Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 2

message: I'm interested in doing a serious OR edit. I think that this page can be informative (even exhaustive) NPOV well-sourced resource considering the length of the article - it's 20 kilobytes larger than the article for William Shakespeare!! I know I have a couple other good editors on this page - are there any objections?  Rmj12345 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What specifically caught my interests was the section on "Shakespeare's class", which only has one citation. I think sections/paragraphs that are rife with "citation needed"s could be easily re-written to encapsulate the issue in a way that makes use of the significant amount of sources without using weasel words or Original Research. What do you think? Rmj12345 19:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll definitely keep that in mind and try a bit tonight. Rmj12345 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're on the topic of length, I propose we cut the "Overview" section and merge the unique information in there to later section. This is such a length article, and while I think some kind of introduction is needed, I think we should maybe expand the introductory paragraph so that it's more in-depth. What do you think? Rmj12345 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Apologies. I'll post here first to get your opinion for now on, though with a heavy workweek coming up, I won't get much done until my spring break in a week. Rmj12345 21:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious OR Edit 

message: who wrote this page? Well done! Its been a fantastic resource! 58.104.147.9 09:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   

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: Did Orwell really write 1984 ?  Prove it.  72.184.143.196 21:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Did Plato write Plato

message: This may sound dull, but if Greene is referring to a man named Shake-scene as an "upstart Crow..." etc, doesn't that imply that a man with a name roughly equivalent to Shakespeare was indeed working as a playwright/poet in London? If the Greene comment is evidence that he thought Shakespeare's authorship dubious, then it's also evidence that a Shakespeare or Shake-scene (an epithet?) was in London, working as an actor and writing under that name. Also, Greene writes like he knew this Shake-scene personally...what motive would he have to cover Shake-scene's true identity if he detested his presence, especially if he were Bacon, Marlowe, the Queen of England, etc...? Hesperides 03:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greene Reference

message: ?23??? April (by the Julian Calendar)
(That Little Scribbler's Birthday--more or less)
For years, I too believed that it was Bacon. I ruled out de Vere because, before Agincourt, Henry calls the English aristocracy a pack of w**nkers. However, after years of painstaking research into the Knights Templar, the Druids, the Cathars, the Priory of Sion, the Cotton Nero Manuscript, the Book of Kells, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Brush-Plant Papers, the Complete Works of James Joyce, the Église Saint Sulpice in Paris and the Secret Archives of the Vatican, I can now convincingly affirm that it was really the transexual Willie Hughes, illegitimate "son" of Queen Elizabeth I. As Always, Your servant, 
Malachi Mulligan
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.120.165.221 (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Painstaking Research 

message: I am concerned that my edit to the lead, which simply tried to make readers aware of the proper context of these arguments -- that Shakespeare academics overwhelmingly dismiss them -- and to avoid using the illustration caption at the top of the page to already start begging the question. Got reverted out of hand bu an editor who clearly has a POV supporting these theories.
the WP:NPOV policy is the foundation of this encyclopedia. See especially WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I am not asking that the whole article be rewritten to constantly have the Shakespeare academics' viewpoints that dispute all these claims added all the way through -- but I think that the WP:NPOV policy would certainly support such a thing -- all I am asking is that a clear, unambiguous statement at the top (not buried in weasel words in the middle of a paragraph) state straight out that these opinions are by far the minority view. Leaving that out gives undue weight to these various arguments and biases anyone reading to think that there's more to it than what the Shakespeare experts themselves think there is to it. DreamGuy 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No... recognizing standard academic opinion is not POV at all, ignoring it highly POV-pushing, as it tries to get fringe claims to be treated just as seriously as the standard accepted ideas. Please see the WP:NPOV policy/FAQ on Undue Weight and Equal Time concepts. Do you dispute that it is generally accepted in academic circles, among experts, etc.? I don't think anyone can who is being honest with themselves. It may be able to be better written or better sourced, but it is 100% necessary in this article to avoid slanting readers' perceptions that this all is taken seriously overall.DreamGuy 00:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course I don't dispute that the Stratford attribution is generally accepted. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ doesn't seem to have sections with the titles you've mentioned, though. Can you give me a more precise reference? AndyJones 13:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue Weight is discussed in the main WP:NPOV article. I suspect that the Equal Time principle was a reference to the Equal Validity section of the FAQ. Paul B 14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How many tenured professors of Renaissance English literature in the  English-speaking world are anti-Stratfordians?  I would imagine only a tiny minority, if any - pretty much all anti-Stratfordian literature appears to be written by autodidactic amateurs.  john k 04:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Part of the problem with articles on subjects like this ("fringe" theories) is that it is difficult to be fair while also keeping to Wiki policy. In fact most of the anti-Strat arguments come from amateurs, so strict application of WP:RS could easily be used to exclude almost all Baconian, Oxfordian etc arguments. Ogburn, for example, is not a reliable source according to WP guidelines. But that would be silly, since then there'd be no article. It has to give the arguments. But then we have the reverse problem. Most Shakespeare scholars never actually address Oxfordian arguments, so if we just let these arguments be trotted out, replies to them - even obvious ones - can be immediately tagged as "original research" and deleted, unless some established scholar can be found who has made them. This seriously distorts the article, by allowing the "alternative" arguments to pile up and violating the Undue Weight principle. Paul B 12:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I found that somewhat humorous, Smatprt. If we let John Kennedy set the standards, pretty soon unless you held an endowed chair at Harvard, your opinion wouldn't count. --71.206.25.146 02:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe this is what I said.  I said "tenured professors of renaissance English literature."  There are are at least a couple of such at pretty much any university in the English-speaking world.  If you want to expand to include "people with PhDs in renaissance English literature," the vast majority of them also hold to the Stratfordian view, but it's much harder to get a full survey.  So far, I believe three English professors have been mentioned who are anti-Stratfordians. john k 19:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the vast majority of tenure-track professors of  Renaissance English literature and holders of PhDs in Renaissance English literature undoubtedly are also Stratfordians.  I limited it  to tenured simply because it's a smaller group.  If you can find an assistant professor or adjunct somewhere who is an anti-Stratfordian, that'd be fine, I suppose. "Academics" isn't particularly weaselly when none of you have yet cited any academics who are anti-Stratfordians. john k 17:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Dude, there are many English literary professionals, both tenured and untenured, who are Oxfordians. Dr. Jack Shuttleworth is the (retired) chair of the Department of English at the U.S. Air Force Academy, for one. Its not up to us to "find" these people. It's up to you to realize that they exist. I've often cited an extensive list of names, but you weren't listening. Take your weasels and stick them...--71.206.25.146 02:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that they are very few, and that the overwhelming majority of Shakespeare scholars accept the "Stratfordian" view. This is a fact which is admitted by Anti-Stratfordians, who like to pose as brash rebels against the academic establishment. john k 19:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see any scholars of renaissance literature on your list.  The Berkeley emeritus professor  Arthur Nelson on his website discusses the extent of  the anti-stratfordian movement, and says that he knows of exactly one English department in which anti-Stratfordian "is both seriously and systematically entertained," that of the already mentioned Concordia University in Portland, and of a grand total of four academics in his  personal acquaintance who are anti-Stratfordian.  I note that even your own sources are claiming that the issue is currently not one that  is legitimate in academia, and that it  is "widely viewed as settled in academia."  The fact that Shakespearean authorship is widely settled in academia is one of the premises of anti-Stratfordians.  I don't see how it can possibly be disputed that there is a very strong consensus in academia for the "Stratfordian" position, and that the anti-Stratfordian view is so marginalized there as to be practically non-existent. john k 18:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I will happily admit that I do not have an advanced degree in English literature.  That being said, sure, there's a tiny number of academics who are Oxfordians or whatever.  But they're a tiny, marginalized group.  The whole premise of anti-Stratfordian arguments is that academia only accepts that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare because the calcified academic establishment won't accept debate on the issue.  So you clearly want to have it both ways - to be both a brash rebel against the academic establishment and also to claim that the issue is one which is a subject of great debate in academia.  It can't be both.  Beyond that, I asked about people with PhDs in renaissance English literature, which is surely the proper qualification to be an "expert" on Shakespeare, and certainly the proper qualification to be part of "academia" with respect to Shakespeare.  Smartprt gave me a link to some petition which has been signed by a grand total of 34 PhDs, of whom none of the actual named persons are professors of English literature, much less Shakespeare experts. john k 19:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it correct to state that so far we have Leahy, a section leader at not particularly prestigious Brunel Universityl Daniel Wright, and perhaps some others at not particularly prestigious Concordia University in Portland, which does not even have a proper English department; and an emeritus at the Air Force Academy.  I've also managed to find, on my own, a professor of English at Cleveland State University, and one at Blackburn College.  Against these, we have virtually the entire academic establishment.  The fact that the entire academic establishment accepts that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works attributed to him does not mean that they are right to believe this.   But  it is perfectly appropriate to state this.  Only a tiny minority of scholars, almost all of them at pretty marginal programs (the Air Force Academy is  the only one that's a major university, and it's not known for its English department) question "Stratfordian orthodoxy".  If this weren't so, well, it wouldn't be orthodoxy.  john k 19:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I changed the Lead from 
:The term Shakespearean authorship question refers to scholarly debates dating back to the 18th century over whether the works attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually written by another writer, or a group of writers, using "William Shakespeare" (or the hyphenated version "Shake-Speare") as a pen name. While many candidates for alternative authorship have been proposed, including Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe and Edward de Vere (Earl of Oxford), it is generally accepted in academic circles that Shakespeare's plays are correctly attributed. In spite of this, interest in the subject, particularly in the Oxfordian theory, continues to grow in the 21st century.
to
:The Shakespearean authorship question is the debate, dating back to the 18th century, over whether the works attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually written by another writer or group of writers. While many candidates for alternative authorship have been proposed, including Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere (Earl of Oxford), it is generally accepted in academic circles that Shakespeare's plays are correctly attributed. In spite of this, interest in the subject, particularly in the Oxfordian theory, continues to grow in the 21st century.
With my detailed edit summary, which was "Copyedit Lead. That's not a "term", rephrasing. Some of the debate is "scholarly," some isn't. And privileging one of many alternative spellings of "Shakespeare" has no place in the Lead," I thought my changes were obviously desirable. But since User:Smatprt promptly reverted my edit, calling it "controversial," with a request for discussion at Talk, I hereby place my edit summary on Talk. I can't figger what kind of "discussion" to offer beyond that. Any comments? I was planning to copyedit the article for style and logic — it sorely needs it — but if it's going to be this heavy going I hardly think I'll bother. Smatprt, feel free to share how you see your revert as improving the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with the changes. The debates are clearly not all "scholarly" in any sensible use of that term. I think that adding the hyphenated version of the name here tells us nothing, since nonHyphenated versions of the name were used in printed references to the playwright and on the titles of his publications. Paul B 15:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: [After edit conflict] I prefer Bishonen's version of this: have trouble seeing anything controversial in the difference between the two. AndyJones 17:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit to Lead reverted

message: I'm stumped. Trying to improve this article but can't.  It states Ben Jonson complains about Shakespeare and his writing, but which one?  (I've no doubt who is who, but does the writer know what he/she is writing?)  If the Stratford man is illiterate, how can he write anything for Jonson to comment on? Mandel 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generic claims of that kind without specification or substantiation should not be allowed on the page, whether they seem to support orthodox or unorthodox conclusions. The claim should require not only a citation (what document of Jonson's is being referred to), but a direct quotation. "Complains" is simply nonsense. Ben Jonson did say, "I loved the man--this side idolatry," and that deserves to be quoted (no, I don't know the source without checking), for it goes to the point at issue of Jonson's state of mind.
*Your problem arises from the fact that there have been a great many anti-Stratfordians with a great many different anti-Stratfordian theories. There's therefore not one anti-Stratfordian orthodoxy, as it were, to compare with the accepted position. The anti-Stratfordians who use Ben Jonson's criticisms of Shakespeare's writing as telling evidence are different anti-Stratfordians, and making a fundamentally different case, from those who think Shakespeare wasn't literate at all (who presumably believe Jonson was commenting on the true writer). I think you'll find the page easier to edit if you don't seek for coherence, but handle each argument separately. AndyJones 07:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baffled?

message: The 1604 "question" rightly belongs to the Oxfordian theory, not here. I'm doing this because Oxfordians postulate the 1604 "problem", but it need not necessarily be accepted by Marlowians or Baconians, and hence that is not an anti-Stratfordian orthodox position.  Hence, I'm axing it, in a bid to make this less like contradictory patchwork.  The Raleigh case goes to Baconian theory. Mandel 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pls note. This article is for the case against the Stratford man, not case for any one specific candidates.  In-fighting amongst non-Stratfordians would make their supposedly unified case even more fragmentary than it now is. Mandel 13:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not taking sides yet on the question of moving "The 1604 Problem" to Oxfordian Theory. However, I do strongly disagree with your general conclusion here. This page isn't just about the case against Shakespeare. It is meant to be an overview of the authorship issue as a whole. And if the case is, in your view, fragmentary, then this page should reflect that. AndyJones 13:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally the cases against W.S. and not skewed in favor of one opponent, I mean.  There are perplexing arguments throughout here which leaps from candidate to candidate.  Argument A is A and if Argument B doesn't support Argument A, they should not be lumped together and it certainly doesn't mean C is incorrect. Note if every Anti-Stratford argument is included, including clearly fallacious ones, we would need at least a few megabytes. The 1604 problem is very detailedly expoused in Oxfordian Theory. Mandel 14:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is meant to be an overview of the authorship issue as a whole. Isn't this the case against Shakespeare at large?  While it summarizes proposed candidates, it doesn't take sides, not in favor of, say, Bacon over Oxford, does it? Mandel 14:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We have a size limit for articles, and we cannot afford to make circular arguments.  The 1604 problem is an Oxfordian position, not Baconian or Marlowian. This page is heavily skewed in favor of Oxford over Bacon and Marlowe, and as such is not NPOV.Mandel 15:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the Oxfordian position is more widely held than the  Baconian or Marlovian, it is not a violation of NPOV to discuss it at more length than the others.  (At the same time, the basic premises of the Stratfordian position, as being more widely held yet, ought to be discussed at some length, as well - this article should not be simply about anti-Stratfordian arguments). john k 01:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As can be seen above, your arguments are very POV. When Charton Ogburn adds it, it is vital, when AL Rowse adds it, it becomes "unnecessary". Mandel 15:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is 74 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. This article has no scope to expand.  If you want this article to grow fruitfully, the two section - hardly summmaries - must go.  They are already in Wikipedia; why'd would you want to read something just to repeat itself over and over elsewhere? Mandel 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not maybe.  Most of Sh's source books were on sale by a local printer he knew.  Whether he read it is open to speculation. Mandel 15:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "the treasurer’s accounts show that “Wil. Kempe,” “Wil. Shakespeare” and “Rich. Burbage” received payment for two comedies played at court on 26 and 28 December, 1594." Mandel 15:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you saying Oxford became an actor with the Chamberlain's Men?  Make up your mind. Mandel 16:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving 1604 Section

message: In the section about Shakespeare's education it points out that Shakespeare seems to have had to have access to a library to account for the enormous amount of reading he must have done had he not been educated as a nobleman (indeed Manly P Hall uses this lack of a library as one of his main arguments in favour of the idea that Bacon wrote the plays!). The Rowse suggestion of what the library might have been is interesting but I am surprised that no-one has thought that Shakespeare may have had access to Dr John Dee's library at Mortlake. According to modern scholarship, such as that by Frances Yates (now not that modern!) Dee's library was second only to that of Oxford at the time and was full of the most up to date learning and literature in Europe at the time. Moreover, Dee was the focus of some of the major literary circles of the Elizabethan Age, such as that of Sir Philip Sidney and Edmund Spenser et al. As Elizabeth's favourite playwright Shakespeare would have almost certainly met Dee through her Court. Is it impossible that it was through Dee that Shakespeare had access to the books which would have enabled him to educate himself? ThePeg 00:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shakespeare's Library