Misplaced Pages

Note that the requirements are not to give where the image was first published, or which gallery the image currently hangs in, or even what type of image it is; the requirement is to say where the uploader got it from. That means “Scanned from Schoenbaum's Records & Images” (if you scanned it yourself from a book) or “The web page at <URL>” (if you snarfed it off the web) or “Own work” (if you went to Holy Trinity and took a picture of the plaque or whatever). The book cover asserts no copyright possible by virtue of being just text and a crop of the Stratford monument; but I very much doubt the Commons guys will see it that way: the composition is an original and copyrightable work in its own right. There are exemptions to the upload policy specifically for the covers of books or music records (and company logos, etc. etc.), but we need to employ those properly rather than assert lack of originality (because it's very unlikely to fly).

Finally, the quality of several of these pictures is poor. Many of them are of very low resolution; the images of text are out of alignment; and there are various color balance and general cleanup issues. I'm not sure to what degree the reviewers at FAC pounce on the esthetics and general quality of images these days, but if they do I think we'd have trouble defending several of the current images. IOW, I think we need to put some work into finding replacements for or fixing up the current images before we expose them to FAC, quite apart from fixing the source issues above. --Xover (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Xover what do you propose to do about the images on this list that were uploaded 4-5 years ago? The *File:Shakespeare-1747-1656.jpg, for example, which you say lacks a source, clearly indicates that these images are out of copyright: "This image show a simple straight-on shot of the Shakespeare monument, which is in public domain since it is a work created before 1623. It also incorporates an image published in William Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire (1656) and so is in the public domain." Who scanned them I would think would be irrelevant at this point. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That was, I think, Fut.Perf.'s main thrust (below): so long as the image is clearly out of copyright, the details of who scanned it is of only academic importance. However, an alternate approach is to the right here; we can re-scan and/or recreate the cases where we can't easily complete the information. Note that this is to illustrate the idea and not necessarily an assertion that we should use this particular image (for one thing, Tom's photo is the best on `pedia, and even that is taken at an awkward angle; why in the world don't we have a better image of this?) --Xover (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't want to spend time re-doing work that has been done when all that is really required is the copyright status of the image. Why an article's status would depend on the status of the images is unclear to me; the point at which the quality should be monitored is at the image dump, in this case Wikimedia Commons. Trying to control the quality and sourcing of an image at the article level is a bit like doing quality control at the consumer level rather than at the factory, and if FA reviewers think otherwise something needs to change about the process.

As to the monument images, I intend to take more pictures this fall when I visit the church to gather some other information about the monument. Some sort of Wiki exchange should be set up so that Wikipedians could call on other editors who live in a certain area to take pictures they need for articles. (For all I know that's already set up and I just don't know about it.) Tom Reedy (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The FA reviewers are reviewing the quality of all aspects of the article, including the images used in it, and not the quality of all the images at Commons (Commons has not nearly enough editors to do the level of quality control one might wish). They have certain criteria—some explicit, some a result of precedence and practice at FAC—they evaluate against. For images this is certainly whether their copyright status is correct (for which they need information on the source so they have the data to make the determination), but also whether the images are appropriate for the article (in terms of how informative they are, what quality they are, placement, etc.). I do not recommend showing up at FAC claiming they need to change their process; it's always possible that they should, but they are very unlikely to do so based simply on the assertion of a nominator (much like we are unlikely to start allowing cites to issues of Donald Duck based solely on a random assertion).
A better question is whether they actually do require such meticulous sourcing for obviously out of copyright images. I've asked Fut.Perf. for clarification on their talk page, so depending on that reply we may not need to do much about that.
Note that we still need to address issues of quality, informational content, aesthetics; but those are more in line with all the other little bits of polish we're applying.
And you're right, there is an exchange for Wikipedians in various areas to request / provide images; it's just little known and hard to find (e.g. I couldn't locate it to link it now on a quick scan). --Xover (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I slightly disagree: when it comes to source attribution for the purpose of copyright assessment, the ultimate original source is actually the more important one. Having the proximate source (where we scanned it from) also is a nice extra, but as long as the identity and authenticity of the document is not in doubt (in which case there'd be a WP:V issue), it is of secondary importance, as far as I'm aware. – The "Contested Will" cover page has been marked for deletion on Commons (tsk tsk Tom, bad Tom). If you wanted it badly, you'd have to re-upload it locally under WP:NFC, but you'd need to come up with an unusually compelling rationale for it, since normally we allow such items only in a dedicated article about the book itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

While I certainly agree with you in principle (out of copyright is out of copyright, the rest is just bureaucracy), I was under the strong impression that the image use policy as well as practice at FAC was that the proximate source must be provided. For instance, an image snarfed from the web is very specifically required to provide information on the web page from which it was taken (and not just a link to the image itself), with no exemption for public domain or out of copyright works. I would gladly be persuaded wrong by your better wisdom on this, but this was not my understanding of neither policy nor practice. --Xover (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions:

1. Can you steer me to the guideline that spells out what the source line should contain.

2. Which specific images are low resolution, and why would they be unacceptable for this article?

3. Which specific text images are out of alignment? I know the Jonson Timbers image is a composite of two pages; is that the one you mean? The others are exactly how the page appears.

4. Where is the book cover policy spelled out? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to the last of your questions: the relevant policy is WP:NFCC. There's also some advice at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Books/Images and on the {{Non-free book cover}} template. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

1. WP:IUP#Requirements and the (non-linkable) section headed “More information on how to provide a good source”. But by default I'm inclined to assume that Fut.Perf. is better versed in this than me, so it may be that no change is needed. If you'd like to apply both belt and suspenders anyway, you probably can't go wrong by simply saying 1) where it was first published, 2) where the uploader found it, 3) who scanned/downloaded/drew/whatever the image. e.g. the Camden reference was first published by Camden in Remaines Concerning Britaine in 1605; you found it in, say, Loomis or Schoenbaum; and you scanned it and uploaded it yourself.
2. Low-res images aren't unacceptable per se, but FAC reviewers can sometimes be as picky about the quality of images as they are about the prose. Low-res images are often also of low quality, and they have very little scope for improvement (correcting levels etc.). Thus it would be preferable to find higher resolution versions of those images that are a little on the small side now.
3. For instance, the Poet-Ape picture is pretty much exactly one degree out of alignement, which makes it look crooked in the article. Several of the images of text of some kind have this problem to greater or lesser degree.
4. The policy on non-free content, in the section on unacceptable use of images, bullet 9. --Xover (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I scanned most of the text images from facsimiles or got them from EEBO. I aligned the image on the right as a temporary fix, but I'll need to find the original file since I cropped it too close. The problem is that the original works are misaligned on the page and the images are faithful duplications; early modern printing wasn't of the same quality we're used to. And I scanned most of them at a sufficient resolution to see all the relevant detail (high res scanning is ridiculously close--who needs to see the threads of the page?), and in fact the image on the right is at 335kb, and is sufficiently clear at 30kb. There is no point in high resolution just for the sake of high resolution.

I'll read the policy links and see what I can do. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose that the "Contested Will" image is removed. Reasons: (a) The serious concerns raised by Fut Perf above, (b) It is low res - some of the text is barely readable even in the clicked-on version (c) it would help deal with concerns that the page is already too much based on this book. Poujeaux (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The resolution is not an issue. In fact, for book covers low resolution is required. I agree we should go ahead and delete it, though, based on the other problems, which I don't want to take the time to try to overcome. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Appearances are deceptive. On analysis, the quantity of notes is what you would expect proportionately from the nature and length of the three major soures used to survey the SAQ history. This is a rough calculation of proportional use of secondary sources.

• 61 Shapiro.
• 38 Wadsworth
• 21 Schoenbaum

(a)Shapiro heads the list as the latest authority (where few exist) writing at book length 354 pages (Brit ed.) and harvested here for 61 notes (25%), of which 22, however. are part of a double footnote, where a second and often a third authority is cited corroboratively (i.e. 15% or so of the text is sourced exclusively to Shapiro).

(b)Wadsworth gets 38 cites, from a short book (pp.164) that surveys a huge amount of recondite marginalia which was unsuitable for the article, which is an overview.

(c) Schoenbaum surveyed the field in 65 pages and gets 21 cites.(10%)

Given the differences in major sources, this gives a fairly even picture.Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nish, I don't think Poujeaux was intending to re-open the question of whether the article follows Shapiro too closely; merely pointing out that if one were to remove the book cover image one of the effects of that would be to lessen any such concern should there be any. The two can, and should, be treated as entirely separate questions that only marginally affect each other. --Xover (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's good to rehearse these arguments! It looks like we are agreed to remove the Shapiro image? In the interests of balance, should we also cut the image of the Looney book? It's not a particularly attractive or informative image. Poujeaux (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions for alternative images? Would it be allowed to use the poster image for the film? Poujeaux (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Shapiro image can be elided (cf.WP:Recentism), but one image from the books that have had great influence on the fringe divagations should be retained. Looney fathered the most currently popular vein of speculation: he singlehandedly revived an all but moribund system of ideas, and deserves a pic if only for that. I've seen handiwork by one or two picture-trimmers here (Jaakobou) that has done wonders for otherwise poorly defined images. Is there some forum where we can ask for assistance? Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

To me the main problem with the section is the wall of type unbroken by any images. That is the main reason why I added the book covers to begin with. If we can't use a book cover, I hardly see how we can use a movie poster. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There's Beerbohm's Bacon cartoon , though Max tiresomely chose to live until 1956, which means it would have to be uploaded to Eng-Wiki. Paul B (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make any difference if it was published before 1923. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Image layout

In an effort to alleviate various issues with stacking, sandwiching, layout, and legibility, I've made and experiment by removing some images, realigning others, and moving them about a bit here. Take a look and let me know what you think. I've selv-reverted all the changes, so the current article is without these changes. --Xover (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That deathbed image of WS's signature to his will almost seals the case agin'im! First impression is that the removal of the Shapiro image unbalances the page, as it leaves a large wall of unadorned text there. Is there any free image available for the moot court trial of 1987 or (in London 1988)? I can see many googling 'moot court+Shakespeare+image', but wouldn't have a clue about how to check on availability. Something needs to go into that section.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

TYhere are usable images from the 1916 trial . Paul B (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I love that "Sherlock is undone" image! I say we use that! Tom Reedy (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

How about adding an image of the Supreme Court? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, (or only if you tarnish it, to fit its recent decisions!) PB's fished up two great images. I'd use them, but the comic thrust might be taken as cocking a POV snook at the theory.Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think a picture of the US supreme court is appropriate. The newspaper article about the trial is nice. A better solution to the 'wall of text' problem IMHO would be to prune this section. It is 6 screenfulls, where the 'main article' is only 7. This might get us into trouble at FA. Poujeaux (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care for the image either, but we need something. As far as pruning, what would you prune from that section? We certainly should be editing for comprehensiveness, not try to read the minds of the FA reviewers. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the two sections that seem too long (over a screenfull) are Other candidates emerge and Authorship revives in the mainstream media. In the former, the para about WW2 could go, up to and including the following "revive flagging interest in Oxford". So could the bit about PTT since this comes up later. In the latter, the first two paras about Ogburn and the courts could be reduced quite considerably. Poujeaux (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Strat vs. Ant-Strat

I'm not sure we came to any conclusion on the meta-note about “Stratfordian” and “Anti-Stratfordian” (perhaps we did and I just wasn't paying attention). I'm of the opinion that this is either accepted terminology in the field—in which case it should be in the article, subject to WP:V and WP:RS like everything else—or it is not, and we need to avoid the terms altogether. Since I happened to open Schoenbaum's Lives on a more or less random page and happen on him using the term “Anti-Strafordian”, I'm inclined to say it is an accepted term; but that “Stratfordian” is not. So I would propose that we 1) remove the note; 2) use “Anti-Stratfordian” in the article; 3) explain the term on first use, and cite its meaning to some suitable reliable source (I expect either Schoenbaum, Shapiro, or Matus will do nicely). Note that if the consensus is to leave well enough alone here that's fine too (we can agree to disagree), but we do need to have a well-founded consensus on how to approach this in the article in case it comes up at FAC. --Xover (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, my opinion is that since you, Xover, have found established use for "Anti-Stratfordian", we can justify "Stratfordian" as a back-formation, as well as a convenience for the purposes of the article. We can always add something like, "Although the term is not commonly used..." if we think it really necessary. --Alan W (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that the word “Stratfordian” only appears three times in the article: once in the note under debate, once in the construction “Stratfordian chronologies” that could (and should, for other reasons) be rephrased, and once in the pseudo-heading for the external links (which I would argue to be an incorrect usage regardless). My point is that we simply have no need for the back-formation, even were it supportable, and since it is also problematic we may as well avoid it. --Xover (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A look at the various candidate pages shows that every article save the Derbyite theory of Shakespeare authorship (which Paul wrote) uses both terms. Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide doesn't use the terms, but the Oxford Companion to Shakespeare uses "anti-Stratfordian" (it uses "Stratfordian" to mean a citizen of Stratford, not just Shakespeare). While Shapiro only uses the terms whilst quoting, most all of the other books and articles on the subject aren't as fastidious, no matter who wrote them. I don't care one way or another, but since we're aspiring to near-dissertation quality, I lean towards taking them out or merely explaining the terms in a parenthetical remark without using them at all, as in "Those who believe someone else wrote Shakespeare (often referred to as 'anti-Stratfordians') ..." etc. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Xover, as you can see readily from any older version of our sandbox 2 draft, underlying this version, this issue was annotated in the following way.

Note: In compliance with the accepted jargon used within the Shakespeare authorship question, this article uses the term "Stratfordian" to refer to the position that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the primary author of the plays and poems traditionally attributed to him. The term "anti-Stratfordian" is used to refer to those who believe that some other author actually wrote the works.'(Nicholl 2010, p. 4 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNicholl2010 (help): "The call for an 'open debate' which echoes through Oxfordian websites is probably pointless: there is no common ground of terminology between 'Stratfordians' (as they are reluctantly forced to describe themselves) and anti-Stratfordians."; Rosenbaum 2005: "What particularly disturbed (Stephen Greenblatt) was Mr. Niederkorn’s characterization of the controversy as one between 'Stratfordians' . . and 'anti-Stratfordians'. Mr. Greenblatt objected to this as a tendentious rhetorical trick. Or as he put it in a letter to The Times then: 'The so-called Oxfordians, who push the de Vere theory, have answers, of course—just as the adherents of the Ptolemaic system . . . had answers to Copernicus. It is unaccountable that you refer to those of us who believe that Shakespeare wrote the plays as "Stratfordians," as though there are two equally credible positions'.")

Mainstream scholarship is uncomfortable with the tendentiousness of this distinction, which is proper to the fringe theorists, but generally disliked by Shakespearean scholars. I think Tom elided the note as possibly prejudicial to the fringe perspective. Personally, I would prefer either for a clarifying footnote to be retained, if the distinction is kept, or, perhaps better, to expunge 'Stratfordian' and simply use 'anti-Stratfordian'. 'Stratfordians' are only such in the fringe view, and to accept the fringe label is to endorse the insinuation that there is something hypothetical about accepting what the documentary record clearly states. I'd appreciate it, again, if what we should do here were decided by a vote among those who were not the primary drafters of the article, but who are examining it closely for bias. Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought about this last night and have modified my position. The reason Shapiro and others can do without using the term "anti-Stratfordian" is because they use "Oxfordian" to represent the entire range of anti-Stratfordians, which we don't (and should not) do. As far as the objections by academics to the term "Stratfordian", that is not an issue. Our goal should be to describe the field, not spare the feelings of those who for the most part won't even discuss the topic. Of course, if the use of it conveys an intrinsic bias, then we should not use it. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought we'd had a discussion on this earlier. Anyway, my suggestion to avoid the implication of bias in the terms is to make it clear that 'Stratfordian' is a term used by Anti-stratfordians, rather than a generally accepted term in academic discourse on the subject. FWIW Kaiguy (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

External links

I haven't got around to looking at it in detail yet, but we need to take a long hard look at the External links section and decide which links to keep and which to remove. The relevant guideline is WP:EL, and a relevant extract of its summary is:

Misplaced Pages articles may include links to web pages outside Misplaced Pages (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
it is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Misplaced Pages article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense.
This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it.

In short, unless the link is to something very close to what we would include or use as a cite in the article, but for some reason can't, we probably shouldn't be providing a link to it. --Xover (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think common sense argues for including links to sites we wouldn't cite, such as the Oxfordian and Marlovian sites. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare's signatures illustration

Cf. the illustration of the six known signatures of Shakespeare that we use in the article (see image on right). While it is much better than it originally was, I'm still not entirely happy with it. Even when scaled up above normal thumbnail size in the article as it is now (it's scaled up to 300px, and the default is 200 or 250px) the explanatory text is illegible, and the signatures themselves mostly just look like smudges. The various signatures also appear to be scaled differently (i.e. they are viewed at different “magnifications”), which makes them appear random. And finally, the different shapes and sizes of the signature images makes the overall impression busy and asymmetrical. The scaling also makes layout issues for the article since it is too big to fit properly inside its section.

I wonder if there is some way or ways we could alleviate some of these issues?

For one thing, I would like to see the explanatory text moved out of the image somehow. Perhaps we could use an image map where each individual signature's explanatory text is shown in a tooltip when hovering your mouse cursor over it? Or perhaps we could give each a color-coded outline and include a color legend in the caption? The former would, as a bonus, let us link each signature to the individual source image from which it is taken; and the latter would let us link to other related articles (such as Bellott v. Mountjoy).

Another possibility: perhaps we could generate pure black and white, or maybe even SVG vector, versions of the signatures? That would let us present them visually in a more harmonious manner. For instance, that should make it easier to scale them to comparable sizes and to encase each in a box/frame of the same size as the other signatures.

But perhaps all this is too ambitious for right now and for the graphics skills we have available? Perhaps we should leave well enough alone for now and then perhaps revisit it at a later date, when more pressing issues are done, and then see if we can't deal with these images in the same sort of general way that we deal with articles (i.e. polish each of them both visually, with proper categorization, and with all the relevant information placed on its description page)? --Xover (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never been happy with that image. How about a gallery beneath the section with each individual signature with a tooltip as you suggest? Tom Reedy (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

{{annotated image}} may also be helpful. You'd have to check the feasability of tooltips - I've never seen an image on Misplaced Pages that has one, and I'm not sure whether they're possible with our current software. Then again, images are far from my strong suit. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In my Grand Experiment with the images (linked above) I've replaced the six signatures with a single signature (in SVG format) that's scaled up a little for good measure. Since the article only mention the signatures in passing—rather than an article about the signatures themselves—this should be sufficient to illustrate the point. Thoughts? --Xover (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the point about the signatures being "scrawled" and their inconsistency is better made by showing all of them. There're only six; if there were 15 or 20 a few representative examples would do it, but I don't think it's burdensome to include all of them. I'll try to put together a gallery and try that out. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried it here but it still doesn't look good and what we have now is better. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm pasting in another file for comparison with a different layout and larger signatures. I could re-do this if it looks better than what we now have along with a larger font for the cutlines. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I spent a bit of time playing with {{Annotated image}} and decided to just try it in the article here (permalink). The previous version is at this permalink. I used File:6-known-signatures-of-shakspeare.jpg (October 2006; I think the other images are derived from this). I omitted some of the current text because it won't fit in a reasonable way. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately those are bad freehand copies of the signatures, which is probably the reason anti-Strats use them instead of the signature images. That gives me an idea, though. I'll put together another composite picture to use. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

See what you think, Johnny. (It took a while!). Tom Reedy (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That's great. Yes, it is painful to do. Possibly some alignment of the text might be slightly better, but it will do me. No wonder the image I used is clearer if it is a hand-drawn tracing! Johnuniq (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the current version (new version from Tom) is good.Poujeaux (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens in ISBNs

We decided to remove all hyphens from ISBNs because some FAC reviewers had found inconsistencies in appearance. I just noticed something which I am recording here for consideration. This edit at Charles Darwin was by User:RjwilmsiBot and it inserted hyphens into each ISBN. The bot approval page is here, and one day the bot will notice this page and insert hyphens into each ISBN (checking the bot's contribs shows it is doing lots of articles). Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

JHFC! What kind of reviewers make a big deal out of ISBN appearances? Have they forgotten the main purpose of an encyclopedia? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Easy, Tom. No reviewer (well, none that I know of, at least) would make a big deal of ISBN appearance - if anything, it'll be a single bullet point on a list like the one I made on reference formatting (and I didn't even notice the hyphenation). Deal with the larger-scale issues, and if you take this article to FAC and somebody complains about ISBN hyphenation I volunteer to personally fix it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's easy enough to get consistency by always inserting the hyphens, and putting them in the right place – even a bot can do it – and it's easier on the eye than 13 consecutive digits. What was the reviewer's issue? Kanguole 18:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not know, and am happy either way, although my inclination is to follow whatever Xover says! On the other hand, the bot is inserting dashes at the rate of about five articles per minute, and ISBNs are generally shown with hyphens, so I could also be persuaded to insert them. I believe the only discussion here is in archive 21 where Xover said "As an example, in one of our FACs, the reviewers seized on inconsistent placement of dashes within ISBN numbers (which will always be inconsistent as ISBNs are of different lengths and conventions among publishers vary), so the only way to make them completely consistent is to remove the dashes entirely." Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we do not cater to the ignorance of one reviewer. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I suggest you avoid referring to as ignorance those concerns of which you are ignorant (if I can torture the grammar so far to make the point). As Nikkimaria says, it was one bullet point among several comments in a review years ago, and the thrust of it was that they need to be consistently formatted within the article. If you look at the bot approval discussion linked above (and WP:ISBN) you'll see that the underlying issue is deceptively complex (Kanguole: the bot does it by looking up dash placement on WorldCat's API; it may be computationally simple in the strict sense, but not in the sense you imply above). However, the issue for this article is quite simple: if we leave off the hyphens in ISBNs we'll be consistent, and won't have to deal with that at FAC, and if the bot should come by later and insert dashes then great, we'll have correctly placed dashes with zero manual labor. Let's not blow this issue out of proportion. --Xover (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply it was trivial. I know it involves a table lookup, because I put in the non-zero manual labour that added most of those dashes (and wish it hadn't been undone). Anyway, my point was that removing them was not the only way to achieve consistency. But I suppose that time and the bot will fix all. Kanguole 15:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh crap. Does this mean you'd already done the job of looking up and inserting dashes in the correct places before I went over and removed them all? If that's the case then I just plain screwed up; I was so sure they were inconsistent and it didn't even occur to me that someone might have done that (it's certainly more manual labur than I would have volunteered to do). Mea maxima culpa! --Xover (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry. I hope you won't mind if I put them back – let's pretend the bot got here already. I'd be happy to do any that are added later (it's pretty easy, really). Kanguole 21:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarifications needed

There is some pointy text in the "Other candidates emerge" section which needs a reference:

academics attacked the methodology as unscholarly and the conclusions as ridiculous.

Recently, a ref after that sentence was removed. The ref was <ref>{{Harvnb|Shapiro|2010|pp=228–30 (200–2)}}.</ref>. Can anyone clarify why the ref was removed? If it does not support the statement, we need to refactor the text to something that is verifiable because such pointy text needs a ref.

In the section "Shakespeare on trial", what is meant by "real trials"—surely "The first such litigation" is not correct (it was "The first such occasion")? What is the $5,000 damages? I was planning to think about how to reword the 'PBS Frontline broadcast "The Shakespeare Mystery"' text to remove the external link embedded in the article (such links are not prohibited, but are frowned on). This is a repeat of my comment at 07:00, 13 February 2011. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

'Real trials' refers (the plural is perhaps problematical) to Fabyan's case before judge Richard Tuthill in 1916, as opposed to the moot court occasions.

The $5,000 in damages was awarded by Tuthill to Fabyan (Wadsworth p.75)

'academics attacked the methodology as unscholarly and the conclusions as ridiculous,' definitely needs a cite and I'll start checking round to see what happens. Almost all of this text was written with books at one's elbow, and that is odd indeed, to contextually specific (post WW2) to be an editor's personal construal of the history.Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've put in a cit needed request for that pointy snippet re WW2. The only thing I can recall offhand similar to this ('their ignorance of fact and method is as dismaying as thir non-specialist love of Shakespeare's plays is touching' (Schoenbaum 1991 p.450) has no post WW2 context.Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The cart was before the horse. I've furnished the needed cite and moved the statement to its proper chronological place. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sutherland's read everything so

Rereading the page this morning I was reminded, while eyeing this,

The mainstream view, to which nearly all academic Shakespeareans subscribe

that Sutherland and Watts have a similar sentence which runs:

There is, it should be noted, no academic Shakespearian of any standing who goes along with the Oxfordian theory.’ John Sutherland, Cedric Thomas Watts, Henry V, war criminal?: and other Shakespeare puzzles, Oxford University Press 2000 p.7

Perhaps that is too sharp. Perhaps it is already explicit in the long note at the top of the ref section where several authorities make the same point. But I've jotted this down here just in case someone thinks rephrasing it, as per this source, is acceptable or an improvement.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not add that in place of a couple of the others? I'd say delete Schoenbaum, Paster and Pendleton, and cut down the others to their bare minimum. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He says 'Oxfordian', not 'anti-Stratfordianism'. It may certainly be considered for the Oxfordian Theory page. As to note 3, I think we have to retain that until FA, though expressing a willingness to elide the details. I think, given circumstances, that all of the references there ought to be retained, just to ward off suspicions that the assertion these quotations back is, well, rather 'particular', and requires strong evidence from the academic world (which is what we supplied). We could of course, there, add Sutherland's citation there as well.Nishidani (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it. I've got some work I need to finish so I gotta get off Misplaced Pages until Sunday. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Marlowe 2

Recent edits in the Christopher Marlowe section need consideration.

This text:

The Marlovian theory asserts that his death on 30 May 1593 was faked, and that this deception allowed him to become the ghost writer of the Shakespeare canon.

was changed to

The Marlovian theory is based on the argument that his documented death on 30 May 1593 was most probably a fake, and that this deception necessarily resulted in his becoming the ghost writer of the Shakespeare canon.

This paragraph was added:

However, the various reasons offered by Marlovians since 1955 for believing that this is indeed what happened have been almost entirely ignored by their opponents who have simply stated, for example, that the suggestion that Marlowe's death was faked is "no trail at all", or that the claims for "Bacon and Oxford can be taken as representative" so that it is found unnecessary to deal with the case in detail.

Re "death": As a minimum, the wording needs simplification and clarification: "was probably faked" might do. The deception did not result in ghost writing—a faked death would require that any authorship be as a ghost writer, but it would be safer and simpler to not write at all, so authorship was not a "result".

Of course you are right, in trying to indicate that the only way in which he would have been able to continue writing would have had to be pseudonymously, I succeeded only in producing rubbish. Thanks! How about "The Marlovian theory is based on the argument that his documented death on 30 May 1593 was probably faked, and that Shakespeare was chosen as the necessary 'front' behind whom he would be able to continue his highly successful playwriting."

Re "ignored by their opponents": This para needs reworking as it makes an unverifiable claim (that opponents have ignored various reasons), and it uses cherry-picked items to suggest that objections to Marlowe's authorship are inconsequential. To use this text, we would need a reliable source stating that scholars have made no other objections. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I was going to comment on this section. The last para is not acceptable I think. What also puzzled me is the reference (twice) to 1955. What great event took place in 1955?! OK, I see the answer is there if you search the rest of the article, but it reads rather oddly as it is now. Poujeaux (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is so frustrating. Those of us (including Tom and Nishidani) who have been scouring the records desperately trying to find salient comments by 'reliable sources' on anything other than Hoffman's book of over half a century ago know very well that this is true, but we aren't allowed to say so. The expression 'cherry-picking' implies that I have deliberately chosen these examples from among an abundant crop of other possibilities. Please tell us who you have in mind as it will make our job so much easier! I think that this is a very relevant piece of information, given the constraints under which we are working, but it's catch-22 isn't it?. We can't refer to the lack of reliably sourced comments because of the lack of reliably sourced comments.

An illustration. My own essay Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End explains in excruciating detail why I claim that the most logical explanation for what happened at Deptford on 30 May 1593 was that they were there to fake Marlowe's death. It appeared in the Marlowe Society's research journal as well as being on my website, and was described by both the Society's Research Officer and its Chairman (neither of whom in fact believes that Marlowe wrote 'Shakespeare') at their AGM as 'the last word' on the event. Park Honan described it (privately) to me as 'brilliant', and cited it in his Marlowe biography. Much of it reappeared in my Hoffman and the Authorship, an essay which jointly won the prestigious Hoffman prize for 'a distinguished publication on Christopher Marlowe' in 2007 and is also available on-line. Yet I know for a fact that not a single article has been produced (nor anything in a book) by a 'reliable source' attempting to refute anything I said in either article, or someone would have pointed it out to me by now. But I am not allowed to say so. As far I can see, the RS tail of Misplaced Pages policy, as interpreted here, is being allowed to wag the NPOV dog, which I had thought was supposed to be paramount. Peter Farey (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I fully understand your frustration, Peter. The problem is indeed technical, and in no way reflects upon the whims of random editors. Loosen RS on topics like this and you enact an open sesame season for all sorts of wild sourcing, as I think you yourself would have noticed here over the years. One just has to exercise patience, and wait for an RS (the Phd you mentioned earlier, for example) to paraphrase your central points. I would imagine that this is not as dilatory a prospect as it might appear. There are several indications that there will be an upsurge in commentary on the SAQ later this year (Emmerich). Shapiro, if I recall correctly, thinks the Marlovian hour may well return, given that the currently most popular candidate hasn't a leg to stand on, and persists as a cultural phenomenon for a variety of reasons unconnected with either evidence, reasonable inference or strong hypotheticals. The Marlovian theory has a seminal element in its favour lacking in all the other candidates, namely, the aesthetic dimension: the fluency of the dramatic mise en scène and mastery of the mighty line one would expect in a Shakespearean candidate. I concur with Honan's judgement re your paper. I still think however Elliott and Valenza's statistical work sinks the argument.

Yes, I do understand, and was really only using this (yet again) as an opportunity to vent my frustration that a genuinely informed discussion of what most of us these days tend to believe and why we believe it seems to be impossible. Thanks for the kind words! As for Elliott and Valenza, we must have chat about them some time, particular concerning whether they managed to eliminate any possible effect of Shakespeare's canon having, according to them, been written almost entirely after Marlowe's! Peter Farey (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

For the moment I suggest:-

Mainstream scholarship has rarely engaged with the theory, though some authorities dismiss the idea his death was faked as "no trail at all", or hold that it is unnecessary to refute it since the analogous claims for "Bacon and Oxford can be taken as representative".

One could object that 'Mainstream scholarship has rarely engaged with the theory' lacks an RS citation, of course. But those of us who have read widely in the area would reply that this is self-evident.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that looks fine to me, although I note your later recommendation and go along with it. I take Paul's point below about "no trail at all", which came right at the end of an Appendix called "False Trails". Nicholl's words are worth quoting. "Another theory goes something like this. Marlowe did not die at Deptford. The affray was a blind: the body that was viewed by the coroner's jury was someone else's. Marlowe was spirited out of the country, and thereafter dedicated his life to writing plays. These plays went out under the nom de plume of 'William Shakespeare'. They contain many acrostics and anagrams that prove they are Marlowe's, but people still go on thinking they are by Shakespeare. This is no kind of trail at all." It is also worth mentioning that this reappeared in his revised edition after he had read my Sudden End essay and, whilst not agreeing with my conclusion, acknowledged that I had made a "strong case" for the faked death scenario, which as presented had nothing to do with the authorship question. Peter Farey (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Park Honan's citation of Peter's essay is as follows "Peter Farey, looking into Middlesex records for 1589-92 finds six cases of death within the verge in which not even the Coroner of the Verge was involved." That's all he says. There is nothing in the book that suggests he endores the argument in the essay at all. What he said privately may be interpreted in many ways, butr we can't use it here anyway.

Well there is a little more than that, since he acknowledges my help (p.vii) and provided the URL for the Sudden End essay (p.403) related to his mention of "within the verge" and the illegality of the inquest (p.355) all of which he got from me. The point is therefore not that he endorses the theory (which he certainly doesn't, as he specifically indicates on p.355) or that we should 'use' his comment, but that clearly regards me as a reliable source of information where this is concerned. Peter Farey (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph as it stands become advocacy rather than description. I prefer Nishidani's reading, but I think the "no trail at all" phrase is confusing. The phrasing is odd: "some authorities dismiss the idea his death was faked as "no trail at all",". Can an "idea" be a "trail"? The phrase "some authorities" implies that more than one writer has used this exact phrase, not just Nicholl. I don't like the last part of the sentence, which could equally be added to the Derby section. These words do not apply to Marlowe uniquely, but to all other candidates. And once more this just is one individual explaining his particular choices. Derby gets very short shrift in the book. As author of the Derbyite theory page, I feel I am a sort of Honorary Derbyite, so I am rather miffed by the fact that his glory days are glossed over by Shapiro. Also, it's misleading to imply that Strats have somehow evaded the Marlovian position. Marlowe only became a notable candidate after 1955. Gibson devotes a lot of space to Marlovian arguments in The Shakespeare Claimants in 1962. By the '80s anti-Stratfordianism is beginning to be equated with Oxfordianism, and so many recent books only address Oxfordian arguments and the generic claims that Shakespeare can be somehow excluded as author. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading that last paragraph again, it's kind of a trainwreck. But, I wonder if any of it is necessary. If we just cut that final paragraph from the Marlowe summary, would the article suffer? Kaiguy (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

@Peter Farey: Just to clarify, my comments were focused on preparing the article for consideration as a Featured Article where strict interpretation of policies should be expected (I noticed the warm welcome you received above, and am not claiming any defect other than the policy problem). The text can always be tweaked in the future, and the place to start is probably at Marlovian theory. At the moment I think we should follow the suggestion by Kaiguy (possibly supported by Paul B's comment), and remove the last paragraph. My main reason for removal would be that this summary should simply state the case for the candidate (as the other summaries do), without commentary on failings in responses to the candidature. A secondary reason is that I hope that the text in the article will become stable very soon because a key requirement for a Featured Article is that editors have not recently been adding new text and then disagreeing over its wording (that is, I am pretty confident there is no easy way to resolve this issue while following Misplaced Pages's principles, so we might take another week or more to find some acceptable text—and that text would not be particularly helpful because it would essentially be a complaint rather than support for Marlowe's candidacy). Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Johnuniq's point, following Paul and Kaiguy's notes, suggests the appropriate solution for the moment. The controversial addition is best worked out on the Marlovian page. What we have, unfortunately, will have to be sourced to Gibson's text, which is old, but as Paul reminds us, dealt with the topic quite extensively when it was first broached. The section is linked to the Marlovian page, and there the text is not encumbered by the rigorously austere criteria of a wiki article aspiring to FA level. So Peter's points can be retained there, readily studied by any reader who wishes for detail of this kind, until perhaps an RS is forthcoming which might permit us to include the point here. I hope we can prevail on your notable amenity here, Peter, to accept the logic of, if not endorse, this move as one dictated by the necessities of wiki protocols. Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's OK. But which bit still has to be sourced to Gibson? Peter Farey (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I read Gibson on line almost a year ago, but Tom had the book. Overnight I recalled however that Tom's approach was to present the arguments for candidacy without rebuttal, or reference to what mainstream scholarship argues. A quick glance over the other candidates will confirm that this policy has been adhered to. The additional point you added, and now removed, as per talk consensus, introduces a complaint that mainstream scholars ignore or dismiss the arguments, creating a kind of dissonance with the way the other three candidates' arguments have been described. By removing it, the text falls into the neutral descriptive framework Tom argued for.

You do still have a point about equal weight, Peter. Marlowe has less text that Bacon and Oxford, though now more favoured than Bacon. This is because a huge volume of literature exists for the former two, and academics have spent more time on describing it, and as hermeneutic sutlers drudging in the slicky slipstream of orthodoxy's learned cohorts, we've little choice but to trade in its currency. In that sense, perhaps, since Gibson does handle the theory at some length, I was minded to think we might eke out a little more from that source, in order to secure more of an appearance of equal representation, until the Phd you mentioned, and other books in the future, become available. I've only read Gibson's chapter in part, online. Tom has a copy of that, (and everything imaginable on this argument!), and I'm sure, when he gets back, he'll review our discussion and pitch in. Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

@Peter Farey: I'll leave Nishidani to answer about sourcing to Gibson (might have been about the Marlovian theory article?). I don't think anything more need happen in this article at the moment. Thanks for removing that paragraph. I think the section is better when it is short, and more details should be at the main article. At one time, Tom wanted to strip each of the candidate sections down to something very short. I don't think that will happen at this stage, but I can see the argument to support that, and I'm thinking that later (in a couple of months) it might be useful to think about pruning each candidate section to about the current length of the Marlowe section (but let's not talk further about that now). Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

@Nishidani. Thank you, and if Gibson can indeed furnish us with some excuse for including those countless Marlovian arguments presented since he wrote his book, I'll be both surprised and delighted. Sadly, however, the fact is that there has been a disappointing reluctance in the academic world to refute or even read any Marlovian argument since Hoffman's.

Churchill necessarily had only Hoffman to go on.

Gibson could also attack only Hoffman, whilst completely misunderstanding (misrepresenting?) what Mendenhall, one of Hoffman's prime witnesses, had said.

Schoenbaum, surprisingly ignorant of just when Marlowe is alleged to have died, also restricted himself to Hoffman's arguments.

Jonathan Bate wrote a disgacefully inadequate review of Wraight's The Story that the Sonnets Tell for the Telegraph, which quite clearly showed that he hadn't even read it. And in his book The Genius of Shakespeare, based upon the essay he wrote as that year's prize-winner of the Calvin Hoffman (hypocritical or what?) prize, his only complaint was that Wraight's book was "coded autobiography", which "Elizabethans did not write", completely ignoring her actual claim that they were letters-in-verse which are something quite different. That he also referred to Marlowe's "participation in Sir Thomas (sic!) Walsingham's secret service" may also give us some cause for concern.

Who next? (ignoring Matus, whom I confess to not having read). Stanley Wells answers the Marlovian argument that—based upon all the evidence available—Marlowe's death was almost certainly faked, and that this makes it quite possible for him to have written 'Shakespeare', with the bald statement "What is perfectly clear is that he died". That it is, as he puts it, "one of the best recorded episodes in English literary history" doesn't prompt him to wonder, as we would, just why that might have been so.

And what of Shapiro? According to him, Bacon and Oxford are "representative" of all anti-Stratfordian argument. What crap - equalled only by his extraordinary claim that Calvin Hoffman obtained "permission to open the grave of Elizabethan spymaster Sir Francis (sic!) Walsingham", a claim which could have been made only by someone who who hadn't the slightest clue about what the Marlovian argument actually is.

This is of course just for the archive. That the feet of one's 'reliable sources' might actually be earthen must be of no relevance right now! :o) Peter Farey (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty much a given that Anti-Stratfordians rail against academics for misrepresenting or ignoring them, but Peter, there's no point in it here. Please remember that this article is only supposed to provide a short summary of the main positions. It couldn't include the "countless Marlovian arguments presented since he wrote his book" even if there were another academic source that dealt with them, anymore than we can include all the countless new Oxfordian arguments that are created constantly, or the countless new "true authors" like John Florio, recently the subject of a book. We have to be selective. You have a whole article to be more expansive. BTW, Scott McCrea's 2005 book The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question does discuss Marlovian claims. I couldn't say how accurately it represents the true modern Marlovian consensus . Paul B (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter, if post-Hoffman Marlovian arguments are neglected on wikipedia, there are only two sources for blame. Misplaced Pages's rules, and the failure of Marlovians (this applies generally to anti-Stratfordians) to simply sit down and earn a Phd in (Elizabethan) history. Afraid that such a topic might be the ruin of one's career? No problem, one simply writes (and the book is needed) a Phd neutrally examining the history of Marlovian theory. Several scholars who started from Oxfordian premises did things like this, such as Steven May and Ward Elliott. I am somnewhat flustered by this steadfast reluctance to adopt, provisorily, the system's rules. In any number of disciplines I am fairly familiar with on an academic basis, dissident opinions challenging a mainstream model, while using mainstream techniques, exist. The fundamental weakness of all heterodox analysts is that they refuse to understand the groundrules of the discipline whose results they desire to contest. They wish to box, while sneering at the Marquis of Queensbury rules. They would play cricket, but think it unfair that rules exist disallowing you to throw six bouncers and over.

Matus has nothing to say on the matter. A conflict in reports of a murder does not mean the murder of the victim, as designated in the reports, never took place. One could as equally say that the wording of the verdict was fixed, not to cover the ostensible victim's escape, but to cover any number of problematical consequences. As to Shapiro, what he says (p.229 Brit ed.) faithfully repeats Wadsworth's contemporary reportage (p.153), save for the fact that he lapses, in speaking of Sir Thomas Walsingham's tomb as that of his brother Sir Francis, who had of course died 3 years before Marlowe, and confusing the former with the spymaster who was his brother. Even Homer nods, abetted sometimes by Titivillus (as when Schoenbaum is made to have written 20th for the 30th of May, 1593). I don't know why people are upset about this. Use misprints or lapses of memory here and there to invalidate works while ignoring the testimony to the contrary of hundreds of precisely documented pages is any man's game, if he wish to play it. But the central detail, that Hoffman got permission to open Sir Thomas's tomb, is secure. As with Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus, very impressive countertheories can be built up on any historical set of evidences, if you presume all the historical data have been tampered with. History as we are given it in the archives becomes fodder for the palimpsestic scrivener. Your best bet is to wait for the Phd. that is in the works, (Unlike Oxfordians, who seem condemned to tantalic labour under that angst which Pascal describes when he writes: Il faut une infinie patience pour attendre toujours ce qui n'arrive jamais) and I for one, and I'm sure several here, will be happy to plead for it as an RS on these issues when it is approved and published.Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Paul and Nishidani. Yes, I do understand all of this, which was why I said it was "just for the archive" and added that smiley at the end. 'Railing' isn't really my style, you know, as Tom - with whom I have been quite amicably exchanging this sort of stuff for a dozen years or more - can probably confirm. Nor am I reluctant to adopt the system's rules (whilst reserving the right to express my feelings about them) as I would have hoped my actions here have demonstrated. Sorry, but at 72 I don't think I'll take up the recommended PhD route, but thanks for reminding me of Scott McRea, as I haven't read his book and really should. Peter Farey (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oxford Summary too long

Oxford Summary too long, omitting academically endorsed major facts, and lacking Oxfordian participation, unlike the Marlovian summary which is written by an advocate.

I note that Marlovian Peter Farey is being allowed to rewrite the Marlowe summary. Equal treatment should be given to an Oxfordian regarding academically endorsed evidence for the Shakespeare authorship candidacy. The summary as a summary should be brief, deferring details to the article itself. The Oxfordian summary presently constituted is the only one that goes into secondary detail (like the discussion about secret codes and the PT and PTT sub-theories). Hence its length and emphasis are inconsistent with the rest of the summaries. The placement of the Oxfordian discussion after the Baconian one is another possible question I have: if as the section states, since 1920 the Oxford contention has overtaken the Baconian, why then is the Oxford discussion not placed accordingly in the reading? Oxford was older, so chronology has been discounted. The basis for Oxford’s prominence in the discussion originates with his contemporary prominence, for instance William Webbe’s remark that he was the most skillful and could challenge to himself that he was the most excellent of the courtly poets. This seems confirmed by Puttenham’s clear statement that if his work were publicized under his name he would be recognized as the first among equals in the aristocratic play-makers. Akrigg took note of Oxford's relations with Queen Elizabeth and with court life. As recently as the U.S. News and World Report, Oxford's travels, academic and cultural achievements, status as a noble, and education were cited as clues to possible candidacy. The linguistic evidence seems compelling from Fowler, Stritmatter, and Waugaman researches into parallel phrasing and subject matter. The Atlantic Monthly has taken on the supposed 1604 question, that no new plays or augmentations occurred after that point, corresponding to his death in June 1604.

These appear to be sound reasons for altering the sub-section, towit, briefer, more pertinent to the purpose, and written by someone, myself, less likely to ignore the major strengths of the candidate. At present all three standards are lacking. Zweigenbaum Zweigenbaum (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have made some suggestions here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter Farey is not 'being allowed to write'. Peter, like any other editor, is collaborating, with commendable intelligence, flexibility and civility, to make improvements to the Marlovian theory section.

There were several considerations in the ordering of the candidates. (a) Historical priority (Bacon precedes Oxford, but Marlowe technically precedes Oxford also) and (b) quantity of material (both Oxford and Bacon have been the object of a huge amateur published output of 'theory', and both have been the object of extensive academic comment (c) contemporary profile (Oxford is showcased more than both Bacon and Marlowe. Smatprt consistently, being an Oxfordian, pressed for Oxford's priority. We have tried to calibrate these various pressures (coloured as they are by promotional interests) by choosing Bacon first, since he was the first historical candidate, and enjoyed a virtual monopoly for 6 decades (b) Oxford second, since he replaced Bacon as the primary candidate in public opinion (c) followed by Marlowe, who trumps Derby (sorry Paul) in terms of recognizability, and perhaps today in terms of the number of advocates.

The material re Oxford's prominence in Elizabethan times is irrelevant. We are dealing with scholarly assessments, not the rhetoric of patronage and court flattery in status-obsessed Elizabethan literary representations.

As for Fowler, Stritmatter, and Waugaman, as RS mention them, they can be used. Stritmatter is already present.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about dumping Derby at the bottom. My heart really belongs to Anne Whateley. I read Derbyism from duty. Ross's book "The Story of Anne Whateley" is the only Anti-Strat text I ever enjoyed reading. Lefranc's "Sous le masque..." was a trial. It's easy to see why it never really made it over the channel. It's full of the worst gloire-grubbing French nationalist sentiment. Paul B (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If it will cheer you up, Derby will rise from the lowest ranks as soon as I do the Henry Neville candidate for Shakespeare authorship, which, despite my best efforts, will secure bottom place.Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd revert Zeigenbaum's major edit on the grounds that (a) it susbtantially alters a text for which consensus exists (b) introduces poor sources, some of which are either not RS or dubious as such. There is a good argument for shortening some of the Bacon and Oxford material, but it is best done on this work page instead of engaging in individual challenges.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I do not consider that I challenged anything or anyone. The changes made and since reverted are factual and supportable with acceptable sourcing. Kindly expand on how they are poor, in comparison to that which existed before the alteration. The modification brought the Oxford sub-article into size and factual specificity comparable to the other summaries. These are helpful advances.

1) To discuss the alterations specifically, although I have already addressed several of these points in the editing comments above, citing sound reasons, I will be happy to restate them as I did to Johnuniq upon inquiry.

2) The long section about Looney (paragraph 2) belongs in the history section, or in the Oxfordian Theory article. It could stay, if it were trimmed down. The Looney scholarship is no longer relied upon by the Oxfordian community, since so much other more specific material has been found. It is an important artifact. The best place is in the History section.

3) The two mainstream refutations do not belong, as the other summaries include none and it was agreed by the present editors not to present mainstream arguments in these summaries. Thus "No documentary evidence connecting Oxford to the authorship of the works has been found" and "Although Oxford died in 1604 with 10 Shakespeare plays yet to be written according to the most widely accepted chronology" do not belong in the summary. They will be immediately contradicted by the references following the statements of the summary text, which makes them puzzling, out of place, and liable to make a reader think someone is pulling a fast one on them in the summary. In the context of the treatment of the other summaries, this could be interpreted as gratuitous bias and we wish to avoid that.

4) The longest paragraph ( paragraph 4, about Frisbee and codes) does not belong at all. Detail such as that goes in the Oxfordian Theory article. Presently it is being given far too much space, too much weight, and does not represent the main points raised by most Oxfordians. US News and Atlantic magazines summarize examples of what the major Oxfordian points are. The references are included should the reader seek them beyond what is in the sub-article itself.

5) The long PT description does not belong in a brief summary. It too should go in the Oxfordian Theory article. Placement in the summary can be interpreted as an invitation to ignore the evidence because this aspect of the Oxford contention is considered shocking and sensational and incredible, despite a certain amount of documented evidence supporting such exploratory theories.

6) I suggest that the summary end with the last line of the new text just added. That would make it the most concise summary of the major Oxfordian points, as evidenced by the references provided following the new text.

7) The Minerva Britanna graphic need not be in the Oxfordian summary. This is another example of detailed evidence presented as the strength of the Oxfordian contention, whereas it is really a side-light, showing how the literary types of the era amused themselves and each other by communicating through puzzle means what they did not feel safe to say outright. First, it is not a "major" theme of Oxfordian research, and second, it was used by Baconians as well, so is not specific to the Oxford case. It could go into the history section included in the Bacon expanded discussion (since Baconians used it first), or in one or more of the theory articles. Regardless, it should not be where it is, giving the wrong impression of what kind of evidence is emphasized in Oxfordian studies, (or perhaps what a Stratfordian writer would wish was typical Oxfordian evidence), and--returning to the important standard of brevity observed elsewhere,--it just makes the summary longer.

8) This discussion is really about content. If there is a problem with reference formatting, which is not my concern, then you appear to have several editors that can correct the format issues.

9) In terms of RS, you have already established that the Wall Street Journal is RS. The same applies to US News and World Report and Atlantic Monthly. They are RS by every definition I can find. If one of these magazines reported that Oxford was Looney's fraud on history and scholarship, would its report be ignored?

10) There is absolutely no prohibition on using Primary Sources. No interpretation is being given to them, they are simply being quoted. Besides, there are plenty of RS sources that quote the same material. If you want to substitute one of them, I have no objection. Again, we are discussing content here.

11) To quote ArbCom: " Where an article concerns a theory that does not have majority support in the relevant scholarly community, the article must fairly describe the division of opinion among those who have extensively studied the matter." This in no way limits RS the way you describe. "...those who have extensively studied the matter" is the key here. I note that the only abstention said "I think this would benefit from a clarification to ensure that it's only those views from the scholarly community or accepted experts - even minority ones - that are included, rather than just anyone who has a BA in English Lit." Thus even the abstainer agrees that accepted experts - even minority ones - can be sourced. This appears to support the use of sources as seen in the section (here reverted for alleged poor sources).

12)I note the remarks by Johnuniq and also Nishidani that the Marlovian perspective was not "allowed" but was the result of collaboration by Farey and the majority editors. It is a fact that the Marlovian candidacy is not the threat to the Shakespeare establishment that the Oxfordian scholarship represents. While I do not object to Farey receiving fair treatment, it will likely soon be seen as unfair for the majority group to specifically resist one candidacy's use of and reference to scholarship and at the same time extend every courtesy to another. The disinterested observer will inevitably conclude the majority editors are using a double-standard. We would not wish to convey such an impression.

13)Regarding Nishidani's assertion in explanation of his revert that Oxford's prominence in the literary world of the Elizabethan era is irrelevant, then so would Shakespeare's contemporary fame be irrelevant. Harvey referred to Oxford as the author of Venus and Adonis, published under the name William Shakespeare. Eight Shakespeare plays were performed at court during the Christmas play season following Oxford's passing. Another series followed the death of his wife in 1612. No other honor for husband and wife ever occurred in the history of the English monarchy. Such contemporary renown is relevant. We cannot by fiat squelch history unfavorable to our predisposed views. Thus, the reference, in my edit, to Oxford's contemporary literary reputation, sufficient that James I referred to him as "The Great Oxford", is substantially pertinent to answering this important identity question and certainly appropriate to a summary of reasons for considering the possibility of his authorship. with best wishes, Zweigenbaum (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Regarding Nishidani's reversion of the modified text, for ease of discussion and comparison, I have placed them side by side in the article. In response to Nishidani's doubt that there is such a grouping as "most Oxfordians", I am familiar with the individuals and the publications involved, and the very evidence most emphasized as Oxfordian in this article are least valued by those organizations and publications: the Minerva Brittana puzzle and the variations of the Prince Tudor theory. There is ample evidence exclusive of these topics leading to a convincing proof of Oxfordian identity with the Shakepeare author. In fact few Oxfordians are cognizant of the Cardano Grille code or the Latin anagram tradition that generated these studies. This is why I stated before that, as a Marlovian was respected to explain the Marlovian theory, so should an Oxfordian be respected to know and to cite sources both primary and secondary, regarding the Oxfordian subject matter. Stratfordian editors need not fear to be informed of existing or previously neglected evidence. Zweigenbaum (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) ‘The changes made and since reverted are factual and supportable with acceptable sourcing.’

This is an obiter dictum or Sir Oracle style of argumentation. It takes the form: ‘I think so, therefore it is.’

In editing, at a late stage of its drafting an article aspiring to the strictest criteria for wikipedia material, major proposals such as yours should be first presented to the community of editors engaged with the page.

Your sourcing is not acceptable according to the strong criteria used over the past several months. Changes are not 'factual'. Changes may contain reference to facts.

Your new sources, to an article that almost exclusively relies on the best academic works, consist of:-

• Bill Bryson. He's an agreeable popular writer. He has no first hand knowledge of Shakespearean scholarship.
• Michael Satchell writing in U.S. News & World Report. Satchell is a journalist who has covered, from an Oxfordian perspective, a few events. He is not an authority on the argument, nor the Elizabethan period, nor the state of Shakespearean studies. The only substantive addition to the argument he has made, as far as I know, was to mention that Keanu Reeves was a confirmed supporter of the Oxfordian theory.
• William Webbe and George Puttenham are primary sources. In the secondary literature, their remarks are interpreted as pieces of flattery paying obeisance to the ranking system of Elizabethan court society, and not as testimonies to the known facts of the period. In any case, the article avoids using evidence from primary sources, unless it is cited from a reliable and pertinent secondary source in the scholarship on this area. Both Webbe and Puttenham are thus cited in many RS for the period.
• Captain Bernard Mordaunt Ward's 1928 bio. of de Vere is a respectable if highly dated piece of scholarship from an Oxfordian perspective. We have numerous modern academic sources, including Alan Nelson and Steven May, who make the same point, and who are already used in the article.
• Irwin Smith 's 1964 Shakespeare's Blackfriars Playhouse: its history and its design, is a respectable source, but the material from it is already in several sources used here, including Nelson and May. Occam's razor applies.
• G.P.V. Akrigg's 1968 Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, is a respectable source, but for a point that is risible. All members of Elizabeth’s court knew each other. It is not an ‘Oxfordian argument’ to note the obvious, any more than it is a Baconian argument to note that Bacon knew the same people, namely Elizabeth 1 and Henry Wriothesley.
• 'his academic and cultural achievements'.

According to Nelson he had no academic achievements. If you can find an academic or reliable updated Elizabethan specialist source arguing to the contrary, in explaining the Oxfordian position, by all means use that. His MAs were granted as formal gestures or compliments by the universities. His ‘cultural’ achievements consisted in, like many aristocrats of his day, keeping players and being the object of many book dedications by authors seeking his favour and the prestige of being conferred recognition by him. Both points are, again, sourced to a newspaper (U.S.News & World Report), which is ridiculously incongruous given the high quality of sourcing required of the article. That, like many aristocrats (Henry Neville etc.) de Vere travelled widely does not need referencing to a modern American newspaper. It is in Nelson, who is RS for this kind of detail.

• To use the precedent of the Wall Street Journal, as grounds for citing from any number of other American newspapers is misbegotten. The Wall Street Journal was used for an interview with the Elizabethan scholar James Shapiro on precisely the subject of this article. The newspaper articles you wish to cite refer information from people who have no formal credentials in the scholarship on this argument.
• William Plumer Fowler's Shakespeare Revealed in Oxford's Letters, fails all tests as an RS for this article. A former fisherman, minor poet and lawyer who presided over the Boston Shakespeare Club, and was an Oxfordian, is not a reliable source on the details of de Vere’s life or Shakespeare.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Generally, therefore, your twin attempts to edit 'en bloc destabilize the format, and presume to use sources that turn out to violate the strict criteria for an article of this kind. For this reason, I have placed your proposal below, where it can be discussed as an alternative proposal.

• (3)

  'The two mainstream refutations do not belong, as the other summaries include none and it was agreed by the present editors not to present mainstream arguments in these summaries.'

You are misrepresenting the text. The two points made:

(a) 'Although Oxford died in 1604 with 10 Shakespeare plays yet to be written according to the most widely accepted chronology, Oxfordians date the plays earlier and say that unfinished works were revised by other playwrights and released after his death.' (b) 'No documentary evidence connecting Oxford to the authorship of the works has been found.'

are not 'refutations' but statements of fact freely admitted by Oxfordians. Perhaps 'most Oxfordians' would be better for (a) since some maintain that de Vere lived on, like Marlowe, after a faked death.

• (7) 'The Minerva Britanna graphic need not be in the Oxfordian summary.'

We have only your word for it that this is ‘not a major theme’ in Oxfordian theories. RS mention it in that connection, and our text rightly notes that it is adduced by both Baconians and Oxfordians. Is the problem here the fact that the Minerva Britanna graphic is shared grounds for both Baconism and Oxfordianism?

• (8) 'If there is a problem with reference formatting, which is not my concern, then you appear to have several editors that can correct the format issues.'

Despite being new here, you have already mastered one stylke of reference formatting, one incidentally used by a previous and banned editor. To say ‘it is not my concern’ reads ‘I don’t care less for what you guys agree on. If you don’t like my style, adjust it yourselves. I won’t.’

• 'In response to Nishidani's doubt that there is such a grouping as "most Oxfordians", I am familiar with the individuals and the publications involved, and the very evidence most emphasized as Oxfordian in this article are least valued by those organizations and publications.'

Again, neither you, Peter Farey, nor I nor anyone else can edit here proclaiming our intimate knowledge sufficiently vouchsafes for the reliability of the information given. We filter partisan opinions through RS to avoid precisely the obvous abuses to which this kind of confient self-assertion lends itself.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum's proposal for rewriting of the Oxford section. Text and discussion

Proposed text as revised with Nishidani's challenged sources adjusted.

The leading present-day candidate is Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. After being proposed in the 1920's, Oxford rapidly overtook Bacon to become within two decades the most popular alternative candidate.

Oxfordians point to the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries regarding his talent as a poet and a playwright, his reputation as a hidden poet, and his personal connections to London theatre and the contemporary playwrights of Shakespeare's day. They also note his personal relationships with Queen Elizabeth I and the Earl of Southampton, his knowledge of Court life, his extensive education, his academic and cultural achievements, and his wide-ranging travels through France and Italy to what would later become the locations of many of Shakespeare's plays.

The case for Oxford's authorship is also based on perceived similarities between Oxford's biography and events in Shakespeare's plays, sonnets and longer poems; parallels of language, idiom, and thought between Oxford's personal letters and the Shakespearean canon; and underlined passages in Oxford's personal bible, which Oxfordians believe correspond to quotations in Shakespeare's plays. Confronting the issue of Oxford's death in 1604, Oxfordian researchers cite examples they say imply the writer known as "Shakespeare" or "Shake-speare" died before 1609, and point to 1604 as the year regular publication of "new" or "augmented" Shakespeare plays stopped.

As far as I can see, the substance of this alternative proposal consists in its different sourcing, since most of the points made are available in the prior text. Zweigenbaum's contention therefore must be interpreted as a proposal, essentially, to whittle down the version we have. That is not unreasonable, though removing good material from a fine article to dump it down in the obscurity of a notoriously poorly edited and almost unreadable page, can be taken as instrumental to image-maintenance.

My own position is that the length of the two is due to the fact that they have been intensivcely studied by academics, unlike Marlowe and the Derby candidates. An abundance of learned commentary makes the more extensive treatment of these two almost obligatory.

I would suggest however that if and wherever we, as Zweigenbaum asks, decide to thin down the present version, the removed passages be copied and pasted on to the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship page. Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC) ---------

In response to the above remarks and ideas: The point of my original proposal and its demonstration is that too much text, and of the wrong kind, is presently in force as a summary of the Oxfordian contention. It is done mainly by non-Oxfordian minds with all that that might affect in terms of selecting the salient facts. At this point, Nishidani seems to be not too far from mine in terms of the brevity issue, and if he wants to solve the issue by adding favored texts into the body of the sub-article that follows--that are properly sourced and credited--it makes for a good compromise under these circumstances. The reader can take it from there, seeing two points of view.

As to the sourcing coming strictly from acceptable scholarship, that term being understood according to the lights of a group unanimously representing the Stratford persuasion, I would only suggest reading the ArbCom ruling and correcting the prevailing understanding, especially in such instances of majority and minority sourcing as described below:

ArbCom: "Where an article concerns a theory that does not have majority support in the relevant scholarly community, the article must fairly describe the division of opinion among those who have extensively studied the matter." and also note the one arbitrator who said " I think this would benefit from a clarification to ensure that it's only those views from the scholarly community or accepted experts--even minority ones--that are included, rather than just anyone who has a BA in English Lit." To me that intent to be fair is achieved by Oxfordian input, not exclusion of it.

On the question of U.S. News and World Report being/not being a properly used reference or any other news periodical for that matter--sources such as WSJournal, NY Times, Atlantic, Harpers, etc.--I would advise that Misplaced Pages policies do consider mainstream news sources with a reputation for fact checking as Reliable Sources. You may or may not like the reporter. His facts have been checked. Unless the given periodical shows evidence to the contrary it is reliable. No one editor may unilaterally decide what periodicals are unallowable for reference in this article. If Nishidani intends to take such a position, then the proper approach is to go to dispute resolution in order to formally challenge the Misplaced Pages policy.

Regarding Nishidani's particular comment about sourcing formats, refer to the following link and note that many of the same references were included in the former version--I have simply copied them over and adopted that format, since it is suggested here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners#Information_to_include

If you or your colleagues have decided on a different referencing format, please provide those instructions or a link to them. I am doing the best I can to fumble forward in this system. But I remind you that sourcing-format issues are not a legitimate cause for removing material. Regarding the second-hand view conveyed in Nishidani's post that my attitude on non-content questions is I'll put down what I like and the rest of you can fix it--on the contrary, this is a group effort and if someone wants to reformat the sources, as my recent listing of reasons were re-formatted by someone, they are welcome to do so. There is no requirement that every submission be perfect. In fact Misplaced Pages specifically encourages collaboration. Add what you can and how best you can and if someone wants formatting done differently, he or she may change it. We are all volunteers and have our different skills and emphases to contribute. That's the Wiki way, I hope. Zweigenbaum (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"You may or may not like the reporter. His facts have been checked." Please clarify what you mean by that. "Facts" about a minority theory in an article promoting that theory are not "checked" in the sense of checking a fact such as Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese on Dec. 7, 1941. Fact-checking in a periodical is usually limited to checking the spelling of names and the attribution of quotations, and does not in any sense bestow credibility on the statements being offered by those quoted. Invoking the phrase "fact checking" merely means that those aforementioned tasks are done and does not affect the reliability of a text or its suitability for this article as a source, all of which should be the best and most reputable sources, which in this article would be scholarly sources.

We already have been through dispute resolution. Re-arguing the case is not helpful nor conducive to improving this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back Mr. Reedy. We are not re-arguing the case but making it briefer and more representative of the relevant facts. Nishidani brought up that US News & World Report was not sufficient as a reliable source. The Misplaced Pages guidelines accept mainstream periodicals as reliable because they fact-check. If you understand fact-check to mean punctuation, et al, I don't know any mainstream magazine that agrees. Their lawyers would be out of a job. Mentioning US News & World Report hardly gives undue weight to the minority view, when the magazine is quoted regarding the novelty of that view. If you forbid even the Wall Street Journal as a source, it is an unfortunate advertisement that credibility is fading for your position. I accept the reliability of the Wall Street Journal even though it panned the Oxfordian position. Misplaced Pages considers the WSJ reliable. It is not up to individuals in the majority to decide that ONLY scholarly resources apply to an issue discussed by the minority. The guideline aims for a high level, not a unduly narrowed one. I will be ready for another dispute arbitration, about major periodicals' credibility in Misplaced Pages articles, when you are prepared to contest them. Isolating sourcing only to the Stratfordian chestnuts, i.e., even excluding major magazines, after going to the extent of characterizing the other side as "fringe" and "lunatic fringe" might look somewhat cultish. This would not serve the credibility of the article.

Regarding Nishidani's useful suggestion about stating the central points relevant to the Oxford summary paragraphs, and then transferring the detailed discussion to the appropriate sub-article:

Everything after the added text at the top of the sub-section is either peripheral or repetitive. Going into the details of Minerva Britanna, George Frisbees codes, Prince Tudor and PT2--is hardly a summary of the Oxford contention. If a given issue really divides the Oxfordians, as the present Prince Tudor discussion states, then it obviously isn't a central point, or they would have already split or disbanded over it.

As shown in the article and above, the Oxford Summary's central points are obvious: Oxford's reputation as poet and playwright, the import of the de Vere Geneva bible; his personal relationship with the Queen and with Southampton; his London theatrical activities (Blackfriars, etc.), his travels and far-ranging knowledge (as recognized by tutors and contemporaries), his reputation as an outstanding but covert author after his youth as per Puttenham. His status as the leading candidate for the last ninety years is appropriate to emphasize, since such recognition grows substantially by the year and the Bacon reputation has correspondingly declined. After the Stritmatter-Kositsky article in the Review of English Studies, the 1604 parameter for any further topical plays or author augmentations is a plus for the Oxfordian position. These are central arguments. To ignore, efface, or minimize them would be valuing the peripheral over the central. If the new text states the case more concisely and pertinently, that should not matter to the Stratfordian contention, given the overwhelming space and detail provided the latter in the article. Zweigenbaum (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not satisfactory to treat the article as a draft page where text you want is inserted at the start of the Oxford section, while leaving the text that was already there (which you clearly do not want)—I am referring to this diff. If you propose any further significant changes, I suggest the best strategy would be to work on them in a draft page. I would be happy to copy the wikitext somewhere, probably one of the existing sandboxes previously used, and I would clean stuff like "1920's" (no apostrophe), and remove the extraneous spaces and line breaks. You could then edit the draft to show what you propose. Regarding the changes you wanted in connection with the U.S. judges: It is not good encyclopedic practice to list celebrities that support a particular point of view. Those celebrities are experts in U.S. law, and have no track record regarding English history of the 1600s. Consider what an article would look like if the "for" side listed all the celebrities supporting their case, while the "against" side listed theirs. It is just not how things are done here (and bear in mind that there was no support for the issues you raised at the NPOV, RS and NOR noticeboards, so your understanding of how articles should be sourced may not be complete). At any rate, if you want to work on suitable wording, I suggest that you should work in a draft where you will be able to take a few days to get it right, while responding to any points raised here or on the draft's talk page. Then, other editors would be in a position to assist merging improvements to the article, or to state opinions on why no merge should occur. Having a draft would allow other editors to evaluate the competing claims. Currently, it is too confusing with these long comments and unfinished article edits to know what to think. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have just undone Zw's (Nina-esque?) edit where he just inserted his proposed text before the existing text, making the section longer, and incoherent. Having said this, I think Zw does make some valid points that are being unfairly dismissed. (I have only been looking at the article for a month and I'm already getting deja vu). More on this later today... Poujeaux (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of unfair dismissal. His points, in so far as they are intelligible in these opinionated walls of text, have been addressed. Of everything said, the point that the text on Oxford may be rather long may be relevant, and can be discussed. He has not responded to the cautions and technical objections other than by repeating his initial assertions, which is precisely what other Oxfordian editors tend to do, or have done in the past. It is also apparent that, at this delicate passage towards FA review, his behaviour in ignoring requests to make proposals for major revisions on the talk page or in a sandbox, has the appearance of an invitation to established editors to editwar (here, here and here), against reservations repeated on the talk page by other editors), and thus deprive the article of the central pillar of stability which is one of the governing criteria for FA review. For a year now I have been asking myself why so many editors from that quarter refuse to fix the delapidated mess that is The Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare Authorship, where they are free to devote their undoubted energies to a comprehensive exposition of the belief system, and, instead, engage in persistent disruptive attempts to block the completion of this article, which deals with the whole subject, not just de Vere. We are being dragged through Arbcom, forum-shopping runs riot, DYK presentations for forked off material are challenged, just as established editors have returned to fine tune a long, complex, and comprehensive piece of labour written under the most exacting conditions of wiki protocols.Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be help if you would say what the valid points were. Paul B (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Will do later. Meanwhile, here's a challenge for Paul and/or Nishi - please prove me wrong. Look at Zw's 13 points and find one that is at least partly valid and make a minor modification to the page accordingly. Poujeaux (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Tom already did that in these edits. --Xover (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I set up a draft page here and solicited edits to address Smatprt's and Peter Farey's concerns a few weeks ago. Peter utilized it; Smatprt could not, of course, since he was topic-banned and the arbitration was going on, but it is still available. It has the main article lede, the old draft version and the new mainpage version for comparison.

Pardon me if I seem to not be acting in good faith, but we seem to be regressing back to the same conditions that brought on the arbitration, i.e. a war of attrition to destabilise the page and prevent it from achieving FA status. The fact that we're now re-arguing acceptable sources when the arbitration made it clear that the best sources from experts were to be used and the fact that Zweigenbaum is now using the same editing strategies that were specifically referred to--dropping major edits into the page "for discussion" instead of searching for concensus; using the talk page to argue the anti-Stratfordian case instead of how to improve the article, and impugning the motives of other editors as if their main concern were to push their POV--all cause me concern. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. Please note the second half of the ruling - "Where an article concerns a theory that does not have majority support in the relevant scholarly community, the article must fairly describe the division of opinion among those who have extensively studied the matter." That is mandated support for I am trying to do and I believe that I am conforming to the ArbCom decisions. In fact, they clearly say that if something cannot be worked out at talk, then dispute resolution is the way to go. The fact that some of these same things have been talked to death on these talk pages, with no resolution, indicates these problems have not been solved, and no consensus has been established. If you want to challenge every edit I make and every source I add, then maybe the only alternative is to take it to the next level. I hope not. I hope you will begin to see the validity of brevity and concentrating on major points. I see that Peter Farey is doing his best to conform to the various rules you have set for this page, and so am I. But I am also trying to utilize the rules set by ArbCom. They said that RS is defined as experts on the subject. They did not say that is restricted to mainstream Shakespeare scholars with PhD's. There are experts on the subject that are in no way represented in this article. Price, Ogburn, Anderson, etc., seem to have been banned, even though they are acknowledged as experts on the minority views. Even given ArbCom's rulings, I have said to Nishidani, and will say again, that if the information I have added has sources you prefer, then feel free to add them. But deleting content because you don't like the sources, is not the way to do that. Nishidani has stated that the information I wanted to add can be sourced better. So be it. I haven o objection to your adding your own sources for Meres and Puttenham. That is minor in comparison to what seems to be a systematic attempt to exclude all minority input, even with otherwise acceptable references. Want to source to May? Do so. But I don't believe any other forum has so taken exception to any of the major points I have added. I am willing to compromise on which sources we use, as long as the content is accurate and fairly describes the central (as Nishidani termed them) Oxfordian points. At this point, the summary is still littered with far too many minor details. It reads like a caricature of the Oxfordian theory instead of a fair representation. Could we agree on trimming down the 2nd half of the summary? To my eye the brief to the point edit tells more than the oddball features you think/prefer to be is Oxfordian theory. If we could work together on the objective of brief but salient, perhaps we can overcome this impasse. Most of the jargon being thrown about to discount my contributions and objections, threaten action, associate me with Nina Green, are static, in comparison to the simple objective, be fair. There is a minority view and it is not legal to ignore it. Please consider these points.Zweigenbaum (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You say "There are experts on the subject that are in no way represented in this article. Price, Ogburn, Anderson, etc., seem to have been banned, even though they are acknowledged as experts on the minority views." No, that's not so, not at all. Sorry. See WP:RS. If a minority view is not articulated and accepted within academia as a legitimate theory there is no such thing as "expertise" in it in your sense. A person who promotes the theory that aliens built the pyramids or that Mossad destroyed the Twin Towers may be an "expert" in your sense - they may have lots of arguments and information. But only a scholar who studies the theories is an expert in our sense. Knowing a lot about a subject does not make one an expert in the relevant sense, since the "subject" itself is a walled garden. If I decide to write a book proving that Richard Greene really wrote Shakespeare, then in your sense I will be an "expert" on the topic - the expert in fact - but that will have no value according to WP:RS. Anyone is an expert on their own opinions. However, if a scholar studies and comments on my theory, then that scholar is an expert on the theory. Paul B (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum, I think perhaps you've misunderstood the purpose of the relevant section in this article. It is supposed to be quite similar to the lede of its Main article (or rather, to the in potentia ideal version of it); that is, it should summarize the major points of the subject while also serving as a stand-alone introduction. In other words, its purpose is explicitly not to present the best current arguments of the Oxfordian theory, but rather it is to summarize all aspects of the theory; including its more ludicrous variants, its weak arguments, its historical form and reception, its current state, and how it is generally received among academics of the field. Thus, for instance, the Prince Tudor variants most certainly belong there (especially considering it has apparently inspired a major motion picture). In considering this it might help you to think of it this way: it doesn't matter what you or I find the most important points about the Oxfordian theory, it is what the mainstream scholars who have surveyed it consider the most important points that matter. For instance, the features and arguments of the Oxfordian theory that S. Schoenbaum, Irvin Matus, and James Shapiro highlight are what should determine what we cover in this article. And that's entirely irrespective of whether they subscribe to those arguments or not. --Xover (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Zw's point (2) certainly makes sense. The Looney para in the Oxford section can be trimmed since it duplicates a para in the history section. Poujeaux (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Law follow up

Speaking of excess material.

'United States Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia have since both declared themselves adherents of the Oxfordian Theory, as had Justice Harry Blackmun before them. Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. rejected the Stratford hypothesis without suggesting a candidate. Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor followed suit as an anti-Stratfordian, saying " might well have been someone other than our Stratford man."

It is true that lawyers play a very important role in the Oxfordian argument, replacing as authority figures, Shakespearean-era scholars. It is natural that the Supreme Court moot court decision against be qualified by mentioning that later, two of the original justices were swayed otherwise. But then we have, imperceptibly, mention of the views of Sandra O'Conner, Anthony Scalia, and Lewis F.Powell, none of whom presided at the moot court. The section supposedly dealing with two moot courts, US and English, is made to drift off into a parenthetical excursus on members of the US Supreme Court who entertain anti-Stratfordian views, in a section devoted to 'Authorship revives in the mainstream media.' Worse still the same source tells us Justice Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer are Stratfordians, a fact not mentioned (and I hope it won't be). Are the private opinions of just US Supreme Court Justices on a matter they have no competence in relevant? If so, we will be hauling in before long Nietzsche's support for Bacon, etc.etc.etc., in a prestige by association promotional battle.

This all sets a potentially destabilizing precedent. The mainstream media covered the two events 1987, 1988, and that was the point of writing of these two decisions. The US bit is given undue weight over the English one (to insiders this recalls the fact that the Oxfordian thesis is a minor American media fixation, not shared by the English media). The British moot court decision is never mentioned (except in academic sources) because, unlike the aftermath of the US Supreme Court given some focus here, sources say it was admitted to be a 'disaster' and 'stinging defeat', given the unanimous dismissal rendered by Lords Ackner, Oliver, and Templeton. None of this has been included, wisely. But by the same token, I think the detail on the private opinions of later US supreme court judges is best moved to the Oxfordian Theory page.

There is also the problem that the WSJ ref does not conform to the citation format we are using.Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

On the immediate point of the Wall Street Journal being an improper source, see the discussion above: fact-checked mainstream periodicals are acceptable sources in Misplaced Pages. On the matter of reversals of the Justices ruling on the 1987 moot court case, that is factual information. Omitting that the very judges who ruled on the moot court all reversed their Shakespeare vs. Oxford decision, (Brennan expressed doubt about it afterward to his law clerk William F. Causey) is curious to the point of concealment. This pertinent information may strike Nishidani as shockingly out of place. However, I am inclined to think that such a position is pretextual in order to cover another, to keep the facts from being read by interested readers. If the Breyer or Kennedy views support a full disclosure of how the Supreme Court Justices have quite remarkably evolved on the question, it is fine to include it in a sentence or another clause too. In general it is better to be truthful or someone will wonder why you are squirming to avoid being truthful. That the Supreme Court Justices agreed to mock rule on this issue is altogether fitting and proper: it is a case testing the reliability of evidence, and they understand evidence. They rule on evidence in each and every case before them. I'd suggest Nishidani graciously let the undisputed historical facts stand as reported and thereby acknowledge they exist. I do not object to the report that the English judges rejected the Oxfordian position. They had their reasons.Zweigenbaum (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither the Wall Street journal nor the New York Times checks the facts in an opinion piece, which is essentially what the USNWR article is. If they had, the statement "Today, those who believe that Shakspere was the author have no definitive proof but instead point to Hamlet's declaration: 'The play's the thing.'" would not have passed muster, much less such a statement as "the weight of evidence anoints de Vere as the leading candidate" or "there isn't a scrap of documentation that Shakspere, the Warwickshire merchant, ever wrote anything in his life." I don't know who Michael Satchell is, but he sounds like he's channelling you and he's certainly not any kind of authority on Shakespeare, not does he meet the sourcing requirements for this article.

And speaking of channelling, it appears that you're now bringing up the exact same points several Oxfordians have tried to argue about in this article. You might want to check the archives from the past year and see how those arguments played out, and you might want to re-read the late arbitration sanctions before resuming your current campaign.

Another trait you seem to have picked up is plopping down a large amount of major material on the main page "for discussion", which was same the modus operandi of another bygone editor. Material for comment is placed on the talk page, not the main page. But also please note that we are not going to have long disruptive discussions that flit from one area to another as can be found in the past 15 archived pages. NPOV collaborative editing involves a bit more than merely saying "thank you" and "please".

On another note, celebrity endorsements are not substantive points of any anti-Stratfordian case, even Oxford's and the purpose of this page is to explain the cases to the reader, not try to influence him or her by drooling over which celebrity has signed on to them. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

For reasons too obvious to state, I added to the Supreme Court section information that directly pertains to it, namely that two of the three Justices voting AGAINST the Oxford contention in 1987 ENDORSED it later. The third, Brennan, expressed to his former law clerk William F. Causey that he questioned Shakspere's authenticity as the author. The update makes 3-0 against your candidate. But I got that information in the New York Times. These facts, in addition to Lewis Powell, Jr.'s skepticism about Shakspere as author, and Justice O'Connor's recent statement of skepticism to go along with Blackmun, Stevens and Scalia, change the thrust of the paragraph radically. I didn't include every detail I could have for considerations of brevity. If you don't want the relevant facts in your article, have courage and say so. The Supreme Court Justices are hardly "celebrities"; they are world-class specialists in the probity of evidence. That has relevance to this issue, a study in conjecture and little direct evidence. You intended to show that the Oxford case had no probity in your narrative about the moot court decision. The tables turned. They changed their minds. It isn't my fault. I'm not on a contract to do you in. It is fact. Recognize it and we won't have to differ.

On the matter of the major publications not fact-checking on opinion pieces, that was certainly not the case in my experience with the New Yorker. They went through everything like it was a set of legal stipulations. They don't want to make apologies or pay lawyers. The facts have to be right. The opinions are the writers' and they so state.

If I am bringing up points you have previously successfully managed to quash, or their authors, it is likely because the same common-sense questions occur to every reader who encounters the website article as presently constituted. Assuming this little dispute is evidence, you aren't about to let relevant facts get in your way. But that can be a weakness in obtaining a permanent article. I advise against the practice. Zweigenbaum (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum, you are now accusing Tom (or is it all of us?) of “quashing” valid points and generally biased editing (for all that you are couching it in superficially polite language). Please don't do that! If you have issues with an edit, comment on the edit and not the editor. You won't effect the changes you want in the article unless you manage to convince the other editors here of their merit; and making this kind of accusation is a singularily inefficient way to go about that.
That being said, your argument, such as it is, is not persuasive: you confuse the moot court with the judges' personal opinions. Granted the whole thing was nothing at all like an actual trial (where there are standards for evidence and expert witnesses), but such as it was they ruled as they did based on (semi-)legal considerations. Whatever they may privately think of the issue is wholly irrelevant, in this case as in every other case, unless it happens to bias their actions in their capacity as judges. You also appear to focus disproportionately on this: the judges opinions are only relevant if your goal is to “inform the reader as to why they should believe the Authorship theory”, but if the goal is “to inform readers about what the Authorship theory is” then their private musings are mere trivia. The article covers the moot court because it was a significant event, as judged by relevant scholarship (i.e. Shapiro), in the development of the Authorship issue, and received popular attention (i.e. it was notable). The judges' private opinions are only relevant as advocacy, and hence do not belong on Misplaced Pages. --Xover (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum, you say that these judges are "are world-class specialists in the probity of evidence". No they are not. They are specialists on the probity of evidence according to US law within the US judicial system. That is, they decide how to properly interpret acts of the legislature. They are not judges of what is "good" evidence in some Platonic sense, but of what is admissible in court, is legally relevant, accords with precedent etc, within a particular judicial system. Being experts on US law does not make them competent to judge between different models of Unified Field Theory, or assess the merits of reasons for the Fall of the Roman Empire. They are no more or less competent than anyone else to comment on such matters. Even if we were to discuss their views, we would then be obliged to list judges who have expressed support for the mainstream position. Don't forget that the mainstream won the cases. This would produce an absurd point-counterpoint situation. Paul B (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Image review 2

As requested, I am looking at all the images in the article and reviewing them as if the article were at FAC.

• File:ShakespeareCandidates1.jpg is a composite of 5 images - I will review each image individually
  • File:Edward de Vere.JPG - this image needs to be sourced. The birth and death dates for the artist and, if known, the date of the artwork should be given, as well as the source (the image file says it was scanned, but not where it was scanned from).
  • File:Francis Bacon, Viscount St Alban from NPG (2).jpg - this image is fine and is a model for others in terms of the information provided.
  • File:Christopher Marlowe.jpg - this is OK, but I would add the image template to make sure the source, date, etc. are formatted in the standrad fashion
  • File:Christopher Marlowe.jpg - this is OK, although it would be nice if the current location of the original image were given (and not just the web page from this version was taken)
  • File:Title page William Shakespeare's First Folio 1623.jpg - fine
• File:William Shakespeares birthplace, Stratford-upon-Avon 26l2007.jpg - fine
• File:Shakespeare sigs collected.png - fine except that I would define "me" is in "scanned by me"
• File:Sonnets1609titlepage.jpg - this is OK, but it seems likely it is taken from another source (since most people do not have a 1609 book to scan), so if it is from online, that link should be given (as is done with File:Title page William Shakespeare's First Folio 1623.jpg)
• File:Poet-ape1616.JPG - this is OK, but it seems likely it is taken from another source (since most people do not have a 1616 book to scan), so if it is from online, that link should be given
• File:Shakespeare-1747-1656.jpg - the most problematic image in the SAQ page. The black and white photo is completely unsourced and the engraving (Kupferstich) while old enough to be PD, needs more information as to source, etc. To me this looks like it was scanned from a book, and thus may well be a copyvio.
  • File:Trinity of Shakespeare at Trinity.jpg looks better, although the photo is not from the same angle. I will look at its three images if you want -

more to come. Ruhrfisch _><>° 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rührfisch! I'm in the middle of a copy-edit and readthrough of the article, so I need to finish that before starting to address the points regarding images that you've so graciously provided. But I'll be looking forward to the rest of your comments, and I just wanted to respond to let you know that it is much appreciated! Incidentally, if you have opinions about the general quality of the images for the purpose of illustrating the prose, or their placement in the article, those would be very helpful too. Please don't put yourself to any extra trouble to address this question, but if you happen to have any thoughts on the subject while you're looking at it anyway then even subjective comments made in passing would be quite helpful for us. In any case, thank you so much for your help with this! --Xover (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that File:Edward de Vere.JPG was scanned from the 1975 edition of Looney's "Shakespeare" Identified, as that is the only printed source that I have been able to find. If it's OK, I'll go ahead and add that when I get back home.

The File:Sonnets1609titlepage.jpg was downloaded from the Folger Library site, IIRC, which I will add.

The File:Poet-ape1616.JPG was scanned from either a facsimile edition or downloaded from EEBO. I'll try to find the original file (I usually delete them almost right away) and furnish the information.

File:Shakespeare-1747-1656.jpg is a composite of the Dugdale engraving and what appears to be a scan of Chambers's image. I'll check to see. In any case, it's a head-on photograph of an out-of-copyright artwork. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - these are just the kind of sources and additional information needed. I am not an expert on copyright law, but {{PD-Art}} says in part a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected under American copyright law and this is a photo of a sculpture (three-dimensional art work) so I am not sure that applies. Jappalang is very knoweldgable about copyright law and may be someone to consult here. Ruhrfisch _><>° 03:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Review continued....

• File:Shakespear ye Player coatofarms.gif - fine
• File:King Lear Q1.jpg and File:Camden on Shakespeare.jpg - these are OK, but it seems likely each is taken from another source (since most people do not have a 1605 or 1608 book to scan), so if it is from online, that link should be given
• File:Passionate Pilgrim title page comparison.JPG - again, no doubt that this was published long enough ago that it is PD, but the source(s) for these two images would be good to add, if known.
• File:Shakespeare monument plaque.JPG - since this is two-dimentional and very old, seems clearly PD. Source given too.
• File:Shakespeare's grammar school.JPG - fine, nice documentation
• File:The Two Noble Kinsmen by John Fletcher William Shakespeare 1634.jpg - fine, a model for other images from old books
• File:Delia-Bacon(18811-1859).jpg - I would indicate that the book the image is from was published in 1888 (so clearly PD)
• The images of Bacon, Marlowe and Stanley were part of the composite reviewed above.
• File:Edward-de-Vere-1575.jpg - needs a lot more information and formatting.

I believe that is all of the images. Ruhrfisch _><>° 04:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Gibson 2005, p. 27 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGibson2005 (help)
2. Schoenbaum 1991, pp. 445–6 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSchoenbaum1991 (help)
3. name="brit">"Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxford". Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. 2007. Retrieved 2007-08-31.; McMichael, George and Edgar M. Glenn. Shakespeare and his Rivals: A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy. Odyssey Press, 1962. p. 159.
4. Wadsworth, 121.
5. Ward 1928, pp. 274–275; Smith, Irwin M. (1964), Shakespeare's Blackfriars Playhouse: its history and its design, New York University Press
6. Akrigg, G.P.V. (1968), Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, Harvard University Press, pp. 31–32, 39
7. Stritmatter, Roger A.,"The Marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential Discovery, Literary Reasoning, and Historical Consequence", University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 2001.
8. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/shakes/beth.htm, accessed 2/18/2011.
9. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123998633934729551.html, accessed 2/19/11;