Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 1

message: Uh oh... an Oxfordian has struck!  I don't know enough to NPOV this.  Can anyone help out? john 01:47 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
In fact, this whole page seems to have been taken over by anti-Stratfordians.  Come on, surely there's someone knowledgeable about this who can fix it?  Anybody? john 08:23 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:Actually I am not really an Oxfordian and I did not "strike" like a natural disaster or something.  I was merely trying to insert accurate information and reduce some of the slanted wording of the original article.  The information on de Vere was incomplete, inaccurate, and strongly biased in favor of William of Stratford.  I know much more about the Oxfordian arguments than about those for Marlowe, Bacon, etc., so I didn't presume to edit anything about which I was poorly informed.  I was careful to present facts as facts (at least as far as we can know them when we are all relying on the research of others) and to indicate supposition as such.  (That's more than was true for the original, by the way in which opinion was called "fact."   I'm not referring to the opinion of who the correct author is---no one really knows for sure.  I am referring instead to the line in the article that said that it was a fact that de Vere's poetry was mediocre.  How can that be a fact?) I am new to Wikipedia.  Maybe I'm out of line in adding information to someone else's article, but after reading the introductory material, etc., for Wikipedia, I was under the impression that that was precisely the purpose.  Am I wrong?
:By the way, this page IS about the authorship controversy, isn't it?  This IS the correct place to present the arguments, right?
Yes, arguments about the authorship controversy go here.  But I felt that the article, as presently edited, was pretty strongly biased towards the Oxfordian or anti-Stratfordian viewpoint.  Given that almost all actual Shakespeare scholars agree that Shakespeare was the man of Stratford (when somebody brought up the question in one of my college English classes, the professor basically laughed it off), it seems to me that the Stratfordian side ought to be represented as the orthodox position first, that then the anti-Stratfordian positions ought to be expounded upon, and that then counter arguments from the Stratfordians can be presented.  I dunno, let me look over the article and see what to do.  john 20:08 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
::Yes, this is the place to recite the arguments. But a neutral point of view means we do not leave the impression that because there are two sides of an argument, they are of equal validity, or present flawed arguments as thought they were reasonable.  John was requesting a restoration of some sort of balance of the viewpoints based on the evidence rather than the vigor of their supporters, which I hope we have made a start towards. The Anti-Stratfordians are a vanishingly small group of people, at odds with reputable Shakespeare scholars: we should not leave the impression that there are two equal groups with equally valid arguments slugging it out in the ditches: that would be a disservice to those who expect accurate information. -- Someone else
:I made some changes myself and toned down both "sides" quite a bit, trying to be meticulous about NPOV. I don't think it serves any useful purpose to present the controversy as a war between hostile sides, although undoubtedly some people feel that way.  People tend to get quite emotional about this subject, and it IS fascinating.  I think maybe my knowledge of the arguments for de Vere might be better placed on the page devoted to de Vere himself than on the more general "controversy" page.  Does that seem more appropriate to you?  As I said, I'm new at this, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes or violate protocol.   I just thought a page entitled "Shakespeare authorship" implied a treatment of the controversy, not a validation of one point of view and ridicule of others.  But like I said, maybe this page is the place for GENERAL information about the controversy, while pages on the individual alternative candidates would be the place for specific arguments.  What do you think about that approach?      By the way, I'm not surprised that your college English professor laughed off the idea of the controversy.  English teachers are loathe to consider anything that even suggests Shakespeare may have been someone other than the man they've been loyal to since high school literature class.  I AM an English teacher, and my position is this:  my loyalty is to the AUTHOR, whoever he may be! The mystery is just fascinating to me.  I would be just as pleased to find out that "Willie did it" as I would be to find out that "De Vere did it."  I just can't ignore the mountain of circumstantial evidence for de Vere.  It may all be coincidence---but WOW! what a coincidence!  Hey, how do you sign these things?  I'm not trying to be anonymous---just thought I set up a signature thing but it apparently isn't working.
::to sign, use three tildes "~~~" or to sign and add a time-stamp, use four tildes "~~~~" -- Someone else 20:37 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I think the De Vere arguments are better placed here than on the de Vere page.  I agree with you that the page should treat the controversy, but it seems to me that the "mountain of circumstantial evidence" is hardly that, given that there are numerous Stratfordian arguments that pretty much demolish all of it.  And that the Oxfordians have rarely responded except by putting up the same arguments over and over again.  But obviously, you disagree.  Basically, I agree with Someone Else that NPOV does not mean that two unequal arguments should be presented as having equal validity.  And I'm getting really sick and tired of these damned edit conflicts whenever I try to write anything!  john 20:40 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:You miss the whole point, as does Someone Else.  The question of validity of the different sides is the basis of the entire controversy.  If one side were clearly valid and the other was not, there would BE no controversy now, would there?  Again, I think a page entitled "Shakespeare authorship" implies a discussion of the controversy.  You guys just want a page that should be called "Shakespeare Did It."  Just out of curiosity, how much research have you actually done into the arguments for de Vere?  There is indeed a mountain of evidence, albeit circumstantial.  However, I'm running up the white flag and retreating from Wikipedia.  It isn't worth this hostility for me to try to inform people who may not ever have been made aware that there is controversy about the topic.  I don't need this headache. Have fun.   --- Tsunamimome 21:10 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I'm not hostile at all.  And the page as it is does inform people that there's a controversy.  But it's a very marginal controversy.  No major scholars of Shakespeare believe that anybody other than Shakespeare wrote it, as far as I know.  So, yes, this page should inform people about the controversy, and about what the Oxfordians say, and what the Baconians say, and so forth.  But it should also present what the Stratfordians say in response, which imo generally demolishes the Oxfordian (and other anti-Stratfordian) arguments.
In any event, if you'd like, feel free to add in some more detail into the Oxfordian arguments (I'm familiar with some of them, but not all).  And don't let old stratfordian curmudgeons like me (while, I'm not really old, except in spirit, perhaps) drive you away from the wikipedia.  We're not trying to make the page into a "Shakespeare wrote it" page.  We're trying to make it into a page that accurate reflects the state of the debate.  And the state of the debate is that most scholars believe that Shakespeare wrote it, but that a small, but vocal, minority strenuously disagrees.  Their arguments certainly ought to be presented on this page, and you ought to put down as much as you'd like.  But be aware that others will edit it, and probably change around some of your points.  That's kind of how this thing works, and you grow to accept the fact that you won't get exactly what you wanted on every page.  In any event, there's no hostility on my part, and you oughtn't let a disagreement over one page turn you off the whole wikipedia.  Stick around for a while and see if it gets better. ;-) john 22:27 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
::Tsunamimome, it would be sad to have someone leave Wikipedia on the basis of one experience. You might want to try editing an article you have no particular feelings about (try Special:Randompage) to see if it's more enjoyable. -- Someone else 22:52 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
"John was requesting a restoration of some sort of balance of the viewpoints based on the evidence rather than the vigor of their supporters, which I hope we have made a start towards. The Anti-Stratfordians are a vanishingly small group of people"
I'm just curious what the basis for this claim is?  I have studied the authorship question intensively for nearly fifteen years now, and interest in the case for Oxford's authorship of the Shakespearean canon has never been higher than it is today, in the opening years of the 21st century.  We could discuss some of the facts which substantiate this conclusion, but since your claim was proffered first, perhaps you'd like to back it up with some kind of factual reasoning.  --BenJonson 21:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oxfordian

message: As early as the eighteenth century doubts about Shakespeare's authorship were expressed, This construction in the passive voice ('Legend has it...') is so often used to cloak spurious information, that I'm skeptical. Any authentic reference? Anti-Stratfordian literary snobbery is much more characteristic of 19th century attitudes. Early 18th century still saw 'touched-up' Shakespeare, corrected for contemporary theatrical tastes. Wetman 18:13, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote this line a while back, admittedly it was a bit slapdash at the time as I was more concerned with organising the TOC. I've emended it and added the references I had in mind. The information comes from John Michell's book. 144.138.194.183 13:39, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Passive voice

message: I was considering for a while incorporating some pro-Oxford material on this page ultimately derived from Charlton Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare. However, I have found several instances in which his claims are refuted, and a recent search to determine whether or not he is a respectable source is inconclusive (some say he's an excellent writer and extremely persuasive; others that he manipulates and ignores evidence that compares unfavourably with his theories). So would it be O.K. to include these arguments, or not? Brutannica 02:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's a well-known advocate of the view and you list references on the quality of that reference, that would be entirely on topic! - David Gerard 08:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ogburn legit?

message: After checking some details added to the Francis Bacon article, I decided to update a couple of the reference links on this page. Someone might want to follow up on the link to http://www.theatrehistory.com/british/shakespeare030.html. A note at the top of that page says the article is from the 1911 Britannica. If that can be verified it might be an idea to bring the text into Wikipedia and update it with comments on some of the more recent books. -- Solipsist 07:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bacon History

message: The Bacon suggestion was first made by William Henry Smith in 1856, unfortunately there were two famous WH Smiths around at the time . I am sure it was the junior William Henry Smith (politician) due to the fact that the same WH smith became the first president of the BACONIANA society in 1886  , when the senior William_Henry_Smith (businessman) was dead. GameKeeper 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which Smith suggested Bacon?

message: I removed the following because it doesn't explain what Stritmatter's argument actually is, and as such is rather unhelpful. If replaced, it would be better to offer a brief summary of his argument.
:The utility of this theory of the poem's composition has recently been challenged, however, by Oxfordian writer Roger Stritmatter in  a University of Tennessee Law Review article, "A Law Case in Verse:  Venus and Adonis and the Authorship Question."
The Singing Badger 23:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stritmatter article

message: I've been adding to and rearranging this article quite a lot recently. Although I think Shakespeare was Shakespeare I've been trying to explain both sides clearly and fairly. I'd be grateful if others could check my work and ensure its accuracy. The Singing Badger 00:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions to the article

message: Refreshing though it is to see hidden cipher theories used to support Shakespeare's authorship, I don't think David Basch's article "Shakespeare Memorials To Friends [www.ziplink.net/~entropy/sha-mar2.pdf] makes a strong case, so the references to it as an authoritive source need to be altered. Paul B 17:20, 15 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stratfordian codes

message: Just reading here.  The section beginning his life has a confusion, at least to someone not knowledgeable on the subject: 
"He [Shakespeare] is believed to have divided his time between London and Stratford, and to have retired there in 1613 before his death in 1616. His father, and apparently at least one of his [elder or younger Shakespeare?] daughters, were illiterate." 69.194.28.81 14:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It means Shakespeare's daughters. I'll fix it. The Singing Badger 20:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronoun confusion

message: I find the following passage rather perplexing:
:As for All's Well That Ends Well it has been pointed out that the Pyrenees were infested with bandits, so that the preferred route to Spain was indeed across the Italian Alps, and then by sea; water transport, as witnessed in Arthur Throckmortons's unpublished continental diary, was always the preferred mode of transport at the time (see Ralegh and the Throckmortons by A.L. Rowse, London 1962).
Yes, I can see that sea-travel may preferred, but that does not explain why one would go via Italy. I thought the Italian Alps were also "infested with bandits". Why avoid one bandit-infested area for another one, just for the sake of a longer journey and a sea-trip to boot. The evidence quoted simply says that ships were "the preferred mode of transport", not that travelling over the Alps was preferred to travelling over the Pyrenees. However I haven't read Rowse's book, so don't know if this citation is disingenuous or not. Paul B 17:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, surely somebody in Roussillon would get a boat from the south of France, not Italy?! I had a look at Rowse's book but it's long and without a page reference I didn't know where to start. I have thus removed the sentence (it's preserved above) pending a better explanation of this subject. The Singing Badger 19:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From Paris to Spain

message: This article is certainly biased and NPOV.  It states all the refuted claims of anti-Stradfordian, but it doesn't state the counter-argument posited by Stradfordians.  For example, they mention that Shakespeare's hand is shaky.  Stradfordians counter by stating it was a style known as "secretary hand", which is radically different from the "italic style" we know today. Mandel 05:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And here I thought it was POV the other way.  Starting with the allusion to "consiracy theories" and continuing with the characterization of one side as "Anti-Stratfordians" who "argue" things and the other side as "mainstream scholars" who "point out" things.  The tone strikes me as one of the Stratfordians saying "we're reasonable and rational, and they're just a bunch of nut jobs."  But I don't have enough invested in the issue to try to change it.  Such is Wikipedia.  Back to my watchlist.... Jwolfe 10:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I can't find the section Mandel mentioned about the 'shaky hand' but it's a commonly used argument so I will add it in (with a refutation). Jwolfe's comment on the 'argue' vs. 'point out' wording is a good one, and is an example of unconscious prejudice by myself and others; I will endeavour to make the wording more neutral. As for 'conspiracy theory', I think this is a defensible phrase: anti-Stratfordians argue that a conspiracy of silence concealed the true identity of Shakespeare in his day - in addition, they often claim that there is a conspiracy in modern academia to silence those who propound anti-Stratfordian views. That's my 2 cents. The Singing Badger 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-Anti-Stradfordian

message: An anonymous user keeps adding prominent references to Mark Anderson's recent Oxfordian book "Shakespeare" By Another Name (2005). The reason I keep removing them is that there are numerous books about Oxford, and there is no reason to single out this one book at the beginning of this article. The anon user claims that Anderson's book is the first popular biography of Oxford in 85 years and thus warrants special treatment. In fact, Joseph Sobran's Alias Shakespeare was published only 8 years ago. The book thus only deserves a special mention in this article if it has transformed the field of Oxfordian studies as much as Charlton Ogburn did. I recommend that the anon user place the reference in the longer article, Oxfordian theory. The Singing Badger 17:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There are numerous prominent Oxfordians and Stratfordians and to single out a reltaive newcomer looks like advertising to me. -- Cecropia 22:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark Anderson

message: The following excerpt needs a citation (or so it says)
"In 1957, William F. Friedman, considered by many to be the greatest cryptologist of all time[citation needed], and his wife Elizebeth, also a cryptologist noted for her US Government work on "rum runners" ciphers [3] published a refutation of the cryptogram theories, in particular the Baconian theories. They argued that the messages claimed to have been encrypted in the texts by one (or both) of the authors were entirely implausible cryptographically and in some cases impossible."
Im not sure how to add it to the references list but
The codebreakers, the comprehensive history of secret communication from ancient times to the internet - David Kahn (revised edition 1996)  states on page 21 "Friedman was (and is) the worlds greatest cryptologist". I hope this can help.
As im not that frequently on the english language wiki, questions are better served on my dutch discussion page which can be found at nl:Overleg gebruiker:Khx023 - Khx023 11:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help! The Singing Badger 17:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And thanks to you for going through the tedious process of writing out the full citations. I was far too lazy. Paul B 18:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anything to procrastinate real work. :) The Singing Badger 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: The external links section of this article is growing way, way too massive and needs to be trimmed along the lines that Wikipedia is not a link farm. Most of these links appear to be linkspam and little more. Any issue if we cut them down to a handful of useful links. In addition, any book that is NOT a reference should not be listed in the external links. If a book IS a reference, then it should be listed in the reference section. Either way, though, all books should have any promotional link to Amazon.com or other places deleted. Comments?--Alabamaboy 18:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I did 'Orthodox' and 'Baconian' but the wiki was being slow so I got bored. Might have a go later... The Singing Badger 18:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if you're bored why don't you sing a little and then come back and badger some people? :) BTW, do you think badgers will replace ferrets as the new "in" pet? -- Cecropia 18:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. Finished now. I only removed those sites that were purely promotional; sites that were promotional but also included substantial information remain; I think that's fair enough. The Singing Badger 13:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Many External Links 

message: *I vote yes to merging. It's not a long article. AndyJones 11:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge "[[List of people theorized to have written Shakespeare]]" 

message: This page is being flagged as too long. I therefore did a big overhaul today. I shortened the sections on Oxford and Marlowe by moving the more detailed information to Oxfordian theory and Marlovian theory respectively. My concept is that this page should primarily be concerned with the general anti-Stratfordian ideas (i.e. should there be an authorship debate at all?), and the sections on Oxford, Bacon and Marlowe on this page should be summaries of the basic arguments for and against, so that the details of those arguments can be set out at greater length on the separate pages. The page is still being flagged as too long, unfortunately, but it's better than it was (38 Kb as opposed to 44). The previous state of the page can be studied here : ; in case anyone dislikes what I have done. The Singing Badger 15:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul

message: The article reads, in part, "Other candidates proposed include William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby; Sir Edward Dyer; or Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland (sometimes with his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Philip Sidney, and her aunt Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke, as co-authors); and at least fifty others, including Queen Elizabeth (based on a supposed resemblance between a portrait of the Queen and the engraving of Shakespeare that appears in the First Folio). Malcolm X argued that Shakespeare was actually King James I". (emphasis supplied).   Please could someone give authority for the two emphasised propositions, or I shall delete them. (Great article by the way.  For what it is worth I don't think it is too long.)  --165.146.132.30 15:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no idea about the number of proposed candidates, but Mr X apparently expressed scepticism concerning Shakespeare's authorship on the grounds that if Shakespeare were such a good writer why didn't King James ask him to help out with his Bible? Mr. X appears on the Oxfordian website among the Honour Roll of Sceptics for this great thought. Why James would want a translator with no known theological training - and with small Latin and less Greek - Mr. X does not say. Perhaps the story that Shakespeare was James has been extrapolated from this. Paul B 16:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malcom X?  50 others? 

message: I believe its tottaly irrelevant to mention what ,mr anwar says about Shakepearean authorship..Any one could come up with such weird claims which has no basis at all, and i dont think wikipedia is the place for that kind of jokes..Mr Anwar or the so called arab leader ,whom he quoted are definitely not scholars..And its only made this great article a silly one by quoting them.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwazaki (talk • contribs) 
:The story appears to be a sort of Muslim urban myth. See here . Other sources suggest that Qaddafi's reference to the story was simply a joke.  For what I can gather the idea does seem to have originated in the 19th century as a serious suggestion by an idiosyncratic Arab intellectual called Ahmad Faris al-Shidyaq (1804-87) Paul B 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anwar

message: The following is copied from my talk page:
Dear Mr. Barlow,
As a source of this claim of Mr. Streitz, who is a political theorist and writer, I have only seen him make the argument in his review pages at Amazon.com.  A link might be provided to these reviews.  They are informal reviews written by customers.  I do not consider Mr. Streitz to be an able literary theorist, though I am interested in his theory about Oxford's death. 
Oxfordianism must come to terms with Freudianism, either by alligning itself with Freud or by breaking with his view to form a new theory of biography and sexual trauma.  The Wikipedia article is a helpful venue but the question remains whether there is room in this tiny section to discuss such controversies as the incestuous sexual life of Elizabeth the first and Henry VIII and the treatment of these things in the plays of Shakespeare.  
Second, it would have to be recognized that the plays present a salutary philosophy such as that of Epicurus or Buddhism.  Such a view of Shakespeare if properly conceived would be nothing short of a revolution in academe and theory in general.  
Yours,
Chris Gontar
:reply - I don't think that Amazon reviews constitute publication in the sense that is relevant to Wikipedia. 
I agree.--BenJonson 16:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oxford's faked death

message: QBrute. (To The Singing Badger, the Birmingham-Canadian astronomer!) While this discussion has been profitable in improving the article I don't feel like I have succeeded in awakening your curiosity to check out the Bacon theory one bit. I think that's a pity because one cannot be seeing the complete picture by focussing, like academics do, only on Shakspere. I started like everyone else by accepting the Shakspere claim, then started to investigate Marlowe, then Bacon. As for the Oxfordian difficulty with the Earl's early death, I thought it murdered their claim in the cradle. I have no interest in the spiritualist/ciphers angle on Bacon, only in his philosophical ideas and its relation to the Shakespeare work. After that, if Bacon left his name in the work well that's interesting. I once spent a whole weekend exchanging messages with Professor David Kastan, General Editor of the Arden Shakespeare, trying to get him to check the facts relating to Bacon. I wanted him to know what I know. He wasn't interested. He was only interested in defending Shakspere. It was almost as if he felt I was attacking the basis of his well being. I thought that I had some very good counter arguments to his points but far from encouraging him to investigate further, it deepened his resolve to stand firm. In the end he excused himself from continuing the discussion accusing me of being entrenched. I thought that he didn't want to investigate an alternative candidate in case there was enough evidence to overturn the icon he had been championing all his academic career. And I have encountered this again and again with academics. However, it's also true of almost all Baconians, Marlovians and Oxfordians and to me it resembles religious zealotry rather than a scientific enquiry. As for me, if I found evidence for a better candidate than Bacon I'd switch again as I have done in the past. Immanuel Kant said that the process of change in a system of thought first demands the teachers to change. This results in a resistance to that change from the population they have been indoctrinating. If the teachers can overcome this obstacle, evolution will occur. I have no doubt it will. But not yet ...
:Dude, people are busy. I'm busy. Poor David Scott Kastan must be unbelievably busy supervising the entire Arden Shakespeare project on top of his teaching load; you should be grateful he gave some of his spare time to a stranger. I'm interested in these theories, they help one learn more about the period even if one is unconvinced by them, but there's work, kids, washing up. I may look up your ideas shortly. I may not for many weeks. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all.The Singing Badger 02:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic attitudes

message: Why does the article use both single quotes and double quotes? Is there a pattern to the usage?
:Not that I'm aware of. If it bothers you, please make them consistent. The Singing Badger 02:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single quotes vs double quotes 

message: QBrute. I think it is a good idea to apply the Strachey letter to all authorship candidates. We're in agreement on that one. However, I notice that in the Overview we have "The position of conventional scholarship is that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays and was entirely capable of doing so" without any mention of dissension by scholars. However, in the Strachey letter section, when there is an example of a point unfavourable to the Stratfordian position, an example of an objector is given even though it's stated "Most [scholars] regard it as a clear source for The Tempest". Why the need to argue with that statement? This is clear bias and double standards. If one intends to rely on scholarly authority be consistent!
: But the overview is an overview: it doesn't mention anybody by name, Strafordian or anti, because it's a generalized summary. In the Strachey section I mentioned Lindley because he's written 2 books on The Tempest and his dissension is thus notable. It would be great if there were a lot more specific citations to scholars mentioned by name, IMO. It would be even better to describe their reasoning in detail. All this takes time. The Singing Badger 14:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Funnily enough, there is a website that sets out the Strachey parallels in full , but you deleted it from the article , perhaps because it was written by the prince of darkness himself, David Kathman. Could you stomach sending your readers there ... ? Or will you send them to a site that sets out the same parallels but is written by a Baconian? Tut tut tut, these double standards...  The Singing Badger 21:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Double standards

message: This comment is about QBrute's use of The Shakespeare Puzzle by Barry Clarke. QBrute has been using this book to make his arguements about changes to this article and others. While QBrute is free to seek consensus on these changes, The Shakespeare Puzzle is not considered a reliable source based on  Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, specifically the self-published sources section. In short, this book was self published by the author at Lulu.com and as a result "has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking (and) no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." The only exception to this rule is for "a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise" but since Clarke's field of expertise is puzzles, this exception doesn't count.
As said before, QBrute is free to seek consensus on these changes. Any use of this book, though, should not be permitted. In addition, QBrute, I don't think you are the devil. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Shakespeare Puzzle not reliable 

message: Unfortunately, it also appears QBrute has been using sock puppets in this discussion and Baconian theory. In short, the evidence suggests that QBrute is also User:Barryispuzzled, who is Barryispuzzled admits on his user page, Barry Clarke, author of The Shakespeare Puzzle. The use of sock puppets to try and influence discussions and edits around articles is not permitted. User:Barryispuzzled is free to try and seek consensus on these proposed changes but he can not promote his own book in so doing. In addition, he should stop using sock puppets to seek these changes. Until this use of sock puppets is stopped, I am supporting User:The Singing Badger on these proposed edits. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, juast for the record I'm not opposed to all of QBrute's edits and he has been doing some useful work, so it's not a question of 'me against him'! He has been using some 'proper' sources alongside his reliance on The Shakespeare Puzzle. But if he has been trying to promote his own book, his edits should be evaluated carefully with that in mind. The Singing Badger 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with that. I too noticed that User:Barryispuzzled has made some good edits and I really like the Baconian theory article he created. That said, the use of sock puppets is not permitted and he can't promote his book here or use it as a source. Still, User:Barryispuzzled obviously knows a lot about this subject and I welcome him to edit here. Just don't break Wikipedia guidelines while doing so.--Alabamaboy 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a shame you feel that way. With regards to the free download, that is a self-promotional link as defined by Wikipedia and not allowed. As for people making changes to the article, that is how Wikipedia works. You must gain consensus for any edits you make. With noncontroversial edits, consensus usually results automatically b/c no one changes your edits. With controversial edits, you need to discuss the changes on the talk page and work toward consensus. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of sockpuppets 

message: This article is getting better but it's far from perfect and I'm too busy to work on it. I have thus written a to-do list (see top of page). Feel free to edit it, and add to it. When Barry reads this list, he will think I'm getting at him. I'm not, I'm just enforcing policy. Much of his work can stay on the page if he is prepared to acknowledge the people who originated the ideas he has written about. The Singing Badger 17:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is tantamount to saying that irrespective of the coherence of an argument, the state controls all knowledge and that only those arguments approved by the state can contribute to it. This is where we differ. I want to know the truth and share it with others, whereas you have appointed yourself as judge and jury for the state. This has an additional pay-off because you can invoke state authority to oppose all opposition to your uncritical Stratfordian views. It must be great having so much power! (Puzzle Master 10:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, with respect to self-published work, I cite the Wikipedia guidelines ... "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." My name is in Wikipedia (well-known), I have written a regular column for The Daily Telegraph (professional journalist) and my work has been published by Dover, Cambridge University Press and Mensa (reliable third party sources). Notice that this does not state that the professional journalist need have work in a relevant (Shakespeare authorship) field. So I protest immunity your honour. (Puzzle Master 10:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument not even close to convincing. Your book fails WP:V and its inclusion breaches WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM. Nothing more to debate, here. AndyJones 11:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Your name is in Wikipedia because you wrote a page about yourself; that is hardly good evidence that you are 'well known' - indeed, it indicates that you are not. And I don't think puzzle books are the kind of writing the policy is referring to (don't get me wrong, I have huge respect for puzzle design - it just doesn't strike me as the kind of encyclopaedic, research-based writing that is relevant to Wikipedia). Incidentally I notice that you have written a 5-star review of your own book on Amazon, and yet you claim you're not into self-promotion! But by all means seek other opinions: Wikipedia:Requests for comment is a page designed to facilitate this. The Singing Badger 15:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to respond to this. Reading the review carefully, it is by Angela Newing of The Daily Telegraph, she submitted it to me, I uploaded it for her. (Puzzle Master 21:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Puzzle Master, the exception to the self-published rule doesn't apply to you b/c your realm of expertise is puzzles, not Shakespeare. This means (as I've said before) your book is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia guidelines. Also, I'm not the same person as AndyJones. I'm an administrator with a long history of edits. The reason I've held your book to Wikipedia standards is b/c I care deeply about Wikipedia and following our guidelines, not out of some desire to "get you." However, feel free to seek opinions from other administrators. I'd be surprised if you can find one who will say we are being unfair. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely your view that we are not the same person is simply a symptom of you accepting uncritically the superficial case. After all, there is certainly anecdotal evidence that Wikipedia-editing carries a social stigma in Alabama, which would provide a motivation to have your edits attributable to another user. It is certainly not possible to prove scientifically that you and I are not one-and-the-same. The fact that you and I both have thousands of edits and that it would in fact be difficult for you to edit from IPs in the United States and from IPs in Bermuda and England is surely no kind of proof on the point. Besides, the sixty-eighth word from the end of the List of Pokemon Characters article is "Alabama", and the sixty-eighth word from the beginning of Albert Einstein is "boy": leading to the conclusion that if you take each 68th letter on User talk:AndyJones (you have to disregard those in italic, replacing them instead with the next following letter which appears in bold) you get GBYTFDIKJODTFOGJRYTSNFT, and anagram of HUJDTY FGFCVT IJBFGH, which when translated into French produces a fairly close anagram of the Latin HI LUPPY DIPPDY DOODY, which loosly translates as "I ALABAMABOY BEQUEATHE THESE ARTICLES TO THE WORLD (not forgetting to mention that I'm the love child of Elizabeth II and such such the true heir apparent to the throne of England)". AndyJones 12:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, although of course I have no basis upon which to judge which specific arguments compel your own strident Alabamabodianism, or indeed what evidence you considered in arriving at your view. If there's a chapter on the Alabamaboy question in your book, that really would be worth a read. Having said that, to the open-minded it is a pretty compelling case: The antialabamabodianist consensus starts to look pretty weak if one abandons the notion that a username on an edit summary implies authorship of it. Consider the evidence: two usernames starting with "A", literally hundreds of google-hits for bloggers who live in Alabama asserting that Wikipedia is "crap": easily sufficient to overcome the modern notion that a person who wrote on the exalted level of AndyJones would surely claim credit for his work. There are at least two contemporary references here and here identifying the two characters as one and the same, these made by a qualified scientist with the credentials to conduct such an enquiry, making it inconceivable that he is wrong. Not only that, but by using methods developed by UK trial lawyer Horace Rumpole, I have discovered that by lying on the grass in the middle of my field in Stratford and looking at printouts of Wikipedia pages through the bottom of a red wine bottle I can clearly read M J V ALABAMABOY DD F J CX implying I'm-not-sure-what about Jimbo Wales, or Ben Jonson, or someone. It's a compelling argument, I think you'll agree. AndyJones 12:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To do list

message: I notice that The Singing Badger called my work 'spam' [see edit history]. Is this a deliberate attempt to offend? No, because I know he's joking after all he knows that he is less qualified than I am in science and puzzles and certainly not qualified in this area to stand in judgement over me (and that's why I laughed). Of course the discoveries are a minority view - I'm the only one that came up with it! Surely that should be no surprise! Following this absurd logic, Edwin Durning-Lawrence's minority interpretation of honorificabilitudinitatibus should also go as should Mrs Elizabeth Wells Gallup's bilateral cipher after all "only Ms. Gallup could reliably distinguish between the "two" fonts". At least, I can claim to have a better (recognised) expertise in ciphers and puzzles than Gallup and Lawrence. So I hope reason prevails here. (Puzzle Master 23:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespeare Puzzle spam 

message: I've just stumbled across this article on Shakespeare authorship  which is remarkably similar to this one. Who has copied who? (Puzzle Master 23:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the bottom of the article you referenced is the citation "This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia." In short, they copied from us.--Alabamaboy 01:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship article a copy? 

message: Added greater clarity to the Marston argument in Comments by Contemporaries. Also cut Bacon section as requested in Things to Do. (Puzzle Master 09:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enhancements 

message: Yup, there's a MedCab case, first allow me to include this unobtrusive boiler plate template that I would put at the top of this page, but its too far to walk...
<<remove template>>
Thanks, Addhoc 20:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MedCab case 

message: There is one thing that needs to be said. The Wiki guidelines are intended to ensure that the public get accurate information. I'm sure this works well in most cases but the Shakespeare authorship issue is an exceptional one. There are some good anti-Stratfordian arguments (with full historical citations) which, due to the publication policy of the University Presses, can never reach scholastic publication and so would be prohibited under Wiki guidelines. It one strictly adhered to Wiki policy, only Stratfordian arguments would be represented in this article. If one wants a Shakespeare authorship article that serves the public and portrays all arguments, then there needs to be some flexibility here and arguments should be judged on their own merit. There are some intelligent editors here and I hope they exercise good judgment and discretion. (Puzzle Master 10:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A thought about Wiki policy 

message: This is a very nice addition.
There are lines in Macbeth that appear to have been written two years after Shakespeare of Stratford died and 16 years after the Earl of Oxford died. The first to advance the suggestion that the play contains references to Sir Walter Rayleigh’s execution in 1618, was James Spedding,Spedding, James, Life and Letters of Francis Bacon, Vol.6, p.372 the Victorian editor of Francis Bacon’s Works, who had in mind the speech by Malcolme in the Palace at Forres in relation to the ‘disloyall traytor/The Thane of Cawdor’(1.2.53):
::King. Is execution done on Cawdor? 
::Or not those in Commission yet return’d?
::Malcolme. My Liege, they are not yet come back,
::But I have spoke with one that saw him die :
::Who did report, that very frankly hee
::Confess’d his Treasons, implor’d your Highnesse Pardon
::And set forth a deepe Repentance:
::Nothing in his Life became him,
::Like the leaving it. He dy’de,
::As one that had been studied in his death,
::To throw away the dearest thing he ow’d,
::As ‘twere a carelesse Trifle.(1.4.1)
Several sources had remarked on Raleigh’s frivolity in the face of his impending execution Williams, Norman Lloyd, Sir Walter Raleigh (Eyre and Spottiswoode: 1962), p.254 (The Dean of Westminster wrote to Sir John Isham: 'when I began to encourage him against the fear of death, he seemed to make so light of it that I wondered at him …')Spedding, James, Life and Letters of Francis Bacon, Vol.6, p.373 (footnote: Dudley Carelton wrote '… he knew better how to die than to live; and his happiest hours were those of his arraignment and execution.') and the assertion that ‘[the Commission] are not yet come back’ appears to refer to the fact that his execution was swift, and in fact it was the day after his trial for treason.Stow, John, Annales, or Generall Chronicle of England (London : 1631), p.1030 Puzzle Master 13:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rayleigh's execution 

message: A series of changes have recently been made to this article by User:Smatprt. See this diff. I have asked Smatprt to join the discussion here. I have reverted the changes pending further discussion. I think the following points need to be addressed:
General points
#We've debated here before whether we call the Stratford man "Shaksper". We don't. Feel free to reopen that debate, but we're calling him Shakespeare unless/until a new consensus forms.
#None of this is sourced. Please provide sources if you want any of the substantive changes to stand. See WP:V, WP:RS.
#There are an awful lot of weasel words, here. See WP:WEASEL. I personally think that is a fault of this article as a whole, but these new edits are particularly full of them.
#User:Smatprt has also made substantial unsourced edits to a number of other articles about the plays, clearly with the intention of bringing them within an Oxfordian timeline. That is particularly egregious in the case of Macbeth where 1606 was quietly changed to 1604 with the edit summary "date correction". The full list is here, and I am in the process of reverting it all.
Minor or specific points
#"an actor whith a similar spelled name" (a) contains obvious spelling/grammar errors (b) ignores "Shakespeare" sometimes being spelled Shakespeare.
#As regards sourcing, I'm particlularly concerned about the unsourced suggestion that Oxford knew Warwickshire well, and the unsourced suggestion that publication of Shakespeare's plays ceased around 1604.
#I presumably don't have to explain why "< ref >[ NY Times ]" is not acceptable as a source. AndyJones 10:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes by Smatprt 

message: Yes, thank you for asking me to join the discussion. Regarding your specific comments:
it is obvious to anyone that Stratfordains have taken over this page.  Most statements having to do with the Stratford man are stated as fact and most statements about Oxford, Bacon, Marlowe etc are full of "supposedly", "assume", etc.  
1) It helps with the debate to differentiate between the author and the primary candidate.  Since Shaksper of Stratford rarely spelled his name Shakespeare, I find it presumptious and bias to insist on the "Shakespeare: spelling.
2) Since the name was published "Shake-speare" on numerous documents, including the Sonnets and numerous poems in the folio, why are you against sharing this fact?
3) Regarding the Warwickshire comment, logic dictates that if Shakspere was a front-man for Oxford, then Oxford would have known him well and heard his accent on numerous occasions.  
4) The original article is full of stratfordian WEASEL words.  Please explain why you allow these to stand?
5) Thruough-out wikipedia, Shakespeare's plays have been dated as "facts", when you know that is not the case.  Publication dates provide clues, but no certainty as to actual date of composition.  Since you only correct anti-stratfordian mistakes, you are apparently biased on behalf of the man from Stratford.  But does you bias have any place on wikipedia?
*I have gone back through the loop again, reverting all of your edits on the pages for the individual plays, pending reaching a consensus here. I have allowed fact tags to remain, although only one in a sentence, where I thought it was legitimate to request a source for the conventional dating. It's too late in the evening to respond to the above points in full, but we all know that human knowledge as expressed in encyclopedias has nothing to do with objective truth - that's the sphere of the gods - what we care about is verifiability. If you do not provide sources you must not expect any contentious edit to survive the scrutiny of other editors. Also, we all have bias. My bias has exactly as much place on wikipedia - no more, no less - as does yours. AndyJones 20:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response from smatprt 

message: If a piece of evidence is only relevant to ONE candidate, don't put it on this page. Put it in the separate articles Oxfordian theory, Marlovian theory, or Baconian theory. The first two are very weak currently and need beefing up. The Singing Badger 00:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to keep the article short

message: I think it is necessary to place the arguments against Shakespeare before the descriptions of the candidates. I think the logical structure is to explain the reasons for doubt about WS, then list the possible alternatives. 
Smartprt disagrees. He thinks the descriptions of candidates should come first because "You can't detail every Stratfordian arguement before even introducing the candidates.(Many entries don't make sense unless you know the players)".
I kinda see the logic there, especially the latter point. But I still find Smartprt's structure wrong: surely we need to explain why there is a question at all, before we start on the next step?
Does anyone have any opinions or suggestions about this? The Singing Badger 00:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus on article structure

message: * But what about the length of the article???? It's already almost too long by half (according to wiki standards).  Talk about getting bleary eyed!  I would suggest tightening up the overview and history, introduce the candidates, and then seperate the pages from there: Stratfordian, Oxfordian, Baconian, etc..  As it is, almost all of these arguments are pretty thin and need expanding, which will only make the problem worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatprt (talk • contribs) 
**Returning to take up some of the points in the above debate, just so that my views are "out there".
***I don't give very much credence to the view expressed by User:Barryispuzzled above, that anti-Stratfordian views are difficult or impossible to source. Apart from the new evidence revealed in The Shakespeare Puzzle (which by our standards is original research and doesn't belong on this page anyway, there is plenty of source material available. John Mitchell's popular book on the subject, "Who Wrote Shakespeare", lists over 30 Oxfordian and Baconian authors in its bibliography. Sourcing should not be a problem for the anti-Stratfordians.
***Barry does not have the moral high ground on the no personal attacks policy. To be honest I am more sympathetic to Paul B's criticism: if you want to be thought not narcissitic it would be better if you avoided the frequent statements/implications that you are better qualified to judge the authorship issue than Singing Badger, other editors, David Scott Kastan, the academic community etc.
***There is NO SCOPE for a change of wikipedia policy on this page. Indeed, the discussion on and about this in recent weeks has made me realise why wikipedia so desperately needs the WP:V, WP:RS,WP:OR, WP:VAIN, WP:WEASEL (oh, and WP:NPA) policies and guidelines.
***Obvious point arising from User:Smatprt's edit immediately above mine: Smatprt, do you realise there are already pages for Baconian theory, Oxfordian theory and Marlovian theory? If not, take a look at them. I think they answer the various questions posed above and in this edit summary about the page being a bit long, and where to put any new material.
***I'm almost reluctant to say this after so much to-ing and fro-ing on the order of the sections in this page, but actually wasn't the order actually better when we started, i.e. here? I cannot see any merit in re-prioritising Oxford over Bacon.
:::I agree that this was more or less the best version. So I'd be happy to see it reverted to this and just add The Singing Badger's Stratfordian counter arguments that came afterwards. Puzzle Master 23:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Smartprt, one solution is to split off into separate articles the sections that are very complicated and lengthy. For example, I can envisage a separate article on the Strachey letter, although a short summary would still be needed on this page. Could we perhaps draw up a list of what seems to need splitting off? The downside is the difficulty of writing short summaries that would satisfy everyone. I feel tired just thinking about it! The Singing Badger 14:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of article

message: "***Regarding fairness:  After re-reading the article once gain, can someone explain why the 3 sections that are pro-bacon (crytograms, strachey and geography), are allowed to stand whereas anything pro-oxford (1604 question, hyhenation of name) is being regularly deleted? Since all of these (except strachey) poke holes in the Stratford argument, I truly fail to see the difference.  Is there a double standard here?  I think this illustrates why I feel that there is an anti-oxford bias that permeates this article. Anyone?Smatprt 14:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if one took a poll of tenured Shakespeare experts in the English speaking world, one would discover that Oxford is viewed as just as much of a "quaint joke" as Bacon. john k 15:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford a threat; Bacon not

message: I moved the following from the to-do list. The question is the middle bit, which I've indented twice. AndyJones 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel 

message: I have just read the changes to the Baconian section. They are uninformed and the person who made the changes has evidently made no effort to study the 14 Volumes of the Works of Bacon by James Spedding. Since none of the other regular editors seem interested in defending the quality of this article I'm thinking 'Why should I provide the correct information?' and I'm now inclined to let it descend into mediocrity. I feel sorry for the readers who now have to read the gratuitous and uneducated opinions of a rank amateur. Puzzle Master 23:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Baconian section 

message: Having left this article for some time and only recently read it again I think it now has a fair representation of all views. I read objections to arguments for which further evidence exists to develop the original thesis (e.g. Rayleigh's execution in Macbeth, the play also appears to refer to Rayleigh's trial) but in respect of the length of the article, I am loath to include it. So, well done to those who have worked on this page. (Puzzle Master 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Balance 

message: Added William Nugent to the list of other suspects: the case is set out in the Green Cockatrice, published in 1978 - but I don't have the exact citation.--Shtove 20:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Others