to see this article pass without real scrutiny, as that will allow Randy in Boise to continue making claims.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * More on SG talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sandy, I am not trying to make extra work for you nor am I trying to tell you how to do your job, but I was agreeing with Bishonen as far as my understanding of what a restart means. It seems to me that there are three issues making things (even) more complicated here.
 * This FAC page was and now is currently semi-proctected so IP and new users cannot edit it. Laser brain blocked one new user early on for disruptive editing here. However, after two weeks, the page was unprotected for a few days, which led to several of the opposes from new (and apparently SPA) users. So how do comments from IP and new users count - should they be completely ignored (since they were made when the page was unprotected) or not? (My feeling has been that these comments can be ignored as they would not have been made had the semi-protection been up continually, but you seem to think otherwise??).
 * I think another part of the confusion stems from what exactly a restart entails. The term is not used anywhere in the FAC directions (that I can see) and so it is not clear to me (and I suspect others) what all is involved if an FAC is restarted. If you could briefly explain a restart and say what those who have already weighed in need to do if the FAC is restarted, that would help me a lot (also, what about those who do not weigh in again after a restart - what happens to their comments pro or con here)?
 * Finally, consensus seems to be to semi-protect this FAC page. If a restart happens, I assume it will also be semi-protected? What then happens to the comments of the IPs and new accounts that would not be able to weigh in on the restarted page?
 * Finally, I know FAC restarts happen every so often - is there some sort of explanatory page about them (and if not, should there be)? Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been asked to consider withdrawing the above and have. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A general note about some of the struck commentary above; I understand the need to protect the page here because of the disruption, but ... no commentary is automatically excluded at FAC regardless of who made the commentary (IPs, newly registered users, etc.) so the two issues should not be confused. What matters is not who made the commentary but whether any of it is actionable.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to note, since you've made a point of this: I believe all comments that are, or are asserted to be, actionable have now been addressed (probably not to the commenters satisfaction, but that can't be helped, I fear). None of them had been previously ignored, but I have now explicitly responded to those points on the review page so that this is apparent. But note that this does not include the in-depth review by Ealdgyth which I believe is still in the process of being addressed, and of course any further reviews (beers for reviews Tony! just sayin´ ;D) that may appear. --Xover (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Sandy for your clarifications here and on your talk page. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62
Here are some suggestions for how to improve the article:


 * Structure
 * It seems odd that the major sections Case against and Alternative candidates are not adjacent. It also seems odd that the minority viewpoint is presented before the majority viewpoint; some may interpret this as a subtle thumbs-up for the anti-Stratfordians. I suggest one of the following orders: Overview, Case for, Case against, Alternative candidates, History; or 'Overview, History, Case for, Case against, Alternative candidates''.
 * To the first point, the article begins with describing the general anti-Stratfordian (as opposed to Oxfordian or Baconain, etc.) case and then briefly describes the specific major candidate. As to the second, the article follows the WP:FRINGE guideline, which states Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations.. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him." The title of the article implies that it will be a discussion of an open question from all sides, but this opening sentence implies that the article will be a discussion only of the non-Shakespeare view. While "argument" does have multiple meanings, its meaning in this case seems to contradict that of "question".
 * This was discussed for months. The anti-Stratfordian view was that we should use 'controversy' or some similar word. Since in RS the theory is not 'controversial' this was dismissed as partisan, and 'argument' preferred. A 'question' is an issue raised, and the argument is both the theories, positions and debate that ensue upon a question being raised.Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "...is the argument over whether or not William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him." ? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That phrasing invites a subtle change in interpretation of "argument". The current text "is the argument that someone other than" implies a proposition with reasoning (for and against), while "is the argument over whether or not" might be read as suggesting merely angry disagreement. Given that enormous discussions about the opening sentence have occurred, I hesitate to make another suggestion, but perhaps: "concerns the argument that someone other than" (change "is" to "concerns" in current article). Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that if Tom and Paul are. Meep? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how replacing the correct word "is" with the less-accurate one "concerns" (which can be easily seen by looking up their definitions (#6 under "be") ) improves the comprehensiveness. There is no mistake about what the SAQ is, nor does that statement lead to any misunderstanding. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect the confusion here stems from the words “Shakespeare Authorship Question” followed by the definite “is the argument that someone other than…”, and the problem is that the Authorship proponents have chosen to refer to the matter thus for precisely this reason: if it were a question open for academic debate they would have won much legitimacy. Of course the relevant experts either say literally or indicate directly that “there is no question”. In other words, you cannot read the article's title as if it were a sentence with meaning; it's more akin to personal pronoun (“The Qua Jon Qing is the argument that …”). The article is about those who argue that there is a different author for Shakespeare's works, their methods, their arguments, and their history; it is not about an argument or a question, and the mainstream side is included only to inform the reader and because the Authorship proponents argue against it (academics either ignore or debunk it). IOW, I think the original formulation here was correct and should stand. --Xover (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Struck. I really didn't want to drag out an argument over such a small issue, especially when there has already been considerable discussion that led to the current phrasing. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "a relatively small but highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters, including some prominent public figures," This is a very mysterious phrase which does little to inform the reader, but instead seems intent on glorifying the efforts of the minority. It leaves the reader wondering "Who are these small, visibly diverse weirdos?" WP:LEAD prohibits this: "the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article."
 * The phrase means (a) the number of advocates and proponents is very small (b) they are very active in promoting their ideas ('highly visible') and (c) consist of people of varying backgrounds, professional and otherwise, (d) with different positions (e) some of whom are celebrities. Given the complexity of agents, ideas, modes of promoting the heterodox ideas being advanced, the sentence tries to sum up in a short lead this variegated constituency. Suggestions are welcome as to how these several aspects and details might be phrased succinctly in alternative versions.Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How about giving some examples? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot see a way to include some examples because there are no proponents who are so eminent that they should be mentioned in the lead (while not mentioning others), and given the good sourcing to scholarly works throughout the article, any such mention would look like cherry picked OR (unless a scholarly secondary source had made a similar summary). Also, mentioning just a name would not be very helpful, so each name would need a qualifier indicating who they were, and the result would be too long. Unless someone can think of another approach, your concern may be an argument that the last paragraph of the lead should be removed. Yet the lead should inform the reader that there are a "highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters, including some prominent public figures". While I see the problem with weasel wording like "some people say", the paragraph does inform the reader: there have been campaigns backed by various supporters. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added some examples of the prominent figures based on the examples Shapiro gives and which we use elsewhere in the article; both to avoid the “teasing” aspect Cryptic points out but also to better “summarize the article” per WP:LEAD. --Xover (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything gets complicated in review, mostly to our benefit. What lies behind months of editorial haggling, analysis etc., is understandably lost from view. Readers have no way (God help them! It's our job to not let a murmur leak of the travails behind achieving NPOV) of knowing why something is phrased in one way, or not said. Take the present addition. It was the overriding concern of Oxfordian editors that big lists of prominent public figures be included in the lead, and in the overview and main body, since their argument here rests on the prestige of celebrity backing (See the first two sections for example of the main text ofOxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship). The edit now made adds, unfortunately, three celebrities who backed the Oxfordian case, and thus decidedly tilts the lead towards an Oxfordian-centered profile. In my understanding of NPOV for a general article which covers 75 candidates, any proposed edit in the lead naming famous figures would have to cite one intellectual/scholar/celebrity for at least each of the four main candidates. This then generates its own problem. The Baconians have a letter in 1881/2 from Nietzsche in their favour; I am unaware of big names backing Marlowe, or Derby. The problem is that, aside from journalists and actors, almost all Oxfordians, the few intellectuals/writers who were ever attracted to this fringe ideas are long dead historic figures. No scholar or major intellectual figure since Freud's day (d.1939) has seen anything in it. So we have a deep imbalance in implicit NPOV now.Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. But we mention these guys elsewhere in the article, so including them in the lede where we summarize the rest of it isn't a problem; and I picked the ones to list straight out of Shapiro, which means we're giving them prominence based on what he thinks is worth mentioning and not on our own preference. The problem you point out is still there, but in that light it becomes relatively smaller to the point I'm prepared to make the tradeoff (balanced against the problems Cryptic pointed out here). --Xover (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Trade-offs, sure. But some suggestions, though completely reasonable, can lead one to misstep inadvertently, and I think this is a good example. I won't insist. But it is now, to the insider, and to Baconian and Marlovian readers, tilted to Lord Oxford. Nothing of course is non-negotatiable, but the original suggestion opens up a can of worms, and when that happens commonsense suggests all should step back, and perhaps just leave the text at this point in its pre-controversial formulation. I have no horse in this race, ideologically. But I'd be dishonest if I were to just nod at a change to pass a test at any cost.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again an important nicety has been elided. 'two years earlier' (1603) means Camden wrote his remarks on Shakespeare before the death of the Earl of Oxford (1604). It would require a minor excursus on the hermeneutics of Oxfordianism to illustrate why clarifying this is important, but would only encumber the flow of the article with excess ballast. I think 'two years earlier' should be retained.
 * It is also there to show that he wrote that at the time he was involved in the coat of arms controversy. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hang on, wasn't Twain unaffiliated but leaning towards Bacon? Anyways, if we are not in agreement on this—and I am certainly sympathetic to your point, and would probably not have made this change if not requested in a FAC review—then I suggest we ask Cryptic whether this point is pivotal for his decision to support or oppose; and then go have a nice long discussions of the details on the article's Talk page (I can live with either version until it is settled). Cryptic, thoughts? --Xover (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it clogs up the lede, myself, which is one reason why I added it to the overview instead of the lede. The lede should introduce points that are more thoroughly explained in the body of the article, and there is nothing cryptic (sorry about that!) about the statement as it stood—if a reader doesn't know what is meant by a "prominent public figure" is I doubt these examples (which for the most part aren't everyday topics of conversation among those who are ignorant of the meaning of that phrase) would make it clearer, and I daresay his or her reading ability would not rise to the level of comprehending most of this article, or that he would even be interested in Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Suffering burn-out, like a sizzling rasher of Bacon. Yes, Twain wasn't an Oxfordian ante litteram. I've corrected my point above. Yes, let Cryptic make the call.Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic to Nishidani's viewpoint, and I have no doubt that this particular phrasing will continue to evolve long after we're done prattling about it. If the current list of examples is kept, that's good in my book. If someone reverts back to the non-example phrasing, that's fine too. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Overview
 * "Shakespeare's documentary remains consist of ..." Either there is a missing word here, or "documentary remains" is a phrase that refers to something I've never heard of. I suspect other readers will share my confusion.
 * 'Documentary remains'. Remains: 'works, papers, documents left by an author'. It is a standard idiom in scholarship to refer to an author's 'literary remains' (German: 'literarischer Nachlaß'). Since we are talking of the paper trail about Shakespeare's life, not his works, this standard idiom is varied by specifying 'documentary remains'. (Germ: dokumentarischer Nachlaß.)Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Sceptics take the scantiness of evidence of a literary nature as indicating a person very different from the author they see reflected in the works" Overly wordy and confusing sentence. Does "the author they see reflected in the works" refer to Shakespeare? If so, this seems like a very bizarre way to refer to him. If not, I've completely misinterpreted this sentence despite several careful rereadings, which is also not a good thing.
 * I've rewritten this to read: 'Sceptics take the scanty contemporary evidence for Shakespeare as a literary person as suggesting he was a very different man from the author they detect in the works.'
 * The sceptics take the actor Shakespeare to be a different person from the 'Shakespeare', an imagined person, whose personality, values, and outlook they construct from perceived autobiographical traces and authorial attitudes they believe they can detect in the works. I'm not happy with my suggestion however, because to the knowing eye it is itself misleading. Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Case against
 * "evidence against his fitness as an author." Although I was able to determine that "fitness" must mean "capability" rather than "physique", I must say that I have never heard it used in this manner despite being a native English speaker. For the sake of those who were not as lucky as I was, I suggest replacing "fitness" with "capability" or something similar.
 * Have adjusted to 'fitness for authorship' (on the analogy of 'fitness for office'). The word 'fit' is endemic in the literature, which makes a fit between Oxford's life and the events in plots in the plays. As a keyword, I think the abstract form should be retained. (W.Ron Hess The Dark Side of Shakespeare, 2002 p.183: Hope and Holston The Shakespeare Controversy describing Bronson Feldman’s book (1977) p.103): Peter Sammartino The Man Who was William Shakespeare, 1990 p.124: William Farina De Vere as Shakespeare: an Oxfordian reading of the canon, p.255)Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just did a google search and found many uses of the word "fitness" in this way in mainstream newspapers (eg "I question his fitness for the job based on his actions and attitude."). It seems to be quite a common modern usage. Paul B (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should start reading mainstream newspapers. :P --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Further, the lack of evidence has sometimes been taken..." Here the word "evidence" seems to refer to "biographical information". Is this intended to imply that evidence is needed to show that Shakespeare even existed? Surely that much is known with certainty! I suggest replacing "evidence" with "biographical information" or something to that effect.
 * The problem with this is that the wording immediately proceding says 'biography' which stipulates what evidence we are talking about. Put in 'biographical evidence' and you get a repetitive effect. stylistically. 'Biography'. . 'biographical'. Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Biographical information" does add a wee bit of repetition, but the meaning of "evidence" is simply not clear (evidence of what?). I think we should take the lesser of two weevils by employing "biographical information". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me, and I have implemented your suggestion and we'll see what others think. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can feel free to consider the lack of objections as assent from the other editors, I think. ;D --Xover (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The town was a centre for the slaughter, marketing, and distribution of sheep, tanned skins, and wool" Technically speaking, in this particular phrasing the three elements from the first list should apply to all three elements in the second list. This suggests that it is possible to slaughter wool. I suggest removing "slaughter, marketing, and" to avoid confusion; this level of detail about the town isn't necessary anyway.
 * Details like this about the town are necessary because for over a century, Stratford has been characterised as a backwater dump full of unwashed yokels, and the details furnish material to show what is now well-known, that it had a thriving local economy. I've adjusted to: 'The town was a centre for the slaughter, marketing, and distribution of sheep, where hides were tanned, and wool traded."Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Proponents of other candidates often portray the town as a cultural backwater lacking the environment necessary to nurture a genius, and have depicted Shakespeare as greedy, stupid, and illiterate." Stupidity and illiteracy are definitely relevant here, but what does greediness have to do with anything? Whether Shakespeare was greedy or not is hardly related to the town he grew up in, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not he was the real author.
 * The Real Author was evidently a person of high and poetic temperament and therefore could not have been greedy - at least that's how the argument goes. It's very common to find the argument that evidence of Shakespeare's property investments and moneylending somehow disqualify him as an author of poetry. But I agree that this is not specifically related to his home town environment. Paul B (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "the author portrays [...] groups of commoners alarmingly when they are congregated in mobs" What does it mean to portrayed alarmingly? This is not a rhetorical question. It is a phrasing that I am entirely unfamiliar with, and it could easily be taken to mean "fearful" xor "threatening".
 * Both Paul and I have adjusted, eliding 'alarmingly'.Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "(Q2 1598, Q3 1598, Q4 1608, and Q5 1615)" I happen to know (or assume) that this notation refers to the quarto number and the year of publication. Others might guess that it refers to a Dewey decimal code. I suggest adding an appropriate link or explanatory note.
 * I've glossed the first appearance of quarto with a parenthetical (or Q), in a sentence or two up the page, so contextually the reader will have the refs to Q3,Q5 clearly understandable.Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "This hyphen use is construed to indicate a pseudonym;[49] they reason that fictional descriptive names" Who does "they" refer to here? (This one is rhetorical.)
 * Paul has adjusted 'they reason' to 'it is argued', with the implicit meaning that the sceptics argue this.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "seven years later as part of the prefatory matter" As part of the what? This is not an accessible phrasing for what I assume means simply "preface".
 * The First Folio consists of varying kinds of prefatory matter. (a) A prefatory poem by Ben Jonson, commenting on (b) the facing Droeshout portrait, below (c) the title Dedication by Heminge and Condell to the Pembroke brothers, (d) an address to ‘The great Variety of Readers’, again by Heminge and Condell (e) Jonson’s poem, ‘To the memory of my beloved’, (e) Hugh Holland’s poem, (f) a Catalogue of the works therein printed, (g) Two poems by Leonard Digges and I.M. (h) a list of the principal actors of the plays.
 * Had we written 'preface' we would have risked confusing the reader, since there is a preface (generic), a prefatory poem, and a preface proper addressed to readers. 'Prefatory matter' makes precise the variegated nature of these several items that are contained in the Folio. Technically, we now call this 'front matter', which some of us hesitate to use because it may well be unfamiliar to the general reader. However, I will, as per your suggestion, rewrite 'front matter'.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"in historian John Stow's list of 'Our moderne, and present excellent Poets', printed posthumously in Edmund Howes' edition of his Annales (1615), which reads: 'M. Willi. Shake-speare gentleman'.'"
 * Case for
 * I strongly advise removing the main hatnote from this section, as it wrongly implies that the William Shakespeare article focuses on establishing Shakespeare's authorship. If you really want to have a hatnote here (which I think is totally unnecessary), I suggest changing it to see also.
 * I agree, and have changed it to See also. I think a link to the overview article on Shakespeare is apropos right about there, so I didn't remove it entirely. --Xover (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "He became an actor and sharer (part-owner) of the Lord Chamberlain's Men (later the King's Men)" I see that this is the only instance of "sharer" in the entire article. If you think that the meaning "part-owner" would be clearer, why don't you just use that instead? This will reduce (by 50%!) the number of jutting parenthetical comments in this long sentence.
 * Done. Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC). Have revised to 'share-holder' (See below for reasons).Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "and no contemporary expressed doubt about Shakespeare's authorship." Well, we cannot know this for certain, as such a sentiment could have been expressed in conversations behind closed doors. A more accurate statement would be to say that no contemporary wrote documents expressing doubts. More accurate still would be to say that no such documents have ever been found (implying that they may have existed at one point).
 * Have amended to 'is known to have expressed'.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a big enough issue for me to object to Nishidani's revision, but I'll just note for the record that the experts in the field flat out say that there were no doubts, so for us to hedge like this just waters it down, is excessively pedantic, and shades into the borderlands of original research. But in this I am being not a little pedantic myself, so I suggest we leave Nishidani's revision of the text as it is if it satisfies Cryptic's concern. --Xover (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 'No contemporary expressed doubt about Shakespeare's authorship' is exactly what all RS state. Our job here is, however, to mediate between the precise words and conclusions of RS and what our company of external highly experienced FAC readers see. It's the same issue with changing sharer to part-owner. 'Part-owner' simplifies, and risks misleading, but people recognize the word. 'Sharers' and 'part-sharers' is the correct historical term Katherine Duncan-Jones, 'Shakespeare: An Ungentle life,' 2nd ed.2010 p.34,172). I think now 'shareholder' may be necessary, if the parenthetic words are pleonastic. Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Of some we know next to nothing." Yikes, the word "we" should never be used in articles, as it is both overtly informal and highly ambiguous. Given that the next sentence lists examples of well-documented authors, perhaps this wee tiny sentence should be replaced with examples of authors about whom nothing is known. Or you can simply rephrase this; I have no strong preference here.
 * Amended to the impersonal voice 'Next to nothing is known.'Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Scholars say this argument takes..." Which argument? As far as I can tell, it has been several sentences since any argument has been presented, thereby making this unclear.
 * Good point. I have reworded as "The argument that there is no evidence of Shakespeare's authorship is a form of fallacious logic...". Johnuniq (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "They consider the idea that Shakespeare revealed himself autobiographically in his work as a notion of the 19th century anachronistically applied to Elizabethan and Jacobean writers." I've read this several times, but I'm afraid I just don't understand what point this is attempting to make. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the intended meaning here so that we may discuss an alternative phrasing?
 * It means that Authorship adherents often argue that this or that reference in the plays or poems refers to some real-life even in the life of Oxford, or whichever candidate they prefer, and reference the widely held idea that authors can't help but reveal themselves in their works. In the 19th century this was not uncommon practice, but in the 16th and 17th century it wasn't, which makes applying this reasoning to Shakespeare's works an anachronism. I have rephrased the sentence in question to try to make this more clear. It now reads: “They consider the idea that the plays and poems contain biographical references to the author's real life as an anachronism: it was a common practice in the 19th century, but not among Elizabethan and Jacobean writers.” --Xover (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Much clearer, thank you! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph of Historical evidence presents some interesting information about Francis Meres, and it hints at the possibility that Meres helped to confirm Shakespeare's identity, but this is never stated explicitly. For example, Meres is credited with "ascribing to Shakespeare some of the plays that were published anonymously before 1598" but it isn't made clear why this is important.
 * Apologies, I may be too deeply familiar with the text and implicit context, but I'm failing to find the issue you're pointing out here. I thought the paragraph was clear when considered with the context provided by the previous paragraph? Perhaps you could elaborate on your concern here? --Xover (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Meres didn't help to confirm Shakespeare's identity. His testimony assumed importance when doubts arose. In 1623, those formerly unattributed plays were included as Shakespeare's in the Folio as his. Meres' identifications provide independent, and much earlier, proof that Shakespeare was recognized in his heyday as the writer of those plays. Meres also mentions the Earl of Oxford, one of the prime contenders, but doesn't confuse his work with that of Shakespeare. This is mentioned down the page in the section on Oxford. We've been under severe obligations to pare this down to the bone, and that may explain why we fear expansion where, in a different format, more might be said, profitably, about many things.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "sugred Sonnets among his private friends" What does "sugred" mean?
 * It means “sweet”; he's flattering them. I think most readers will understand it, and it's tangential to the point of the sentence anyways: he refers to sonnets before they were published and attributes them to Shakespeare. That he found them worthy of flattery is rather beside the point, so no significant information is lost if a reader should miss out on the “sweet” meaning of the word. --Xover (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You argue that the word is not necessary to convey the point of the quote. I argue that its meaning will not be clear to most readers. There is one obvious solution that we should both find tasty: to remove the word altogether. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is a question of spelling. "sugred" means nothing in modern English. The word is "sugared". I think we should use modern spelling in instances like this to avoid confusion. After all "Much Ado About Nothing" is not referred to as "Much Adoe About Nothing". If we are writing for people who people don't know the meaning of the word "sugared" we may as well just give up! Paul B (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, perhaps "sug[a]red Sonnets among his private friends" or "[sugared] Sonnets among his private friends" ? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Paul has amended the text according to your suggestion. --Xover (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "William Shakespeare was entitled to use the honorific "gentleman" by right of his father's grant of a coat of arms in 1596." This phrasing suggests that Shakespeare was granted a coat of arms by his father, but the introduction to Case for suggests that his father was granted a coat of arms and Willy just got a few bonus points. Which is correct?
 * I've changed it to read “…Shakespeare was entitled to use the honorific "gentleman" after his father was granted a coat of arms in 1596”. --Xover (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "one dated 23 August 1600 by Andrew Wise and William Aspley:" Does "by" mean that these boys wrote the stationers' entry? Or does it mean that they were the scholars who dated document? I suspect it is the former, though I don't see why the exact date is relevant here. This query also applies to Nathaniel Butter and John Busby a few lines later.
 * They were publishers bringing out printed versions of the mentioned Shakespeare plays (the Stationer's Registry was sort of a copyright registration). I've changed it to make clear that this was the case. The exact dates (with day and month) are not strictly needed, but I don't think it does much harm either. The amount of detail generally is there because Authorship proponents tend to claim, in complete earnestness no less, that these records do not exist. --Xover (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "and in historian John Stow's list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets" in Annales edited by Edmund Howes (1615): "M. Willi. Shake-speare gentleman"" It is not clear if this refers to two separate documents (the list and Annales) or to a list that appears in Annales. I suggest trimming out some of the superfluous details.
 * “Our moderne, and present excellent Poets” is the title of the list which was written by John Stow; and it appears in Annales which was edited by Edmund Howes. I believe this is sufficiently clear. --Xover (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added posthumous and tried to make the sentence clearer. It now reads:
 * Trimming is difficult here. That he was an historian, like Camdeb, contemporary with Shakespeare, makes that a keyword. My computer seized up while trying to link Stow and make my own edit here, and I didn't see Xover's change. Sorry.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this a place where a table would help? E.g., List of contemporary literary references to Shakespeare (or similar). Headings might be: Date, Author, Source, Salutation. A row might look like: 1615; John Stow, Edmund Howe, ed.; list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets" in Annales; M. Willi. Shake-speare. Perhaps such a table would be out of place in this article, but would merit a separate article of its own? Fotoguzzi (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A List of contemporary references to Shakespeare sounds interesting, but would be challenging to format in a sane way (i.e. in a way that makes it accessible to the reader). --Xover (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "onely to keepe the memory of so worthy a Friend, & Fellow aliue, as was our Shakespeare, by humble offer of his playes" Why does "Shakespeare" appear in smallcaps?
 * Because that's how it appears in the original. See this facsimile of the First Folio. --Xover (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "In his Remaines Concerning Britaine, published in 1605 but completed two years earlier," Why is there so much detail offered as to when the work was published and completed? Try avoid offering unnecessary details such as this that serve only to inflate the article. If the details are somehow relevant, that is not being made clear in the article.
 * I've pruned this so it now only gives the year of publication in parenthesis. --Xover (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "he used fewer relative clauses and more hyphens, feminine endings, and open lines than most of the writers with whom he was compared." What is an open line? A wikilink will do if an appropriate article exists.
 * It's an Enjambment, and I see Paul has fixed this. --Xover (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "...concludes "beyond a shadow of a doubt" based on several studies ... Simonton's study" Inconsistency between "several studies" and "Simonton's study". I suggest either dropping "based on several studies" or pluralizing "study".
 * Cut "based on several studies". Paul B (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * History
 * "Until actor David Garrick mounted the Shakespeare Stratford Jubilee in 1769, Beaumont and Fletcher's plays dominated popular taste after the theatres reopened in the Restoration Era in 1660, with Ben Jonson's and Shakespeare's plays vying for second place" This is a very long, overly detailed, and somewhat confusing sentence. Suggested rewrite: "Beaumont and Fletcher's plays dominated popular taste after the theatres reopened in the Restoration Era in 1660[, with Ben Jonson's and Shakespeare's plays vying for second place] until actor David Garrick mounted the Shakespeare Stratford Jubilee in 1769." Bracketed phrase is optional (in my eyes, anyway).
 * changed to " Beaumont and Fletcher's plays dominated popular taste after the theatres reopened in the Restoration Era in 1660, with Ben Jonson's and Shakespeare's plays vying for second place. After actor David Garrick mounted the Shakespeare Stratford Jubilee in 1769, Shakespeare led the field." Paul B (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "None of these assaults on Shakespeare's authorship went unanswered by academe." Poetic, yes, but not particularly encyclopedic. I suggest changing "assaults" to something less violent and "academe" to the far more common "academia".
 * Changed to "These arguments against Shakespeare's authorship were answered by academics." Paul B (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Perhaps because of Bacon's legal background, both mock and real jury trials figured in attempts to prove claims for Bacon, and later for Oxford." Does the first "Bacon" refer to Delia or Francis? In either case I suggest inserting the given name to avoid confusion. It would also serve us well to ask Delia to have her name legally changed so that we may sidestep all this horse poop.
 * Delia's surname is the bane of writing on this topic. Added Fran the man's forename. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Six years earlier Brooks had eliminated Shakespeare as the playwright ..." This is phrased as though it were a definitive fact rather than just the opinion of one loony.
 * changed to "dismissed" by Nishidani. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've written:'Six years earlier Brooks had dismissed Shakespeare as the playwright by proposing that his role in the deception was to act as an Elizabethan "play broker", brokering the plays and poems of behalf of his various principals, the real authors. This view, of Shakespeare as a commercial go-between, was later adapted by Oxfordians.' Is that okay?
 * Tweaks by Nishidani. Paul B (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "A brief upsurge of enthusiasm ensued, reviving the movement enough to permit the establishment of the Shakespeare Oxford Society in the U.S. in 1957" This implies that had the enthusiasm not ensued, the establishment of the society would not have been permitted. This would have been a rather curious violation of freedom of speech. I think "permit" is the wrong word here. How about shortening to "A brief upsurge of enthusiasm ensued, resulting in the establishment of the Shakespeare Oxford Society in the U.S. in 1957." ?
 * Changed as suggested. Paul B (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Also in the mid-1950s Broadway press agent Calvin Hoffman revived the Marlovian theory with the publication of The Murder of the Man Who Was "Shakespeare" (1955)" It is redundant to state both "the mid-1950s" and "(1955)". Choose one and eliminate the other.
 * "In 1974, membership in the society stood at 80" This fact means nothing because the reader has not yet been informed of the size of the society at its peak.
 * I don't think it means nothing. It's a fairly small number by comparison to other societies. Paul B (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Even in your response you've admitted that the figure is only meaningful if there is some other number with which to compare it. As far as I can see, no such comparative figure is available for the reader. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But I don't think we can engage in research on the average number of people in societies. We have let the reader judge the significance themselves, surely. Paul B (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see what you're getting at Cryptic, but I'd freeze up if that were to become a principle. Because, as I think Paul notes, if our sources, which dictate what we can or must say, do not provide the information a reader might desire, we can certainly hope that the gap might be filled in the future. But we can hardly suppress a fact one major source considers important, simply because a broader picture (here a thorough examination of attendance records of what was always a small group anyway) is not provided. These articles are fiendishly difficult to write because editors, if they have scruples, read widely enough even in non-RS, to understand the big picture, and read all of the available RS. They will inevitably, like yourself here, often groan that their key sources do not dig deeper into all sorts of natural lines of research that suggest themselves. But, avoiding temptations to juggle, or succumb to WP:OR violations, they battle on with what they have, hoping in the proximate future (as is highly probable) new works will allow them to fill in the gaps.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "He also kick-started the modern revival of the Oxfordian movement, based on seeking publicity through moot court trials, media debates, television, and later the Internet, including Wikipedia." What is Wikipedia? I suggest incorporating a wikilink or an explanatory phrase: "a/the popular online encyclopedia [which is better than Britannica in every way and they can suck it]". The bracketed phrase is optional.
 * I assume this is a joke. Not done. Paul B (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Britannica bit was a joke, but I'm quite serious about clarifying Wikipedia. Given the licensing and reusability of Wikipedia's content, we shouldn't assume that the reader will be familiar with Wikipedia. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Our articles frequently show up on mirrors, some of which are even published and available at Amazon.com, so we shouldn't assume all readers are reading the article from Wikipedia. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I certainly don't think we should say "the popular online ecyclopedia..". That will invite ridicule. Surely a wikilink will suffice. Paul B (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was a very cluey point, thanks Crypto. It's an example of the extremely obvious that simply flies under everyone (but some one's) radar! I've always disliked 'based on' in that clause, and have further honed to 'by adopting a policy of seeking' etc. Hope this is okay.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "to such an extent that a survey of the field in 2010 judged that it "puts to shame anything that ever appeared in standard resources"." What does "it" refer to here? The internet? Wikipedia?
 * I've added that it refers to the internet/web as a whole. Paul B (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Shapiro specifically refers to Wikipedia here. The whole quote goes: «Wikipedia is fast becoming the default resource of those in search of reliable information about the authorship controversy. Its extensive coverage of the subject puts to shame anything that ever appeared in standard resources, let alone reference works traditionally produced by Shakespeare scholars and accessible in public and university libraries. The Oxfordian case turns up everywhere on Wikipedia, from articles on “Shakespeare” and the “Shakespeare Authorship Controversy” to more specialized ones on “Edward de Vere,” “Oxfordian theory,” “Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian,” and even the “Prince Tudor Theory.” Marlovians, Baconians, Derbyites, and advocates of a handful of other alternative candidates have brief entries devoted to their claims, though whenever these rivals are discussed together, Oxfordians are assiduous about maintaining top billing.» (Shapiro 2010, pp. 246–8). --Xover (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Candidates
 * "However, only four have attracted more than an insignificant number of followers" I sighed and shook my head when I read this silly phrase. "more than an significant number" means, by definition, "a significant number". I strongly advise replacing the phrase as such.
 * Done. Paul B (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "In 1883 Mrs. Henry Pott edited Bacon's Promus" This confuses me. Was Henry Pott a female human? Or does "Mrs." have some unusual meaning in this context?
 * It was common for Victorian women to use their husband's name, as in Lady Archie Campbell, Mrs. Patrick Campbell or Mrs. Humphrey Ward. We use the form of name they preferred. Paul B (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "He discerned close affinities between the poetry of Oxford and that of Shakespeare in the use of motifs and subjects, phrasing, and rhetorical devices that enabled him to identify Oxford as the true author" The end of this sentence wrongly suggests that Oxford was indeed the true author.
 * I really doubt that readers will take that view. Do you really think it necessary to add "the believe he had..." or some such every time we are summarising someone's views? Paul B (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. We should not assume that the user will have read the entire article. It is entirely possible that a reader will immediately jump to the Oxford section, in which case this sentence will be highly misleading. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put 'putatively' after 'discerned' governing what Looney thought was the case, to avoid too many 'believed's. One could also write, more banausically, 'supposed/he supposed'. In fact Looney used a defective edition, attributed to Oxford poems not necessarily written by him, and stylometrics show the two styles are literally light years apart).Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "he was also Oxford's brother because Oxford himself was the Queen's son" Shouldn't this be "half-brother"?
 * Strictly, I think, three-quarters brother, but that's not a recognised concept. Changed to half-brother. Paul B (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Lists of verbal correspondences between the two canons have also been compiled." Chance possible can has example plz?
 * "Marlowe was initially suggested as a candidate in 1884, as a member of a group." A group of what?
 * Of authors. Changed. Paul B (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My witful pen hath run most dry of ink. I leave with you my words on which to think. Should you this mess find gainful means to sort, I shall bestow upon you my support. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Premissed Land

Near journey’s end, the three lay down to rest. Just short of their far goal a greening hill Rose sheer before them, and, beyond the crest, The wood of Arden, and its guardian, Will.

A yearlong haul across a desert waste Among marauding tribes and thinning game Had left them all but listless as they faced This final challenge to their earnest aim.

Out of the dusk, kind figures from the peak Now shambled down to share their cryptic lore, And gently told them how to thread the bleak Thorn-riven upward path and, lastly, swore:

‘Woe on anyone straggling here who blinks On meeting at Pisgah’s Pass, a Sandy Sphinx.' --Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the reviewers, who would not settle for low content, but (contrary to the fashion of these times, where none will sweat but for promotion), patiently worked to improve this article. I hope these rites have brought them and the authors true delights. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The sound of one hand clapping
Sandy, just my impression: It seems that our procedure here has been to topic ban the expert editors who dispute the neutrality of the article (and have suggested other sources and explanations of the topic), rewrite it to the satisfaction of the remaining camp, and then take it to FAC. Even after this was done, you have some serious "opposes". I suggest that you get a waiver from arbcom (if necessary) to ask User:Smatprt to give a list of what he sees as the major neutrality/referencing problems on the article. You may ultimately reject his input (or he may not be willing to participate), but you should at least ask for it. Some of the proponents of the FAC dismiss any/all references to books and articles with which they disagree as fringe. If ever there was an article where the delegates ought to insist on comprehensiveness and the neutral representation of all serious viewpoints, this, meseems, is it. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It would help if generic comments here refrain from making repeating the endless insinuation that editors, who have actually done some 2,000 edits and one year's hard work to make a once fraught page finally acceptable, are dismissing anything they disagree with as fringe. The implication is that the whole article is a coterie's display of their personal prejudices ('disagree with') We are trying as scrupulously as possible to apply criteria set forth in WP:Fringe, WP:RS and many other policy pages. You are of course welcome to interpret this  application of relevant policies as instrumental, and the refusal to apply policy as honest. But we want technical input on specifics, and have been replying to this with as close attention as we can muster for some six months.Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that you and Tom and probably everyone else are acting in good faith. But the main problem is that we have banned the other team and are now holding the big game. This does not seem like the best way to determine if the article is comprehensive, fair and balanced. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * These types of accusations are becoming very tiresome, and they simply are not true. No editor or page is perfect, but the current group of editors make every effort to address every concern that is brought up with no distinction to the authorship orientation of the person, and we also try our best to stay within Wikipedia policies of accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability using reliable sources, in stark contrast to when the page was monopolised by the now-banned Smatprt. Here are some typical edits that were reverted from those so-called experts:
 * Removed reference and reworded sentence in lede with no discussion
 * A mass addition of undiscussed material
 * BenJonson, one of your so-called experts, adds a non-RS reference to the page (of which he is the general editor), which is reverted.
 * Second addition of poorly-sourced and POV material by BenJonson, who refuses to discuss his changes on the talkpage before editing, but instead chooses to harangue other editors on the talk page, on this page, on his talk page, and elsewhere.
 * Several undiscussed edits by Methinx and an anonymous IP, which were reverted by Nishidani, partially restored by Future Perfect at Sunrise, an administrator, who was then promptly reverted by me, hardly something I would do if we were colluding with admins. The edits were thoroughly discussed on the talk page (as they should have been before being made), and some were adapted.
 * No edits are automatically reverted because of the authorship orientation of the editor, and certainly not all edits from anti-Stratfordians have been reverted. Anything at all that is useful from any quarter is discussed and adapted if it (1) advances the articles, and (2) complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. DeVereGuy has made several edits that have been accepted, some with modifications. Peter Farey, a well-known Marlovian, has reverted my and others' edits at various times and his issues have been met with discussion and adoption if they found a consensus.
 * We've also tried to be even-handed. The edits of a Stratfordian IP editor were reverted by Alan W and again by GuillaumeTell, which angered him enough to cause him to leave a message on GuillaumeTell’s talk page.
 * I could go on and on, but I don't have the time to cull through the page history. I suggest you do so and compare the page history since Paul, Nishidani and I have been working on it to the period in which Smatprt was the chief arbiter of what was allowed on the page. He was topic-banned for good reasons, as a review of his AN/I and the arbitration case amply demonstrates. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the ban, I'm just saying that his comments are missing at the FAC. Obviously, if he comments, his comments should be concise and to the point, and if they have no merit, you can, of course, point that out. I don't mean to make any accusations, but on its face, it looks terrible to take this to FAC without his comments. I have no idea if he even would wish to comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You most certainly are not "just saying that [Smatprt's] comments are missing at the FAC." You are declaring that the the entire process is tainted by a deliberate procedure to topic-ban the "expert" editors and then railroad the article through FAC after having silenced the opposition. Others have made similar accusations and gone as far as to claim collusion between one group of editors and administrators. Continuing to claim such is not only untrue, it is unhelpful to the FAC process, and that is why I take exception. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, 'we haven't banned the other team'. There was no team. As Smatprt may recall from a note I sent him, I think the trouble he got into was due to the fact that he was abandoned by many Oxfordian editors who left him, alone, to bear the burden of defending the Oxfordian cause in wikipedia. He brought to that task an enormous true-believer's passion, if much less experience of contemporary scholarship. But he stood alone, and what happened was that for months over a dozen Oxfordians would only jump in at what were considered crucial moments, to vote against, or support some very peculiar edits he insistently proposed. Few of them, if any, have proven to be constant and committed wikipedians (as are Softlavender and yourself, for example). They pop up continually just when things are difficult on a restricted number of pages, generally ignore policy, use the pages to write walls of remonstrative texts, or just to vote and register an indefinite opinion. It is difficult to work on wikipedia, almost impossible on large, notoriously hard articles like this. I've said frequently that Oxfordians dedicated to their cause have several defective pages where there is ample margin to work undisturbed to improve their quality. No one takes up the invitation. They just complain about this page, and appear intent on doing everything to block its prospects in this FAC review. If this article is to fail, it should be failed, and none of us could object, purely on technical grounds as they are detailed by the team of highly experienced editors who have it in their purview now, if we fail to be responsive to their many extensive comments, and not on the basis of highly generalized a priori rejections by true believers who register feelings of being excluded, but who have never shown much interest in the article's progress.
 * In short, we are being told now that, despite thousands of edits, and 6 months of intensive collegial review, that we should go back to scratch, expunge Arbcom rulings, reinstate a team of editors, one banned, the others hitherto insouciant, and kickstart this over again. That this can be suggested is one reason why academics tend to regard time dedicated to Wikipedia a futile waste of their intelligence. Everything, deep commitment, can be overturned by a sudden intrusive unknown which scraps years of effort and study. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying to scrap anything, I'm just saying that we should get his comments on the article as it exists today before calling this an FA. I have not commented on the FAC, and I do not feel qualified to do so. But I don't see why anyone would "protest too much" getting comments from someone who was a major contributor to the article over a period of years. OK, I'm unwatching this discussion, as I have nothing further to add. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's frankly rather bizarre to suggest that we need the comments of an editor who is topic banned. If Smatprt were a recognised expert on the topic, then this might make some sense. But he isn't. His views are of no special value above those of other editors.Paul B (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Arbcom banned Smatprt from this and related articles because s/he was not able to contribute productively to improving the encylcopedia. While I respect, in this case I fail to see how bringing a banned editor back to comment here is in any way productive. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I saw this comment, although I am trying to stay away.  Smatprt was banned for bad behavior.  I don't think he was banned for having nothing useful to say on this topic.  But, just one example as to the necessity for caution here: how is it possible that an article on the SAQ does not mention Mark Anderson (writer)'s Shakespeare by Another Name?  You can dispute the assertions in the book, but the New York Times and everyone else said it was important [LATER]: "deserves serious attention" .  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The book is not remotely "important". It's so full of ludicrous non-sequiturs it is barely readable. The review you quote is by well-known anti-Stratfordian polemicist William S. Niederkorn. It seems rather disingenuous to quote a well-known anti-Strat as if he is representative of "everyone". If you can find evidence in the literature of experts on Shakespeare or the Early Modern period that it is "important" then maybe it could get a mention. The books we do refer to are discussed in the literature. Anderson's is not. As for Smatprt, my previous point stands. If he were the Harvard Professor of Shakespeare Authorship, but had been wiki-banned for bad behaviour, it might make sense to solicit his views, despite the ban, because he would be a major expert on the topic. But Smatprt is not any kind of an expert. His views have no special weight. Paul B (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To use your own analogy, in real sports, if you are suspended or disqualified before the "big game," then that's just too bad. Wrad (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to stop any (not banned) editor from pointing out actionable deficiencies in the article. For example, quote some text from the article and describe what is wrong with it. Or, identify some missing information that should be in the article. Just as in other contested topics, there are probably hundreds of sources that could be used, and different editors could arrange various sources to lead the reader to a variety of quite different conclusions. That is why Wikipedia's policies exist. In particular, WP:REDFLAG applies to many of the claims that have sometimes been added to the article—if a statement contradicts the prevailing view within the relevant discipline, that statement needs exceptional sources. Given the policies, it is hard to see why the views of Mark Anderson need to be considered in an article based on sources from the relevant discipline. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine why Paul B. would call me disingenuous. Anderson's is a recent book directly on this topic, which received favorable reviews and is not mentioned in the article. This does not seem to comply with WP:AGF. I have no idea who Niederkorn is, I only know that the review appeared in the NY Times. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Niederkorn is an avowed Authorship adherent who used his position at the NYT to advocate the theories, to the point that complaints were made about his actions. If you base your conclusion about Anderson's book on Niederkorn's review then I'm sorry to that you've been hoodwinked. The most respected authorities on Shakespeare that have touched on the Authorship issue are Stanley Wells and Samuel Schoenbaum (both will rank very high on the list of most respected recent Shakespeare scholars; Wells is very likely to be listed first), and both Irvin Leigh Matus and James S. Shapiro are generally considered (by the relevant specialists in the field, in addition to enwiki's RS process) good and authoritative scholars. I'm sure Anderson's book can be cited, but only for a very limited scope of things, and it should not be given undue weight. The mere fact that there are demands that the book be “used” or “mentioned” in the article without specifics as to what statement we need to support using Anderson, that isn't already better covered by less partisan sources, should be a hint that the primary motivation is advocacy rather than improving the encyclopedia. --Xover (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

One more time (in spite of my expressed intent to go silent here), we see that partisanship is not diminishing. As an Oxfordian, by way of example, I ask, is Scott McCrea’s work to be taken more seriously than Mark Anderson’s? Really? I have numerous specific concerns and objections about the article, but, noting the tenor of those who are exercising control over this article, and the banning that has taken place, why should I bother? Stratfordians clearly want to control the outcome, as do anti-Stratfordians, but the former appear to be in a position to do so. So, I have a new suggestion. Publish the article as is, along with all of the discussion and commentary. What could be more honest, factual, and informative than that? --Ssteinburg (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "As an Oxfordian, by way of example, I ask, is Scott McCrea’s work to be taken more seriously than Mark Anderson’s?"
 * Scott McCrea, with a Master's degree in Fine Arts, teaches dramatic literature and theater history at the State University of New York, Purchase College. Shakespeare forms part of the curriculum part of 'theatre history', which he teaches. His book is widely cited by Shakespearean specialists. Mark Anderson is a journalist with no university position, who has a degree in astrophysics, and writes for Rolling Stone, and New Scientist. He was reviewed only by William Niederkorn, a composer, whose behaviour in pushing his own sympathies and distorting evidence on this subject in the NYT was the object of several protests by leading Shakespearean scholars. I'd cite him on astrophysics though. Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything written on Wikipedia is forever available to anyone that cares to look. When this page is archived it will still be available in the edit history, and the same is true for the article's talk page (which currently has just shy of 25 archive pages of discussions). --Xover (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(In response to Nishidani) You have reminded us once again of the “rules” by which you play—McCrea meeting your standards as an ‘academic’ authority’, while Anderson falls short. We see that the quality and extent of scholarship in the two cases isn’t the question for you. Frankly, if I may be allowed a tiny fraction of the rank opinion, the “scholarship” with which McCrea seeks to slander all who disagree with his opinion, Mr. McCrea comes very close to setting the “low” for scholarship on this subject. But, please, continue to cite him. You reject Anderson and you accuse William Neiderkorn of “pushing his own sympathies”. That is, I think, a quite revealing criticism. You speak of Niederkorn’s “behavior”. His “behavior”? Do you people ever listen to yourselves? If Niederkorn had ‘pushed’ Stratfordian “sympathies” you would have had no objection. Obviously, for you, the demarcation between what is acceptable and unacceptable is really just a question of whose sympathies one is “pushing”. You accuse Niederkorn of “distorting evidence”. What evidence did he distort? Seriously! If you want to debate, bring on the evidence. And you say there were “protests” against Niederkorn by “leading Shakespearean scholars”. So??? Like that’s some kind of news or some kind of argument? But, since you brought it up, who were these “scholars” (I think we know the identity of two of them) and what are their academic credentials? The point is, you people have a very low tolerance for anyone who disagrees with you and you are altogether and almost all the time up tight and righteous. But, keep it up. As Xover says, it’s all on the permanent Wiki record. We hope. And one more time: you seriously think all of this is leading to an “article” reflective of “neutrality”? Do you actually believe that the term “neutrality” and this “article” can be joined together outside of an Orwellian universe? --Ssteinburg (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RS and WP:Fringe. I don't reject anything. It is policy which rejects these texts, and editors merely apply those policies. You ignore my main point, McCrea is a scholar of the subject, Anderson is a journalist with no formal background in the subject. What I said of Niederkorn is what scholars have said, in letters to the NYTs (which controversy by the way we have not exploited, but studiously erased, from the page, which simply cites Niederkorn's articles, without rebuttal). Your attempt to personalise what is a consensual understanding of policy restrictions is ineffectual. Your attempt to dismiss McCrea's study as a work of slander suggests you have not read it. I think it would be appropriate to drop the standard 'Orwellian' cliché with regard to what scholarship does, and do some reading of Karl Popper's elaboration of the Bergsonian distinction between 'closed' and 'open societies'. Open societies engage in piecemeal engineering, make it gradual, step-by-step adjustments to our knowledge, disavow some fideistic attachment to a secret, revealed Truth, and accept that today's orthodoxy can only be sustained honesty if those who participate in its construction maintain a critical awareness of the fragility of their premises. Closed societies consist of tribal belief systems whose premises are immune to re-examination because the secret truths to which all subscribe on faith are not permeable to logic, reason or the evidences of empirical research. Looney, at least, set his acolytes the task of rummaging through the archives to find some trace of the hidden but irrefragable proof he believed hidden there, that would demonstrate the validity of his conjecture. He may have been an authoritarian type, but he accepted, as a good positivist, the scientific orthodoxy that ideas require evidence, and in 90 years of arduous fossicking that evidence, the 'smoking gun' has never turned up. In lieu, we get endless accusations of mainstream scholarship, walls of polemical insinuation. This is not the place to rehearse grievances, but to raise specific ideas and issues which might prove useful in improving the text, which is concerned with the scholarly refraction of a fringe idea, its history and content. A fringe idea becomes a minority idea, subject to different rules, when a notable body of scholars within a discipline begin to underwrite it as a legitimate alternative to the orthodox consensus. So far this has not occurred. If it does, in the near future, the editors in here will certainly apply policy, since the parameters will change.Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If Anderson had written a book which had been acclaimed by Shakespeare scholars, then his lack of qualifications would not have been been held against him here. The opinions of the scholarly community would have been taken into account. It is, of course, perfectly possible for non-specialists to develop their ideas and knowledge independently of the academy and to write important literature on a topic. Indeed, it's not uncommon. It is also possible for qualified scholars to become fringe. Witness Rupert Sheldrake, a highly qualified biochemist whose views on the subject are considered to be fringe. Ultimately, the arbiter here is the opinion of the relevant scholarly community. Paul B (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You said, “I don't reject anything. It is policy which rejects these texts, and editors merely apply those policies.” Yes, you do “reject”. You are relying on a “policy” that, by your interpretation, favors your point of view, and you have become accustomed to getting away with this sort dissembling logic in this forum. I did not “ignore” your “main point” regarding McCrea. You count the man a “scholar” based on his credentials. I look at his work and say the man isn’t a scholar, and that Anderson is. Here we are separated by academic bling versus substance. You are the one who brought Niederkorn into the discussion so that you could again play the credentials gambit. Who are the, “scholars” who “have said, in letters to the NYTs. . .”? Who? You’re evading my question. Excuse me, but you have, “studiously erased, from the page” something posted on the page”. Erased? Xover said everything said is here is here forever? Who is right? And, when you speak of my “attempt to personalise what is a consensual understanding of policy restrictions”, is this English? Have I fallen down the rabbit hole? And you say my “attempt” is “ineffectual”. Well, I have little hope of it being effectual with you and your colleagues, but I see you expect your sweeping opinions to be accepted as somehow substantive. Have you conducted a survey of the effectiveness of my “attempts…”? You suggest I have not read McCrea's “study”. I’ve read it several times. I’m amazed every time I read it. I’m sure you are familiar with the follow quote from his book,

“What happens when the intelligentsia embrace a conspiracy theory? Doesn’t a kind of thinking become legitimized? Reasoning like that of the Authorship theorists [heretics] has led juries to believe in police conspiracies and thus to dismiss valid evidence and acquit murderers. Similar reasoning has led many Americans to believe that a government cover-up prevents anyone form learning the truth about UFOs or the assassination of John F. Kennedy; their distrust has fueled the militia movement and made the 1995 Oklahoma bombing seem almost inevitable. Today, Holocaust denial is ridiculous, but what about three hundred years from now, when the survivors are all dead and the original films of them are carefully preserved in vaults, the province only of scholars, as is the case with Shakespeare today?”

Well, we’ve heard similar words from Greenblatt haven’t we. So, why not from McCrea? Can you quote me something like this from Anderson? I’ll be happy to drop the “Orwellian cliché” when it ceases to be appropriate. I have Popper handy. I think he would say you are being too clever by a mile. You say, “This is not the place to rehearse grievances”. You mean, not a place for the other side to “rehearse grievances”. But this is, you say, a place, “to raise specific ideas and issues which might prove useful in improving the text”. Since you challenge me, I will accommodate you on that in a later post. But you continue with, “which is concerned with the scholarly refraction of a fringe idea, its history and content.” Which brings me to raise the issue again, that the term “fringe idea” is your way of stacking the deck and is not a logical description of anti-Stratfordianism which is, in fact, an alternative theory. Now, I realize I’m wasting my figurative breath, but there is nothing anti-historical or anti-scientific in doubting Shaksper’s authorship. Historically, that’s been doubted since at least 1597 (Marston) and 1598 (Hall). How about addressing that in your article? --Ssteinburg (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing whatever in Marston or Hall about doubting Shakespeare, or even 'Shaksper' (btw, it was Hall in 1597, and Marston in 1598). There are a some very obscure references to someone called "Labeo". Since you have read McCrea, you must know that the identity of this "Labeo" is disputed. You present wild speculation based on esoteric utterances as if it were fact. As for the McCrea passage you quote, what possible relevance does it have? He's making generalised comments about the dangers of conspiracy-mongering. Obviously Anderson, who is presenting a conspiracy-theory, is not going to say something similar is he? The term 'fringe idea' is not our way of "stacking the deck". It is our way of stopping Wikipedia filling up with nonsense. We say "what does the community of experts say on this topic"? That is the standard. If someone is convinced that Jesus was the son of Julius Caesar he can add all the arguments he likes to Talk:Caesarion (and he does). But they will not make it into the article itself because it is a fringe theory. It is not reflected in the literature of the expert scholarly community. That is all. All such promoters of fringe theories feel aggrieved. That's a given. Pages and pages are filled with their expressed resentment that what they know to be the truth is being "censored" or marginalised. The "Truth" is constantly being covered up by defenders of the "mainstream". Paul B (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Mr Steinburg has his Popper handy, I would suggest he mull over the quote from Anthony Trollope in Popper's Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 5th edition (1974) p.33. (If your copy of that is out on loan, then I'm sure you can consult directly your copy of Trollope's Phineas Finn, chapter  XXV (In the Oxford World Classics ed., 1982 pp.226-7), and grasp the point. But continuing like this is pointless. This is not a forum to rehearse theories that have been recycled annually for over a century, with only a slight change in terminology. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the following paragraph from where it had been accidentally placed in. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction regarding Marston and Hall (haste makes waste). We wouldn’t need to read McCrea to know that Strats dispute the identity of Labeo, though they certainly haven’t explained it.  “very obscure references”, “esoteric utterances”, probably not to Shakespeare?  As opposed to the “clear” references to Shakespeare by Robert Greene and Henry Chettle?   Certainly “clear” to McCrea.  The relevance of the McCrea passage is that he makes sweeping generalization by which he presumes to sweep away everyone who disagrees with his point of view.   That’s good scholarship to you?  The point, regarding Anderson, is that he doesn’t employ that kind of scholarship.  He probably doesn’t have the training for it.  Do doubt you do, Paul. --Ssteinburg (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I miss-posted this to the previous section, and I've added slightly here. Thanks, Paul, for the correction regarding Marston and Hall (haste makes waste). We wouldn’t need to read McCrea to know that Strats dispute the identity of Labeo, though they certainly haven’t explained it. “very obscure references”, “esoteric utterances”, probably not to Shakespeare? As opposed to the “clear” references to Shakespeare by Robert Greene and Henry Chettle? Certainly “clear” to McCrea. The relevance of the McCrea passage is that he makes sweeping generalization by which he presumes to sweep away everyone who disagrees with his point of view. That’s good scholarship to you? The point, regarding Anderson, is that he doesn’t employ that kind of scholarship. He probably doesn’t have the training for it. For once, Nishidani, we agree, "pointless". --Ssteinburg (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Following up to the comment by Paul B, ““Since you have read McCrea, you must know that the identity of this "Labeo" is disputed.””. Now that I’ve gone back and checked McCrea, he concludes with the very interesting comment (page 138) that, “Probably Hall had Samuel Daniel or Michael Drayton in mind [as opposed to Bacon]. I’m not sure that works, but the point is, McCrea’s final answer is that Labeo (author of V & A) was not Shakespeare. The implication being, clearly, that Shakespeare was not a real person. So, to be clear, McCrea ‘disputes’ the identification with Bacon, but he does not ‘dispute’ that Marston doubted “Shakespeare” was the true author. Thus, I repeat that, historically, doubt about Shakespeare’s authorship is traceable to Marston and Hall, and I suggest that, for historical clarity, this be reflected in the SAQ. Or, do you have a more substantial witness than McCrea on this topic?--Ssteinburg (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You already have been told more than once that this is not the place to argue the case. I see by your edit history that you have never made an edit to any article, and that you only registered after this article's FAC was opened. If you want to continue in this vein, there are several newsgroups available for you to do that. Continuing to do so here is disruptive to the work we are trying to get done.
 * Would someone please collapse this section? It is intrusive and not relevant to the task at hand. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Read, but since it's on talk, there's no need to add collapse templates-- it's not interfering with the FAC page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Summary
Could one of the nominators please add a summary here of editors Supporting, Opposing, and those Commenting without a declaration-- without characterizing those editors, please? I can read the characterizations already added above. Thanks :) I'm beginning to wade through-- will take some time, but will be easier if everything (permalinks, links to talk pages, unsigneds, etc are cleaned up). Where does Cryptic's review stand? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On FAC page:
 * Comments (6) : 72.234.212.189, Andy Walsh (meta), NuclearWarfare (1e concern), Nikkimaria (review, recused), Ssteinburg, SandyGeorgia (meta)
 * Opposes (7) : Jdkag, BenJonson, Knitwitted, Softlavender, Methinx, Fotoguzzi, PametPuma
 * Supports (11) : GrahamColm, Ruhrfisch, Bishonen, GuillaumeTell, Brianboulton, Johnbod, Buchraeumer, Kaiguy, Tony1 (1a only), Wassupwestcoast, Cryptic C62
 * Neutral (1) : Ealdgyth (not opposing, but not yet ready to support)
 * I think that covers the ones on the actual review page. Cryptic C62's points have all been addressed (although many of them have been “answered” rather than “fixed” as such), but the reviewer has not yet responded or updated their Comment to either an Support or Oppose. Do you need us attempt a summary of the Talk page as well? It's mostly peripherally related discussion, meta-discussion, and stuff that should probably have been on the article's Talk, I think. --Xover (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, all comments on FAC page checked and there should be no unsigned ones left. There are a few interspersed responses in bulleted lists, but with the subheads these should now be reasonably easy to attribute to the right editor (mostly the reviewer/commenter). --Xover (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All links on FAC page checked and made permanent, unless they refer generally to a (talk) page etc. --Xover (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this is most helpful, no more summary needed! You might want to ping Cryptic to see if he's done?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! Sorry for the delay. I do intend to continue my review, and I am most pleased with the progress being made thus far. I have opposed for now, though I expect it will mysteriously transform into a support in the near future. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated summary to move Cryptic C62, and a note to nominators: I know you're tired (so am I :), but one month is not a long time at FAC for an article of this nature (see Featured article candidates/Samuel Johnson).  Having a solid FAC will hold you in good stead over the long haul.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Should Nishidani be listed as a nominator? He's doing a lot of responding on the FAC, and is among the top editors. What about Xover? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom, Nishidani, and Paul should be the nominators, but Nishidani has (despite my strong inclination to ignore his protestations) recused himself for various reasons (I have him suspected of excessive modesty). My own contribution to the article essentially just boils down to technical and moral support. But while I'm heaping on the credit, there have been a lot of (far more than I'd even dreamed of) brilliant editors who have helped us out tremendously in preparing the article for FAC (which I won't try to enumerate because I'm bound to forget someone); except that Alan W. and Johnuniq should take great pride in their contribution (their edit counts on the article are misleading: the amount of thinking and skills they've contributed on the Talk page is tremendous and has been invaluable!). I'll try to limit myself to this, because I could literally go on for hours. Great big honkin' kudos to everyone I've left unnamed here: there ain't the Barnstar distinguished enough to express my awe and gratitude, and all of you should in your own tally take credit if the article makes FA, regardless of what the FA stats bot should have to say about it! --Xover (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC his reasons had to do with being accused of helping take the article to FA so that he could use it to try to get his topic ban lifted. Since that (baseless) accusation was made by a now-banned user, I surely hope no credibility will be attached to it. The fact is this article could never have been improved—much less made an FA candidate—without his timely assistance and knowledge, and I hope he will overcome his reluctance and put himself on the list of nominators. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could someone pls link to or explain this topic ban? I'm not finding it in the arbcase-- could be that I missed it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's related to the P-I conflict case (editing restrictions on arena of conflict articles) and has no other bearing on this article than that some of the parties to this ArbCom case brought it up in an attempt to demonstrate that he has a history of confrontational behavior. Given the editing restrictions were rather… tenuous (IMO it's a case of wrong place at the wrong time), and has absolutely no bearing on any aspect of SAQ, I would not have brought it up here nor am I inclined to go into further detail unless requested. --Xover (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, that suffices-- I was just confused about how Nish could be contributing to the FAC if he was topic banned, now I understand. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The sordid details are on my page. I've been thinking this over for the last three hours. I originally withdrew for the reasons Xover mentioned, essentially because at the time many accusations (floated on the SAQ arbcom page and elsewhere) insinuated or declared I was a disruptive wikipedian instrumentally using this article to wriggle my way back into favour. That innuendo, and the possibility that some odour of the disreputable, might complicate the article's progress through FA, gave me no alternative but to withdraw. Let me compromise, since this is what we are about at this stage. I can intuit that, were this to fail FA review and promotion, my absence as nominator would be further proof of my deviousness, in, with praeternatural foresight, wishing to keep my name off a failure. So, may I ask that, if it is not to pass, I be given a few seconds warning before the judgement is made, so I can put myself down as co-nominator with Paul and Tom. That way, my original bona fides can be vindicated. If promoted, credit is given where credit is due, and I have no need to jump on the bandwaggon. How complicated we get. It's almost like the intrigues of Elizabethan times, and one has a terrible time here trying to keep one's nose clean! Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to complicate the matter with whether or not it will pass-- the nom list is used by Rickbot to generate WP:WBFAN, there is always plenty of time after FAC closing before Rickbot goes through, and even if you change your mind, you can always adjust the page that feeds WBFAN, Featured articles promoted in 2011. See for example  (Galapogos tortoise there), where I added four co-noms, because I would not have passed that FAC without the work done by those co-noms post-nomination. Any of those four editors can delete their names from that page if they don't want the co-nom, and Rickbot adjusts WBFAN on its next pass through. So, do whatever you want for now; if you believe that my addition of your name to the co-nom list complicates the FAC, you can delete it now, re-add it later if you wish-- whatever works. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nish, there is no need to complicate this so grossly. Any sanction issued on Wikipedia is intended to either reform or simply protect the project from disruption; it is not intended to punish. That means, even if you should have had a diabolical plan to redeem yourself by bringing this article to FA, then that is exactly what the sanctions were intended to accomplish in the first place (god forbid a topic-banned editor should write FA quality articles in entirely unrelated areas!)! Sandy has added you to the list of noms based on your contributions on the article and during FAC, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that you now leave well enough alone. It's not a sainthood being bestowed: you really can't accept credit for a +1 to your FA stats under any “false pretense” or whatever. It's just not that big of a deal. I suggest we consider this issue closed as entirely irrelevant; Sandy asked for clarification and got it, there's no reason to agonize further over it. --Xover (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What he said :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cryptic appears to have wiped out a large number of edits by simply cutting material and superimposing his text during an edit conflict. Is there any way these can be restored without laboriously reinserting them? Paul B (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above is no longer relevant. Paul B (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing notes

 * 1) Somewhere on the FAC page, someone compared this FAC to the Catholic Church FACs; I see no similarity.  On those FACs, experienced FA writers and FAC reviewers lodged very actionable opposes on sourcing and NPOV (among others, actually, there were opposes on every piece of WP:WIAFA, including prose, comprehensiveness, MOS, stability, etc), specifically and correctly referencing Wikipedia policies and WIAFA.  I did not find that to be the case with the Opposes lodged here.  I don't discount commentary because it comes from SPAs or IPs, but I do overlook commentary that is not firmly grounded in WIAFA and actionable.
 * 2) Earlier in the FAC, I mentioned the possibility of a restart, which led to some discussion.  Once I got the FAC sorted to a point that it was readable (hint :), I did not find it to be a candidate for a restart.  Had there been specific, actionable opposes or a jumble making it unclear what was addressed and what was not (see point 1), it would have been a candidate for a restart.  This is hopefully a lesson to nominators in how to keep your FACs clean and readable :)  Watch for unsigneds, use permalinks, stay on-topic, all that jazz.
 * 3) I know the nominators felt like this was a very long haul, but most FACs these days are taking three weeks to a month, and it wasn't excessively grueling.  There were early calls for promotion, but Ealdgyth and Cryptic C62 came in with helpful and lengthy reviews after that; I hope the value of a hard and lengthy FAC is apparent :)
 * 4) Following on Point 3, we don't want to see this article end up at FAR.  As I mentioned earlier, on contentious topics that have been subjected to disruptive editing, sometimes the nominators can become so worn down that they turn defensive and fail to notice valid commentary among the rest (this happened on Intelligent Design and some other FARs to an extent that good-faith editors couldn't even mention basic items that needed cleanup like MOS, citation consistency, prose without being attacked).  Don't let that happen :)  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  If ya'll grow defensive, lose patience, and show up at FAR, I'll come through my screen and wring your necks.
 * 5) Now, to another matter.  Lots of reviewers put lots of time into this FAC, and they are rarely thanked for their hard work.  FAC is backlogged and in desperate need of more reviewers; I must frequently close FACs for lack of review, or promote FACs that haven't received substantial review.  Please return the favor :)  In particular, Cryptic C62 has a FAC up, and I'm sure he'd appreciate reviews!

Congratulations to the nominators and the reviewers for their persistence and diligence. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)