
:''This page is about the American professor, who uses "Donald W. Foster" in his academic writing and "Don Foster" in his popular writing. See Don Foster for the UK politician.'' Donald W. Foster, born 1950, is a professor of English at Vassar College in New York. He achieved instant academic notoriety with his 1985 doctoral thesis, which tentatively identified William Shakespeare as the author "W. S." of an obscure 1612 poem, ''A Funerall Elegye in memory of the late Vertuous Maister William Peeter'', the first new Shakespeare identification in over a century. The scholarly community widely rejected the claim, but as the controversy subsided, the idea gained small amounts of acceptance, most notably with some publishers who included the poem in their ''Complete Shakespeare'' editions. In 1995, Foster went further by announcing that "A ''Funerall Elegye'' belongs hereafter with Shakespeare's poems and plays". [http://web.archive.org/web/20010802184633/www.linguafranca.com/9807/crain.html] In 2002, Gilles Monsarrat and Brian Vickers came to the conclusion that John Ford (dramatist) was more likely to be the correct author, and Foster accepted this new attribution. In the mid-1990s, the academic controversy began to attract popular attention, leading to numerous requests for Foster to apply his "literary detective" skills to various anonymous and pseudonymous texts. Using a mixture of traditional scholarship and computers to perform textual comparisons, Foster looks for unique and unusual usage patterns. At his best, he is perhaps the closest literary scholarship gets to proving something "by algebra". It should be noted that computer based statistical techniques for textual analysis had been used by historians long before Foster developed his own, most notably with the Federalist Papers, with very little controversy. High points in Foster's detection include: * outing Joe Klein as the author of ''Primary Colors'': Klein denied it for six months, then finally came clean * confirming David Kaczynski's testimony that the Unabomber manifesto was written by his brother, Ted * identifying an obscure Beat Generation writer, Tom Hawkins, as the author of the Wanda Tinasky letters, commonly assumed to be the work of Thomas Pynchon * confirming a Livingston family tradition that it was their ancestor, Henry Livingston, Jr., and not Clement Clarke Moore, who wrote ''A Visit from St. Nicholas'' Foster has garnered controversy for his techniques. In particular, his involvement in the JonBenét Ramsey murder case aroused criticism when it emerged that the scholar had offered his services to both sides, initially lobbying passionately for Patsy Ramsey's innocence, but then going on a few months later, having been spurned by Ramsey's lawyers and hired by the police, to argue dispassionately for the opposite verdict. Foster has taken an interest in the 2001 anthrax attacks. Initially he argued that the perpetrator was likely a foreigner, but later wrote an article for ''Vanity Fair magazine'' naming Steven Hatfill as a prime suspect (Hatfill had already been labeled a "person of interest" by United States Attorney General John Ashcroft). Hatfill is suing Foster for defamation. [http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6152515] Foster is the author of two books: ''Elegy by W.S.: A Study in Attribution'' (1989) ISBN 0874133351 and ''Author Unknown: On the Trail of Anonymous'' (2000) ISBN 0805063579. ==External links== *[http://web.archive.org/web/20011101111232/www.linguafranca.com/9807/crain.html ''Lingua Franca'' article: The Bard's Fingerprints] *[http://www.colemanhoax.com/foster_subpage.htm Donald Foster gets it wrong, again and again]
I commented out the last link. It's a raving Ramsey murder nutcase, and I don't think it appropriate even to link to. Find a more sedate and more believable critical link. Tinasky=Pynchon was not almost universally believed.--User:192.35.35.35 18:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I've reinstated it. It's a lot more temperate and scholarly than your case against it ("raving Ramsey murder nutcase"?), and is the best assessment of Foster's failures I could find. In Foster's own words: "All I need to do is get one attribution wrong ever, and it will discredit me not just as an expert witness in civil and criminal suits but also in the academy." He did that royally with both the "Elegy" and his yo-yo Ramsey testimonies, and has aroused much controversy and criticism for both. If you have other sources, please add them; but censoring a widely-held POV because you happen to disagree with it violates the principle of Wikipedia:NPOV. In your own words: "Talk:Wanda Tinasky". :User:Chocolateboy 12:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- :I've reinstated it. It's a lot more temperate and scholarly than your case against it ("raving Ramsey murder nutcase"?), and is the best assessment of Foster's failures I could find. ::If the police call "jameson" a code six wingnut, I'm not going to disagree, and I'm not going to give him an ounce of credibility or honesty. As a simple example, he starts by citing an English professor who obviously does not understand Foster's technique. Foster expects some unusual words to match, not all of them. ::I have been unable to find a single anti-Foster site except those by jameson. :In Foster's own words: "All I need to do is get one attribution wrong ever, and it will discredit me not just as an expert witness in civil and criminal suits but also in the academy." ::A royally stupid thing to say. If he's got a 90% accuracy rating when it comes to identifying people to serve search warrants on, that is, I presume, good enough for the legal requirements. If a case involves multiple bits of evidence, that too should be enough--but a jury would have to decide. ::As to what or what discredits him with the academy--that could be anything or everything. Just publishing a popular book is asking for trouble. :He did that royally with both the "Elegy" ::No. Foster always hedged with "Elegy". (Be real: he saw others shoot their feet off badly with blatantly bad Shakespearian attributions, and played it close to the chest.) He gave pro and con arguments. A more aggressive computer search--which he always asserted could change the conclusions--confirmed Ford as a better match. It actually vindicated his methods, although few want to admit that. Although now there is the mystery of why "W. S.", so I suspect the story is not over. :and his yo-yo Ramsey testimonies, and has aroused much controversy and criticism for both. If you have other sources, please add them; but censoring a widely-held POV because you happen to disagree with it violates the principle of Wikipedia:NPOV. ::I did not do that. I did that because I think known code six wingnuts should not be brought in to side issues whatsoever. On the Ramsey page, he has made himself a relevant reference. Nor would I object to the link to the Foster letter jameson reproduces on the grounds of jameson's credibility, since the letter is objective. (I would object on grounds of good taste.) :In your own words: "Talk:Wanda Tinasky". User:Chocolateboy 12:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Which means I expect some sort of editorial decision making to be made, based on standards of reliability.--User:192.35.35.35 19:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- If you're really interested in having a constructive discussion, I strongly suggest you learn to quote rather than vandalising my comments with interlineations. :''Although now there is the mystery of why "W. S.", so I suspect the story is not over.'' [http://www.rahul.net/raithel/Derby/apocrypha.html#breton William Stanley]? :-) As for the link being the work of someone with an agenda: that's a) hardly surprising, and b) no reason to censor it. Wikipedia is full of links to labours of love and labours of hate, many of which, as is the case with this link, are also Wikipedia:Cite sources. User:Chocolateboy 13:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) :There has been no vandalization. If you wish to have a constructive discussion, you will not lie so absurdly and pointlessly. :In numerous articles, links are removed because they do not really fit in with the article. Check out the recent history of college football coach Joe Paterno, where a recent link detailing his political contributions was quickly removed as irrelevant. The article mentions the fact that his career has recently nose dived badly, but it has not included a link to the [http://www.firejoepaterno.com Joe Must Go] site, which would be relevant, but I suspect far too partisan for suitable encyclopedic reference. :Albert Einstein attracts a lot of kooks and crackpots, and "labours of stupidity" get reverted and unlinked regularly. I view jameson in the same boat. :Also, I should have said previously, NPOV issues do not apply to external links. :Since you raised the question Talk:Wanda Tinasky#Mediation requested, in what possible sense is Foster's Ramsey testimony yo-yo?--User:192.35.35.36 20:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Donald_Foster:
Donald_Foster
Donald_Foster
Donald_Foster_(disambiguation)
Donald_Foster_(disambiguation)
Donald Foster
:''This page is about the American professor, who uses "Donald W. Foster" in his academic writing and "Don Foster" in his popular writing. See Don Foster for the UK politician.'' Donald W. Foster, born 1950, is a professor of English at Vassar College in New York. He achieved instant academic notoriety with his 1985 doctoral thesis, which tentatively identified William Shakespeare as the author "W. S." of an obscure 1612 poem, ''A Funerall Elegye in memory of the late Vertuous Maister William Peeter'', the first new Shakespeare identification in over a century. The scholarly community widely rejected the claim, but as the controversy subsided, the idea gained small amounts of acceptance, most notably with some publishers who included the poem in their ''Complete Shakespeare'' editions. In 1995, Foster went further by announcing that "A ''Funerall Elegye'' belongs hereafter with Shakespeare's poems and plays". [http://web.archive.org/web/20010802184633/www.linguafranca.com/9807/crain.html] In 2002, Gilles Monsarrat and Brian Vickers came to the conclusion that John Ford (dramatist) was more likely to be the correct author, and Foster accepted this new attribution. In the mid-1990s, the academic controversy began to attract popular attention, leading to numerous requests for Foster to apply his "literary detective" skills to various anonymous and pseudonymous texts. Using a mixture of traditional scholarship and computers to perform textual comparisons, Foster looks for unique and unusual usage patterns. At his best, he is perhaps the closest literary scholarship gets to proving something "by algebra". It should be noted that computer based statistical techniques for textual analysis had been used by historians long before Foster developed his own, most notably with the Federalist Papers, with very little controversy. High points in Foster's detection include: * outing Joe Klein as the author of ''Primary Colors'': Klein denied it for six months, then finally came clean * confirming David Kaczynski's testimony that the Unabomber manifesto was written by his brother, Ted * identifying an obscure Beat Generation writer, Tom Hawkins, as the author of the Wanda Tinasky letters, commonly assumed to be the work of Thomas Pynchon * confirming a Livingston family tradition that it was their ancestor, Henry Livingston, Jr., and not Clement Clarke Moore, who wrote ''A Visit from St. Nicholas'' Foster has garnered controversy for his techniques. In particular, his involvement in the JonBenét Ramsey murder case aroused criticism when it emerged that the scholar had offered his services to both sides, initially lobbying passionately for Patsy Ramsey's innocence, but then going on a few months later, having been spurned by Ramsey's lawyers and hired by the police, to argue dispassionately for the opposite verdict. Foster has taken an interest in the 2001 anthrax attacks. Initially he argued that the perpetrator was likely a foreigner, but later wrote an article for ''Vanity Fair magazine'' naming Steven Hatfill as a prime suspect (Hatfill had already been labeled a "person of interest" by United States Attorney General John Ashcroft). Hatfill is suing Foster for defamation. [http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6152515] Foster is the author of two books: ''Elegy by W.S.: A Study in Attribution'' (1989) ISBN 0874133351 and ''Author Unknown: On the Trail of Anonymous'' (2000) ISBN 0805063579. ==External links== *[http://web.archive.org/web/20011101111232/www.linguafranca.com/9807/crain.html ''Lingua Franca'' article: The Bard's Fingerprints] *[http://www.colemanhoax.com/foster_subpage.htm Donald Foster gets it wrong, again and again]
Donald Foster
I commented out the last link. It's a raving Ramsey murder nutcase, and I don't think it appropriate even to link to. Find a more sedate and more believable critical link. Tinasky=Pynchon was not almost universally believed.--User:192.35.35.35 18:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I've reinstated it. It's a lot more temperate and scholarly than your case against it ("raving Ramsey murder nutcase"?), and is the best assessment of Foster's failures I could find. In Foster's own words: "All I need to do is get one attribution wrong ever, and it will discredit me not just as an expert witness in civil and criminal suits but also in the academy." He did that royally with both the "Elegy" and his yo-yo Ramsey testimonies, and has aroused much controversy and criticism for both. If you have other sources, please add them; but censoring a widely-held POV because you happen to disagree with it violates the principle of Wikipedia:NPOV. In your own words: "Talk:Wanda Tinasky". :User:Chocolateboy 12:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- :I've reinstated it. It's a lot more temperate and scholarly than your case against it ("raving Ramsey murder nutcase"?), and is the best assessment of Foster's failures I could find. ::If the police call "jameson" a code six wingnut, I'm not going to disagree, and I'm not going to give him an ounce of credibility or honesty. As a simple example, he starts by citing an English professor who obviously does not understand Foster's technique. Foster expects some unusual words to match, not all of them. ::I have been unable to find a single anti-Foster site except those by jameson. :In Foster's own words: "All I need to do is get one attribution wrong ever, and it will discredit me not just as an expert witness in civil and criminal suits but also in the academy." ::A royally stupid thing to say. If he's got a 90% accuracy rating when it comes to identifying people to serve search warrants on, that is, I presume, good enough for the legal requirements. If a case involves multiple bits of evidence, that too should be enough--but a jury would have to decide. ::As to what or what discredits him with the academy--that could be anything or everything. Just publishing a popular book is asking for trouble. :He did that royally with both the "Elegy" ::No. Foster always hedged with "Elegy". (Be real: he saw others shoot their feet off badly with blatantly bad Shakespearian attributions, and played it close to the chest.) He gave pro and con arguments. A more aggressive computer search--which he always asserted could change the conclusions--confirmed Ford as a better match. It actually vindicated his methods, although few want to admit that. Although now there is the mystery of why "W. S.", so I suspect the story is not over. :and his yo-yo Ramsey testimonies, and has aroused much controversy and criticism for both. If you have other sources, please add them; but censoring a widely-held POV because you happen to disagree with it violates the principle of Wikipedia:NPOV. ::I did not do that. I did that because I think known code six wingnuts should not be brought in to side issues whatsoever. On the Ramsey page, he has made himself a relevant reference. Nor would I object to the link to the Foster letter jameson reproduces on the grounds of jameson's credibility, since the letter is objective. (I would object on grounds of good taste.) :In your own words: "Talk:Wanda Tinasky". User:Chocolateboy 12:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Which means I expect some sort of editorial decision making to be made, based on standards of reliability.--User:192.35.35.35 19:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- If you're really interested in having a constructive discussion, I strongly suggest you learn to quote rather than vandalising my comments with interlineations. :''Although now there is the mystery of why "W. S.", so I suspect the story is not over.'' [http://www.rahul.net/raithel/Derby/apocrypha.html#breton William Stanley]? :-) As for the link being the work of someone with an agenda: that's a) hardly surprising, and b) no reason to censor it. Wikipedia is full of links to labours of love and labours of hate, many of which, as is the case with this link, are also Wikipedia:Cite sources. User:Chocolateboy 13:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) :There has been no vandalization. If you wish to have a constructive discussion, you will not lie so absurdly and pointlessly. :In numerous articles, links are removed because they do not really fit in with the article. Check out the recent history of college football coach Joe Paterno, where a recent link detailing his political contributions was quickly removed as irrelevant. The article mentions the fact that his career has recently nose dived badly, but it has not included a link to the [http://www.firejoepaterno.com Joe Must Go] site, which would be relevant, but I suspect far too partisan for suitable encyclopedic reference. :Albert Einstein attracts a lot of kooks and crackpots, and "labours of stupidity" get reverted and unlinked regularly. I view jameson in the same boat. :Also, I should have said previously, NPOV issues do not apply to external links. :Since you raised the question Talk:Wanda Tinasky#Mediation requested, in what possible sense is Foster's Ramsey testimony yo-yo?--User:192.35.35.36 20:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
D
DA | DB | DC | DE | DF | DG | DH | DI | DJ | DK | DL | DM | DN | DO | DP | DR | DS | DT | DU | DW | DX | DY | DZ |Words begining with Donald_Foster:
Donald_Foster
Donald_Foster
Donald_Foster_(disambiguation)
Donald_Foster_(disambiguation)
Sponsored links: praca, nurkowanie.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
