This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
I want it recorded here that I think the change being suggested by Ssteinburg is well researched and very relevant/notable in the history of the controversy. His whole argument is cogent to my mind, and his wording is now well thought-out and reasonable, and I wholly support the suggeted change. [I don't think my support here will make any difference in the immediate outcome of this debate, but let it be known that this is not anymore the request of a single editor, that can be therefore simply dismissed as a disruptive one.] warshy talk 16:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
While looking through this article, and I found often asserted on "both sides" that manuscript evidence of Shakespeare does not survive, save for the six (or fewer) signatures. Has not the famous "Hand D" in Sir Thomas More been traditionally attributed to Shakespeare for some time now? I am not pushing this as conclusive for the whole debate, but nowhere in the article is this discussed, while most every other piece of writing attributed or speculatively attributed is at least mentioned. Or am I severely mistaken about the whole affair of that play? (If so, I would very much appreciate knowing now, I have done academic work on Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More in particular). The very recent New Cambridge Guide to Shakespeare has an article in which the play is used an object lesson in how Shakespeare's work reached print, indicating that at least some critical consensus still attributes the play to the man of the signatures.-- Artimaean ( talk) 03:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I proposed an edit to this page as follows :
"The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the sole author of the works attributed to him."
The current version The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him is problematic, since it excludes the possibility of co-authorship and limits the nature of the question.
Defining the SAQ in this way is not neutral since it narrows the terms of debate to those who are Stratfordians or non-Stratfordians.
I would submit that the more general statement I have proposed reflects more accurately the field of study without supporting any particular viewpoint over another.
I would be obliged by the contributions of other editors on this point.
Wightknightuk ( talk) 13:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Colleagues, I am writing respectfully and without a particular axe to grind. Neither do I bear the same scars I have observed from reading the reports of previous adjudications. You have my sympathies! However, I will with some reluctance proceed upon a path towards civilised consensus. Since you appear to have addressed your responses as the choir from a single church, I shall respond to your comments in totem rather than on an individual basis. I trust that will prove helpful to the resolution of this point.
You say on the one hand: "This article is precisely about the debate between "Stratfordians or non-Stratfordians". For that reason you suggest that the SAQ concerns itself with the idea that "Will of Stratford didn't write the plays". However, you go on to say that some anti-Strat theories do involve Shakespeare as part author, adaptor or editor of the plays. As it is currently drafted therefore, the statement you have as an introduction to this page is misleading.
By way of accommodation, taking into account the points you have raised, may I propose the following: "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the principal author of the works attributed to him."
A final note before signing off. In commenting on my edit it was said that "the point of view you seem to be hinting towards - that Will of Stratford co-wrote them in collaboration with A.N Other". That is incorrect. I have no agenda or axe to grind. I come to this debate from a position of neutrality and in the hope that I might assist in the process of allowing the SAQ to be represented on Wikipedia with accuracy and neutrality.
wightknight 14:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but you have not resolved your previous contradiction. My statement did not refer to the authorship of any individual work but rather to the canon as a whole. Given that "certain anti-Strat theories do involve Shakespeare as part author, adaptor or editor of the plays" I would respectfully submit that my statement more accurately (and with more neutrality) reflects the current position.
Respectfully, I would invite you to read again and reconsider your position.
wightknight 15:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, respectfully, the distinction I have made is subtle but important.
This article is introduced by the statement that: "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him". You have variously acknowledged that, as to part of those works, there is agreement that third parties contributed to various works, although disagreements about the extent of those contributions and those issues are properly addresses elsewhere.
However, your statement implies that the Stratfordian position is that Shakespeare wrote the entirety of the works currently attributed to him by mainstream academia. That is not correct. The amendment I have proposed does not undermine the Stratfordian position in any way, it does not 'tread on the toes' of the co-authorship debate but rather leaves room for that interpretation also.
I would submit, humbly and respectfully, that the statement: "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the principal author of the works attributed to him."
is a more accurate and less misleading description of the subject matter at hand.
I invite you to re-consider, without first dismissing the amendment as tainted because it may have been written by someone who holds views different to your own.
wightknight 16:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I have read with dismay the sad history of this page which reflects poorly on many and informs greatly on the debate in general.
I do not wish to advance any particular view or theory but I wish to make an observation regarding the use of the terms fringe and minority.
It is true that certain groups might reasonably be regarded as 'fringe'. It might be reasonable that the Oxfordian view is regarded as 'fringe' but that is not a question I wish to address.
My point is rather that the subject itself, the idea that Shakespeare may not have been the sole author of the Shakespeare Canon, has gained sufficient ground that the question itself must reasonably be regarded as having reached minority status, even where there is no consensus that the views of any particular group represent more than a fringe view.
Would editors agree that summary to be a neutral consensus of the current state of the SAQ ?
wightknight 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Since I was not proposing a particular edit I hesitate from continuing further debate on this talk page. I am surprised at the unyielding reception to these comments which were intended as a helpful means of moving towards consensus by the use of appropriate terminology. I think that references in particular to the holocaust on this Talk Page are particularly unhelpful.
Let me put forward a modified statement for comment. Are you able to agree that:
"The idea that Shakespeare may not have been the principal author of the Shakespeare Canon, has gained sufficient ground that the question itself must reasonably be regarded as having reached minority status. Whereas, there is no consensus that the views of any particular alternative author represent more than a fringe view."
wightknight 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Further reference to jews and the holocaust is objectionable and offensive. Kindly desist.
Under Wikipedia's guidance on Fringe theories it is stated that:
Shortcuts:WP:FRINGE/PS WP:PSCI "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views."
This clearly contrasts the pseudoscientific with the academic and suggests that views from the academic community should not generally be regarded as fringe. I cited a reference to a New York Times survey identifying that a significant minority of academics believe that the authorship of the Shakespeare canon is a legitimate field of enquiry. A fringe theory is one where the view that contradicts the mainstream is not of an equal calibre.
The issue here is not Stratford v Oxford (or any other doubtful fellow) but rather certainty against reasonable doubt. The doubters now number a significant minority of academics specialising in that field. Whilst it is not mainstream, and whilst contradictory views are not mainstream, the field of study itself rises above the level of 'fringe'.
wightknight 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
We disagree over the definition of Fringe vs Minority and I believe my own interpretation is more in keeping with Wikipedia's stated policies than your own. The NYT Survey is not an academic text. Not all sources on Wikipedia are academic texts. It is an independent text from a reliable source. Different groups may have different views on its interpretation. It may not be perfect as to its form but it is, so far as I am aware, the most significant survey of its kind that anyone has yet tried to undertake.
However, refusal to acknowledge the existence of this survey, and effectively suppressing its existence from the public consciousness, is a significant disservice to Wikipedia and presents a partial picture to the public at large.
Do you not agree that the appropriate route is for the source to be referenced in the main article and for concerns about it to be included within relevant footnotes?
Respectfully,
wightknight 16:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I rather feel that I have gatecrashed someone's private garden party! The response I have so far received is out of keeping with Wikipedia's stated intentions and I am deeply concerned at the refusal to recognise a piece of independent research because it shows findings that are anti-Stratfordian. (There is much else that is published on the page that is less well-referenced). I believe that conduct should be challenged.
The appropriate way to proceed is to publish, to reference and to qualify. Agreeing a form of words about what the survey means is another matter. Attempting to conceal information from the public is intellectually disingenuous.
I invite you to re-consider how this discussion might better proceed towards consensus.
Respectfully,
wightknight 17:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
As you must well appreciate, the relevance of this Survey is that it establishes the (minority) level of validation that the Authorship Question has gained. Your criticisms and opinions about the Survey remain valid and the proper thing to do would be to express them as caveats or footnotes to the referenced survey.
Refusing even to permit the acknowledgement of the existence of the survey invites metaphorical comparisons that are unbecoming to civilised discourse.
wightknight 20:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wightknightuk ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
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)
[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 [ [2]] 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
ooks
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I just now learned that Dr. Frank W. Wadsworth, the author of many articles and books, including one of my favorite authorship books, The Poacher from Stratford, died two weeks ago. His obituary is here. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
To all appearances, subject book does not betray any reason to believe it is WP:RS. What justifies its inclusion for listing in "Bibliography" section? Phaedrus7 ( talk) 00:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It wants editing, and it's based on an, er, idiosyncratic view of psychology, but the arguments are quite good. (I have an inscribed first edition!)
Tom Reedy (
talk)
19:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Neutral observation: Now might be an appropriate time to review WP:APR. Just a suggestion. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 17:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that a new "References in Popular Culture" section was added here. I have removed it. That looks like a "Trivia" section in another form, and violates the guidelines for articles at an advanced stage of development, particularly Featured Articles. See
WP:Trivia. To me it looks like "the SAQ in popular culture" should have its own article (or at least maybe could have one, if you are interested in starting one, Knitwitted), not a section on the topic squeezed any which way into this article. --
Alan W (
talk)
06:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay -- a while ago I politely suggested a perusal of WP:APR by the above participants, which was obviously ignored. I'm now going to add WP:BATTLEGROUND to your suggested reading list. If you folks are going to continue trading insults ad infinitum could you please take it outside? Please. I'm begging you. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 18:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
|
I would like to question the deletion of material here [9], that contained the edit summary:
Having searched the archives, I see no "consensus" that the material deleted "should not be here". In fact, I don't recall Slater's "Seven Shakespeares" ever being mentioned before. I do see from the article and talk page histories that a short section on the group theory had long been a stable feature of this article, and that more recently, these mentions have been deleted, with very little explanation based in policy. I also see that Tom said
I can only say that I have some interest in doing so, and would appreciate assistance from anyone that cares to give it. The item on Slater's "Seven Shakespeares" was a small step in that direction. Tom's suggestion to start with Delia Bacon's group I fully agree with. But the suggestion that every edit be talked and talked and talked on the talk page is not, what I believe the ArbCom was calling for. (Unless, of course, every minor edit is deemed "heavily controversial", a description I would have a hard time applying to this particular edit.) Smatprt ( talk) 18:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
While we discuss this particular deletion, here is a very short starter section on the Group Theory that I plan to post to get things started. I think it adds good information, is well referenced, and uses Reliable Sources:
Collaboration in playwriting was common during the Elizabethan era, with writers such as Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, and William Shakespeare appearing as co-authors of plays. Recent scholarship has indicated that many collaborations went unrecorded, including a number of Shakespearean works. It is not surprising, therefore, that various group theories of Shakespearean authorship have been proposed. As early as the mid-1800's, authorship researchers have theorized that a group of writers was responsible for the Shakespearean canon. In 1857, the first published book focused entirely on the authorship debate, The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare Unfolded, by Delia Bacon, was printed, in which Ms. Bacon proposed the first "group theory", attributing the works to a committee headed by Francis Bacon and including Walter Raleigh, Edmund Spencer and Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, among others.
A group theory was also proposed by Gilbert Slater in The Seven Shakespeares (1931), in which he theorized that the works were written by seven different authors: Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere - 17th Earl of Oxford, Sir Walter Raleigh, William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe, Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke, and Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland. [4] In the early 1960's, Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, Roger Manners, William Herbert and Mary Sidney were suggested as members of a group referred to as "The Oxford Syndicate". [5] In addition, playwrights such as Christopher Marlowe, Robert Greene and Thomas Nashe have all been proposed as participants. Some variants of the group theory also include William Shakespeare of Stratford as the group's manager, broker and/or front man. [6]
I look forward to your comments. Smatprt ( talk) 18:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, actually, there was a section on the group theory in place for years. And more recently, on two separate occasions, Tom said he just hadn't gotten around to the group theory yet. Also, in speaking for the both of you, he said "Neither of us have mentioned excluding a section about groupists; our objection is that what has been offered adds nothing at all beyond a celebrity endorsement". So, in the present version, the offending celebrity endorsement is no where to be seen, and the information on the re-occuring group theories certainly adds additional history and interest to the article, imho. As far as "thinly veiled to legitimize the theory by placing it in context of Elizabethan collaborative writing" - where else would one place it, contextually? The theory, if true, would be just another example of Elizabethan collaborative writing. Perhaps I am not understanding your complaint? Smatprt ( talk) 19:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm still deeply unhappy about this section. Firstly, some minor issues: Delia Bacon's was not the first book wholly on the question. That was Smith's Was Lord Bacon the author of Shakespeare's plays?, though admittedly it was cobbled together quickly to spoil DB's claims to priority. Is there any justification for calling her "Ms. Bacon"? The removal of the claim that Raleigh was not the leading poet in her model would, I suggest, seem wholly absurd to anyone who has actually read DB. Raleigh is mentioned uncountable times. Oxford is mentioned once in the entire book, in the introduction, where she says "He [Raleigh] became at once the centre of that little circle of high-born wits and poets, the elder wits and poets of the Elizabethan age that were in their meridian there. Sir Philip Sidney, Thomas Lord Buckhurst, Henry Lord Paget, Edward Earl of Oxford, and some others, are included in the contemporary list of courtly company." That's it. Most of these people are never mentioned again the entire book. So I think we should look for what the consensus of reliable sources say about what her actual theory of authorship is.
A more general problem is that there are many may variants of tthe group theory. I can see no reason why Seven Shakespeares is plucked out as somehow the main book after Bacon. Is there any specific rationale for this choice? Any source?
Paul B (
talk)
18:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
To answer Paul's question, from above, "I can see no reason why Seven Shakespeares is plucked out as somehow the main book after Bacon. Is there any specific rationale for this choice? Any source?" - Paul (resisting the obvious "plucking jokes") :-) I cited Seven Shakespeares because it, in turn, is cited by just about all the recognized RS's in this article, Gibson (devoting 19 pages to it!), Schoenbaum, Shapiro, and even the Claremont study. You have been quoting these books for years, dude :-) Smatprt ( talk) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
But seriously, yes, I agree, there should be more examples cited. Smatprt ( talk) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps this has been discussed before, but it surprises me that there is no mention -- or maybe there is, and I'm missing it -- of Kinney & Craig's book, Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship, in which they employed computational stylistics to demonstrate to most people's satisfaction -- mine, certainly -- that Shakespeare was the author of his own works, and nobody else.
So, while the content of this article is still worth discussing from a historical perspective, shouldn't the article adopt that perspective, now that there is valid scientific evidence -- dare I say proof? -- that neither de Vere of Oxford nor anyone else deserves credit for Will's life's work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorJoeE ( talk • contribs) (Apologies for my brain fart in forgetting to sign this... DoctorJoeE talk to me! 21:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC))
I don't see how it would get more than a sentence or two, if that. My memory fails me, but I don't believe they mentioned the SAQ at all. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I've been reading Slater's Seven Shakespeares and so far what I've picked up is that Slater agrees with Delia Bacon's theory of a group or writers producing the works, with the substitution of Oxford as the chief executive of the group and the substitution of churning out propaganda plays for the government in place of setting the stage for democracy. He says that the plays exhibit different characteristics, that Bacon wrote R2 and R3, LLL was written by Derby, and Hamlet written by Oxford, etc. IOW he creams off the biographical arguments from all the single-author theories and says they're all correct. Interestingly, he appears to accept the positive evidence for Stratford Shakespeare as well, imagining that Oxford met the actor William Shakspere (of course, it's always "Shakspere") through Robert Greene and recognized his genius and enlisted him to polish the works of other writers, later on to botch plays together, and then gave him a free hand to write plays on his own. After Oxford's death Shakspere went his own way by writing romantic plays instead of patriotic propaganda.
Slater, who was an economist, gives a very good economic analysis of Elizabethan policies at the beginning, but then when he gets into talking specifically about the theatre and Oxford he takes Ward's biography--all of it, including the Interludes--as gospel, so pretty soon you don't know what information to trust. He makes a very convincing argument that Shakespeare's Italian geography is accurate, and his style is a pleasure to read compared to Looney, the Ogburns, Anderson and Stritmatter. I'm only 50 pages into the book and so far I haven't had to grit my teeth at the style or throw the book across the room at some idiocy, and I'll probably finish it in the next day or two. Tom Reedy ( talk) 06:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the tags that were removed after I placed them here: [10],I added them because the current article is not in compliance with either WP:RS/AC or WP:WEASEL. Please review the WP:RS/AC policy. Keep in mind: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." In this context "directly" it means "precisely" or "exactly". There is nothing precise or exact about:
And any weaselly phrasing (as per these examples found at WP:WEASEL: "some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says ...") needs to be addressed. Smatprt ( talk) 18:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I sincerely question the accuracy and NPOV of the following statement:
As written, the graph implies that Anti-Strats use ONLY circumstantial evidence. This is incorrect and is a generalization that also implies that all anti-Strats use the same methods. Consider these rebuttal points:
As written, the graph implies that Shakespeareans and literary historians use ONLY documentary evidence. This is also incorrect and implies that all these researchers use the same methods. Consider these rebuttal points:
Thus my recent edit and current suggestion:
I look forward to comments and suggestions for alternative wording. Given this information, how to structure this paragraph is anyone's guess. Attempting to define the "core of the argument" is tricky enough, without adding opinions stated as facts, and sweeping POV generalizations. Smatprt ( talk) 16:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
As written, the graph implies that Anti-Strats use ONLY circumstantial evidence.
'Looney had said that a case based on circumstantial evidence must stand or fall depending on whether it finds corroboration by turning up more and more coincidences that fit the established pattern or runs into a dead end by turning up facts that undermine the case.'Warren Hope,Kim R. Holston, The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Authorship Theories,McFarland, 2009 p.93
Shakespeareans reply that there is not a shred of documentary evidence linking anyone else to the authorship of the plays, advocates of rival candidates respond that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence-and, moreover, many reasons to doubt Shakespeare's claim.' James Shapiro,Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, Simon and Schuster, 2010 p.8
'De Vere's candidacy as an alternative Shakespeare is bolstered by an imposing cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence that demands serious evaluation.'William Farina,De Vere As Shakespeare: An Oxfordian Reading of the Canon, McFarland 2006 p.11,
'the nature of the evidence that will result from this method is circumstantial rather than documentary. Warren Hope, Kim R. Holston,The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Authorship Theories, Farland, 2009 p.75
'anecdotal evidence does not substantiate a claim to authorship in this case, if it cannot be supported by further evidence. This could for example be documentary proof in the shape of a body of facts, or it could be circumstantial evidence.’ Sten F. Vedi,Elsinore Revisited, 2012 p.20
'The case for Oxford thus far is circumstantial. But the principal reason that I question Shakespeare's authorship in the first place is a matter of evidence. If Shakespeare was the author the title pages proclaim him to be, then he would have left behind some personal evidence with which to support one simple statement: He was a writer. There's the rub. He is the only Elizabethan playwright of any consequence whose life as a writer is unsupported by any documentary evidence to support his alleged career as a professional writer.Diana Price Letter to the New York Times. New York Times, 24 February 2002.
'In the past 50 years, hundreds of scholarly articles, some with near-smoking-gun quality, have provided abundant circumstantial evidence in favor of Edward de Vere as Shakespeare. Lay persons tend to think that circumstantial evidence is weaker than direct evidence but the converse is often true, as taught in all law schools.'Paul Hemenway Altrocchi,Malice Aforethought: The Killing of a Unique Genius, Xlibris Corporation, 2010 pp.25-6
'Although often derided by mainstream academics, the case for Edward de Vere as the man behind the “Shakespeare” mask—first advanced in 1920—is based on an overwhelming body of circumstantial evidence.' Mark Anderson, Shakespeare By Another Name, Untreed Reads Publishing 2011p.x
'THE THESIS OF THIS BOOK, THE “OXFORDIAN” PROPOSITION THAT Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built upon circumstantial evidence. There is no single “smoking gun” document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc.' Mark Anderson, Shakespeare By Another Name, Untreed Reads Publishing 2011 p.382
'We invite readers to weigh the enormous volume of circumstantial evidence offered in support of de Vere.'Richard Malim, 'Introduction', in Richard Malim (ed.) Great Oxford: Essays on the Life and Work of Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604, De Vere Society/Parapress 2004 p.8
'Curiously, however, the gradual accretion of circumstantial evidence seems to be producing a biography of de Vere that could inform and and transform our understanding of the writing of Hamlet.’p.192 Eddi Jolly,'THe Writing of Hamlet', in Richard Malim (ed.) Great Oxford: Essays on the Life and Work of Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604,De Vere Society/Parapress 2004, pp.180ff. p.192
'Based entirely on circumstantial evidence, this still-popular theory overlooks the fact that Bacon never wrote blank verse.'R. Kent Rasmussen,(ed.)Critical Companion to Mark Twain: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work, 2007 p.584
'The question of the authorship of the poems and plays is to be determined only by the weight, not of direct, but of circumstantial evidence. John H. Stotsenburg,An Impartial Study of the Shakespeare Title,Morton, 1904 p.370.
“There’s an awful lot of circumstantial evidence – obviously, there’s no absolutely documentary evidence on either side – but there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence that connects the Earl of Oxford to those works,” Beauclerk noted.'Rebekah Hearn 'Circumstantial Evidence? Author promotes alternative Shakespeare theory,'
The article states, "...academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely on documentary evidence in the form of title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him ..."
What exactly is inaccurate about that? The only direct evidence we have is documentary, since all of the people with first-hand knowledge are dead.
I offered above to change that to "direct, documentary evidence".
It also says, "Anti-Stratfordians rely on what they designate as circumstantial evidence ...", implying that their designation stretches the meaning of circumstantial evidence, which is the case, since most of the "circumstantial evidence" consists of speculation treated as established fact. I.e., if the plays directly reflect events in the author's life, then the fact that Oxford was waylaid by pirates is alluded to in Hamlet.
I don't see the confusion, myself. Instead of going around in pointless semantic circles, let me ask you this: how would you write the sentence? Tom Reedy ( talk) 18:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I have reviewed the sources and they support the wording of the passage in question. If you want to dispute the edit, take it to the boards and we'll waste another week there. Tom Reedy ( talk) 01:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that anti-Stratfordians could be used as reliable sources for information about any case other than their own.
'The Shakespeare Authorship controversy is an appropriate place to review the role of circumstantial evidence in scholarly reasoning, since most of the proposed demonstrations are of this kind. The presentation of circumstantial evidence usually takes the form of the bringing together of a series of indications which in themselves are not strong or convincing in the hope that they will be more impressive as a unity.'p.203.
No. My complaint is that you are applying a double standard in this section. And that this section is not written from a neutral point of view. You have written this section and cherry picked your sources to support your own viewpoint, instead of a neutral overview. Smatprt ( talk) 14:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Peter, I did respond, and Love is all we need to support the statement that anti-Stratfordians rely on what they term as "circumstnatial evidence". He devotes several pages to that. And the term "documentary evidence" I think is accurate, even in the legal sense of the word. Tom Reedy ( talk) 14:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
And just FYI, Peter, the Love section "Circumstantial evidence" starting on page 203 begins, "The Shakespeare authorship controversy is an appropriate place to review the role of circumstantial evidence in scholarly reasoning, since most of the proposed demonstrations are of this kind. The presentation of circumstantial evidence usually takes the form of the bringing together of a series of indications which in themselves are not strong or convincing in the hope that they will be more impressive as a unity." After giving some examples, he remarks that "all of them [links] are so extremely fragile that only the prior assumption that Oxford was the work of Shakespeare's works would have allowed them to be accepted for a moment.... This is not the stuff that conclusions are made on and if the gallant colonel [B.M. Ward] applied the same kind of reasoning to military intelligence received in the field his regiment must have waited a long time between victories." Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Here you go, Peter: Shakespeare_authorship_question#Lack_of_documentary_evidence. And note that Love writes, ""The Shakespeare authorship controversy is an appropriate place to review the role of circumstantial evidence ...", not "The Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship is an appropriate place to review the role of circumstantial evidence ..." Love also dissects such use of circumstantial evidence and shows that it really is not what it is presented to be because it depends on incorporating false assumptions as part of the "evidence" chain, hence the "what they designate". Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
gross39
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
I want it recorded here that I think the change being suggested by Ssteinburg is well researched and very relevant/notable in the history of the controversy. His whole argument is cogent to my mind, and his wording is now well thought-out and reasonable, and I wholly support the suggeted change. [I don't think my support here will make any difference in the immediate outcome of this debate, but let it be known that this is not anymore the request of a single editor, that can be therefore simply dismissed as a disruptive one.] warshy talk 16:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
While looking through this article, and I found often asserted on "both sides" that manuscript evidence of Shakespeare does not survive, save for the six (or fewer) signatures. Has not the famous "Hand D" in Sir Thomas More been traditionally attributed to Shakespeare for some time now? I am not pushing this as conclusive for the whole debate, but nowhere in the article is this discussed, while most every other piece of writing attributed or speculatively attributed is at least mentioned. Or am I severely mistaken about the whole affair of that play? (If so, I would very much appreciate knowing now, I have done academic work on Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More in particular). The very recent New Cambridge Guide to Shakespeare has an article in which the play is used an object lesson in how Shakespeare's work reached print, indicating that at least some critical consensus still attributes the play to the man of the signatures.-- Artimaean ( talk) 03:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I proposed an edit to this page as follows :
"The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the sole author of the works attributed to him."
The current version The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him is problematic, since it excludes the possibility of co-authorship and limits the nature of the question.
Defining the SAQ in this way is not neutral since it narrows the terms of debate to those who are Stratfordians or non-Stratfordians.
I would submit that the more general statement I have proposed reflects more accurately the field of study without supporting any particular viewpoint over another.
I would be obliged by the contributions of other editors on this point.
Wightknightuk ( talk) 13:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Colleagues, I am writing respectfully and without a particular axe to grind. Neither do I bear the same scars I have observed from reading the reports of previous adjudications. You have my sympathies! However, I will with some reluctance proceed upon a path towards civilised consensus. Since you appear to have addressed your responses as the choir from a single church, I shall respond to your comments in totem rather than on an individual basis. I trust that will prove helpful to the resolution of this point.
You say on the one hand: "This article is precisely about the debate between "Stratfordians or non-Stratfordians". For that reason you suggest that the SAQ concerns itself with the idea that "Will of Stratford didn't write the plays". However, you go on to say that some anti-Strat theories do involve Shakespeare as part author, adaptor or editor of the plays. As it is currently drafted therefore, the statement you have as an introduction to this page is misleading.
By way of accommodation, taking into account the points you have raised, may I propose the following: "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the principal author of the works attributed to him."
A final note before signing off. In commenting on my edit it was said that "the point of view you seem to be hinting towards - that Will of Stratford co-wrote them in collaboration with A.N Other". That is incorrect. I have no agenda or axe to grind. I come to this debate from a position of neutrality and in the hope that I might assist in the process of allowing the SAQ to be represented on Wikipedia with accuracy and neutrality.
wightknight 14:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but you have not resolved your previous contradiction. My statement did not refer to the authorship of any individual work but rather to the canon as a whole. Given that "certain anti-Strat theories do involve Shakespeare as part author, adaptor or editor of the plays" I would respectfully submit that my statement more accurately (and with more neutrality) reflects the current position.
Respectfully, I would invite you to read again and reconsider your position.
wightknight 15:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, respectfully, the distinction I have made is subtle but important.
This article is introduced by the statement that: "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him". You have variously acknowledged that, as to part of those works, there is agreement that third parties contributed to various works, although disagreements about the extent of those contributions and those issues are properly addresses elsewhere.
However, your statement implies that the Stratfordian position is that Shakespeare wrote the entirety of the works currently attributed to him by mainstream academia. That is not correct. The amendment I have proposed does not undermine the Stratfordian position in any way, it does not 'tread on the toes' of the co-authorship debate but rather leaves room for that interpretation also.
I would submit, humbly and respectfully, that the statement: "The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument about whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the principal author of the works attributed to him."
is a more accurate and less misleading description of the subject matter at hand.
I invite you to re-consider, without first dismissing the amendment as tainted because it may have been written by someone who holds views different to your own.
wightknight 16:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I have read with dismay the sad history of this page which reflects poorly on many and informs greatly on the debate in general.
I do not wish to advance any particular view or theory but I wish to make an observation regarding the use of the terms fringe and minority.
It is true that certain groups might reasonably be regarded as 'fringe'. It might be reasonable that the Oxfordian view is regarded as 'fringe' but that is not a question I wish to address.
My point is rather that the subject itself, the idea that Shakespeare may not have been the sole author of the Shakespeare Canon, has gained sufficient ground that the question itself must reasonably be regarded as having reached minority status, even where there is no consensus that the views of any particular group represent more than a fringe view.
Would editors agree that summary to be a neutral consensus of the current state of the SAQ ?
wightknight 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Since I was not proposing a particular edit I hesitate from continuing further debate on this talk page. I am surprised at the unyielding reception to these comments which were intended as a helpful means of moving towards consensus by the use of appropriate terminology. I think that references in particular to the holocaust on this Talk Page are particularly unhelpful.
Let me put forward a modified statement for comment. Are you able to agree that:
"The idea that Shakespeare may not have been the principal author of the Shakespeare Canon, has gained sufficient ground that the question itself must reasonably be regarded as having reached minority status. Whereas, there is no consensus that the views of any particular alternative author represent more than a fringe view."
wightknight 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Further reference to jews and the holocaust is objectionable and offensive. Kindly desist.
Under Wikipedia's guidance on Fringe theories it is stated that:
Shortcuts:WP:FRINGE/PS WP:PSCI "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views."
This clearly contrasts the pseudoscientific with the academic and suggests that views from the academic community should not generally be regarded as fringe. I cited a reference to a New York Times survey identifying that a significant minority of academics believe that the authorship of the Shakespeare canon is a legitimate field of enquiry. A fringe theory is one where the view that contradicts the mainstream is not of an equal calibre.
The issue here is not Stratford v Oxford (or any other doubtful fellow) but rather certainty against reasonable doubt. The doubters now number a significant minority of academics specialising in that field. Whilst it is not mainstream, and whilst contradictory views are not mainstream, the field of study itself rises above the level of 'fringe'.
wightknight 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
We disagree over the definition of Fringe vs Minority and I believe my own interpretation is more in keeping with Wikipedia's stated policies than your own. The NYT Survey is not an academic text. Not all sources on Wikipedia are academic texts. It is an independent text from a reliable source. Different groups may have different views on its interpretation. It may not be perfect as to its form but it is, so far as I am aware, the most significant survey of its kind that anyone has yet tried to undertake.
However, refusal to acknowledge the existence of this survey, and effectively suppressing its existence from the public consciousness, is a significant disservice to Wikipedia and presents a partial picture to the public at large.
Do you not agree that the appropriate route is for the source to be referenced in the main article and for concerns about it to be included within relevant footnotes?
Respectfully,
wightknight 16:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I rather feel that I have gatecrashed someone's private garden party! The response I have so far received is out of keeping with Wikipedia's stated intentions and I am deeply concerned at the refusal to recognise a piece of independent research because it shows findings that are anti-Stratfordian. (There is much else that is published on the page that is less well-referenced). I believe that conduct should be challenged.
The appropriate way to proceed is to publish, to reference and to qualify. Agreeing a form of words about what the survey means is another matter. Attempting to conceal information from the public is intellectually disingenuous.
I invite you to re-consider how this discussion might better proceed towards consensus.
Respectfully,
wightknight 17:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
As you must well appreciate, the relevance of this Survey is that it establishes the (minority) level of validation that the Authorship Question has gained. Your criticisms and opinions about the Survey remain valid and the proper thing to do would be to express them as caveats or footnotes to the referenced survey.
Refusing even to permit the acknowledgement of the existence of the survey invites metaphorical comparisons that are unbecoming to civilised discourse.
wightknight 20:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wightknightuk ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
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)
[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 [ [2]] 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
ooks
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I just now learned that Dr. Frank W. Wadsworth, the author of many articles and books, including one of my favorite authorship books, The Poacher from Stratford, died two weeks ago. His obituary is here. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
To all appearances, subject book does not betray any reason to believe it is WP:RS. What justifies its inclusion for listing in "Bibliography" section? Phaedrus7 ( talk) 00:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It wants editing, and it's based on an, er, idiosyncratic view of psychology, but the arguments are quite good. (I have an inscribed first edition!)
Tom Reedy (
talk)
19:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Neutral observation: Now might be an appropriate time to review WP:APR. Just a suggestion. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 17:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that a new "References in Popular Culture" section was added here. I have removed it. That looks like a "Trivia" section in another form, and violates the guidelines for articles at an advanced stage of development, particularly Featured Articles. See
WP:Trivia. To me it looks like "the SAQ in popular culture" should have its own article (or at least maybe could have one, if you are interested in starting one, Knitwitted), not a section on the topic squeezed any which way into this article. --
Alan W (
talk)
06:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay -- a while ago I politely suggested a perusal of WP:APR by the above participants, which was obviously ignored. I'm now going to add WP:BATTLEGROUND to your suggested reading list. If you folks are going to continue trading insults ad infinitum could you please take it outside? Please. I'm begging you. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 18:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
|
I would like to question the deletion of material here [9], that contained the edit summary:
Having searched the archives, I see no "consensus" that the material deleted "should not be here". In fact, I don't recall Slater's "Seven Shakespeares" ever being mentioned before. I do see from the article and talk page histories that a short section on the group theory had long been a stable feature of this article, and that more recently, these mentions have been deleted, with very little explanation based in policy. I also see that Tom said
I can only say that I have some interest in doing so, and would appreciate assistance from anyone that cares to give it. The item on Slater's "Seven Shakespeares" was a small step in that direction. Tom's suggestion to start with Delia Bacon's group I fully agree with. But the suggestion that every edit be talked and talked and talked on the talk page is not, what I believe the ArbCom was calling for. (Unless, of course, every minor edit is deemed "heavily controversial", a description I would have a hard time applying to this particular edit.) Smatprt ( talk) 18:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
While we discuss this particular deletion, here is a very short starter section on the Group Theory that I plan to post to get things started. I think it adds good information, is well referenced, and uses Reliable Sources:
Collaboration in playwriting was common during the Elizabethan era, with writers such as Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, and William Shakespeare appearing as co-authors of plays. Recent scholarship has indicated that many collaborations went unrecorded, including a number of Shakespearean works. It is not surprising, therefore, that various group theories of Shakespearean authorship have been proposed. As early as the mid-1800's, authorship researchers have theorized that a group of writers was responsible for the Shakespearean canon. In 1857, the first published book focused entirely on the authorship debate, The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare Unfolded, by Delia Bacon, was printed, in which Ms. Bacon proposed the first "group theory", attributing the works to a committee headed by Francis Bacon and including Walter Raleigh, Edmund Spencer and Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, among others.
A group theory was also proposed by Gilbert Slater in The Seven Shakespeares (1931), in which he theorized that the works were written by seven different authors: Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere - 17th Earl of Oxford, Sir Walter Raleigh, William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, Christopher Marlowe, Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke, and Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland. [4] In the early 1960's, Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, Roger Manners, William Herbert and Mary Sidney were suggested as members of a group referred to as "The Oxford Syndicate". [5] In addition, playwrights such as Christopher Marlowe, Robert Greene and Thomas Nashe have all been proposed as participants. Some variants of the group theory also include William Shakespeare of Stratford as the group's manager, broker and/or front man. [6]
I look forward to your comments. Smatprt ( talk) 18:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, actually, there was a section on the group theory in place for years. And more recently, on two separate occasions, Tom said he just hadn't gotten around to the group theory yet. Also, in speaking for the both of you, he said "Neither of us have mentioned excluding a section about groupists; our objection is that what has been offered adds nothing at all beyond a celebrity endorsement". So, in the present version, the offending celebrity endorsement is no where to be seen, and the information on the re-occuring group theories certainly adds additional history and interest to the article, imho. As far as "thinly veiled to legitimize the theory by placing it in context of Elizabethan collaborative writing" - where else would one place it, contextually? The theory, if true, would be just another example of Elizabethan collaborative writing. Perhaps I am not understanding your complaint? Smatprt ( talk) 19:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm still deeply unhappy about this section. Firstly, some minor issues: Delia Bacon's was not the first book wholly on the question. That was Smith's Was Lord Bacon the author of Shakespeare's plays?, though admittedly it was cobbled together quickly to spoil DB's claims to priority. Is there any justification for calling her "Ms. Bacon"? The removal of the claim that Raleigh was not the leading poet in her model would, I suggest, seem wholly absurd to anyone who has actually read DB. Raleigh is mentioned uncountable times. Oxford is mentioned once in the entire book, in the introduction, where she says "He [Raleigh] became at once the centre of that little circle of high-born wits and poets, the elder wits and poets of the Elizabethan age that were in their meridian there. Sir Philip Sidney, Thomas Lord Buckhurst, Henry Lord Paget, Edward Earl of Oxford, and some others, are included in the contemporary list of courtly company." That's it. Most of these people are never mentioned again the entire book. So I think we should look for what the consensus of reliable sources say about what her actual theory of authorship is.
A more general problem is that there are many may variants of tthe group theory. I can see no reason why Seven Shakespeares is plucked out as somehow the main book after Bacon. Is there any specific rationale for this choice? Any source?
Paul B (
talk)
18:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
To answer Paul's question, from above, "I can see no reason why Seven Shakespeares is plucked out as somehow the main book after Bacon. Is there any specific rationale for this choice? Any source?" - Paul (resisting the obvious "plucking jokes") :-) I cited Seven Shakespeares because it, in turn, is cited by just about all the recognized RS's in this article, Gibson (devoting 19 pages to it!), Schoenbaum, Shapiro, and even the Claremont study. You have been quoting these books for years, dude :-) Smatprt ( talk) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
But seriously, yes, I agree, there should be more examples cited. Smatprt ( talk) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps this has been discussed before, but it surprises me that there is no mention -- or maybe there is, and I'm missing it -- of Kinney & Craig's book, Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship, in which they employed computational stylistics to demonstrate to most people's satisfaction -- mine, certainly -- that Shakespeare was the author of his own works, and nobody else.
So, while the content of this article is still worth discussing from a historical perspective, shouldn't the article adopt that perspective, now that there is valid scientific evidence -- dare I say proof? -- that neither de Vere of Oxford nor anyone else deserves credit for Will's life's work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorJoeE ( talk • contribs) (Apologies for my brain fart in forgetting to sign this... DoctorJoeE talk to me! 21:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC))
I don't see how it would get more than a sentence or two, if that. My memory fails me, but I don't believe they mentioned the SAQ at all. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I've been reading Slater's Seven Shakespeares and so far what I've picked up is that Slater agrees with Delia Bacon's theory of a group or writers producing the works, with the substitution of Oxford as the chief executive of the group and the substitution of churning out propaganda plays for the government in place of setting the stage for democracy. He says that the plays exhibit different characteristics, that Bacon wrote R2 and R3, LLL was written by Derby, and Hamlet written by Oxford, etc. IOW he creams off the biographical arguments from all the single-author theories and says they're all correct. Interestingly, he appears to accept the positive evidence for Stratford Shakespeare as well, imagining that Oxford met the actor William Shakspere (of course, it's always "Shakspere") through Robert Greene and recognized his genius and enlisted him to polish the works of other writers, later on to botch plays together, and then gave him a free hand to write plays on his own. After Oxford's death Shakspere went his own way by writing romantic plays instead of patriotic propaganda.
Slater, who was an economist, gives a very good economic analysis of Elizabethan policies at the beginning, but then when he gets into talking specifically about the theatre and Oxford he takes Ward's biography--all of it, including the Interludes--as gospel, so pretty soon you don't know what information to trust. He makes a very convincing argument that Shakespeare's Italian geography is accurate, and his style is a pleasure to read compared to Looney, the Ogburns, Anderson and Stritmatter. I'm only 50 pages into the book and so far I haven't had to grit my teeth at the style or throw the book across the room at some idiocy, and I'll probably finish it in the next day or two. Tom Reedy ( talk) 06:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the tags that were removed after I placed them here: [10],I added them because the current article is not in compliance with either WP:RS/AC or WP:WEASEL. Please review the WP:RS/AC policy. Keep in mind: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." In this context "directly" it means "precisely" or "exactly". There is nothing precise or exact about:
And any weaselly phrasing (as per these examples found at WP:WEASEL: "some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says ...") needs to be addressed. Smatprt ( talk) 18:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I sincerely question the accuracy and NPOV of the following statement:
As written, the graph implies that Anti-Strats use ONLY circumstantial evidence. This is incorrect and is a generalization that also implies that all anti-Strats use the same methods. Consider these rebuttal points:
As written, the graph implies that Shakespeareans and literary historians use ONLY documentary evidence. This is also incorrect and implies that all these researchers use the same methods. Consider these rebuttal points:
Thus my recent edit and current suggestion:
I look forward to comments and suggestions for alternative wording. Given this information, how to structure this paragraph is anyone's guess. Attempting to define the "core of the argument" is tricky enough, without adding opinions stated as facts, and sweeping POV generalizations. Smatprt ( talk) 16:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
As written, the graph implies that Anti-Strats use ONLY circumstantial evidence.
'Looney had said that a case based on circumstantial evidence must stand or fall depending on whether it finds corroboration by turning up more and more coincidences that fit the established pattern or runs into a dead end by turning up facts that undermine the case.'Warren Hope,Kim R. Holston, The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Authorship Theories,McFarland, 2009 p.93
Shakespeareans reply that there is not a shred of documentary evidence linking anyone else to the authorship of the plays, advocates of rival candidates respond that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence-and, moreover, many reasons to doubt Shakespeare's claim.' James Shapiro,Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, Simon and Schuster, 2010 p.8
'De Vere's candidacy as an alternative Shakespeare is bolstered by an imposing cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence that demands serious evaluation.'William Farina,De Vere As Shakespeare: An Oxfordian Reading of the Canon, McFarland 2006 p.11,
'the nature of the evidence that will result from this method is circumstantial rather than documentary. Warren Hope, Kim R. Holston,The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Authorship Theories, Farland, 2009 p.75
'anecdotal evidence does not substantiate a claim to authorship in this case, if it cannot be supported by further evidence. This could for example be documentary proof in the shape of a body of facts, or it could be circumstantial evidence.’ Sten F. Vedi,Elsinore Revisited, 2012 p.20
'The case for Oxford thus far is circumstantial. But the principal reason that I question Shakespeare's authorship in the first place is a matter of evidence. If Shakespeare was the author the title pages proclaim him to be, then he would have left behind some personal evidence with which to support one simple statement: He was a writer. There's the rub. He is the only Elizabethan playwright of any consequence whose life as a writer is unsupported by any documentary evidence to support his alleged career as a professional writer.Diana Price Letter to the New York Times. New York Times, 24 February 2002.
'In the past 50 years, hundreds of scholarly articles, some with near-smoking-gun quality, have provided abundant circumstantial evidence in favor of Edward de Vere as Shakespeare. Lay persons tend to think that circumstantial evidence is weaker than direct evidence but the converse is often true, as taught in all law schools.'Paul Hemenway Altrocchi,Malice Aforethought: The Killing of a Unique Genius, Xlibris Corporation, 2010 pp.25-6
'Although often derided by mainstream academics, the case for Edward de Vere as the man behind the “Shakespeare” mask—first advanced in 1920—is based on an overwhelming body of circumstantial evidence.' Mark Anderson, Shakespeare By Another Name, Untreed Reads Publishing 2011p.x
'THE THESIS OF THIS BOOK, THE “OXFORDIAN” PROPOSITION THAT Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built upon circumstantial evidence. There is no single “smoking gun” document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc.' Mark Anderson, Shakespeare By Another Name, Untreed Reads Publishing 2011 p.382
'We invite readers to weigh the enormous volume of circumstantial evidence offered in support of de Vere.'Richard Malim, 'Introduction', in Richard Malim (ed.) Great Oxford: Essays on the Life and Work of Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604, De Vere Society/Parapress 2004 p.8
'Curiously, however, the gradual accretion of circumstantial evidence seems to be producing a biography of de Vere that could inform and and transform our understanding of the writing of Hamlet.’p.192 Eddi Jolly,'THe Writing of Hamlet', in Richard Malim (ed.) Great Oxford: Essays on the Life and Work of Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604,De Vere Society/Parapress 2004, pp.180ff. p.192
'Based entirely on circumstantial evidence, this still-popular theory overlooks the fact that Bacon never wrote blank verse.'R. Kent Rasmussen,(ed.)Critical Companion to Mark Twain: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work, 2007 p.584
'The question of the authorship of the poems and plays is to be determined only by the weight, not of direct, but of circumstantial evidence. John H. Stotsenburg,An Impartial Study of the Shakespeare Title,Morton, 1904 p.370.
“There’s an awful lot of circumstantial evidence – obviously, there’s no absolutely documentary evidence on either side – but there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence that connects the Earl of Oxford to those works,” Beauclerk noted.'Rebekah Hearn 'Circumstantial Evidence? Author promotes alternative Shakespeare theory,'
The article states, "...academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely on documentary evidence in the form of title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him ..."
What exactly is inaccurate about that? The only direct evidence we have is documentary, since all of the people with first-hand knowledge are dead.
I offered above to change that to "direct, documentary evidence".
It also says, "Anti-Stratfordians rely on what they designate as circumstantial evidence ...", implying that their designation stretches the meaning of circumstantial evidence, which is the case, since most of the "circumstantial evidence" consists of speculation treated as established fact. I.e., if the plays directly reflect events in the author's life, then the fact that Oxford was waylaid by pirates is alluded to in Hamlet.
I don't see the confusion, myself. Instead of going around in pointless semantic circles, let me ask you this: how would you write the sentence? Tom Reedy ( talk) 18:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I have reviewed the sources and they support the wording of the passage in question. If you want to dispute the edit, take it to the boards and we'll waste another week there. Tom Reedy ( talk) 01:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that anti-Stratfordians could be used as reliable sources for information about any case other than their own.
'The Shakespeare Authorship controversy is an appropriate place to review the role of circumstantial evidence in scholarly reasoning, since most of the proposed demonstrations are of this kind. The presentation of circumstantial evidence usually takes the form of the bringing together of a series of indications which in themselves are not strong or convincing in the hope that they will be more impressive as a unity.'p.203.
No. My complaint is that you are applying a double standard in this section. And that this section is not written from a neutral point of view. You have written this section and cherry picked your sources to support your own viewpoint, instead of a neutral overview. Smatprt ( talk) 14:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Peter, I did respond, and Love is all we need to support the statement that anti-Stratfordians rely on what they term as "circumstnatial evidence". He devotes several pages to that. And the term "documentary evidence" I think is accurate, even in the legal sense of the word. Tom Reedy ( talk) 14:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
And just FYI, Peter, the Love section "Circumstantial evidence" starting on page 203 begins, "The Shakespeare authorship controversy is an appropriate place to review the role of circumstantial evidence in scholarly reasoning, since most of the proposed demonstrations are of this kind. The presentation of circumstantial evidence usually takes the form of the bringing together of a series of indications which in themselves are not strong or convincing in the hope that they will be more impressive as a unity." After giving some examples, he remarks that "all of them [links] are so extremely fragile that only the prior assumption that Oxford was the work of Shakespeare's works would have allowed them to be accepted for a moment.... This is not the stuff that conclusions are made on and if the gallant colonel [B.M. Ward] applied the same kind of reasoning to military intelligence received in the field his regiment must have waited a long time between victories." Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Here you go, Peter: Shakespeare_authorship_question#Lack_of_documentary_evidence. And note that Love writes, ""The Shakespeare authorship controversy is an appropriate place to review the role of circumstantial evidence ...", not "The Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship is an appropriate place to review the role of circumstantial evidence ..." Love also dissects such use of circumstantial evidence and shows that it really is not what it is presented to be because it depends on incorporating false assumptions as part of the "evidence" chain, hence the "what they designate". Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
gross39
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).