Please make sandbox edits to this page: Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft
This working doc by smatprt is an experiment to see what a combination of Tom's suggestions and my own might look like, in terms of structure, and does not include the anticipated rewrites, just a lot of the proposed deletions. Noting the claifications from ScienceApologist and 4meter4, recommended forks, are included.
It cuts out the candidate specific material (mostly Oxfordian stuff) and cuts down on every section. I've tried to use wikipedia summary style for the longer sections like the history and the "other candidates"; I've left the candidates at the end instead of trying to work them into the history, as it interrupted the flow when I tried it. The candidates have all been cut down as well - again trying to use summary style, which worked best when I left them out of the history and in their own section. I look forward to comments. Smatprt ( talk) 16:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Short and sweet. Refs coming. Discuss, but please for not too long. Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
So here you go:
"The Shakespeare authorship question is the controversy about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers.[1] The public debate dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted wide attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great by the majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.[a][2] Those who question the attribution believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.[3] Of the numerous proposed candidates,[4] major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support,[5] statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians, or Derbyites, respectively.[6]
Most authorship doubters believe that Shakespeare of Stratford did not have the background necessary to create the body of work attributed to him, and that the personal characteristics inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit his known biography[3]. Many doubters assert that if the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford was involved at all, it was more likely as front man or play-broker.[4] Anti-Stratfordians believe Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the extensive education necessary to write the collected works, and question how he could have gained the life experience and adopted the aristocratic attitude they claim is evident in them.[5] Alternate authorship researchers focus on the relationship between the content of the plays and poems and a candidate’s known education, life experiences, and recorded history.[6]
Most mainstream Shakespeare academics, also referred to as "Stratfordians", pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories.[7] Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject, noting that the authorship of Shakespeare of Stratford is supported by two main categories of evidence: testimony by his fellow actors and fellow playwright Ben Jonson in the First Folio, and the inscription on Shakespeare's grave monument in Stratford.[8] Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view.[9] Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[10]" Smatprt ( talk) 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The Shakespeare authorship question refers to theories that cast doubt on the traditional ascription of the works of Shakespeare to William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon. Public challenges to the traditional view were first voiced in the mid-19th. century. Sceptics hold that “William Shakespeare” was a pseudonym behind which lay the hand of one, or several writers, perhaps working in concert. Of the numerous candidates proposed, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby have gained prominence. Bacon prevailed in the 19th century, and Oxford most recently.
Doubters highlight the obscurity surrounding Shakespeare’s biography, and a perceived discrepancy between the provincial figure and the metropolitan playwright. The known record, they argue, tells us nothing that could bridge the perceived disparity between a man of relatively humble origins and the genius of the London stage, whose works display a comprehensive knowledge of classical literature, Renaissance books, law, astronomy, languages and the refined culture of courtly society. They assert that one can infer from the works a profile of the real mind and identity behind them.
Mainstream Shakespearean scholars are mostly dismissive of these anti-Stratfordian theories, when they do not ignore them. They adduce evidence that his fellow writers and playwrights never expressed doubts, that both the Folio and the Stratford monument bear witness to a correlation between the theatrical author and the provincial Shakespeare, that scarcity of biographical data was normal for his milieu, and that deducing a writer's identity from his works constitutes a biographical fallacy.
Despite specialist scepticism, interest in the authorship debate continues unabated, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.
Smatprt’s version 393. Mine 286. Reduction of 25% Nishidani ( talk) 10:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
"The Shakespeare authorship question is the controversy about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers.[1] The public debate dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted wide attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.[a][2] Skeptics believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.[3] Of the numerous proposed candidates,[4] major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support,[5] statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories.[6]
Doubters highlight the obscurity surrounding Shakespeare’s biography, and perceive a discrepancy between the provincial figure and the metropolitan playwright.[3] Many doubters assert that if the man baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford was involved at all, it was more likely as front man or play-broker.[4] Skeptics believe he lacked the extensive education necessary to write the collected works, which display a comprehensive knowledge of classical literature, law, astronomy, foreign languages and the refined culture of courtly society.[5] These researchers focus on the relationship between the content of the plays and poems and a candidate’s known education, life experiences, and recorded history.[6]
Most mainstream Shakespeare academics pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories,[7] noting that both the Folio and the Stratford monument bear witness to a correlation between the theatrical author and the provincial Shakespeare, that scarcity of biographical data was normal for his milieu, and that deducing a writer's identity from his works constitutes a biographical fallacy. Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[10]" Smatprt( talk) 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is the outline we were using to summarize the lead way back when. It might be a good place to start as we discuss the lead and the article structure itself. I've adjusted the list to reflect the current article format. While I agree that the present article needs lots of clean-up, I don't really agree that it wanders all over the place and lacks structure. I do think the overview is necessary before jumping right into the history. Both the overview and the history, however, can be cut down and made more compact.
Overview of article sections to summarize in the lead:
As I mentioned, in developing the lead, we should refer to the table of contents to make sure we cover the main sections: The more I look at the subject headings and the lead, the more I think we need to do a better job summarizing the article:
It seems to me that the lead version I just posted (the combination of Nishidani's and mine) pretty well addresses the main subjects discussed in the article. And it has come down from 545 words (present) to 305 words. 240 words gone is pretty darn good in terms of cutting and the length is now appropriate to the size and topics covered in the article. Even when we cut it down, I imagine it will still be a good sized article (just not so large as it is now!) I just want to add that I'm not sure our dictate was to restructure the article from top to bottom, but rather to clean up the back and forth style, and address NPOV issues throughout. :) Smatprt ( talk) 19:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I am willing to compromise on many things to come up with a workable solution. And I will say that Nishidani's suggested lead, I think, shows a balanced approach that I, for one, found helpful. I hope I showed that by incorporating much of it into my current version. So get back to me on my questions and lets continue. Thanks. Smatprt ( talk) 15:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Clarification In my statement above, "If we don’t agree on this, I doubt we’ll agree on much else as we write the page . . .", I don't mean it to say that if you don't agree with my suggestions, just that if we don't agree on the best way to proceed. I just now realised how that could be construed to mean that I was insisting on doing it all my way. Apologies. Tom Reedy ( talk) 02:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
212.183.140.52 ( talk) 10:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I just posted a cut down version with many of your suggestions. I wanted to see what it might actually look like. It takes the article down around 60K which is one of the lengths discussed WP:LENGTH. As I mention at the beginning of the overview "t cuts out the candidate specific material (mostly Oxfordian stuff) and cuts down on every section. I've tried to use wikipedia summary style for the longer sections like the history and the "other candidates"; I've left the candidates at the end instead of trying to work them into the history, as it interrupted the flow when I tried it. The candidates have all been cut down as well - again trying to use summary style, which worked best when I left them out of the history and in their own section. I look forward to comments." Smatprt ( talk) 16:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: The present version is approx 94K of prose. This version is at 47K, or right about half the size of the current version.I'm not saying that I fully endorse the version I just posted, by the way. I wanted to see what this combination of Tom's and my proposals would look like and how long it would be. While much rewriting would still be done, some stuff added back in, other stuff cut, I think this is probably the ballpark that we might be in. Smatprt ( talk) 18:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, while the sandbox article is not Shakespeare, it seems better to me than the public article. So thank you, contributors! My thoughts on the sandbox article (or you could just read Nishidani's 19:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC) comment):
I have an impression that scholarship, like wikipedia articles, starts out crappy and gets better. I don't think it is bad to mention that dodgy beginnings have lead to a more plausible present state. Thank you for reading this far, Fotoguzzi ( talk) 20:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your thoughts on my other, more major points. I'd like for all of us to at least have a provisional agreement on the direction we're to take before we lay down the specific longitude and latitude of the destination. Once we discuss that, I don't think it will take very long to get the product in shape——and I'm thinking weeks, not months.
Oh, and there's no consensus on any of the article yet. We're still drawing in sand, so you don't have to justify any reversions or edits by invoking that phrase. But there's really no sense in insisting on including details when we don't have the skeleton agreed to yet, which is why I want to discuss the direction each of us envisions for the article. Otherwise we're all just editing randomly again and arguing over each point the same way we were doing. Can you not see the point I'm trying to make? Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Smatprt has just provided the exact words for the 'biographical criticism' page, reading'Biographical criticism is the Critical Practice of analyzing a work of literature in light of an author's biography in order to elucidate a more accurate, and detailed understanding of its meaning.' Which means that the lead has to be delinked, because de Vereans do not practice biographical criticism in this sense. De Vereans and co do not analyse 'a work of literature' (Shakespeare's works) in the light of an author's biography'. They deny that the author's biography, in the mainstream view, represents the real author's biography, which can be only deduced from within the works themselves, and then retroactively found by analogies from other biographies. So aside from requiring a 'citation', which doesn't exist, the link itself is a misprision and deceptive, since it refers to a different, mainstream method completely different from the one the conspiracy theorists use. Nishidani ( talk) 19:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see this query at the WP:RSN. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
One question I have on the idea of biographical criticism is whether it can be used to uncover writers of anonymous (or misattributed) works. Perhaps it is used in an iterative fashion for known authors, as in: an item is noticed in an author's works; something is learned about the author that explains the item; more subtle examples of the item are found in the author's work. Or, the other way: Something is learned about the author and corresponding items are found in the works. (This version seems to end here.) Fotoguzzi ( talk) 06:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I am having a hard time following the process. I think smatprk has drafted an entire article, Tom Reedy and Nishidani have written alternative leads and have suggested fixes for smatprk's draft. (I'm sorry to hear about Nishidani's lost data--frustrating!)
As to the lead, I don't know that I see Tom Reedy's version. I do like Nishidani's, although in a few spots I would make it a bit less formal. The concept of skeptic skeptics is a bit confusing to me.
To the rest of the article (if others continue to use smatprk's draft as a model), might I suggest some possible steps?
wikimedia does not seem to easily allow color hell yes it does!, so maybe a non-wiki symbol like dollar-sign could keep the essay compact. $$<- is terrible. Are you serious? Dollar signs are so US-centric Fotoguzzi ( talk) 04:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC) >$$ Or something. Maybe i just need to print it out and put color marks to match others' suggestions. $$<or maybe no sig so that space can be saved; we know the major commentators -fg>$$ I was able to follow the vote discussion pages, but this page seems unecessarily hard to follow. Or, ignore the above, and could someone briefly summarize where the debate stands?
And why must the article draft be in a sandbox talk section? That seems unnecessarily complicated. Couldn't the draft be the sandbox article and sandbox discussion be the place that people talk about the sandboxed article draft? Fotoguzzi ( talk) 05:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
"The public debate dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted wide attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars."`
I think the above is not necessary in the lead, but if it must be there, would the following express the necessary points?
"The authorship debate began in the mid-19th century and has attracted wide public attention although it is dismissed by a majority of academic Shakespeare[an?] scholars." Fotoguzzi ( talk) 06:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's my idea of how the article should be structured. As it is now, it meanders all over the place and the material in many cases has nothing to do with the section headings.
I. Lead, which should contain these points:
II. Extended treatment of topic (overview)
III. History of anti-Stratfordianism
IV. State of the movement today
Every topic, especially each candidate, should be as comprehensive as possible without becoming tediously long and complex, which is what the old article was. Once we get everything written, then we can determine what, if any, topics need their own articles. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Smatprt, most of the changes you have been making amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. And I apologise for stating that you had not responded to my main concern, the fact that the article needs restructuring before we get into the fine details. I combed through the talk page and found your comments:
"While I agree that the present article needs lots of clean-up, I don't really agree that it wanders all over the place and lacks structure."
"I just want to add that I'm not sure our dictate was to restructure the article from top to bottom, but rather to clean up the back and forth style, and address NPOV issues throughout."
So your response was pretty much "no." I believe that if all this article needed was a bit of POV tweaking and dusting off, I don't think we would be here. With all the edits you've made, it still wanders and still has the back-and-forth "he-said-she-said" style that I don't think can be addressed unless we restructure it. And yes, it has structure; a meandering structure.
I tried to give you some kind of idea of the level of detail we need with this edit, but you put back most of what I cut, as far as I can tell. (One point: when editing one section I'd appreciate if you would not edit any other section at the same time, because it makes it difficult to tell exactly what has been changed.)
I'm going to find the time this week to do a substantial partial rewrite along the lines I think needs to be done and post it to show you exactly what I mean. In the meantime, if you have any observations on the outline I posted above you might let us know. If we can come to some agreement on the structure I don't think it will take very long to rewrite, but as it reads now is unacceptable, and not for objections that can be fixed with minor adjustments. Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
0 Lead - a summary of the article, as per
wp:LEAD
1 Overview
2 Pseudonymous or secret authorship in Renaissance England
3 History of authorship doubts
4 Debate points used by anti-Stratfordians
5 Candidates and their champions
6 Notes
7 References
Believe it or not, we've only been at this for 11 days now, although it seems like longer. I've been busy on other things and suffering from fatigue from all the drama at the old SAQ article and the resulting wiki litigation.
I don't know what you mean "compacting the information into other sections." I don't see how the "Pseudonymous or secret authorship in Renaissance England" is relevant to any of the reasons given for any of the candidates to hide their authorship. As far as Oxford, he was either being paid £1000 per annum by the queen to write the plays, or he was constrained by the stigma of print, or he was afraid of the consequences for writing such subversive plays. Bacon's reasons are similar, and Marlowe had to lay low because he was supposed to be dead. Only the first paragraph in the section addresses any of those reasons; Hayward is not an example of someone being used as a front; Greene's "Batillus" comment is dated 1591 but Shakespeare didn't appear in print until 1593; Jonson's "Poet-ape" is almost universally considered to be Marston (read up on the War of the theatres); "play brokers" did not exist in Elizabethan/Jacobean times--the list goes on, but the main point is that all these amorphous arguments being bandied about are only latter-day constructions with no clear relevance to Shakespeare being a pseudonym or front man, nor are they "context," since according to every theory I know about, the Shakespeare authorship question is a singularity, both in its execution and its total lack of historical evidence.
Comparing the two outlines, it appears to me that all of section 4 and whatever is relevant in section 2 could be put into section II.i and II.ii in the outline I posted (and of course there would be individual subsections, so I don't think our differences are as great as you might think). I've begun writing II, and I'll post it when I get enough to show you what I mean. And as the article stands, there's nothing about the various conspiracy theories, which are a part of every alternative authorship theory that I know of. Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
So your interpretation of what Price is saying is that the Poet-ape is not a play broker (i.e. someone who furnishes plays to playing companies on behalf of the playwrights for a fee)? I fear that we're talking at cross purposes here, or I misunderstand your idea of Price's claim. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The silver swan, who living had no note,
When death approach'd, unlock'd her silent throat;
Leaning her breast against the reedy shore,
Thus sung her first and last, and sung no more.
Farewell, all joys; O Death, come close mine eyes;
More geese than swans now live, more fools than wise. '
(circa 1612, by Orlando Gibbons)
I'm writing off line and I'd appreciate it if we could agree on a format for reference citations. As I have previously posted, I'm in favor of a simple style that includes the author, title, date, and page number, such as this: Shapiro, James. Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? (2010), 43. All subsequent refs would be thus: Shapiro, 51. In the case of multiple works by the same author, the date would be included in subsequent refs, viz, Schoenbaum (1991), 243.
With articles in journals or magazines, they would be similar, but with the volume number in parenthesis followed by the date, page range of article, then cite page: Bethel, Tom. "The Case for Oxford" in The Atlantic Monthly (268) Oct 1991, 45-61: 56.
Also in the case of multiple refs, should we stack them all under one number, or string them out? i.e. This [1], or this? [2] [3]? In the case of a ref containing the quote itself (which I am not against and which would probably save us all a lot of discussion), I would say it should be by itself, viz, < ref>“As all that is known with any degree of certainty concerning Shakespeare is—that he was born at Stratford upon Avon—married and had children there—went to London, where he commenced actor, and wrote poems and plays—returned to Stratford, made his will, died, and was buried . . . .” Steevens, George. Supplement to the Edition of Shakespeare’s Plays (1780), 654. Quoted in Shapiro, 37.</ref >
But in the case of short refs, I would say if there are more than two all of them should be included under one number. The only problem I can see with that is the untidy look of the references at the bottom of the page. What say you? Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
From above:
I'd like to see whether there really is an "other side" to this argument, as it were. To summarize, the argument is that Anderson is promoting an idea which is WP:FRINGE. Does anyone disagree with that statement? If no, then we move on assuming that Anderson is a fringe source. If yes, then we can have a discussion. ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that for this particular topic the guidelines are confusing, and sometimes I think there should be a separate source article for this one subject. I'm not trying to manipulate the guidelines by selectively quoting bits and pieces, but here's what I've gathered from studying the relevant policy and guideline articles.
The policy guidelines state that "The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse." [1]
That tells me several things:
Also WP:OR states that "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research", so if a reliable source is not specifically about the topic, then using it to support one or the other side constitutes WP:OR (except for uncontroversial ideas). In other words, our sources should be secondary sources whenever possible. Example: Shakespeare's signature = Primary source → anti-Strat book arguing that Shakespeare's signature shows near-illiteracy = secondary source about Shakespeare's handwriting, but a primary source for Shakespeare authorship question (OR + conclusion = new idea) → mainstream scholar responds to anti-Strat argument = secondary source for Shakespeare authorship question → newspaper or encyclopedia article or book about authorship history (Schoenbaum's Lives, for example) = tertiary source for Shakespeare authorship question.
Now if no one has responded to the anti-Strat argument, then it is not included in the article. A good example is the numerology article in Brief Chronicles.
Anti-Stratfordian books, articles and Web sites can be used as questionable sources, since the article is about the theory they promote, but the article cannot be based primarily on them. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
No Tom, I meant that when someone responds to the authorship sources with their own novel theory (or a series of unsupported assumptions), then, under your definition, is not that primary source OR? When they respond with facts, or verifiable scholarly consensus, that of course is secondary - I totally agree. Do you see any difference?
Nishidani - You should correct this - "most" of the material comes from "reliable, third-party, published sources" [ [2]] - not website articles or self-published material. You also leave out "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market" [ [3]]. Smatprt ( talk) 12:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Nishidani, I think we are in agreement on some of this. We can quote academics as you describe (classic RS), and non-academic writers on Fringe material "which are RS for the content of fringe theories" as you say. That is precisely the point I was making in my first post on this. But we should also take note of this at wp:RS: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." This would, I suppose, include major publishing houses as described here[ [4]] and mainstream press outlets as described here[ [5]]. Also, as you know, there are some academics like Wright and Leahy who are indeed experts/Shakespearean scholars, and are announced skeptics. Regardless, as recognized scholars, they are as citable as any other scholar in your first category of "classic RS". Smatprt ( talk) 12:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Tom, please note this - "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge."[ [6]]. And the authors you cite have been reliable published - not self published. In regards to policy: "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources" - The various SAQ articles are not based anywhere near "entirely" on the authors you cite. They include many references to news organizations, as well as secondary and tertiary sources as you well know. And, needless to say, all the criticism and mainstream rebuttals in these articles are primarily from academic sources. Smatprt ( talk) 12:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Also "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria." from [ [7]]. Note that these are NOT listed under "questionable sources". Smatprt ( talk) 12:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Calling the man from Stratford "Shakespeare from Stratford" is misleading at best; it's a case of "poisoning the well" or begging the question, at worst. In his book, Players, Bertram Fields referred to this man as the "Stratford man." That's a good choice, because it's neutral and it doesn't confuse the issue by simultaneously calling him Shakespeare and asking whether he is Shakespeare. I would like to suggest that we adopt that convention here for the sake of clarity and uniformity. Thoughts? SJA 20:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjabeyta ( talk • contribs)
As for your additional and unnecessary specification of this man as someone who "wrote in London", please remember that one of the reasons for existence of the authorship question is the lack of direct, concrete evidence that the man from Stratford ever wrote anything at all.
Tom, when you claim "scholarly consensus" on this and other pages, would you please follow this policy: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. " It's pretty darn clear: [ [8]]. Thanks, Smatprt ( talk) 11:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, please follow this " It is important to use in-text attribution for any claim that an unnamed majority holds a particular view—such as "most researchers regard this idea as nonsense"—or for criticism that is particularly harsh. Say who has argued that the majority holds that view, and who has engaged in the harsh criticism, but be careful not to use in-text attribution carelessly to imply that only the named sources would agree. Juggling those competing needs boils down to a careful use of words and the adoption of a disinterested tone." from here [ [9]]. This too is pretty clear. Will you have a problem with this? I ask because you have resisted this in the past. Smatprt ( talk) 13:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Shapiro's Contested Will is published in two editions: in the US by Simon & Schuster, and in the UK by Faber and Faber. The British edition, in addition using higher quality paper and binding, is ~30 pages longer that the US edition while using the exact same text. The UK edition says "First published in 2010 by Faber and Faber Limited," while the US edition says "First Simon and Schuster hardcover edition published April 2010". Is there a Wikipedia policy on which edition is preferred? We should agree on which to use to avoid refs with confusing page numbers. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Can'0t work out why the page format makes it, and some sections disappear. If there's a technie who can fix it? Nishidani ( talk)
Most of the contention about the content of this article boils down to sources and the use of them. Here are some guidelines we all need to be aware of that seem to have been lost in the debate of whether a publishing house or a journal is RS. (I will leave it to the reader to find which WP articles contain the quotations; we obviously need the exercise around here).
First, and I think most important, is that "sources should be from reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented", i.e. the ref should be in the same context.
For example, this article is titled “Was the bard a woman?” and is about Mary Sidney Herbert being nominated as the True Author of the Shakespeare canon. In graph 5 this appears: “Even her dates dovetail with Shakespeare's—which is more than one can say of some of the other candidates. Edward de Vere, widely regarded as the leading contender, died 12 years before Shakespeare, requiring a revisionist chronology of the plays.”
Smatprt wanted to use it as a reference for this statement (larded throughout with anti-Strat links, of course) in the article Chronology of Shakespeare's plays: “In addition, many anti-Stratfordian researchers (so called because they argue that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the author of the Shakespearean canon, have challenged the conventional dating. In particular, the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship relies on a revisionist chronology that is earlier than traditionally accepted (dissenting view: Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian).” (If there were a prize for wedging the most fringe links into the smallest amount of text, Smatprt would certainly win it.)
Is this allowable? Not according to Wikipedia guidelines. Why?
1. The source is not directly related to the chronology of Shakespeare’s plays.
2. The sentence does not directly support the material as presented, in fact, it has the relationship backward: the source says the Oxfordian theory requires a revisionist dating; the sentence it supports says the Oxfordian case relies on the revisionist dating.
But even if (2) were corrected so the sentence accurately reflected the source, it still wouldn’t be a usable, because the source "cannot be a passing mention" in a book or article about something else, the source "must connect the topics in a serious and prominent way."
Smatprt provides four sources for the statement. The next two, from Dave Kathman’s website, here and here, can be dispensed with quickly, because the first one has nothing at all to do with the chronology of Shakespeare’s plays, as anyone who reads it can tell, and the second one has only this to say about the Oxfordian “revisionist” chronology: “At this point, Oxfordians usually object that this method presupposes the order in which the plays were written in order to work, and thus assumes something that (according to Oxfordians) is far from settled. This would be a valid objection if it were true, but it isn't.”, hardly direct support for the statement.
The fourth is a bit more problematic, but is still missing a critical element to be used as a source for the article. A page on Irv Matus’s website reproduces part of his 1999 article published in Harper’s magazine and contains this:
This supports the statement that Oxfordians (as opposed to anti-Stratforidans, as the sentence begins) must change the accepted chronology of Shakespeare’s plays in order to keep their man in the running, but does it “connect the topics (The chronology of Shakespeare’s plays and a “revisionist” anti-Stratfordian chronology) in a serious and prominent way"? My interpretation is that it does not. Rather than connecting them in a serious and prominent way, it dismisses the Oxfordian chronology completely, going so far as to say, “they have no chronology.”
So this article (and Matus’s chapter on chronology of the plays in his book Shakespeare, In Fact) would be an excellent source for the Oxfordian chronology article (if it is to remain as a separate article after the SAQ rewrite), but as a source for the Chronology of Shakespeare's plays article it is unsuitable. One topic is not connected seriously and prominently with the other, so its presence in the article is merely promotion for a fringe topic (but pointing that out is not the purpose of this little essay). Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
.academic subjects demand academic sources,
Peter: Apologies for the V&A publishing error.
This sentence: "Marlovians make few of the standard anti-Stratfordian arguments—as given in the main article—to support their theory, although they do assume many of the same conclusions about William Shakespeare's inability to write the works and that he played some role in protecting the true author's identity," you changed to: "Marlovians use very few of the standard anti-Stratfordian arguments—as given in the main article above—to support their theory, believing many of them to be misguided, misleading or unnecessary."
I know that Hoffman writes, "Let me emphasize here that it was not by first denying Shakespeare that my theory came into being. (xvii)" but the chronology of his theory is irrelevant, because he accepts many of the same arguments about Shakespeare that other anti-Stratfordian sects make.
"The personality if the author of the plays and poems known as Shakespeare's is inescapably linked to the creations themselves. The bond is so tight, the weld so joined and perfect, that it is nonsense to believe one can, at the same time, admire merely what has been written and ignore the author." (ix-x)
"Disbelief that William Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems attributed to him was inevitable. . . . The meager record of Shakespeare's literary life; the lack of any personal reputation among his literary contemporaries; the bankrupt evidence of any formally acquired education which (considering the time in which he wrote) he must have had to write as he did; his emergence with incredible suddenness as a writer in his thirtieth year—oddly late for a poet of the Elizabethan era to have first flowered; the prosaic events of his unrecorded literary life, which are all we definitely know about him . . ." (xi)
Any of this sound familiar? They could have been written by a Baconian or an Oxfordian. Whether Hoffman came to these beliefs before or after he began researching Marlowe makes no difference; he obviously accepts them. Pinksen makes many of the exact same arguments in detail, so your statement "Marlovians use very few of the standard anti-Stratfordian arguments . . ." is incorrect. Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Peter I think I grasp what you're proposing, and I think the angle I'm working might be closer than you expect to that, but I think since the article is about the Shakespeare authorship question that the case against Shakespeare should be laid out first. Essentially the way I'm structuring it is the case against Shakespeare, followed by the case against the case against Shakespeare (i.e why Shakespeare is accepted as the author), followed by a history of the controversy and then followed by candidate sections, with their individual cases explained. I should have a rough draft ready for comments in a couple of weeks (something always seems to interfere with getting it done). Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I have set up two pages to use to compare the alternate article drafts being proposed.
Here are the two versions:
An administrative-mandated rewrite of the Shakespeare authorship question is in progress. Two versions of the lead have been written, in two differing styles. We need input on which version is better and why.
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned, I am trying to get input on Draft #1 [ [10]] from uninvolved editors through various notice boards and reviews. Smatprt ( talk) 21:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
A wealth of recent work about Mary Sidney suggests that she should be in the list of major candidates. Women were discriminated against in Elizabethan times, hopefully that has changed. I've added the edit to the sandbox I; please add it to sandbox II if that version wins. Jdkag ( talk) 11:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I see that I've jumped into a very contentious Wiki entry. In all its various forms, the current entry lacks NPOV in that almost every contention of Anti-Stratfordians is immediately belittled.
Also, the main source guiding the intro is that by the Stratfordian Gibson, who seems to set up straw arguments. Shouldn't the lack of documentation--no written manuscripts, no letters, no record of meeting socially with literary figures--be mentioned in the intro as a major reason for suspecting that Shakespeare the writer was just a name (that is, just "book and fame")? In other words, the lack of literary paper trail voiced by Price should be mentioned prominently in the first paragraph.
In general, the tone of the entry should follow the respectful EB tone, given that serious scholars do question the authorship, even if it is not "the majority." Jdkag ( talk) 08:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that this controversial entry could benefit by following the example of other controversial subjects covered in Wiki. For example, look at respective entries related to Palestinians and Israel. The Palestinian entry is allowed to present Palestinians as they see themselves, without each sentence being immediately followed or preceded by the Israeli view, and vice-versa. Similarly, the Shakespeare entry has only one phrase referring to the authorship question in the entire intro. Similarly, the authorship question entry should be allowed to present the case, without every sentence starting and ending with the opposing view of the "majority." Jdkag ( talk) 21:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Here you edit out material on Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, with the edit summary 'This is all referenced to a Bacon site that promotes Bacon as the author. It should be incorporated into the Bacon section or the Bacon article.' This means you have set a general premise for governing this version of the article. That no point or section can be referenced exclusively to a partisan site, and this holds for de Vere as well of course. You cannot, by analogy, retain sections that are only referenced to Oxfordian sites. Nishidani ( talk) 07:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
There was an interesting interview with James Shapiro on CBC radio's Q (radio show) today, May 25th. You can listen to it here [11] -- Slp1 ( talk) 02:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Please make sandbox edits to this page: Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft
This working doc by smatprt is an experiment to see what a combination of Tom's suggestions and my own might look like, in terms of structure, and does not include the anticipated rewrites, just a lot of the proposed deletions. Noting the claifications from ScienceApologist and 4meter4, recommended forks, are included.
It cuts out the candidate specific material (mostly Oxfordian stuff) and cuts down on every section. I've tried to use wikipedia summary style for the longer sections like the history and the "other candidates"; I've left the candidates at the end instead of trying to work them into the history, as it interrupted the flow when I tried it. The candidates have all been cut down as well - again trying to use summary style, which worked best when I left them out of the history and in their own section. I look forward to comments. Smatprt ( talk) 16:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Short and sweet. Refs coming. Discuss, but please for not too long. Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
So here you go:
"The Shakespeare authorship question is the controversy about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers.[1] The public debate dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted wide attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great by the majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.[a][2] Those who question the attribution believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.[3] Of the numerous proposed candidates,[4] major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support,[5] statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians, or Derbyites, respectively.[6]
Most authorship doubters believe that Shakespeare of Stratford did not have the background necessary to create the body of work attributed to him, and that the personal characteristics inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit his known biography[3]. Many doubters assert that if the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford was involved at all, it was more likely as front man or play-broker.[4] Anti-Stratfordians believe Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the extensive education necessary to write the collected works, and question how he could have gained the life experience and adopted the aristocratic attitude they claim is evident in them.[5] Alternate authorship researchers focus on the relationship between the content of the plays and poems and a candidate’s known education, life experiences, and recorded history.[6]
Most mainstream Shakespeare academics, also referred to as "Stratfordians", pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories.[7] Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject, noting that the authorship of Shakespeare of Stratford is supported by two main categories of evidence: testimony by his fellow actors and fellow playwright Ben Jonson in the First Folio, and the inscription on Shakespeare's grave monument in Stratford.[8] Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view.[9] Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[10]" Smatprt ( talk) 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The Shakespeare authorship question refers to theories that cast doubt on the traditional ascription of the works of Shakespeare to William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon. Public challenges to the traditional view were first voiced in the mid-19th. century. Sceptics hold that “William Shakespeare” was a pseudonym behind which lay the hand of one, or several writers, perhaps working in concert. Of the numerous candidates proposed, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby have gained prominence. Bacon prevailed in the 19th century, and Oxford most recently.
Doubters highlight the obscurity surrounding Shakespeare’s biography, and a perceived discrepancy between the provincial figure and the metropolitan playwright. The known record, they argue, tells us nothing that could bridge the perceived disparity between a man of relatively humble origins and the genius of the London stage, whose works display a comprehensive knowledge of classical literature, Renaissance books, law, astronomy, languages and the refined culture of courtly society. They assert that one can infer from the works a profile of the real mind and identity behind them.
Mainstream Shakespearean scholars are mostly dismissive of these anti-Stratfordian theories, when they do not ignore them. They adduce evidence that his fellow writers and playwrights never expressed doubts, that both the Folio and the Stratford monument bear witness to a correlation between the theatrical author and the provincial Shakespeare, that scarcity of biographical data was normal for his milieu, and that deducing a writer's identity from his works constitutes a biographical fallacy.
Despite specialist scepticism, interest in the authorship debate continues unabated, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.
Smatprt’s version 393. Mine 286. Reduction of 25% Nishidani ( talk) 10:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
"The Shakespeare authorship question is the controversy about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers.[1] The public debate dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted wide attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars.[a][2] Skeptics believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret.[3] Of the numerous proposed candidates,[4] major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support,[5] statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories.[6]
Doubters highlight the obscurity surrounding Shakespeare’s biography, and perceive a discrepancy between the provincial figure and the metropolitan playwright.[3] Many doubters assert that if the man baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford was involved at all, it was more likely as front man or play-broker.[4] Skeptics believe he lacked the extensive education necessary to write the collected works, which display a comprehensive knowledge of classical literature, law, astronomy, foreign languages and the refined culture of courtly society.[5] These researchers focus on the relationship between the content of the plays and poems and a candidate’s known education, life experiences, and recorded history.[6]
Most mainstream Shakespeare academics pay little attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories,[7] noting that both the Folio and the Stratford monument bear witness to a correlation between the theatrical author and the provincial Shakespeare, that scarcity of biographical data was normal for his milieu, and that deducing a writer's identity from his works constitutes a biographical fallacy. Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[10]" Smatprt( talk) 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is the outline we were using to summarize the lead way back when. It might be a good place to start as we discuss the lead and the article structure itself. I've adjusted the list to reflect the current article format. While I agree that the present article needs lots of clean-up, I don't really agree that it wanders all over the place and lacks structure. I do think the overview is necessary before jumping right into the history. Both the overview and the history, however, can be cut down and made more compact.
Overview of article sections to summarize in the lead:
As I mentioned, in developing the lead, we should refer to the table of contents to make sure we cover the main sections: The more I look at the subject headings and the lead, the more I think we need to do a better job summarizing the article:
It seems to me that the lead version I just posted (the combination of Nishidani's and mine) pretty well addresses the main subjects discussed in the article. And it has come down from 545 words (present) to 305 words. 240 words gone is pretty darn good in terms of cutting and the length is now appropriate to the size and topics covered in the article. Even when we cut it down, I imagine it will still be a good sized article (just not so large as it is now!) I just want to add that I'm not sure our dictate was to restructure the article from top to bottom, but rather to clean up the back and forth style, and address NPOV issues throughout. :) Smatprt ( talk) 19:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I am willing to compromise on many things to come up with a workable solution. And I will say that Nishidani's suggested lead, I think, shows a balanced approach that I, for one, found helpful. I hope I showed that by incorporating much of it into my current version. So get back to me on my questions and lets continue. Thanks. Smatprt ( talk) 15:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Clarification In my statement above, "If we don’t agree on this, I doubt we’ll agree on much else as we write the page . . .", I don't mean it to say that if you don't agree with my suggestions, just that if we don't agree on the best way to proceed. I just now realised how that could be construed to mean that I was insisting on doing it all my way. Apologies. Tom Reedy ( talk) 02:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
212.183.140.52 ( talk) 10:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I just posted a cut down version with many of your suggestions. I wanted to see what it might actually look like. It takes the article down around 60K which is one of the lengths discussed WP:LENGTH. As I mention at the beginning of the overview "t cuts out the candidate specific material (mostly Oxfordian stuff) and cuts down on every section. I've tried to use wikipedia summary style for the longer sections like the history and the "other candidates"; I've left the candidates at the end instead of trying to work them into the history, as it interrupted the flow when I tried it. The candidates have all been cut down as well - again trying to use summary style, which worked best when I left them out of the history and in their own section. I look forward to comments." Smatprt ( talk) 16:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: The present version is approx 94K of prose. This version is at 47K, or right about half the size of the current version.I'm not saying that I fully endorse the version I just posted, by the way. I wanted to see what this combination of Tom's and my proposals would look like and how long it would be. While much rewriting would still be done, some stuff added back in, other stuff cut, I think this is probably the ballpark that we might be in. Smatprt ( talk) 18:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, while the sandbox article is not Shakespeare, it seems better to me than the public article. So thank you, contributors! My thoughts on the sandbox article (or you could just read Nishidani's 19:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC) comment):
I have an impression that scholarship, like wikipedia articles, starts out crappy and gets better. I don't think it is bad to mention that dodgy beginnings have lead to a more plausible present state. Thank you for reading this far, Fotoguzzi ( talk) 20:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your thoughts on my other, more major points. I'd like for all of us to at least have a provisional agreement on the direction we're to take before we lay down the specific longitude and latitude of the destination. Once we discuss that, I don't think it will take very long to get the product in shape——and I'm thinking weeks, not months.
Oh, and there's no consensus on any of the article yet. We're still drawing in sand, so you don't have to justify any reversions or edits by invoking that phrase. But there's really no sense in insisting on including details when we don't have the skeleton agreed to yet, which is why I want to discuss the direction each of us envisions for the article. Otherwise we're all just editing randomly again and arguing over each point the same way we were doing. Can you not see the point I'm trying to make? Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Smatprt has just provided the exact words for the 'biographical criticism' page, reading'Biographical criticism is the Critical Practice of analyzing a work of literature in light of an author's biography in order to elucidate a more accurate, and detailed understanding of its meaning.' Which means that the lead has to be delinked, because de Vereans do not practice biographical criticism in this sense. De Vereans and co do not analyse 'a work of literature' (Shakespeare's works) in the light of an author's biography'. They deny that the author's biography, in the mainstream view, represents the real author's biography, which can be only deduced from within the works themselves, and then retroactively found by analogies from other biographies. So aside from requiring a 'citation', which doesn't exist, the link itself is a misprision and deceptive, since it refers to a different, mainstream method completely different from the one the conspiracy theorists use. Nishidani ( talk) 19:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see this query at the WP:RSN. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
One question I have on the idea of biographical criticism is whether it can be used to uncover writers of anonymous (or misattributed) works. Perhaps it is used in an iterative fashion for known authors, as in: an item is noticed in an author's works; something is learned about the author that explains the item; more subtle examples of the item are found in the author's work. Or, the other way: Something is learned about the author and corresponding items are found in the works. (This version seems to end here.) Fotoguzzi ( talk) 06:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I am having a hard time following the process. I think smatprk has drafted an entire article, Tom Reedy and Nishidani have written alternative leads and have suggested fixes for smatprk's draft. (I'm sorry to hear about Nishidani's lost data--frustrating!)
As to the lead, I don't know that I see Tom Reedy's version. I do like Nishidani's, although in a few spots I would make it a bit less formal. The concept of skeptic skeptics is a bit confusing to me.
To the rest of the article (if others continue to use smatprk's draft as a model), might I suggest some possible steps?
wikimedia does not seem to easily allow color hell yes it does!, so maybe a non-wiki symbol like dollar-sign could keep the essay compact. $$<- is terrible. Are you serious? Dollar signs are so US-centric Fotoguzzi ( talk) 04:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC) >$$ Or something. Maybe i just need to print it out and put color marks to match others' suggestions. $$<or maybe no sig so that space can be saved; we know the major commentators -fg>$$ I was able to follow the vote discussion pages, but this page seems unecessarily hard to follow. Or, ignore the above, and could someone briefly summarize where the debate stands?
And why must the article draft be in a sandbox talk section? That seems unnecessarily complicated. Couldn't the draft be the sandbox article and sandbox discussion be the place that people talk about the sandboxed article draft? Fotoguzzi ( talk) 05:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
"The public debate dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted wide attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars."`
I think the above is not necessary in the lead, but if it must be there, would the following express the necessary points?
"The authorship debate began in the mid-19th century and has attracted wide public attention although it is dismissed by a majority of academic Shakespeare[an?] scholars." Fotoguzzi ( talk) 06:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's my idea of how the article should be structured. As it is now, it meanders all over the place and the material in many cases has nothing to do with the section headings.
I. Lead, which should contain these points:
II. Extended treatment of topic (overview)
III. History of anti-Stratfordianism
IV. State of the movement today
Every topic, especially each candidate, should be as comprehensive as possible without becoming tediously long and complex, which is what the old article was. Once we get everything written, then we can determine what, if any, topics need their own articles. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Smatprt, most of the changes you have been making amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. And I apologise for stating that you had not responded to my main concern, the fact that the article needs restructuring before we get into the fine details. I combed through the talk page and found your comments:
"While I agree that the present article needs lots of clean-up, I don't really agree that it wanders all over the place and lacks structure."
"I just want to add that I'm not sure our dictate was to restructure the article from top to bottom, but rather to clean up the back and forth style, and address NPOV issues throughout."
So your response was pretty much "no." I believe that if all this article needed was a bit of POV tweaking and dusting off, I don't think we would be here. With all the edits you've made, it still wanders and still has the back-and-forth "he-said-she-said" style that I don't think can be addressed unless we restructure it. And yes, it has structure; a meandering structure.
I tried to give you some kind of idea of the level of detail we need with this edit, but you put back most of what I cut, as far as I can tell. (One point: when editing one section I'd appreciate if you would not edit any other section at the same time, because it makes it difficult to tell exactly what has been changed.)
I'm going to find the time this week to do a substantial partial rewrite along the lines I think needs to be done and post it to show you exactly what I mean. In the meantime, if you have any observations on the outline I posted above you might let us know. If we can come to some agreement on the structure I don't think it will take very long to rewrite, but as it reads now is unacceptable, and not for objections that can be fixed with minor adjustments. Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
0 Lead - a summary of the article, as per
wp:LEAD
1 Overview
2 Pseudonymous or secret authorship in Renaissance England
3 History of authorship doubts
4 Debate points used by anti-Stratfordians
5 Candidates and their champions
6 Notes
7 References
Believe it or not, we've only been at this for 11 days now, although it seems like longer. I've been busy on other things and suffering from fatigue from all the drama at the old SAQ article and the resulting wiki litigation.
I don't know what you mean "compacting the information into other sections." I don't see how the "Pseudonymous or secret authorship in Renaissance England" is relevant to any of the reasons given for any of the candidates to hide their authorship. As far as Oxford, he was either being paid £1000 per annum by the queen to write the plays, or he was constrained by the stigma of print, or he was afraid of the consequences for writing such subversive plays. Bacon's reasons are similar, and Marlowe had to lay low because he was supposed to be dead. Only the first paragraph in the section addresses any of those reasons; Hayward is not an example of someone being used as a front; Greene's "Batillus" comment is dated 1591 but Shakespeare didn't appear in print until 1593; Jonson's "Poet-ape" is almost universally considered to be Marston (read up on the War of the theatres); "play brokers" did not exist in Elizabethan/Jacobean times--the list goes on, but the main point is that all these amorphous arguments being bandied about are only latter-day constructions with no clear relevance to Shakespeare being a pseudonym or front man, nor are they "context," since according to every theory I know about, the Shakespeare authorship question is a singularity, both in its execution and its total lack of historical evidence.
Comparing the two outlines, it appears to me that all of section 4 and whatever is relevant in section 2 could be put into section II.i and II.ii in the outline I posted (and of course there would be individual subsections, so I don't think our differences are as great as you might think). I've begun writing II, and I'll post it when I get enough to show you what I mean. And as the article stands, there's nothing about the various conspiracy theories, which are a part of every alternative authorship theory that I know of. Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
So your interpretation of what Price is saying is that the Poet-ape is not a play broker (i.e. someone who furnishes plays to playing companies on behalf of the playwrights for a fee)? I fear that we're talking at cross purposes here, or I misunderstand your idea of Price's claim. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The silver swan, who living had no note,
When death approach'd, unlock'd her silent throat;
Leaning her breast against the reedy shore,
Thus sung her first and last, and sung no more.
Farewell, all joys; O Death, come close mine eyes;
More geese than swans now live, more fools than wise. '
(circa 1612, by Orlando Gibbons)
I'm writing off line and I'd appreciate it if we could agree on a format for reference citations. As I have previously posted, I'm in favor of a simple style that includes the author, title, date, and page number, such as this: Shapiro, James. Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? (2010), 43. All subsequent refs would be thus: Shapiro, 51. In the case of multiple works by the same author, the date would be included in subsequent refs, viz, Schoenbaum (1991), 243.
With articles in journals or magazines, they would be similar, but with the volume number in parenthesis followed by the date, page range of article, then cite page: Bethel, Tom. "The Case for Oxford" in The Atlantic Monthly (268) Oct 1991, 45-61: 56.
Also in the case of multiple refs, should we stack them all under one number, or string them out? i.e. This [1], or this? [2] [3]? In the case of a ref containing the quote itself (which I am not against and which would probably save us all a lot of discussion), I would say it should be by itself, viz, < ref>“As all that is known with any degree of certainty concerning Shakespeare is—that he was born at Stratford upon Avon—married and had children there—went to London, where he commenced actor, and wrote poems and plays—returned to Stratford, made his will, died, and was buried . . . .” Steevens, George. Supplement to the Edition of Shakespeare’s Plays (1780), 654. Quoted in Shapiro, 37.</ref >
But in the case of short refs, I would say if there are more than two all of them should be included under one number. The only problem I can see with that is the untidy look of the references at the bottom of the page. What say you? Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
From above:
I'd like to see whether there really is an "other side" to this argument, as it were. To summarize, the argument is that Anderson is promoting an idea which is WP:FRINGE. Does anyone disagree with that statement? If no, then we move on assuming that Anderson is a fringe source. If yes, then we can have a discussion. ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that for this particular topic the guidelines are confusing, and sometimes I think there should be a separate source article for this one subject. I'm not trying to manipulate the guidelines by selectively quoting bits and pieces, but here's what I've gathered from studying the relevant policy and guideline articles.
The policy guidelines state that "The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse." [1]
That tells me several things:
Also WP:OR states that "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research", so if a reliable source is not specifically about the topic, then using it to support one or the other side constitutes WP:OR (except for uncontroversial ideas). In other words, our sources should be secondary sources whenever possible. Example: Shakespeare's signature = Primary source → anti-Strat book arguing that Shakespeare's signature shows near-illiteracy = secondary source about Shakespeare's handwriting, but a primary source for Shakespeare authorship question (OR + conclusion = new idea) → mainstream scholar responds to anti-Strat argument = secondary source for Shakespeare authorship question → newspaper or encyclopedia article or book about authorship history (Schoenbaum's Lives, for example) = tertiary source for Shakespeare authorship question.
Now if no one has responded to the anti-Strat argument, then it is not included in the article. A good example is the numerology article in Brief Chronicles.
Anti-Stratfordian books, articles and Web sites can be used as questionable sources, since the article is about the theory they promote, but the article cannot be based primarily on them. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
No Tom, I meant that when someone responds to the authorship sources with their own novel theory (or a series of unsupported assumptions), then, under your definition, is not that primary source OR? When they respond with facts, or verifiable scholarly consensus, that of course is secondary - I totally agree. Do you see any difference?
Nishidani - You should correct this - "most" of the material comes from "reliable, third-party, published sources" [ [2]] - not website articles or self-published material. You also leave out "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market" [ [3]]. Smatprt ( talk) 12:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Nishidani, I think we are in agreement on some of this. We can quote academics as you describe (classic RS), and non-academic writers on Fringe material "which are RS for the content of fringe theories" as you say. That is precisely the point I was making in my first post on this. But we should also take note of this at wp:RS: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." This would, I suppose, include major publishing houses as described here[ [4]] and mainstream press outlets as described here[ [5]]. Also, as you know, there are some academics like Wright and Leahy who are indeed experts/Shakespearean scholars, and are announced skeptics. Regardless, as recognized scholars, they are as citable as any other scholar in your first category of "classic RS". Smatprt ( talk) 12:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Tom, please note this - "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge."[ [6]]. And the authors you cite have been reliable published - not self published. In regards to policy: "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources" - The various SAQ articles are not based anywhere near "entirely" on the authors you cite. They include many references to news organizations, as well as secondary and tertiary sources as you well know. And, needless to say, all the criticism and mainstream rebuttals in these articles are primarily from academic sources. Smatprt ( talk) 12:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Also "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria." from [ [7]]. Note that these are NOT listed under "questionable sources". Smatprt ( talk) 12:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Calling the man from Stratford "Shakespeare from Stratford" is misleading at best; it's a case of "poisoning the well" or begging the question, at worst. In his book, Players, Bertram Fields referred to this man as the "Stratford man." That's a good choice, because it's neutral and it doesn't confuse the issue by simultaneously calling him Shakespeare and asking whether he is Shakespeare. I would like to suggest that we adopt that convention here for the sake of clarity and uniformity. Thoughts? SJA 20:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjabeyta ( talk • contribs)
As for your additional and unnecessary specification of this man as someone who "wrote in London", please remember that one of the reasons for existence of the authorship question is the lack of direct, concrete evidence that the man from Stratford ever wrote anything at all.
Tom, when you claim "scholarly consensus" on this and other pages, would you please follow this policy: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. " It's pretty darn clear: [ [8]]. Thanks, Smatprt ( talk) 11:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, please follow this " It is important to use in-text attribution for any claim that an unnamed majority holds a particular view—such as "most researchers regard this idea as nonsense"—or for criticism that is particularly harsh. Say who has argued that the majority holds that view, and who has engaged in the harsh criticism, but be careful not to use in-text attribution carelessly to imply that only the named sources would agree. Juggling those competing needs boils down to a careful use of words and the adoption of a disinterested tone." from here [ [9]]. This too is pretty clear. Will you have a problem with this? I ask because you have resisted this in the past. Smatprt ( talk) 13:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Shapiro's Contested Will is published in two editions: in the US by Simon & Schuster, and in the UK by Faber and Faber. The British edition, in addition using higher quality paper and binding, is ~30 pages longer that the US edition while using the exact same text. The UK edition says "First published in 2010 by Faber and Faber Limited," while the US edition says "First Simon and Schuster hardcover edition published April 2010". Is there a Wikipedia policy on which edition is preferred? We should agree on which to use to avoid refs with confusing page numbers. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Can'0t work out why the page format makes it, and some sections disappear. If there's a technie who can fix it? Nishidani ( talk)
Most of the contention about the content of this article boils down to sources and the use of them. Here are some guidelines we all need to be aware of that seem to have been lost in the debate of whether a publishing house or a journal is RS. (I will leave it to the reader to find which WP articles contain the quotations; we obviously need the exercise around here).
First, and I think most important, is that "sources should be from reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented", i.e. the ref should be in the same context.
For example, this article is titled “Was the bard a woman?” and is about Mary Sidney Herbert being nominated as the True Author of the Shakespeare canon. In graph 5 this appears: “Even her dates dovetail with Shakespeare's—which is more than one can say of some of the other candidates. Edward de Vere, widely regarded as the leading contender, died 12 years before Shakespeare, requiring a revisionist chronology of the plays.”
Smatprt wanted to use it as a reference for this statement (larded throughout with anti-Strat links, of course) in the article Chronology of Shakespeare's plays: “In addition, many anti-Stratfordian researchers (so called because they argue that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the author of the Shakespearean canon, have challenged the conventional dating. In particular, the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship relies on a revisionist chronology that is earlier than traditionally accepted (dissenting view: Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian).” (If there were a prize for wedging the most fringe links into the smallest amount of text, Smatprt would certainly win it.)
Is this allowable? Not according to Wikipedia guidelines. Why?
1. The source is not directly related to the chronology of Shakespeare’s plays.
2. The sentence does not directly support the material as presented, in fact, it has the relationship backward: the source says the Oxfordian theory requires a revisionist dating; the sentence it supports says the Oxfordian case relies on the revisionist dating.
But even if (2) were corrected so the sentence accurately reflected the source, it still wouldn’t be a usable, because the source "cannot be a passing mention" in a book or article about something else, the source "must connect the topics in a serious and prominent way."
Smatprt provides four sources for the statement. The next two, from Dave Kathman’s website, here and here, can be dispensed with quickly, because the first one has nothing at all to do with the chronology of Shakespeare’s plays, as anyone who reads it can tell, and the second one has only this to say about the Oxfordian “revisionist” chronology: “At this point, Oxfordians usually object that this method presupposes the order in which the plays were written in order to work, and thus assumes something that (according to Oxfordians) is far from settled. This would be a valid objection if it were true, but it isn't.”, hardly direct support for the statement.
The fourth is a bit more problematic, but is still missing a critical element to be used as a source for the article. A page on Irv Matus’s website reproduces part of his 1999 article published in Harper’s magazine and contains this:
This supports the statement that Oxfordians (as opposed to anti-Stratforidans, as the sentence begins) must change the accepted chronology of Shakespeare’s plays in order to keep their man in the running, but does it “connect the topics (The chronology of Shakespeare’s plays and a “revisionist” anti-Stratfordian chronology) in a serious and prominent way"? My interpretation is that it does not. Rather than connecting them in a serious and prominent way, it dismisses the Oxfordian chronology completely, going so far as to say, “they have no chronology.”
So this article (and Matus’s chapter on chronology of the plays in his book Shakespeare, In Fact) would be an excellent source for the Oxfordian chronology article (if it is to remain as a separate article after the SAQ rewrite), but as a source for the Chronology of Shakespeare's plays article it is unsuitable. One topic is not connected seriously and prominently with the other, so its presence in the article is merely promotion for a fringe topic (but pointing that out is not the purpose of this little essay). Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
.academic subjects demand academic sources,
Peter: Apologies for the V&A publishing error.
This sentence: "Marlovians make few of the standard anti-Stratfordian arguments—as given in the main article—to support their theory, although they do assume many of the same conclusions about William Shakespeare's inability to write the works and that he played some role in protecting the true author's identity," you changed to: "Marlovians use very few of the standard anti-Stratfordian arguments—as given in the main article above—to support their theory, believing many of them to be misguided, misleading or unnecessary."
I know that Hoffman writes, "Let me emphasize here that it was not by first denying Shakespeare that my theory came into being. (xvii)" but the chronology of his theory is irrelevant, because he accepts many of the same arguments about Shakespeare that other anti-Stratfordian sects make.
"The personality if the author of the plays and poems known as Shakespeare's is inescapably linked to the creations themselves. The bond is so tight, the weld so joined and perfect, that it is nonsense to believe one can, at the same time, admire merely what has been written and ignore the author." (ix-x)
"Disbelief that William Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems attributed to him was inevitable. . . . The meager record of Shakespeare's literary life; the lack of any personal reputation among his literary contemporaries; the bankrupt evidence of any formally acquired education which (considering the time in which he wrote) he must have had to write as he did; his emergence with incredible suddenness as a writer in his thirtieth year—oddly late for a poet of the Elizabethan era to have first flowered; the prosaic events of his unrecorded literary life, which are all we definitely know about him . . ." (xi)
Any of this sound familiar? They could have been written by a Baconian or an Oxfordian. Whether Hoffman came to these beliefs before or after he began researching Marlowe makes no difference; he obviously accepts them. Pinksen makes many of the exact same arguments in detail, so your statement "Marlovians use very few of the standard anti-Stratfordian arguments . . ." is incorrect. Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Peter I think I grasp what you're proposing, and I think the angle I'm working might be closer than you expect to that, but I think since the article is about the Shakespeare authorship question that the case against Shakespeare should be laid out first. Essentially the way I'm structuring it is the case against Shakespeare, followed by the case against the case against Shakespeare (i.e why Shakespeare is accepted as the author), followed by a history of the controversy and then followed by candidate sections, with their individual cases explained. I should have a rough draft ready for comments in a couple of weeks (something always seems to interfere with getting it done). Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I have set up two pages to use to compare the alternate article drafts being proposed.
Here are the two versions:
An administrative-mandated rewrite of the Shakespeare authorship question is in progress. Two versions of the lead have been written, in two differing styles. We need input on which version is better and why.
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned, I am trying to get input on Draft #1 [ [10]] from uninvolved editors through various notice boards and reviews. Smatprt ( talk) 21:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
A wealth of recent work about Mary Sidney suggests that she should be in the list of major candidates. Women were discriminated against in Elizabethan times, hopefully that has changed. I've added the edit to the sandbox I; please add it to sandbox II if that version wins. Jdkag ( talk) 11:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I see that I've jumped into a very contentious Wiki entry. In all its various forms, the current entry lacks NPOV in that almost every contention of Anti-Stratfordians is immediately belittled.
Also, the main source guiding the intro is that by the Stratfordian Gibson, who seems to set up straw arguments. Shouldn't the lack of documentation--no written manuscripts, no letters, no record of meeting socially with literary figures--be mentioned in the intro as a major reason for suspecting that Shakespeare the writer was just a name (that is, just "book and fame")? In other words, the lack of literary paper trail voiced by Price should be mentioned prominently in the first paragraph.
In general, the tone of the entry should follow the respectful EB tone, given that serious scholars do question the authorship, even if it is not "the majority." Jdkag ( talk) 08:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that this controversial entry could benefit by following the example of other controversial subjects covered in Wiki. For example, look at respective entries related to Palestinians and Israel. The Palestinian entry is allowed to present Palestinians as they see themselves, without each sentence being immediately followed or preceded by the Israeli view, and vice-versa. Similarly, the Shakespeare entry has only one phrase referring to the authorship question in the entire intro. Similarly, the authorship question entry should be allowed to present the case, without every sentence starting and ending with the opposing view of the "majority." Jdkag ( talk) 21:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Here you edit out material on Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, with the edit summary 'This is all referenced to a Bacon site that promotes Bacon as the author. It should be incorporated into the Bacon section or the Bacon article.' This means you have set a general premise for governing this version of the article. That no point or section can be referenced exclusively to a partisan site, and this holds for de Vere as well of course. You cannot, by analogy, retain sections that are only referenced to Oxfordian sites. Nishidani ( talk) 07:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
There was an interesting interview with James Shapiro on CBC radio's Q (radio show) today, May 25th. You can listen to it here [11] -- Slp1 ( talk) 02:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)