Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

New York Times survey

There has been objection to an earlier revision I made to this page which stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wightknightuk (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think what's stunning is the way you've misrepresented the source. However, as you may be an arts grad and unfamiliar with statistics, let me demonstrate.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wightknight 14:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed over and over and over for many years, both here and on the talk page of the main Shakespeare article (e.g. Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive_20#RfC:_Is_note_.22e.22_relevant). The NYT survey is deeply flawed. The expression "Shakespeare professors" implies that the persons surveyed were experts on Shakespeare, but there is no evidence that this was the case at all (they were arbitrarily chosen). There is clear probability of selection bias and the phrasing of the question was (probably deliberately) ambiguous - designed to confuse mainstream attribution debate with fringe alternate-author scenarios. Humm, sounds familiar.... Paul B (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

wightknight 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I have addressed this issue [[1]] but I will not repost in full here for fear of breaching etiquette, which is certainly not my intention. I have also addressed in particular the issues concerning the post regarding the status of the question as being itself 'fringe' and so that discussion is relevant to that debate also.

Of particular relevance, however:

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

and

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

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

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

very respectfully.

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

Ellis’s book addresses directly the question of authorship

And you know this how?

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you haven't actually read David's book, have you?

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

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

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

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

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

Wightknightuk (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

>As I have previously stated, this is a treatment of the methodologies used in assessing the authorship of the Shakespeare canon.

Not exactly. You wrote "However, we can also find good evidence of the Authorship Question being examined by more mainstream members of the academic community, for example: “The Truth About William Shakespeare: Fact, Fiction, and Modern Biographies” by David Ellis, Professor of English Literature at the University of Kent at Canterbury. Ellis’s book addresses directly the question of authorship and the academic processes used in Shakespeare biography." Without having read it, you clearly believe the book relates to the SAQ, but I can assure you it doesn't. I have no doubt that anti-Stratfordians will shortly be trying to draft him as a Shakespeare doubter, the way they tried to do with Graham Holderness.

You seem to have a bad habit of hasty reading. First you claim that the the NYTimes survey proves that the SAQ is a minority view in academe; then you complain that the survey is not in the article; next you give Ellis' book as an example of the SAQ being an accepted academic topic, and now you misrepresent your own statement and clearly have not read the policy articles I linked to. I suggest you read those before you come back here and wave your hands again so you'll have at least a glimmer of understanding of what I'm referring to. Here they are in case you forgot: WP:RS and WP:OR.

I'll also quote you the entire section I referenced above: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors" (emphasis mine). If you don't understand how that relates to this discussion, don't hesitate to ask questions. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Argue is not a transitive verb.

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

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

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

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

"Argue" is both transitive and intransitive. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"harp on" Phrasal Verb: To talk or write about to an excessive and tedious degree; dwell on. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

What would be the consensus view on the best way to deal with this reference? Wightknightuk (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The reference should not be judged by the small extract shown in the footnote. Instead, the actual source needs to be read. Nevertheless, it may be of interest to know that the extracts have been reduced from previous versions. For example, the version at 3 March 2011 read "...most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp; but too much must not be made of this fact, for many of them display comparatively little interest in the controversy with which we are dealing ... they accept the orthodox view mainly because it is orthodox. The Stratfordians can, however, legitimately claim that almost all the great Elizabethan scholars who have interested themselves in the controversy have been on their side." Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

ooks

Tom Reedy: I think you misunderstood. The other guy was criticizing your grammar by claiming that you used "argue" incorrectly. I was pointing out that his complaint was invalid, since argue can correctly be used as a transitive verb, as in "argue the point." I was also trying to make two larger points, 1) that if he thinks he's such an expert on grammar but isn't, what else is he wrong about, and 2) I wanted to express support for the great job you're doing in arguing with this guy, since I wouldn't have the patience for it. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understood (or thought I did!). That's why I added the "harp on" definition: he thought I had made another grammatical error when in actuality he just wasn't familiar with the term. So far he's an expert on Shakespeare, Early Modern attribution studies, grammar, critical theory, Wikipedia policy (even though he's a novice), and he has the super power of understanding books he hasn't read. Typical Oxfordian, IOW. And thanks for the kind words. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Engagement vs Acknowledgment

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

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

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

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

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

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

wightknight 17:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

wightknight 20:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Suggestion on drafting style

From the point of view of brevity and elegance, rather than saying in the Lead:

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

would it not be preferable to say:

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

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

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

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

Although the term is used throughout the article, I think using "Shakespeare canon" would lend a bit of subliminal confusion to the lede definition sentence, since the term implicitly assumes Shakespeare's authorship. It also wrecks the metre of the sentence, but that is not really an important consideration in an encyclopedia article.

And how exactly is this a helpful edit, anyway? Jesus, are we gonna have to go through this entire bullshit again? Every word of this article has been discussed, argued over, and vetted by more editors than probably any other article on Wikipedia saving the Israel/Palestine pages. Yet every time a new anti-Stratfordian shows up with such frivolous and unsubstantial edits as this one, along with a lot of double-talk about his or her highest and purest motives, we're supposed to go through the entire charade again. Really?

I'll tell you this, Wightknightuk: the tactics of attrition, distraction, and frivolous dispute resolution actions kept this article in the ghetto for years until just a over a year ago. They won't work anymore, so you might as well bring on your best substantive ideas—if you have any—quickly and directly and stop all this fiddle-farting around.

I also have a question: If anti-Strats are so concerned about the state of the authorship articles on Wikipedia, why in heaven's name don't they work on the other articles and get them in acceptable shape? The Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship is barely coherent. The Baconian theory article reads as if it were written as a kindergarten class project. The Ogburn articles, both père and fils, are in disgraceful shape, all the more so for their status as Oxfordian saints. Yet for some reason every anti-Strat editor believes that the way to begin their Wiki career is by "improving" a controversial Featured article in order "to progress [the article] towards neutrality by a process of discussion and conciliation". Can you answer that? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Every anti-Strat editor, Tom? Peter Farey (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Every new one, anyway! Glad to hear from you, Peter. Cheers! Tom Reedy (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"WP:BB" Wightknightuk (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This is an exercise in pole-vaulting over a rat turd.

The Shakespeare Apocrypha is a part of several anti-Strat theories and therefore changing the term would make the definition inaccurate. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the consensus? Wightknightuk (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are the one who has missed the point. The reference to the SAQ in the apocrypha article is to distinguish the topics, not to say that the SAQ does not include the apocrypha. The SAQ is about the Shakespeare works being written by another, hidden author, and several SAQ theories discuss the apocrypha in those terms. The apocrypha is a group of plays that have been attributed to Shakespeare on questionable grounds. The distinction between the two topics is not difficult to grasp.

And I believe the consensus is quite clear. You have my permission to move on to another non-issue. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Your point is unclear.

At the moment the statement:

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

in fact means

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

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

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

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

Is your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT strategy deliberate? It makes no difference whether the article mentions the apocrypha or not. The phrase "works attributed to him" is all-inclusive for a reason. Surely, as a person who is attempting to reform the no-doubt many rhetorical and factual errors of this page, you are aware of the various SAQ theories that discuss the apocrypha, such as Sabrina Feldman and Dennis McCarthy's theories. These theories are not discussed in this general article, mainly because they are minor and have received little, if any, academic attention. But anti-Strats, as blind as they are to the obvious, are nit-pickers when it comes to "Stratfordian" facts and even more so when it touches their favorite candidate, and I can guarantee you that replacing the phrase with a specific term will result in yet further useless objections and debate.

And we are not buying a vacuum cleaner from a door-to-door salesman, so you can spare us the false dilemma closing technique, clever as it undoubtedly was when Moses first used it.

You have been given several valid reasons for the use of the present diction, and the consensus of the regular editors of this page is clear. I suggest you move away from this particular detail. Any further discussion along the same lines is blatant talk page abuse and a waste of time. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is after all in the present tense. It refers to the works attributed to him, not to all the works that have ever been attributed to him. Complicating the issue will just produce confusion. Anti-Strats are also fond of adding the works of other authors to their particular darling's creative canon. Should we also add a phrase noting that it's not just the Shakespeare canon that's at issue? I don't see this as useful. At the moment the sentence is clear and it allows for the variety of theories to be represented. Paul B (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I see a lot of good points made here by Wightknightuk over the last several days. Am I allowed to say that, or would this be considered talk page abuse? DeVereGuy (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You can say it, but it doesn't help us much. Endorsement isn't a contribution. Paul B (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or is there a better form of words?

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

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

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

Yes, I find your arguments remarkably easy to follow.

Thank you for your response to my query. Wightknightuk (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

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

It appears then that you don't find my comments easy to follow after all. The "endorsement" comment was a reply to DeVereGuy. The "real contribution" comment was a reply to you, since your own remark "I thought you were looking for a consensus" could only reasonably be construed as a reply to mine (you referred to Tom in the third person), containing an implicit complaint that I was dismissing DeVereGuy's views. Paul B (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Returning to the matter at hand, you don't seem to have addressed the issue:

"I said: It is not mainstream to either the Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian position that the person who wrote the Shakespeare Canon also wrote the Apocrypha. No-one appears to have disagreed with that."

Paul B acknowledged that "I kind-of see your point, since over the years various works have been attributed to him which are generally not accepted as canonical" and "DeVere Guy" also posted in support.

If it is your contention either that Stratfordians believe Shakespeare wrote the Apocrypha, or that anti-Stratfordians hold that view, then I may alter my position. Is that what you are saying?

[Tom Reedy] As a newcomer I would be delighted to receive any advice on etiquette from more seasoned hands. Feel at liberty to point me in the right direction and I will do my best to oblige.

Wightknightuk (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

See? You figured it out, all you have to do is apply your powers of observation. Next you might want to tackle the line space issue.

> "It is not mainstream to either the Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian position that the person who wrote the Shakespeare Canon also wrote the Apocrypha. No-one appears to have disagreed with that."

There is no mainstream anti-Stratfordian position. Source.

I am in the unlucky situation of being ill for the first time in at least a decade with a flu-like disorder and will have to take a break from this fascinating discourse. Meanwhile, if you have questions about editing the encyclopedia, you might want to look at the help page. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.5 Authorship in the mainstream media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The film, as it turned out, was spectacularly unpopular. This is essentially trivia. It might be worth a sentence, but not a paragraph. And what exactly does "who served as significant rebuke" mean? Is that English? Paul B (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul if you're gonna include that sentence then it needs to be followed by the "she said" component: the Coalition's mirror response. I really don't see the point in having the material—a minor hiccup—on this page anyway; it rightly belongs on the film's page. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If the response is notable and citable maybe. I think the fact that it is an entry into "internet wars" actually is significant. Paul B (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I know the SBT got their knickers all in a wad about the movie, but that certainly is not the first time they've responded to anti-Strat claims, and it pretty much went the same way the movie did: sunk without a trace. (It also had a buttload of errors, which is not surprising since academics really don't know squat about the SAQ. I had hoped that Shapiro's book would have drawn their attention, because there really are some worthwhile avenues to explore, but after a brief flash it appears that they went back to ignoring it.) Oh well, I've lived in the ghetto this long, I suppose I'll die in it. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact the more remarkable response was the strange street sign protest they organised. Putting up a webpage is just standard stuff these days, though the list of celebs and grandees was clearly intended to impress us all with the heavyweight forces of pro-Stratism. Now, can I think of another appropriate World War II analogy at this point...? Paul B (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tom that if there is a mention of the SBT's "60 minutes", then the SAC's multi-candidate response to it - being in my opinion no less notable - should be mentioned too. Unfortunately the fact that the SAC's rebuttal was completely ignored by the media and by the SBT itself means that one looks in vain for any reliable source (as the term is interpreted here) to prove that any such rebuttal was ever produced. Yet subscribers to Blogging Shakespeare are still being invited daily to sign up for "60 Minutes With Shakespeare", and most if not all of the main anti-Strat websites are still plugging the SAC's joint response. Incidentally, it was actually launched a few weeks before the film was generally released, and attacked Baconians and Marlovians as well as Oxfordians. The SAC's response was of course intended to show that it had actually failed to "rebut" any arguments.Peter Farey (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course the SAC were going to respond. IMO, their response was a series of tired and predicable clichés, but then the SBT's intervention was pretty tired and predictable too. It's not particularly notable that the SAC engaged in "web wars" about the film, since that has been their approach for a while. The article already notes this twice: "He [Ogburn] also kick-started the modern revival of the Oxfordian movement by adopting a policy of seeking publicity through moot court trials, media debates, television, and later the Internet, including Wikipedia" (this sentence might be tweaked, since it seems to imply that Ogburn himself had the idea of contributing to Wikipedia, which would have been remarkably prescient of him) and again in the next paragraph. So the SAC's webpages are just more of the same. What is unusual is the fact that heavyweight pro-Strat people were brought in to defend Moscow, as it were, even though the film turned out to be as threatening as the Italian invasion of France. Paul B (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

My point was that we should either delete that bit or mention both sides as Tom suggested. Frankly, I don't give a monkey's either way. But I thought it would be sensible for that to be agreed before I amended what you had written about just the one. What I considered notable about the SAC response was the fact that so many organizations - who are no less opposed to the views of most of the others than you are - nevertheless managed to come together and agree the joint response in such a relatively short time. That we all find the arguments on both sides tired and predictable is hardly surprising, really, but the pieces aren't aimed at us, are they? Peter Farey (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not bothered about whether it's there or not, nor am I opposed to a phrase about the SAC response. My main worry is citation and notability. I know it's silly to demand a citation for something we all know exists, but if you cite directly to one webpage contrary to WP:RS it just provides a get-in-free ticket for other similar sources. Paul B (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought that the primary criterion, in fact the reason for WP:RS, was verifiability. If one wanted to verify whether the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition posted something, wouldn't the logical approach be simply to check out their website, and not to ask whether Stanley Wells or any other arch-Stratfordian chose to have acknowledged the fact? I fear that we are yet again screwing things up by failing to distinguish between "what they say" and (as the Wikipedia policy was rightly designed to deal with) "whether what they say is right". Of course it is silly. As you said, readers are not looking for loopholes, they are looking for useful information. Peter Farey (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. We don't need any "arch-Stratfordian" super-villain to recognise the SAC's response's existence. Any normal RS will do. However, I was rather conflating notability with verifiability. I don't think it's particularly notable that they responded, and thought that a press report or other recognition would go some way to establish that. Tom is right that the website is reliable for the communication of its own view, but that also has to be shown to be notable, otherwise the argument that any website can be used as a source for the opinions expressed in it is a is way to allow in any and all arguments about anything from anyone. Paul B (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Well I see them as two halves of the same story, Paul. And for us to accept the Strats' half because they managed to get a brief write-up in The Stage (and nowhere else that I know of), and reject the anti-Strats' half because it didn't, just seems unnecessarily biased to me. Peter Farey (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

How about adding this to the Smith reference? "A complete transcript of all 61 items, together with an anti-Stratfordian response to each of them, can be read here." Peter Farey (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I have not been able to find any coverage whatsoever of the SAC response, although I did find their press release, so evidently after the Declaration they didn't get much media attention, probably because their response has absolutely nothing new in it or newsworthy. Since the notability is lacking and the SAT campaign was in response to the publicity surrounding the release of the film, I don't see any neutrality issues by not mentioning the SAC response, but I wouldn't be adverse to some sort of parenthetical mention, either here or in its dedicated article. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. Would my suggested addition to the references count as "some sort of parenthetical mention ... here"? Also thanks to Alan W for his latest edit, although in my defence I should mention that the phrase "audio web site" was actually lifted verbatim from the article cited. Peter Farey (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting and amusing, Peter, that about the "audio web site". I certainly did not mean to imply any criticism of you personally. They are the ones, I see now, who have come up with a term that I think would seem strange to most people accessing the Internet these days. Many web sites include plenty of sound recordings, accessed by links to audio files on the web server, but the practice is so commonplace that even if many are included, it would now seem odd to call such a web site an "audio" web site. The audio component is just a part of what a great many Web sites include. At least that is how I see it. --Alan W (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, Peter. If it doesn't have enough notability for its own sentence, then it could hardly serve as a reference or an external link. Both WP:NOTLINK and WP:ELPOV would apply. There's not a link to the SAT page, and for good reason: if we included it or the SAC link, then the link wars would be on. Wikipedia has long ago set out what links should and should not be included at WP:EL. While it may seem to be unnecessarily restrictive, I'm pretty sure the rationale is that time is better spent writing the encyclopedia than refereeing link wars between various factions. For an example of how that would work out, take a look at the SAQ article in its old state when the page was considered to be a hopeless case and avoided by most WP editors.

What I meant by parenthetical reference was something like "quickly followed by a rebuttal from the SAC" added to the sentence. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would certainly satisfy my concerns about it. Peter Farey (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference section style

I've changed the ref section a bit based on a suggestion by ManetteD over on the Macbeth talk page and that used on the William Shakespeare page. If anybody objects it is simple matter to revert, however I think it is a nice, functional style that should be made standard for all Shakespeare-related pages of G and FA quality. What say ye, page watchers? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No objections here. The new formatting seems to be spreading to more articles of a scholarly nature, and for the sake of editorial consistency it does look better to have a certain uniformity of appearance across articles in that way. --Alan W (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What direction does Wikipedia wish to go in?

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

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

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

Well you are welcome to contribute, but you must abide by the rules that Tom Reedy has already pointed to, as must we all. At the moment, the Oxfordian theory page is the one that need most attention. Paul B (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

DMC, here is the link to Shapiro's more recent comments on the page: [2]. Wrad (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's on page 3 of the Web article in the link, where ABC News reports that Shapiro calls the "treatment of 'The Case for Shakespeare's Authorship'" in this article "compact, illuminating and trustworthy". Whatever Shapiro may feel about Wikipedia as a whole, unless he has changed his mind since he wrote his book, clearly does not extend to this article. --Alan W (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to see Wikipedia has improved to the extent of receiving Prof. Shapiro's approval. Basically I am not experienced at editing Wikipedia and only want to see it rigorous and accurate.--DMC (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)