Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fripp

Editor CIreland deleted the following contribution by Knitwitted - without any explanation.

"Stratfordian Edgar I. Fripp suggests the Earl of Oxford owned a copy of at least Sonnets 1-26 which, according to Fripp, are based on the pending marriage of his daughter, Elizabeth, to the Earl of Southampton. Fripp furthers that de Vere's widow, Elizabeth Trentham "may have let the manuscript go, consisting of 154 sonnets and A Lover's Complaint", to Thomas Thorpe upon the break-up of her residence at King's Place in Hackney in 1609."

The book was published by Oxford University Press, 1938, 2nd printing 1964. If such an acknowledged publishing house brings out a book, why is it forbidden to cite out of it on Wikipedia? And why there was no explanation for the deleting? In my opinion, the deleting by CIreland was againt the rules of Wikipedia. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There is plenty of explanation at User talk:Knitwitted (which is where such explanation should be after a rollback). It is very undesirable (given the talk page I mentioned) to raise questions regarding that editor here. A full explanation would be off-topic here, so if anyone is really interested please try my talk. The best thing would be to let the matter rest for a few days, then suggest that certain text be added to the article, with reasons, and without mentioning editors as that is not relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The addition was removed because the editor is topic-banned, not because of its content. Even if the edit had been perfect in every way, it would have been removed. Other editors can add the same content. Paul B (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This is what Fripp says, just to be clear about the context: "The late Earl of Oxford (he died in 1604) possessed, we may assume, a copy at least of Sonnets i-xxvi, wherein young Southampton was urged to accept the hand of his daughter, Elizabeth de Vere, and as a poet and patron of poets and players, he would value anything from Shakespeare's pen. The Countess, his second wife, Elizabeth Trentham, may have let the manuscript go, consisting of 154 sonnets and A Lover's Complaint, ignorant of its nature and literary worth. On the other hand, it may have escaped from the papers of the incoming occupant, the litterateur and sonnetter, Sir Fulke Greville. It has been suggested, also, that 'Master W. H.', the confidant to whom in audacious terms Thorpe expresses his gratitude for the copy, was one William Hall, married in Hackney Church on 4 August 1608, who may have been William Hall the printer." Paul B (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

My question: Has this last unsigned editing been by Paul Barlow? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You can easily identify the author by clicking on "view history". Yes, I forgot to sign it (which I have now done). The context is that Fripp believes Shakespeare wrote the marriage sonnets for the proposed Elizabeth de Vere-Southampton marriage ("Did she suggest to Shakespeare that he should try what he could do with his pen? His Sonnets i-xxvi might well have originated in such a proposal."). This is perfectly possible, but only one of many possibilities. Fripp also refers to the bed-trick claims regarding Oxford. Paul B (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Just now saw this. If Fripp's speculation is part of the Oxfordian theory, it should be in here, but I haven't seen it quoted in any Oxfordian argument and inserting it in this article is the mere collecting of oddball opinions, of which Fripp had more than a few. He's very good when he sticks to the historical record; when he speculates, his eagerness to explain every detail of Shakespeare's life to show how intimate he is with the Genius Mind of the Bardiest Bard of the Entire Universe becomes distressingly evident. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure "I haven't seen it quoted in any Oxfordian argument" should be a deciding factor here. Has any one WP editor actually seen ALL of the Oxfordian literature? Doubtful. But to address this particular issue, yes, Fripp's research into the Sonnets has certainly been featured by Hank Whittemore, whose specialty is the Sonnets, as I'm pretty sure you are aware. Oxfordian scholar Strittmatter also discusses Fripp's Shakespearean research and its relation to Oxford. Not sure how you are not aware of these, but now that I've confirmed them, I hope this issue is pretty much over. I'll repost as per Paul above ("The addition was removed because the editor is topic-banned, not because of its content... Other editors can add the same content.") Smatprt (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but you need to give a ref as to where Oxfordians cite Fripp and other mainstream scholars, not just cite the material itself. How the Fripp material is relevant to the Oxfordian theory is obscure to me, but if an Oxfordian cites it as support it's OK with me to leave it in. Other material in that section need citations also. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to be very short. If a Stratfordian author says that the Earl of Oxford possessed Sonnets 1 to 26 (originals or copies?), and Elisabeth Trentham gave the Sonnets to Thomas Thorpe in 1609 (without knowing what literary value they had), is this of no importance for the SAQ? Until very recently, nobody spoke of these obvious facts on Wikipedia. What is now the consequence for our discussions? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

They aren't "facts". They are speculation by Fripp. Sure, it's legitimate speculation. Shakespeare studies has acres of this stuff dating back to the 18th century. I'm agnostic on the legitimacy of a brief mention, but it really is a classic case of cherry-picking. Paul B (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I simply don´t agree with you, Paul B. If it is a cherry, then it is a very valuable cherry for the Oxfordian theory. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hardly. Even if it were true, it would simply mean that the procreation sonnets were written for young Southampton, which is a commonplace view, albeit as speculative as any other. What is it that you disagree with? Paul B (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of how valuable a cherry it is, unless it is part of the Oxfordian argument it will be deleted as WP:OR, so somebody needs to cough up a reference. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of Frippin' references in Oxfordian literature. And frankly, Fripp provides a lot more "cherries" than what is mentioned in the current article. Again, I marvel that you, Tom & Paul, have not come across any. But I will assume good faith, and take you at your word that you are ignorant of such mentions. I will post several here in the next few days. However... I have a real job, folks, and while I consider this a good use of my volunteer hours, those hours are spare. I'm sure you understand. If I can, I'll even try to post some tonight, but my lap top is in the shop and I'll be posting from my iphone, so the typing... she goes s l o w ... cheers. Smatprt (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I must admit that I have not read every Oxfordian argument and haven't seen any that rely of Fripp. Fripp is good when he sticks to the documentary record, but one has to be careful when using him to winnow out the speculation from the facts since he often mixes them, as he does in this example.

Don't worry about it; the article isn't going anywhere. I can't imagine trying to edit WP from my phone. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The only Oxfordian reference to Fripp I can find is in Richard F. Whalen: "Schoenbaum (Compact Life, 74) quotes E. I. Fripp on Shakespeare's knowledge of the leather-working trade, that of Will Shakspere's father." This is supposed to show the feebleness of "Stratfordian" attempts to link the plays to W.S.'s life-experiences. However, since Fripp's book is from 1938, it would be surprising if Allen, Barrell and the other members of the gang did not make some reference to him. Paul B (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your attitude, Tom & Paul, on Wikipedia:No original research rule is a very special one. Obviously, there is a need to put "citation needed" tag on dozens of editings which are in favour of the present mainstream theory. There is no evidence at all on a surprisingly huge number of alleged facts concerning WS of Stratford. Are you aware of this? And what is your opinion about the newest findings concerning the long-term image of Richard III in the aftermath of the excavations in Leicester? This is also a very interesting topic for the whole SAQ. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be missing the point. Tom is arguing that use of Fripp as part of Oxfordian theory needs to be cited to Oxfordians who have already used him, not invented newly as an argument by Wikipedians. Any fact which is undisputed, whether it be about Shakespeare's life or Oxford's, does not necessarily have to be cited, though it should always be possible to do so. What the discovery of Richard III's body has to do with anything on this page is a mystery to me, since neither Shakespeare nor Oxford can possibly have known about it. Paul B (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Think about the implications. I would say, the play Richard III from 1592 was part of Tudor government propaganda against this old enemy, and Oxford was taking actively part in it. He knew the history much better than some other people, but he had a task, so he wrote what was asked. I am sorry, but after all he was paid 1,000 pounds a year. The other problem, you mean that the Fripp citation should be placed somewhere else in the article? It is a valid argument, as you see, either as a citation by a known Oxfordian or just for itself. And it should in all cases be included in this article on the Oxfordian theory, as it confirms some important Oxfordian points. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Richard III was the third play on that king's career in the Elizabethan era and it follows directly from the Henry VI plays. Chronology plays about English kings were a well-established genre. The sources for the play would be the same whether Oxford or Shakespeare or Bacon or Marlowe wrote it. I know of no evidence that Oxford had any special knowledge of Richard III. However, if Oxfordian writers have claimed that he did, all you have to do is find the source that says so. Friggin' Fripp is a valid citation for discussing the sonnets in the relevant article, though rather too old to be preferred when there are so many more modern sources. Paul B (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this Fripp citation should also be included in the Shakespeare's sonnets article, and possibly in the article on the SAQ, too. Do you know some more modern sources saying approximately the same as Fripp, Paul B? Please disclose them. What I would like to say is that Elizabeth Trentham, Countess of Oxford, was probably in the possession of a lot of original manuscripts after Edward Oxenford´s death in 1604. In 1609, she thought that what she was giving away to Thomas Thorpe was just some strange lyrics which she did not deemed very important. Maybe she even did not understand their content well. And the Sonnets were then published under this pen-name William Shake-Speare, of course, so the situation was not quite dramatic. However, in the same time Elisabeth Trentham was aware that the plays (today officially attributed to WS of Stratford) were far more problematic, that they were a highly political matter. They could still endanger her, her family, especially her son Henry de Vere, 18th Earl of Oxford, and their fortunes. So she kept the original manuscripts of the plays. Elizabeth Trentham died in December 1612. Only much later, in 1623, some relatives of her let the plays finally be published in the First Folio. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to believe this, of course, I can't stop you. All I can say is that this seems a preposterous fantasy to me. Since you still show no sign of "getting" the basics of Wikipedia policy, I give up. Paul B (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't have a lot of time this afternoon for editing, but for Paul and Tom, here are some Oxfordian publications, websites and blogs that discuss Fripp's speculations:

• Shine Forth: VOLUME 3

By Paul Altrocchi, Hank Whittemore

iUniverse, 2009

ISBN 144014365X, 9781440143656

pp84-90, pp104-109

• ‪Pseudonymous Shakespeare: Rioting Language in the Sidney Circle.

Penny McCarthy,

Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2006

ISBN 0754655083, 9780754655084

p64-71

• The Truth Will Out: Unmasking the Real Shakespeare

‪:Brenda James, ‪William Rubinstein (re: Law)

HarperCollins, 2009

ISBN 0061847445, 9780061847448

p14

• Shakespeare By Another Name

By Mark Anderson. Gotham Books, 2005. University of Michigan.

ISBN 1592401031, 9781592401031

4 cites in endnotes

• • Online blogs and presentations:

http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/essays/coincidences/index.html (slide 36)

http://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/?s=fripp&submit=Search

http://knitwittings.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/and-the-moral-of-the-story-is-keep-your-frippin-mouth-shut/

After reading the refs - especially those in "Shine Forth", there is a whole lot more that could be said about Fripp's speculations and how they have impacted Oxfordianism, as well as the whole SAQ. But frankly, I have to wonder what this whole article section is about? Why is it here? Shouldn't these items (cherry picked for sure) be in their relevant sections? As it stands now, given its odd heading, it could be expanded ten-fold or even be its own article. Is that where this section is headed? Personally, I'd do away with the whole thing and incorporate what little is there into the article. But if the section stands, it definitely needs expansion. Smatprt (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote above, all these are well and good if they are part of the Oxfordian argument. Nobody's trying to ban any part of the argument, but my particular question on the material that is there now. How is that part of the argument and who uses it? It has to be coherent and it needs to be sourced. Also space considerations come into play. Since we're describing the Oxfordian theory, it isn't necessary to go into a lot of detail on how a particular point was arrived at, especially if it expands the page without really adding to the topic. And I don't think it needs a new section for Fripp speculations, and any creation of an article of Oxfordian uses of mainstream scholarship would be yet another POV fork. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Checking all those examples, I don't see Fripp making any Oxfordian arguments, and in fact some of them are denigrating Fripp as just another "Stratfordian" biographer. He is being used the same way Chambers or any other mainstream Shakespearean is used by Oxfordians--either to show how fictional their ideas are or by cherry-picking some point that Oxfordians agree with "to create the appearance of widespread agreement on an issue, even when the opinion in question is more widely considered eccentric or outdated", to quote from the "Oxfordian citation of mainstream scholars" section. Unless someone can come up with an example of an Oxfordian using that particular Fripp material (and I'm not talking about some made-to-order blog post), it needs to be pulled off the page. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Pseudonymous Shakespeare, bonkers though it is, is not an Oxfordian book, or even an anti-Stratfordian one. You appear to be wholly unaware of this. How odd. The Truth Will Out is of course promoting Neville. Remember this is the Oxfordian theory page. I already checked Anderson. There are no references to Fripp's theory in it. Fripp's name only appears in footnotes among lists of authors. I've just checked what Altrocchi and Whittemore say. They make no reference whatever to Fripp's arguments about the sonnets, but spend a lot of time sneering at his attempts to fit WS's life-experience to the content of the plays, in exactly the same way that Richard F. Whalen does. Am I to understand your "research" comprises typing "Fripp" into google books and not even checking how what was written relates to the content - the alleged ownership of a manuscript of the sonnets? Paul B (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, as a general point about "Fripp's speculations and how they have impacted Oxfordianism", I don't think they've had very much impact at all, though that's a matter for debate. What is much more clearly established is that a particular tradition of writing about Shakespeare that begins in earnest with Dowden and extends to Harris has had an impact - speculating about how events in Shakespeare's life are reflected, or in some way deducable, from the plays and poems. There's certainly a case to ber made for discussing that in more detail and in proper context. Fripp could be part of that if there is any evidence he is used regularly by Oxfordians. Paul B (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Article lacks Neutrality

I'm reviewing the article for neutrality and find it comes up quite lacking. Perhaps this is why the article is rated so poorly. Simply reviewing for WP:AVOID I found an astounding number of uses of the words "claim" and "assert" - almost 30 (iirc) used to describe Oxfordian beliefs. But just once on the Stratfordian response. Such an obvious imbalance can hardly be a mistake, which is why (I might guess) so many complaints keep appearing regarding neutrality problems being ignored here. Given that this precise complaint (WP:AVOID) has been raised before, its disheartening to see so many violations still exist. I addressed as many as I could find, but the whole article needs a top to bottom review to address, if nothing else, these glaring neutrality issues. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Please give at least one concrete example. An example would need a reliable source to justify the word "claim" being replaced with text to the effect that "it is a fact that". A proposal would be even better. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not change the article in the way that you suggest. In almost every case, I merely changed the more loaded terms "claim" and "assert" to the clearly neutral alternatives of "believe", "say" or "write", all what WP:AVOID specifically recommends. In the single case of my using the word "note", meaning "it is a fact that", I supplied 4 RS references. A quick roll thru the word changes I made should convince you that this is all reasonable and made in good faith. Smatprt (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm a simple person. I assume that when I see a new talk page section that makes no mention of recent edits to the article, that the person is talking about something in the current article (I see now that there is a clue in the "I addressed..." text in the last sentence, but clarity would be good). Please be more clear regarding what point you are making. At any rate, it is still not helpful to generalize: if you want to make this section (why?), give an example of a recent edit and briefly mention how it helps or otherwise. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all the changes, but the word "claim" has a legitimate use in some of the instances that it was changed to "believe". One good example is "Allen and Ward claimed that they had discovered that Elizabeth and Oxford were lovers and had conceived a child." If they only believed they had discovered such a thing, they would not have written a book. And a sensational claim of this nature, against all historical record and scholarly inquiry, does in fact call their credibility into question, so the use of the word "claim" certainly is not proscribed in this instance.

Another example is "Mainstream critics further claim that if William Shakespeare did not write the plays and poems, the number of people needed to suppress this information would have made their attempts highly unlikely to succeed." How anyone can "further believe" is unclear, unless they are "believing" out loud. Neutrality does not demand insipid, vague prose like this. When the right word is "claim", that word should be used. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me address the second one first since, upon review, I believe we are both wrong. It's not a claim, it's not a belief, it's a critical response to the whole idea of a large conspiracy, right? Lets just say "mainstream critics respond", shall we, and be done with that one? Smatprt (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This muddies the waters; a simple "say" would do in that particular case.

Let's instead look at the simple definitions of the terms under discussion and make an assessment based on their context in the article. We need to keep in mind that

(a) we are not making arguments here; we are describing arguments;

(b) the term "claim" is frequently used when discussing the way to write articles about fringe theories, especially in the section "Evaluating claims"; and

(c) WP:CLAIM does not forbid the use of such terms as "claim" and "assert", it only cautions that such terms should be used judiciously.

claim — verb: State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. noun: An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.

believe — verb: To accept something as true, genuine, or real.

belief — noun: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists; something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

The Oxfordian theory is overall a belief. It makes many claims, but they are all based on the belief that Oxford wrote Shakespeare.

"Believe" is passive; "claim" is active. I can believe any number of things, but until I communicate those beliefs and the reasons why I hold them, I am not making any claims. Only when I open my mouth or set pen to paper do I move from the state of belief to the act of making a claim.

WP:NPOV is not a directive to banish difficult terms and replace them with mild euphemisms that reduces all statements to gray, mushy, and ultimately inaccurate descriptions; it calls for editorial judgment and a high standard of contextual diction. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues

The article currently states: "Although most Oxfordians accuse mainstream academics of rejecting their theory only because they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, they often cite the work of individual scholars to create the appearance of widespread agreement on an issue, even when the opinion in question is more widely considered eccentric or outdated. The great volume of literature on Shakespeare makes it easy for Oxfordians to find mainstream scholars who have expressed opinions favourable to their theory."

This is a prime example of what is wrong with this article. The paragraph presents opinion as fact, contains a distinct editorial voice (that is clearly not neutral), and generalizes with ad hominem statements. And not one source, not one reference. In fact, it seems as if the whole section was created simply to lump "most" Oxfordians together, and then denigrate them. Also I find it odd that the first two examples, which support the pro-Oxfordian 1604 issue, have been removed from that section altogether. No wonder so many editors find fault with this article and it has been rated so poorly. Smatprt (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please modify your tone. You are using the diction of someone who has come to right a great wrong (This is a prime example ... In fact, it seems ... I find it odd ... No wonder ...). What's wrong with this article is mostly lack of organization and bad writing. Nobody is suppressing any information. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Tom, it would be helpful if you didn't read "tone" into my posts. I'm not aware of any "great wrongs" and I'm not here to "right" anything. Like you, I just want the articles on Wikipedia to be the best they can be. Earlier on this page, an editor/administrator? asked "give an example of a recent edit and briefly mention how it helps or otherwise" - so when I give a "prime example" of an unhelpful edit, its because I was asked to do so. If I find something "odd", I should be able to say that I do without my good faith being questioned.Smatprt (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Now while we are asking each other to modify our behavour - can I make the same request? A post like this of yours...

"I asked because your expressions of frustration with Knitwit remind me of those between a parent and a teenager. Her thinking and behaviour (at least that on exhibit here) is reminiscent of an 8th-grader (13-14 years old). Her self-congratulatory "cleverness" in the face of her obvious ignorance, her petty anti-authoritarianism, her simulation of not understanding the point of the rules, etc.--all these are common characteristics of teenagers who think themselves too clever by half. Apparently the SAQ attracts people who either never grew out of that stage or who are unbelievably obtuse.Tom Reedy (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)",

...for example, has no place on Wikipedia. What happened to "talk about the edit, not the editor"? Are name calling and ad hominem attacks the kind of tone you prefer?Smatprt (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I can promise you, smatprt, that I will never leave a comment like that on your talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what you mean about your comment, "No wonder so many editors find fault with this article and it has been rated so poorly." From almost 60 readers, all of the ratings are above 2.5 except for the writing. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's impossible to proove of course, but I've no doubt that almost all "Oxfordian" related articles are rated by Oxfordians, so we'd hardly expect an objective rating. Paul B (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Full support for User Smatprt. Until very recently, the situation was not satisfactory in view of general Wikipedia policies. In social sciences, there is no theory which can be labeled as fringe forever, if there is so much circumstantial evidence for it. Ask some qualified lawyers, and don´t say their opinion would not be relevant at all. And there might be more than only such evidence. Much more neutrality on all pages concerning SAQ is needed. May we hope that all qualified information finds its way to these pages? It is of no particular importance where the information is placed. I don´t think that it would be correct to delete completely the information on Elizabeth Trentham having had some (or all?) Sonnets etc. If Mr. Fripp possibly did not realize what was the value of his information, so we should be able to do so. Either this information is correct or it is not. This distinction is decisive. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Now this is too much. Paul B., it might be that you don´t like the Fripp information. But what gives you the right to delete it now from the place to which I placed it? It would be of great importance, if you could explain it to me. You have not explained anything. Is this information correct or is it not? And if it is correct, what is then the reason for your having deleted it again? Are you aware what you exercise here? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what, Zbrnajsem, I actually long for an Oxfordian editor who shows basic competence, is not driven by obssessive resentment or bizarre, indecipherable enthusiasm; one who can distinguish between arguments that are actually used by Oxfordians and those that are not. That would be someone who actually identifies what the main arguments are or have been over the years, how they have evolved and what the responses have been. Just plucking something out of thin air and giving it a section all on its own is chaotic. Under "Oxfordian" control this article became an absolute jumble of ad hoc arguments thrown around. The reason for deleting has already been explained repeatedly. The fact that you seem simply unable to "get" it is something I can do nothing about. There could be a case for including it if it were undisputed, or if Fripp's views had been used by Oxfordians as part of their argument. Maybe it has been, but even it it has, it should be part of a coherent section, which, perhaps, might address the way in which biographical arguments are used by both "sides". Paul B (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What "gives him the right" is the fact that this article is about the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, not about Manuscripts that Oxford possibly owned. As far as can be ascertained, this speculation by Fripp is not part of any Oxfordian argument, and editing Wikipedia doesn't mean loading up articles with not-quite-related material. If you want this included in the article, write a book and put that in and we'll report it. This article is not a place to argue the theory, nor is this talk page a place to argue the theory. You have been told this several times and been given links to relevant policies. What is it that you do not understand? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

May I cite Paul B. He wrote, obviously addressing me: Do you know what, Zbrnajsem, I actually long for an Oxfordian editor who shows basic competence, is not driven by obssessive resentment or bizarre, indecipherable enthusiasm; one who can distinguish between arguments that are actually used by Oxfordians and those that are not. Does it mean that Paul B. thinks my competence in Oxfordian and SAQ matters would not even be basic? That I am driven by obssessive resentment or bizarre, indecipherable enthusiasm? That I cannot distinguish between arguments that are actually used by Oxfordians and those that are not? Was this all an attack ad hominem or was it not? Besides this, neither Paul B. nor Tom Reedy have declared that Fripp´s information was not correct or not verifiable. In my opinion, this information should be placed in the article regardless of it having been used by a (renown?) Oxfordian or not. Is this article there just to cite arguments used in works published by Oxfordians? There is a lot of other things in this article. Mainstream arguments are also cited, and it appears that this article is possibly only thought to be there, after all, to declare the Oxfordian theory for an erroneous one. So why was Fripp´s information deleted already three times, as far as I can count? Or twice, if we don´t count the editing by sanctioned Knitwitted (a teenager according to Tom Reedy). I guess there are people who would like to declare even me as a teenager. If somebody tries to do so, then I am prepared to tell him in private how old I really am as an existing person. And: What does it mean that I am, already for the second time, reminded by Tom Reedy on my talk page that I might be also sanctioned? This is a little bit strange. Only people who show some inclination to the Oxfordian theory as such are treated like this. Am I reminded by Tom Reedy because I dare to participate in this very discussion? He gave no explanation to me whatsoever why he reminded me. I could qualify his behaviour, but I don´t do it now. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

(1) Paul was expressing his frustration with your apparent inability to understand Wikipedia policies or your apparent unwillingness to even read them.

(2) Fripp's speculation (not "information") is unverifiable.

(3) It cannot be cited here because of Wikipedia's policy against original research. If Fripp's speculation is used in some Oxfordian argument, then it can be used. Until then, you're SOL.

(4) This article's purpose is to summarise the Oxfordian theory and the mainstream thinking about it. See WP:FRINGE.

(5) Nobody cares how old you are.

(6) I put the warning template on your page because I am trying to help you avoid being topic banned or blocked, the same reason why I warned Smatprt about his tone above. If you continue to revisit this to the point where it becomes disruptive, that will happen. Whether you like the arbitration results or not, you must conform your behaviour to the guidelines that were set out if you want to continue to edit on this and related pages.

(7) I have put the same warning template on the talk pages of Stratfordians. Here's just one example. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a reply to the above address to my person. I would like to know who and what gives you the right to be a permanent judge over other contributors to Wikipedia, User Tom Reedy. You are no administrator, and in my opinion you should not regularly place warning templates to other editors who do not agree with you on certain matters. This is a talk page. There must be a certain degree of free discussion, I have repeatedly stressed this stance. Your warning templates might be perceived negatively, do you realize this? Do you, in principle, concede the same right to others, for example to me, to make judgments about yourself on Wiki talk pages? And even put warnings when your behaviour should be perceived as inappropriate? Anyway, you should, at least, accept that I and the others are independent individual persons who do not need your care, User Tom Reedy. If you think that persons in a certain category of age are fond of such care, then you commit an error. This is my reply to your point 6. Furthermore, is Fripp's "speculation" really unverifiable? Is it really a speculation? Please give a thorough evidence for this judgment, because it is very important for the present article. A lot of other informations with respect to the SAQ which are included in the articles concerned might be also qualified as unverifiable. A list of informations perceived as unverifiable could be delivered, if you like. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Have it your way. I'm joining Paul and giving up. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

We know that Fripp's suggestion is speculation because he says so himself: "The late Earl of Oxford (he died in 1604) possessed, we may assume, a copy at least of Sonnets i-xxvi". - Cal Engime (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, what are the possible meanings of we may assume? Your explanation, Cal Engime, that Fripp himself would have been aware he was just speculating about the matter (and nothing else), is, in my opinion, not quite correct. It is only a suggestion from your part. Second: May I assume that I am allowed to participate in the discussion as long as I do not commit an obvious offence against the true rules of Wikipedia, Tom Reedy? You say you give up. You have not given any further comment on the Fripp case. I hope somebody will be able to verify Fripp´s findings from 1938 about the possession of some (or all?) Sonnets by the Earl of Oxford, and his subsequent finding that Elizabeth Trentham, the Earl´s widow, possessed them after his death in 1604 and gave them finally to Thomas Thorpe who published them in 1609. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any productive argument to be had about this point, and will simply say that my superior command of the English language qualifies me to say that Fripp's statement is speculative. As Tom has already explained to you above, it cannot be included, true or not, because nobody has been able to cite any Oxfordian writer who has made use of this alleged evidence, and using this page to advance original arguments for Oxford is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Arguing over trivialities on the talk page is likely to be seen as abuse under the ArbCom sanctions which apply to this article. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You are not entitled to be a judge over me, Cal Engime. It is very uncommon to publish such harsh statements about another user, threatening him with ArbCom sanctions without any reason. Furthermore, and this is a point for serious discussion, may I remind you of Tom Reedy´s own point (4) from above? He stated: This article's purpose is to summarise the Oxfordian theory and the mainstream thinking about it. As far as I know, Fripp (and Jonathan Bate) are both renown Stratfordians. So Fripp´s "speculations" were those by a Stratfordian. What you said is a clear contradiction to the above statement by Tom Reedy. Please be more carefull with your reasoning. Second: What does it mean if you say my superior command of the English language qualifies me to say that Fripp's statement is speculative? Do you want to say that my command (i.e. that of the underwriter of this sentence) of the English language is (much) worse than yours? This was, in my view, an attack ad hominem committed by you. The rules of Wikipedia say, i.a., that the users should be polite to each other. I don´t perceive your behaviour towards me as polite. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Zbrnajsem, I think you need to step back and take a moment to cool down. I saw nothing in Cal Engime's response that was an "attack". As someone who has been subjected to some pretty brutal attacks myself[1], you will just have to take my word on it.

In this case, you have argued the same point at length and have gathered no consensus. It's time to move on. If you don't, sanctions will apply. It's just the way things work around here. By the way - the "superior command" bit is a common English/American joke, which you simply didn't get. No one meant to offend. In any case, you need to stop discussing/confronting other editors. Period. Frankly that goes for several editors on this page. Wouldn't it be so much better if we all "discussed the edit, not the editor"?Smatprt (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks to User Smatprt from my side. However, I would appreciate not to be said repeatedly that I am threatened by sanctions, after I have done just a small bona fide editing on a topic page or a comment on a talk page. And in some cases there was, in my view, no satisfactory explanation for reverts of my edits. Second, maybe that "superior command" is a common joke, but I certainly understood it as "superior to yours". You see that it is not quite easy to participate, and I wish there would be some patience with people of non-English or non-American origin. As far as I know, English-language Wikipedia is open to everybody, and it is important for me to take part in it, i.a. in order to keep touch with current developments. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again, your entire comment is unsuitable for an article talk page. Just stop. If you want an explanation, please ask at my talk page, or yours. Going back-and-forth over issues that are nothing to do with improving the article (in accordance with standard procedures and policies) is disruptive, and mention of sanctions is intended as a favor because if you do not learn how talk pages are used, sanctions will be applied—it's not a threat, it's explaining consequences of not using this page in the manner that is intended. Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bate on "ever-living"

Several editors have edited "Contemporary references to Shakespeare as alive or dead" to include the quote from Jonathan Bate, "ever-living was an epithet applied to dead poets, not living ones." I've removed this again because I find it misleading. Here is the entire relevant section of the text:

A further objection to the proposition that W. H. is really W. S. would be that it seems odd for Thorpe to refer to Shakespeare twice, first by initials, then as 'our ever-living poet'. But Thorpe's language is highly wrought: 'wisheth the well-wishing' might be said to be equally redundant. It is quite possible that Thorpe was making an elegant conceit: he wishes earthly happiness and heavenly eternity for the mortal person Master William Shakespeare, just as the immortal poet of the sonnets eternizes the fair youth. If Thorpe had read the sonnets carefully, he would have noticed that they do not follow the classical convention of claiming immortality for the poet—they claim immortality for the poet's beloved. Where Horace or Ovid would have written 'So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, / So long lives this, and this gives life to me', Shakespeare writes in sonnet 18, 'So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, / So long lives this, and this gives life to thee' (my italics). It is thus left for Thorpe to wish life to Shakespeare.

An alternative explanation is that 'our ever-living poet' does not in fact refer to Shakespeare. 'Ever-living' was an epithet applied to dead poets, not living ones. The point was that they were dead, but they lived eternally through their work. 'Our ever-living poet' might therefore refer to a great dead English poet who had written on the great theme of poetic immortality. Certain poets were so well known that they did not have to be named. In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare writes, 'Therefore the poet / Did feign that Orpheus drew trees, stones, and floods' (5.1.79–80)—the poet is not named because it is assumed that everyone will know it is Ovid (though some scholars have argued that it is Horace). By the same account, Thorpe's 'our ever-living poet' could refer to Sir Philip Sidney or Edmund Spenser, by 1609 both routinely associated with the idea of poetic immortality. Spenser famously wrote in his Ruins of Time that the Muses gave eternity to poets; he ended his translation of Joachim du Bellay's sonnet sequence, Ruins of Rome, with an envoy addressed to du Bellay himself, saying that the great dead French poet was 'worthy of immortality' and would 'all eternity survive'. As Spenser promises immortality to du Bellay, so Thorpe imagines Spenser, now immortal, welcoming Shakespeare to the same eternal company.

Quoting the sentence in question out of context suggests that Bate was stating as a fact that "ever-living" was applied only to dead poets. However, it should be clear from this that he was offering it only as part of one "alternative explanation". The preceding paragraph makes it perfectly clear that he thinks it could refer to a still-living Shakespeare. - Cal Engime (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. That makes complete sense. If that quote were to be used it should say, at the very least, that while Bates believed the phrase referred to Shakespeare, he conceded the alternative explanation of a great dead english poet. But your original edit supplies that information, so well done. I found the same kind of misleading edits when I researched the Donald Foster reference in the same section. If you have the time, you might look at that reference and see if I summed things up correctly. Thanks again. Smatprt (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Bate does not believe that the phrase "ever-living poet" refers to Shakespeare, as I would think the above excerpt would make clear. He is listing possible objections to the proposition that W.H. is a misprint for W.S. He is saying that a person who believes that "ever-living poet" refers to Shakespeare would say that the idea that W.H. was really W.S. was redundant. Bate in fact says that the misprint is more likely than any other explanation. (And his "'Ever-living' was an epithet applied to dead poets, not living ones" does not rule out the phrase being applied to other beings, human or other, just that when it was used for poets, they were always dead.) What Cel Engime is pointing out is that quoting Bate without including his comments on the initials would be using it out of context. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that to say categorically Bate doesn't believe the phrase refers to Shakespeare is misreading him. He is offering two responses to those who would find the language redundant, a "quite possible" scenario where the phrase refers to Shakespeare (and is not as redundant as it seems) and an "alternative explanation" where it does not; he is non-committal about this detail, but in any case thinks W.H. is a misprint for W.S. - Cal Engime (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll amend to say, Bate does not say that he believes the phrase refers to Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify the meaning of the sentence written by Jonathan Bate. If there is a slight possibility that Bate is unsure about the phrase "ever-living poet" (if it refers to Shakespeare or not), so it should be stated in the article in an appropriate way. What about asking Bate personally? He could then specify in a mainstream journal. For me, it is clear that the phrase used by Thorpe refers to Shake-Speare. He was that ever-living poet, which means that... Everybody can go ahead with the proper explanation. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Besides this, I don´t think that the findings in the study of Early Modern uses of the phrase "ever-living" by Donald Wayne Foster have any importance for our problem. God or other supernatural beings were not addressed by Thomas Thorpe in his dedication of the Sonnets in 1609. It was, quite obviously, William Shake-Speare, the author. I wonder if this name Shake-Speare is mentioned in the section concerned. This is quite important. I must have a look after I inserted this remark. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Refs

Smatprt, when you copy from another article using Harvard source formatting, go ahead and copy the ref template also and paste it in the ref section here. The Bethell ref link you copied doesn't go anywhere. (If you look at the "things to do" at the top of this page you'll see that conforming all refs is at the top. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom, I'll do my best. Of course, I'll probably wait to see if an edit holds before doing the extra work (if you know what I mean)  :-) Smatprt (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well it wouldn't hurt to have Bethell in there anyway. I put Roe in yesterday in anticipation of editing the Italian plays. 2GV doesn't even have the Oxfordian argument, just the rebuttal. Hopefully you'll be able to stick around and help get this article into shape. It should have at least a GA rating, IMO. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, really. BTW - could you look at the section below regarding the recent deletion? I think you and I have always agreed about the Hamlet parallels being a prime Oxfordian argument, though I see most of the other parallels have been deleted. Perhaps you can help. Cheers.Smatprt (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I looked at the edit history and created a section below before I read this or even the new section above it. Let's try to pick our way through this minefield. If we go slower we have a likelier chance of success with a good outcome for everybody. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent mass deletion

I would respectfully request that this deleted information [2] be restored until a consensus is achieved to delete it. Oxfordians cite "Hamlet" as THE most autobiographical play and quote this list of parallels regularly. Entire news articles have quoted them. To summarily delete over 3500 bytes of data from one section needs discussion and consensus, as required by the ArbCom rules. As you have started the BOLD-REVERT-DISCUSS cycle, and I have raised this issue, please User:Cengime follow the rules and revert while this is under discussion. Thank you. Smatprt (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the claimed parallels in Hamlet are a notable part of the Oxfordian theory, and merit more detailed coverage than those in the other plays. However, as I wrote in an edit summary, the information deleted was "unimportant, unsourced, or redundant", and I don't think any of it should be controversial.

One of Hamlet’s chief opponents at court was Laertes, the son of Polonius, while Oxford continually sought the help of Robert Cecil, the son of Lord Burghley, to seek the queen's favour, with no results.

It's hard to see what parallel is being claimed; anyway, no source.

Polonius sent the spy Reynaldo to watch his son when Laertes was away at school, and for similar reasons Burghley sent a spy to watch his son, Thomas, when he was away in Paris.

No source.

In 1575, when Oxford travelled through the area of Mantua in Lombardy, the ruler was Guglielmo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua. The Duke was a member of the same Gonzaga family of the wife of the Duke of Urbino, who was killed in 1538 by a poisoned lotion rubbed into his ears by his barber. Some scholars think that The Murder of Gonzago, the unknown play which was reworked by Hamlet into The Mousetrap (the play within a play) that reenacted Hamlet's father's murder by poison poured into his ear, might have been a popular theatrical reenactment of Urbino's assassination. Mark Anderson accepts that it is the same story, and says that Oxford having passed through the area that Gonzaga ruled was in some way responsible for Hamlet's play-within-the-play.<ref>Anderson (2005) p. 197.</ref>

There is no parallel here; the play does not depict Hamlet travelling through Mantua. If anything, this belongs in the "Italian travels" section.

In 1921, Lilian Winstanley claimed "absolute" certainty that "the historical analogues exist; that they are important, numerous, detailed and undeniable" and that "Shakespeare is using a large element of contemporary history in Hamlet."<ref>{{harvnb|Winstanley|1921|pp=165-6}}.</ref> She compared Hamlet with both the Earl of Essex and James I. She also identified Polonius with Burghley parallels, and noted a "curious parallel" in the relationship between Ophelia and Hamlet with that of Burghley's daughter, Anne Cecil, and her husband, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Winstanley noted similar parallels in the relationship of Elizabeth Vernon and Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton.<ref>{{harvnb|Winstanley|1921|pp=122-4}}.</ref>

I can't find any information on who Lilian Winstanley was, other than another unknown writer resurrected by Oxfordians to bolster their case. With the citations of French, Wilson, Rowse, Hurstfield & Sutherland, and Chambers, her opinion is completely superfluous.

I also reduced the "Polonius = Burghley" quotes to a summary. I don't think any of this adds to understanding of the Oxfordian theory, and the reverted edit is a revision the section badly needs. - Cal Engime (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Lilian Winstanley wrote a very influential (and very outdated) study, Hamlet and the Scottish Succession (1921), in which she showed that the anxiety over the upcoming succession of James I was reflected in Shakespeare's Hamlet. It's been a long time since I read it, but IIRC I think she actually wrote that the play was intended as a message to James (altho I might be misremembering). Oxfordians cherry-pick it because she claimed that the characters were amalgamated analogues based on real people of the Elizabethan court. She certainly didn't say that Hamlet was Oxford, or even a main character, but she identified situations in Hamlet that were similar to real situations. Oxfordians do use her as an arguing point, and as such their argument can be included in this article.

Most of the "parallels" (most of them are a stretch) can be sourced to Ogburn or Anderson. The reason why most of them don't seem like parallels is because several months ago I added the true historical context (the death of Oxford's father and the remarriage of his mother, Laertes as Robert Cecil, Gonzaga, etc.). Tom Reedy (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom, for chiming in. I agree the parallels section needs work and I will try and throw some attention in that direction. Best, Smatprt (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Computer Studies

Why is one study conducted by students (undergraduates) at Claremont College (see http://willyshakes.com/elliott_sfiles.htm) attributed to "Scholars" and featured in this article, when another study conducted by students at Dartmouth is dismissed as a student project? How can we Wiki editors value one over the other? Either they should both be mentioned, or neither. Comments? Smatprt (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if the professors responsible for the Claremont study employed their students in the tedious work of entering the relevant information into a database, that does not mean the study was "conducted by students." A published paper by professors who have published in Shakespeare Quarterly is an immeasurably more reliable source than a student project that was turned in for a grade. - Cal Engime (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at the reliable sources noticeboard. - Cal Engime (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Why bother? It's very clear that student papers are not acceptable as sources. I read the paper and the authors themselves admit that their method is unreliable because of the size of the sample universe for Oxford, yet they still somehow draw a conclusion. Why? Because they're undergrads. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: In fact, if you look at their charts Shakespeare appears closer to Marlowe than to Oxford, but for some reason they conclude that it is "extremely improbable" that the two were the same person. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's all do a Rodney King.

I was hoping we could improve this article without any edit warring, but it's painfully obvious that that's what's been happening. Cngime, would it be too much to ask that you use accurate edit summaries? Deleting 3.6 MB of material with the edit summary "Turned bullet-pointed list into paragraphs" is not conducive to collaborative editing. Thanks for reversing your deletion, but the next time if a section is unsourced, tag it as such. If a section is redundant, tell us where it is repeated. And if you think a section is unimportant, discuss it on the talk page before deleting it. And Smatprt deleting the Claremont study in retaliation for Cengime's deleting the Dartmouth paper is not a good move.

Let's try to avoid edit warring and topic banning and get the article up to a better quality. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought about writing in the edit summary that I had also shortened the section, but felt it would be obvious from the bold red number. I regret the perceived deception. - Cal Engime (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And I regret the perception of edit warring, especially as I do not see where that has happened (and I can't understand for the life of me why it appears "painfully obvious" that some supposed warring is going on). The main deletion of material, at first glance, looked to be a mistake, so I tried to fix that mistake, which looked like an accidental case of section-blanking. When that edit was re-instated by Cal Engime, I didn't see that as edit-warring on his part at all. I saw it as the beginning of a BRD cycle. I asked that the bold move be self-reverted, which it was. It was all very polite and accomplished without warring or negative comments.

As per [WP:WAR], "Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts."

In the case of the conflicting "computer study" edits, again - no back and forth of reverts or deletions/additions has taken place. One or two Bold edits followed by single reverts that have been left unchanged. All very gentlemanly.

We are presently discussing the Hamlet autobiographical section, which I agree needs to be improved (but not deleted), and, at this point, the ball is back in my court as to whether I want to begin a discussion on the computer studies, or let it drop. Again, it's all been very polite and far less dramatic than in previous years. And, I might add, it's precisely the kind of policy based actions that ArbCom recommended. BRD is simply an early stage of conflict resolution - again, precisely what ArbCom directed us to do, given the acknowledgment that conflict IS going to occur on these pages. It's the nature of all controversial articles, right? Smatprt (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Having said that, I want to say that I look forward to improving this article. I think it has fallen into disrepair. From missing section heads to misquoting of references (on both sides) there are errors a plenty. And visually, the layout is truly lacking. Thats my 2 cents, anyhow. Cheers,, everyone. Smatprt (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

01:08, 28 February 2013‎ Smatprt (talk | contribs)‎ . . (120,013 bytes) (-518)‎ . . (removing the claremont study, also conducted by students and "student run teams", presently being given way too much weight, as per [WP:Scholarship])

00:52, 28 February 2013‎ Cengime (talk | contribs)‎ . . (120,531 bytes) (+3,580)‎ . . (Undid revision 541084717 by Cengime (talk) - BRD)

00:51, 28 February 2013‎ Cengime (talk | contribs)‎ . . (116,951 bytes) (-506)‎ . . (Undid revision 541087933 by Smatprt (talk) - A student project is hardly "a study conducted at Dartmouth")

00:25, 28 February 2013‎ Smatprt (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,457 bytes) (+506)‎ . . (added Dartmouth results. Relying on one study invites "undue weight", as per WP:scholarship "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research... Avoid undue weight when using single studies")

00:06, 28 February 2013‎ Cengime (talk | contribs)‎ . . (116,951 bytes) (-3,580)‎ . . (Undid revision 541084190 by Smatprt (talk) - This info is unimportant, unsourced, or redundant.)

00:02, 28 February 2013‎ Smatprt (talk | contribs)‎ . . (120,531 bytes) (+3,580)‎ . . (ooops - previous edit blanked lots of info. Was this what you were trying to do (lose the bullets?) Personally, I think the bullets help break it up)

23:14, 27 February 2013‎ Cengime (talk | contribs)‎ . . (116,932 bytes) (-3,610)‎ . . (→‎Hamlet: Turned bullet-pointed list into paragraphs)

I don't mean to be an alarmist, but when I look at an edit history and see alternate read and green ink along with exact pluses and minuses, the first thing I think of is an edit war, and I think most editors would agree. And summarily deleting major material--whether it's just been added or it's been there a while--on an article that is under sanctions is not just "bold editing"; it's provocative and potentially inflammatory.

Ideally all major edits should be discussed, not just plopped on the page with an edit summary. I may be overly skittish because I would like to see this page improved without anyone being admonished or topic banned, and I think we all need to be super careful and think before we revert or comment. It's OK to have second thoughts and redact and move past it, but when it comes to an article with this kind of history, I think caution should be the watchword. I don't think we have to be bogged down with a major discussion on every minor edit, but anything that is radically different from what is now on the page I think should be discussed. As a rule I think an editor should have just as many talk pages edits as page edits, especially on a page that is under sanctions. Towards that end I think we should avoid a flurry of edits before someone else looks at the page, and high megabyte edits that overlap subtopics. When that happens the followup editor usually blanket-reverts the entire lot, rather than trawling through the entire edit and picking and choosing what to keep and what to delete. With smaller, fewer edits, it's much easier to isolate the objectionable material.

Did I mention I think we should be cautious on this page? Tom Reedy (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Layout

Smatprt I don't think it helps the page to begin with a wall of text. The reason the history was put first was to give some context before delving into esoteric detailed arguments. That's also the reason why the "case against" preceded the "case for": the history gave some context for the reader to get some mental traction before highlighting the nature of the scholastic objections. As it is now, beginning with the "case against" leaves the naive reader wondering what on earth is being referenced. And starting with the details is like you were blindfolded and led into the forest and then left there to study the trees to try to orient yourself. The tl;dr here is that the present layout wasn't haphazard, and there was some fair amount of discussion and experimentation before it was decided the history should be at the front. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

And here's where I contradict myself. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is when the history section was moved up. I may be arguing out of familiarity, but not seeing any images until late in the article is depressing. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

And here is the subsequent discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom. I beg that you not judge my work on an edit by edit basis. I'd like to try some layout and formatting work, as its always been one of my strongpoints - owing to my real world experience, I imagine. The article is not going anywhere as you say, so I'd like to do some work - not really dealing with text - more with pictures, graphics, section flow, ordering, etc. I would never leave an article with no graphics for the first half, for example. God forbid! It may be hard to see where I'm going, but that's common with trying to describe layout work. Sometimes it's just better to show you what I mean. Since we are not talking about the text, I don't see how layout work can be considered controversial or how any harm cane be done :-) Smatprt (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries, Smatprt, see what you can do. I was just providing some context and some points to keep in mind. No harm can be done, and if it doesn't work, relief is just a click away. But you're wrong about one thing--having worked in advertising, newspaper copy editing (back in the day of wax), journalism, and PR, I've done a lot of layout myself, and everything about an article can be controversial! (I had an editor once who when he was told that he was so argumentative that he would argue with a fencepost, said, "No I wouldn't!" He was the best editor I ever had, BTW.) Tom Reedy (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Important WP:FRINGE guidelines for this page

I am repeating some material from a 2011 post that I think bears repeating. Here are several key points that I think are important to keep in mind when editing the page:

1. The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. To me this indicates that the academic consensus must be present when describing Oxfordian arguments, and more so than a cursory, "Although traditional scholars reject all Oxfordian claims, (insert specific argument here.)"

2. The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. This speaks for itself: the academic consensus cannot be walled off to a few token sentences.

3. Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. So all those detailed Oxfordian arguments cannot stand alone; they must be accompanied with the academic consensus. This is clear cut.

4. Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated (my emphasis), easy to read, and accurate article prose. Unless I'm missing something, the lede is no exception to this. Describing the ideas includes inserting summary statements about the acceptance of those ideas by the academic Shakespearean community, and stating the objective academic consensus is not calling "one side of the debate liars", nor is it a violation of WP:NPOV.

5. This page, and well as any page broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question, is still (and as far as I know always will be) under discretionary sanctions by the Arbitration Committee. Editors of the page must conform to expected standards of behavior and the normal editorial process, which includes talk page participation before making any controversial edits. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision.

Finally, I think we need to realize that these apply to all editors, not just those sympathetic to one view or another. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Charts

These may or may not be useful: stylometric comparison charts. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ashbourne portrait

Why is the Ashbourne portrait pictured twice, with near-identical captions?

(Oh, and by the way, just as an outside reader, I'm not entirely clear what the relevance of the painting would be anyway. Do Oxfordians actually claim that some contemporary who knew about Oxford's authorship divised this as an elaborate visual metaphor of the truth, i.e. somebody went and deliberately took a portrait of Oxford and painted Shakespeare over it, to transport "Shakespeare was really Oxford" as a hidden message through it? If that's the case, the claim is so extravagant and far-fetched we'd really need a clearer reference for it. Or are they saying that somebody in the 19th century found a portrait of some guy, thought it looked vaguely like Shakespeare, made some alterations so as to be able to sell it as a Shakespeare portrait, and that 17th-century guy just happened to be Oxford? In this latter case, why would the story be of any relevance to the authorship issue?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason for Oxfordians' need to believe in the portrait has always perplexed me. I think it's essentially simply because it means they can have a picture of Oxford looking like Shakespeare, so you see Oxford literally lying behind Shakespeare - it's the power of the image itself that's the attraction. That's just speculation of course. The second scenario you describe would be perfectly plausible, but of course, it's not what Oxfordians say. What they do say varies from author to author. The first person to come up with this claim, Sidney Beauclerk, seems to have believed that almost all portraits of Shakespeare actually depicted Oxford. Percy Allen claimed that it depicted Oxford as the author, presumably as a private assertion of authorship. It was later repainted to look like Stratford Will to keep the secret (why 'they' are so keen to maintain this secret is a mystery to me, but various reasons are proffered). This basic argument is repeated in various forms. Anderson has a similar argument. Paul B (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I've never understood the point, either. It's like the inconsistent character identification arguments: one minute Polonius is Burghley, a few acts later he's Burghley's murdered under cook. And Ophelia is somehow Anne Cecil, except for the fact that Hamlet and Ophelia never married and had children and that Anne's death was not thought to be a suicide, not did it happen while Oxford was overseas. It's a confusing ad hoc jumble, but it's their theory, not mine. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

What's oddest is the fact that the date and the bald patch are the only things identifying it as Shakespeare, so it's difficult to understand what there was to "conceal". The iconography is otherwise completely standard. Paul B (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

16th Earl portrait?

I read somewhere that the portrait of Oxford as an older man was in fact a picture of the 16th earl that had been misidentified and subsequently mislabeled. Anybody know anything about it? Tom Reedy (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom, yes that sounds familiar to me, as well. Although I think it's from an Oxfordian source, not a mainstream one. Not sure we could even say "although an Oxfordian thinks it's the 16th Earl" :-) Any info on when it was labeled? If it's been miss-labeled, it should be noted, but we obviously need a RS and some evidence that there has been significant discussion or research on it, since (I believe) the mainstream designation is it's the 17th Earl. Paul is our local art expert. Paul? Smatprt (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

IIRC it was a German web page that I read it on. I've googled my fingers off but haven't been able to find anything on it. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've been beavering away in the library on this one and have come up with...next to nothing. The German webpage to which Tom refers is still online, but just vaguely refers to "some scholars" who say it is John. This Oxfordian webpage [3] insists that it's John, saying that "The style of the doublet and the high collar with its tiny lace edged in black belongs to the period of the late 1550s or 1560s. Sir Roy Strong has dated the portrait circa 1560. - The wrong caption was put on this picture at a later date." However I've been through all of Strong's publications to which I have access. He never once mentions a portrait of Oxford (either John or Ed) in any of his main books. So where this alleged statement was a made is a mystery to me. Of course he's written uncountable articles over the years, but there's no way of systematically searching them. I see there is an article by Kathleeen Le Riche, entitled "Portrait of John De Vere, the Sixteenth Earl of Oxford" in the Shakespeare Fellowship Newsletter, 1954, but I've no idea if that's related. It would certainly predate anything written by Strong. Paul B (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The painting used to be in the family collection of the Duke of St. Albans, but is now owned by that noble and ancient institution the "Minos Miller Corporation", which appears to be related to the family of Oxfordian Ruth Loyd Miller. Presumably there was a sale at some date, in which is would have been catalogued and the literature on it tabulated. On the other hand - passing from one Oxfordian family to another - the sale might have been privately organised. Paul B (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I believe you mean the Minos Miller, Sr. Trust. I know how you appreciate proper attribution :-) Smatprt (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact there seem to be a bewildering range of corporations and trusts that have been set up, presumably for tax and other reasons. They are attributed differently in different publications. I should note that it is very common for art historians like Strong to give opinions in the form of letters to dealers or to private individuals, for which they get a consultancy fee. These letters may not be published, so it's perfectly possible that there is no published statement of Strong's opinion. Since "Prince Tudor" aficionado Charles Beauclerk is the son of Duke of St. Albans, I guess he would have access to any correspondence, so he may be the source of Oxfordian discussion on the topic. Paul B (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw that Kurt Kreiler's company owns that page so I e-mailed him to ask where he got that information from. I've never thought that protrait looked anything like the one made when Oxford was 25, and the style has never looked to me like Gheeraerts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Reedy (talk • contribs)

It doesn't look like Gheeraerts to me either, but that's really a separate question. The attribution seems to be linked to the suggestion that it was a very early work (we know how very different literary "juvenilia" can be from mature work, of course!). Paul B (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I received a reply from Kurt Kreiler, and he referred me to Barbara Burris' article, "The Ashbourne Portrait: Part II", in the Winter 2002 issue of Shakespeare Matters, in which she writes,

"The dating of the Ashbourne painting by costume which sets the Ashbourne in its proper time frame of circa 1579-80 raises the issue of the incongruity of the costume of the St. Alban’s portrait with the inscription denoting that it is a portrait of Edward de Vere. The style of the doublet and the high collar with its tiny lace edged in black that is a precursor of the ruff, in the St. Alban’s portrait belongs to the period of the late 1550s or 1560s. Sir Roy Strong has dated it circa 1565. <31> (Private correspondence with Derran Charlton, Oxfordian researcher, South Yorkshire, England, 2000. Concerning Strong’s recommendation to Peer not to use the St. Alban’s as a portrait of Edward de Vere in the television documentary The Shakespeare Conspiracy.)

"The fact that the St. Alban’s has the name Edward de Vere blazoned across it does not counter the primary costume evidence that Sir Roy Strong used to date this painting circa 1565. The costume proves that the inscription is wrong in the St. Alban’s portrait." <pp. 20-21 and note 31 on p. 22.>

That jogged my memory, and I'm sure that's where I read it, but she does not say that Strong identified it as the 16th Earl. I'll contact Derran Charlton and see what he says. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Painful as it is to read, I did skim over that article when I was trying to find a reference to Strong's opinion, but gave up as soon as I read "England’s most respected art expert Sir Roy Strong, now in his 90s", and that was 2002! Mind you I'm not surprised that Barbara can be a few decades astray, and he does dress as though it's still 1975. The footnote's somewhat confusing too. The second sentence is ungrammatical. Perhaps there should have been a comma after "2000". It's not clear to me whether this is correspondence between Burris and Charlton about Strong's letter to "Peer", or between Charlton and Strong (is "Peer" a person or a production company?). Paul B (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Peer is Michael Peer, who directed The Shakespeare Conspiracy (2000), a low-budget documentary-type movie narrated by Derek Jacobi which purports to explain the conspiracy suppressing Oxford as Shakespeare. The villain is the Stratford tourist industry. I've e-mailed Charlton and hope to find out more. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If the brief excerpt on youtube [4] is anything to go by it's a classic of the genre. The fact that they can tell a whopping lie about what John Ward writes in the first sentence is not exactly encouraging. As I'm sure you are aware, a personal note about what Strong says won't count as a reliable source, and Barbara Burris certainly doesn't either, so unless there is some published art-historical literature on the topic we are back where we started. Paul B (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's straight out of the anti-Strat playbook. Yeah, I know we can't use it for Wikipedia, but what authority are we using right now to identify it as a portrait of Ned? AFAIK, the only source is Miller's edition of Looney. If that's acceptable I don't see why we can't at least append a note on the Wikimedia page. Who knows if some art history professor <cough cough> might see it and be inspired to research it and publish a paper? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Nelson refers to it (p.124), but of course he's not an art historian and he simply seems to accept the conventional attribution and sitter. Paul B (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sections

To my mind, the sections 2.1 Edward de Vere, 2.3 Oxford's literary reputation, 2.6 Oxford's Italian travels and the settings of Shakespeare's plays, 2.8 Parallels with the plays, and 2.9 Parallels with the sonnets and poems, should all be subsections under 2.5 Biographical evidence. And 2.8 Parallels with the plays, and 2.9 Parallels with the sonnets and poems, should be group together under the heading Biographical parallels in the Shakespeare canon.

Also Smatprt, is it too much to ask that you format your references in the same style as the rest of them, that is, Harvard style? It's not that difficult, and it's No. 1 on the "List of things to do" for this page. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom, thanks for the suggestions. I can see your point, but, in essence, ALL of the case could be called Biographical if we wanted to go that way, but I'm trying to not have enormous sections. Maybe we should use another word for "Biographical", which may be too all encompassing. In any case, I combined the parallels under a common heading as you suggest, but I also added the travel section there, as the "parallels" between where Oxford visited and where he set the plots is the main theme, yes? I also moved the lead section about parallels down as I've never heard of the parallels being the most "important" part of the Oxfordian case. It seems to me that one of the most important things in discussing the great authorship question - ie: who was the hidden author? - is determining if a candidate was, indeed, a suppressed writer. One of Looney's main motivators was finding someone who ceased to publish "in his own name". Upon reading the bio that mentioned that while Oxford was a prolific playwright, but that "none of his plays have survived" - Looney was set on his path. Nothing to do with specific plot parallels. Anyhow - I'll keep at it. As to references, I will get to them all at once when I have some time. It will be a good learning experience for me and will make it easier to keep your recommended format going. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Looney didn't start his search with the "suppressed writer" thesis; he profiled the author's personality and then went looking for a match, and then found what he thought we literary parallels. The idea that Shakespeare was a mask (which is different than Oxford being a suppressed writer) was an assumption he took from previous anti-Strat theories, and he clearly states that he outlined a systematic plan to find the true author before settling on Oxford (see pp. 81-2). So in fact, Looney's parallels ARE the case, not just the "most important". He says that he only included the generic anti-Strat information on the advice of his friends in order to help the naive reader. In any case, starting out with Oxford being a "suppressed writer" as a basis for the case is confusing and misleading, in that (1) it's not a particularly distinguishing point of Oxfordism, and (2) it discloses the motive before identifying the writer, and (3) we're not "discussing the great authorship problem"; we're discussing Oxfordism. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: I'm taking another look, and I think biographical/plot parallels are being conflated with personality parallels. I'll come back to this later. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to continue this discussion. As I already mentioned the entire case is biographical in some sense or other. I think what's most important is to have an organized, readable article. Trying to avoid overlapping issues is going to be a challenge, and, I imagine, unavoidable in some case. I will say that, as a rule, Looney placed far more importance on matching personality traits and personal achievements, than listing plot parallels.Smatprt (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I am just now beginning to look closely through the new edits by Smatprt, and right off the bat I found a deliberate distortion not supported by any of the sources and a POV slant to the language, changes that were introduced under a misleading edit summary. They can be examined by comparing the diffs of my edit. If there are any questions about my edit I'll be happy to answer them. For purposes of comparison, here's the last version of that section. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Tom, I realize that we have a history,[5] but I would appreciate it if you would WP:AGF and not jump right into WP:PA personal attacks. I have made hundreds of edits, which, by your ongoing tweaks and comments, indicate you have been looking closely at my edits ever since I resumed work. Tom, I just think using terms like "deliberate distortion", "right off the bat", and "POV slant" are as much distortions as you accuse me of making. I've been trying to make heads or tails of this article and have worked to put it into some sort of readable format. In doing so I found several sources that were being misquoted or misrepresented. Instead of investigating each edit to assign blame and hurl accusations, I noted what I found (like the Donald Foster misrepresentation) and made the correction. I described the edit, not the editor. In the future, you might at least inquire as to my word choices or edit justification before launching into personal attacks. As expressed recently by another editor that you chastised (though not nearly as harshly) over an edit summary mistake on this very page, I regret the perceived deception. It was not my intent. I ask that you retract your comments and rewrite them in a neutral way, as I have done with the section head and in the first phrase. Smatprt (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we have a history, but thankfully not a shared history; I have never been the recipient of multiple topic bans or blocks caused by POV pushing or tendentious editing.

Here are the two edits:

BEFORE: "… is the earliest handwritten example we have of a poem that has been ascribed to Shakespeare."

AFTER: "… is the earliest handwritten example we have of anonymous poems that have been later ascribed to both Oxford and Shakespeare.

Barrell is the source for both, and he wrote nothing even vaguely similar to the second version. Either that is a deliberate distortion of what Barrell wrote or it is incompetent reading comprehension and editing. And FYI, there are many earlier manuscript copies of Oxford's poems, both attributed and non-attributed.

Another FYI, up to now I have only been doing light copy editing to wring out the bloat and wrench some sections and paragraphs into comprehensibility and have not even been checking cites. I have probably every source referenced in this article, and from now on I'll make sure to have them to hand whilst editing. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Anne Cornwaleys her booke

I reverted the last changes for these reasons:

1. Both of the Oxford poems are attributed in the book, but its first mention implies that it was anonymous and later attributed. It's a bit confusing: his "Were I a king" is followed by "Were't thou a king" jammed under it as if they were the same poem (V.a.89 p. 7), and both are attributed with "Vere finis". The second stanza is thought to be by Sir Phillip Sydney, so half the attribution could be wrong. The other poem, "When I was fair and young" (V.a.89 p. 12), is attributed to "E: of Oxford", but was also attributed to Queen Elizabeth during her lifetime. (It gets even trickier: one of the Vavasour poems is thought to have been written by either Oxford or Sir Henry Lee, but that's not an important detail.)

2. The sentence in which it was presumed that Anne had written the book needs someone to do the presuming, so it needs either to be tied to the scholars in the following sentence or it needs a scholar or someone else added to the sentence.

3. Marshall's opinion that the book was given to doesn't depend on the two hands, as implied by prefacing the sentence with the "however" phrase. In fact the Marotti ref needs to be tacked on, because that's where the "two different hands" derives.

4. Jaggard didn't "assign" the poem to Shakespeare, which implies some type of scholarly study to determine the correct author; he just grabbed a bunch that were circulating around and printed them under Shakespeare's name.

None of those changes are critically important to the overall meaning of the book to the Oxfordian theory, but we should be as accurate as we can when following the sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hannas

Apparently you don't really understand the essential point of his argument, but you can have it your way. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

New edits

I've tried to restore the page to a more coherent state. Pretty much everything after the section "Case against Oxfordian theory" is formulated as an argument and needs to be described and summarised instead of argued. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Henry VI, Part 3

I haven't finished reading it, but thus far, John de Vere comes off as a vengeful idiot, and not a flattering portrayal at all. Perhaps I'm simply approaching it from a modern perspective or I need to finish reading the play before I make a comment. I left off act at Act IV, scene 6 on my train ride this morning. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the problems. Mainstream Shakespeareans rarely address this aspect of the Oxfordian argument, so we can't source responses to these claims. Shakespeare's source for Henry V, the anonymous Famous Victories of Henry V certainly does "big up" Richard de Vere, 11th Earl of Oxford - giving him a wildly exaggerated heroic role in the Battle of Agincourt. What does Shakespeare do? - he totally eliminates him from the plot! Then there is the treatment of John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford in Richard III. This would have been Oxford's best chance to legitimately glorify his family. After all, the 13th Earl was essentially the commander of Richmond's army at Bosworth. He devised the strategy that allowed the Lancastrians to hold off Richard's superior force, and led the attack that killed Norfolk. He could have been made the hero in the defeat of "evil" Richard and his henchmen. But his role is minimised rather than maximised. He's much less significant in Shakespeare's play than in the The True Tragedy of Richard III. Instead the Stanleys get all the glory - which proves, of course, that William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby wrote the play. Paul B (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact this section Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship#Henry_IV.2C_Part_1 seems almost completely incoherent. It's not even specifically about Henry IV Part I and it goes on to claim that "Oxfordians believe a similar case of Oxford's exaggerated importance is visible in Henry V, where the character of the 12th Earl of Oxford is given a much more prominent role than the actual history of the times would allow." It's not clear what is meant by "Oxford's exaggerated importance". Presumably this is intended to mean "exaggerated importance" given to various Earls of Oxford. John de Vere, 12th Earl of Oxford was seven years old at the time of the battle of Agincourt. His father took part, as noted above, but he never appears in the play. So what is this "exaggerated role"? This is mysteriously cited to "Ogburn 1984, p. XXX". Is it a typo for Henry VI? Is "XXX" a real page? The "Oxford" in this paragraph seems to slide between the 11th, 12th and 13th Earls without making it clear which is being discussed. I've never owned a copy of Ogburn, so I've now ordered one to check up on this. Paul B (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no page XXX; I suspect the three exes were used as placeholders until page numbers were found. I'd say any confusion in the section accurately reflects Ogburn. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I still have Act V left yet to read, but the most glowing praise of the Earl of Oxford I see so far is from the Earl of Warwick in Act IV, Scene 8: "And thou, brave Oxford, wondrous well beloved/In Oxfordshire, shalt muster up thy friends./ My sovereign with the loving citizens,/Like to his island girt in with the ocean/Or modest Dian circled with her nymphs,/Shall rest in London till we come to him." Shakespeare is obviously a Lancastrian (reading a contemporary history book like I.M.W. Harvey's Jack Cade's Rebellion of 1450 makes it easier to see York as the people's "candidate," such as one could consider him thus in a monarchy) throughout the Henry VI trilogy, but this remark hardly suggests any sort of particular praise for the Earl of Oxford.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If we can cite mainstream discussion of the role of Earls of Oxford in the history plays we could incorporate this material. But we also need to be clear what the Oxfordian authors are themselves claiming. Admittedly that's not always easy, since Ogburn is a master of weasely wording. Paul B (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure chapter 20 in Ogburn is the source. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, when I saw that passage about 1 Henry IV I thought sure that this page would be swarming with editors who were themselves Oxfordians, since I go to NYC Wikipedia meetups on a regular basis, where Shakespeare Authorship Question is often brought up as an article with frequent edit warring. I'm now a page before Henry's murder in the Arden edition of 3 Henry VI, and my impression of Oxford as a dolt in the author's view really hasn't changed. For example, 5.4.62-63.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of the most active Oxfordian editors have been topic-banned. I'm sure they see this as proof of the "mainstream" conspiracy against them. In their own minds they rest comfortable in the secure blanket of their virtue, because they know the evil advocates of convention have to use terror tactics against them. The truth is the opposite. Bullying, double-standards, denial and disingenuousness are their stock-in-trade, a fact that eventually became all-too apparent to unbiassed editors. I have always longed for a fair-minded Oxfordian, fully conversant with the various forms of Oxfordian theory, to come here and rationally discuss what views should be presented and how. It would be lovely to talk with someone who could say "Sobran says this but Ogburn fils says that. We should attribute this view to the former in this section..." It never happens. Never. On Wikipedia, Oxfordians come across as fundamentalists who find any challenge to their views impossible meaningfully to debate. Only non-Oxfordians seem willing to explore and debate the arguments. Paul B (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Tom, in the abridged 1988 Ogburn it's chapter 17 ("The Past is Prologue"). Explaining why Oxford is air-brushed out of the Henry IV/V trilogy, he says (p.375) "By the time Edward de Vere would come to cover the life of Henry V again, his anonymity would be jeopardized if he continued to bring an Earl of Oxford forward – for, after writing The Famous Victories, he would have gone on to paean another Oxford in the trilogy of King Henry the Sixth and also to a lesser extent in King Richard the Third. It would not do to have a performance of one of his plays at Court greeted with ill-suppressed knowing chuckles." He also gives (p.376) a collection of quotes from 3 Henry VI.

Warwick: And thou, brave Oxford, wondrous well belov'd ...

King Henry: Sweet Oxford ...

Warwick: Oh cheerful colours! See, where Oxford comes!

Oxford: Oxford, Oxford for Lancaster!

Queen Margaret: Why, is not Oxford here another anchor?

Queen Margaret: ... Sweet Oxford, thanks. Peter Farey (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. I'm still waiting for my copy. In other words the argument is pure double-think. When Earls of Oxford are praised this is evidence that Oxford wrote the plays. When they are not, it is evidence that he's trying to be anonymous (or somehow pretending to be, since the "knowing chuckles" comment suggest he isn't, making the argument nonsensical). The reference to Henry V in the current text still makes no sense. Either its referring to The Famous Victories (and should say "the 11th Earl") or is a typo for Henry VI. BTW, there is no "paean" to Oxford in Richard III. He gets exactly two lines. The Stanleys are the heroes. Paul B (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That's right. In fact I had already noted the double-think in the margin of my copy. The bit in the article which says "Oxfordians believe a similar case of Oxford's exaggerated importance is visible in Henry V, where the character of the 12th Earl of Oxford is given a much more prominent role than the actual history of the times would allow" (even if the right earl had been given) is certainly not supported by Ogburn. He says (p.374) "If the 11th Earl is brought centre stage in The Famous Victories well beyond historical warrant, the fact is that he did have an important command at Agincourt. This makes it all the more striking that when the dramatist would come again to tell the story of his favourite monarch in the two-part King Henry the Fourth and in King Henry the Fifth the Earl of Oxford would be entirely dropped, not even appearing in the dramatis personae." Those words which appear in quotation marks in the article, "hardly mentioned except to be praised", don't appear to be Ogburn's either.

As far as Richard III is concerned he says (p.378) "Edward de Vere could be confident that with the crucial two lines he gave his forebear in the play before the battle, his Queen, when she saw it performed, would be reminded of how John de Vere, falling heir to the championship of the Lancastrian cause as he fell heir to the Earldom of Oxford in 1462, had been the great stand-by of the red rose twenty-three years later and a leading hand in placing her grandfather, Henry VII, on the throne and establishing the Tudor line." Peter Farey (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to rewrite this to give weight to both positions and remove the blatant errors of fact. It turns out that the phrase "hardly mentioned except to be praised" comes from Looney's Shakespeare Identified, as does the list of "brave Oxford", "sweet Oxford", etc., lines, which Ogburn just copies from Looney's book. Paul B (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've been looking over this almost wholly unreadable article, trying to think of a way of rewriting it so that a reader can get a clear sense of the main Oxfordian arguments and the main responses to them without getting lost in the he-said-she-said style of most of the sections. At the moment I'm just making the whole thing longer, but hope to be able to cut out some of the detail. I intend to put the main Oxfordian arguments in a section comparable to the "Case against Shakespeare's authorship" section in the main SAQ article. That section would state the case without criticising it, following the SAQ model. At the moment arguments are thrown around chaotically, and are often just introduced as "Oxfordians say", as if there is unanimity. Some of the more significant specific arguments can then be thrashed out in detailed sections retaining the back-and-forth approach for readers who have the stomach for such detail. I've included a brief section of generic anti-Strat arguments, but only as presented by Looney, to tie them directly to the origin of the Oxford theory specifically. I think this is for a reader coming to this "cold", as it were. Paul B (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally have been thinking of re-editing the article with the version of 15 February as the base text; unfortunately, a certain editor seems to have put Wikipedia policy second to restoring as much of his own writing as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cengime (talk • contribs) 16:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would have been the sensible approach! If I'd checked back to that version I would not have needed to spend so much time trying to sort out the incoherencies in the section supposedly on Henry IV, Part 1. The Feb 15 version did have errors, but it is coherent, readable and logical - and is rationally titled "Earls of Oxford in the histories"; it even identified Looney as the author of the "hardly mentioned except to be praised" line and quoted Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn correctly! Paul B (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Need a stronger word than "proposes" in the lead

The Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship ???????? that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford wrote the plays and poems traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.Contends? Asserts? Argues? Declares? "Asserts" is the closest IMO, but "proposes" connotes a cautious hesitancy that's not there. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone who has digested a dictionary may have the right word, but meanwhile would "is" or "states" do the job? Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The Baconian and Marlovian articles' "holds" seems to be favoured by the OED in its own definitions of various theories. It also has the advantage (as "is" does too) of implying nothing about how the theory is rated or presented by its proponents. Peter Farey (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Spelling of "Shakespearean"

Should Shakespearean be changed to Shakespearian throughout the article? The latter seems to be the prevailing form among British scholars. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And would it be advisable to adopt anti-Shakespearian in place of anti-Stratfordian, following the usage of Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? I'd say it's now the most Reliable source on the topic. - Cal Engime (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

'Shakespearian' is undoubtedly the spelling favoured by the OED on etymological grounds, and is certainly the one which I use whenever permitted to. However, I guess that this is something which has been discussed and decided long ago, and not only as regards this article. There is currently no indication that British English is the accepted style here, let alone with Oxford spelling.

As for 'Anti-Shakespearian', yes, of course, and let's change the title of the article to "Shakespeare authorship conspiracy theory" while we are about it, and let NPOV go hang? I don't think so. The latest propaganda doesn't necessarily reflect the usage of the less fanatical RS Stratfordians. Peter Farey (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what Peter is trying to say about spelling, or what he means by the statement that there "is currently no indication that British English is the accepted style here". Generally British spelling should be used in articles with British subject matter, which would include this one. Obviously editors will tend to unconsciously use their own spelling-quirks, so inconsistencies will creep in. That's just an inevitable consequence of Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" approach. By all means change all uses of Shakespearean to Shakespearian. On "anti-Stratfordian" versus "anti-Shakespearian", I happen to dislike both those terms. The first is silly (they are opposed to the town of Stratford?), but well-established, and the second is ambiguous. On the whole, I'm not so opposed to "Anti-Stratfordian" as to "Stratfordian", a term which implies that mainstream scholars are somehow motivated by ideological partisanship, and creates a false equality between "Stratfordians" and "Oxfordians". Peter's extraordinary characterisation of distinguished and internationally recognised scholars as "fanatical RS Stratfordians" epitomises this false equation. Paul B (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Paul, by my statement that there "is currently no indication that British English is the accepted style here", I was simply saying that, unlike some of the other SAQ pages (the main SAQ article in particular) this one has no instruction at the start of it to "Use British English".

My reluctance to agree immediately that we should use the British spelling was because I genuinely had no idea whether this was something which had been discussed and agreed at some earlier date between those who, unlike me, have spent a large amount of time editing the article.

I'm sorry that you didn't like my characterization of those who have decided to call me an "anti-Shakespearian", but they quite clearly intended it to give offence and it worked. Peter Farey (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not been discussed. It's often been noted that most Oxfordians are American, but, of course it was founded by a Brit and it is about British history, so the normal convention would be to use British English. That what the relevant guidelines at WP:MOS suggest. I really don't know why you think "anti-Shakespearean" is intended to "give offence". As I recall the references to you in the book were polite and respectful. William Shakespeare was, after all, a real person not just an abstract pseudonym on a page like "Martin Marprelate", so it seems quite reasonable to me to say that an attempt to take away his work from him and give them to another person is "anti-Shakespearean". After all, if your view were to prevail, Shakespeare's name would disappear from publications and we would have a rather fatter complete works of Marlowe. Shakespeare would become a non-entity, his life relegated to unimportance. Indeed the whole anti-Strat position is based on arguments that Shakespeare was somehow too stupid, too ignorant, too financially-motivated, etc, to be the writer. It's an attack on the person Shakespeare. If that's not anti-Shakespeare, I don't know what is. Paul B (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Charles Nicholl's description of me was surprisingly friendly, and I think he was just toeing the party line in calling us "anti-Shakespearians".

You said that you disliked this term because it is ambiguous; and so it is. Furthermore, I believe this ambiguity to be deliberate, implying as it does that we are in some way opposed to the works themselves, as a schoolkid might say that he can't stand Shakespeare. On that score I am, like most other anti-Stratfordians, extremely pro Shakespeare, and find it offensive that Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells should knowingly suggest otherwise. I suppose what would make it easier would be if both sides of the argument could agree that (at least for the SAQ) the spellings of the name should differ according to whether it is the man from Stratford (Shakspere) or the author of the works (Shakespeare) being referred to. At least 'anti-Shaksperian' would remove that ambiguity, but I don't see this happening any time soon.

I wouldn't see things happening in the way you predict, even in the virtually impossible event of Marlowe's authorship being proven. Stratford would still be the historical "home" of the incredible Shakespeare myth. The plays would still be by William Shakespeare ("now known to be Christopher Marlowe"). With William of Stratford being the most important figure in the subterfuge, people would now be eager to work out exactly what his role had been in it. From being the most famous playwright in the world he would become the world's most famous impostor. I can hear his ghost saying "Ah well, fair is fair (as someone once said), but it was great while it lasted." As an aside, "Shakespearian" scholars would make a mint rewriting everything to take account of the new orthodoxy!

You say that "the whole anti-Strat position is based on arguments that Shakespeare was somehow too stupid, too ignorant, too financially-motivated, etc, to be the writer." I hope you don't think that this is my position, which it certainly isn't. I simply find it very difficult to understand how, with the background and life experiences we know about, he can have sprung from Jove's brow fully developed as a poet/dramatist immediately to equal and later surpass Marlowe, with the opportunities he apparently had and (under the Marlovian hypothesis) may well have had later. Peter Farey (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A related page is being considered for deletion

It may interest regular editors of this page to know that the article on Brief Chronicles has been nominated for deletion. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2013

Please strike out the duplicate word "consistently" in the following sentence:

Their arguments are "not taken seriously by Shakespeare scholars because they consistently consistently distort and misrepresent the historical record",

99.117.113.190 (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Paul B (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

RE: "Snobbishness". I would recommend changing this word to "snobbery", a more common or correct form. Would recommend dropping the extra words, "is based on simple", and just write, "is" snobbery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.151.48 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A comment on sourcing

I've just deleted some material in the "1604" section citing academics to qualify mainstream opinion about the dates of the plays, with no attribution of Oxfordians who have drawn on their work to support Oxfordism. There are many, many minority views about Shakespeare, and citing one as an "Oxfordian response" without an Oxfordian source takes it out of context. Distorting sources like this should be considered WP:OR at best, and dishonest POV-pushing at worst.

For example, in my recent rewrite, I removed the false statement that Alfred Harbage had dated many of Shakespeare's later works before 1604, citing Harbage's edition of Shakespeare as the source. The actual source seems to have been Mark Anderson, who argues that since Harbage gives his dates with margins of error, we can take his earliest possible date for every single play, then turn to Karl Elze for favourable dates for the two remaining post-1604 plays. Another example would be the long-standing information about Ernesto Grillo's book, an ancient source adduced to support an opinion of no weight whatsoever with no cited connection to Oxfordism.

I'll soon be deleting the similar stuff about non-Oxfordians who drew a connection between Burghley and Polonius if no Oxfordian source is added to justify it. In the future, Oxfordian arguments or rebuttals added to the page without citation of the fringe publication they were found in should be reverted immediately. - Cal Engime (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted this section:

"Oxfordians interpret certain 16th- and 17th-century literary allusions as indicating that Oxford was one of the more prominent suppressed anonymous and/or pseudonymous writers of the day. Under this scenario, Shakespeare was either a "front man" or "play-broker" who published the plays under his own name or was merely an actor with a similar name, misidentified as the playwright since the first Shakespeare biographies of the early 1700s."

The first sentence is correct but should be sourced. The second is a personal interpretation of the theory which does not reflect the Oxfordian position. Some Oxfordians, Charlton Ogburn for example, maintain that he was not an actor at all. None positively identify him as a frontman or playbroker or as having published plays "under his own name" as most Oxfordians say that "Shaksper" or "Shaxper" was his "own" name. Nor do any Oxfordians I am aware of or have read identify him as physically "publishing" any plays at all. Also, the expression "Under this scenario" and the closing phrase "misidentified..." violates NPOV guidelines.Burdenedwithtruth (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The playbroker theory is just one of several. I think the sentence makes it clear that there are a number of different points of view within Oxfordianism (and anti-Stratfordism in general). The "front man" view is utterly commonplace, so I don't really understand why you have a problem with that. The "misidentified" argument arises from the claim that 'Shakespeare' was already adopted by de Vere as a pseudonym when the 'man from Statford' appeared with a similar name (Oxfordians spend a lot of effort trying to prove that "Shakspere" is a similar but different name). I'm at a loss to understand what violates NPOV, since neither "Under this scenario" or "misidentified" are biased or derogatory expressions. As for "published the plays under his own name", no one is suggesting that he actually printed them himself if that's what you mean by "phyically publishing". It simply means he organised their publication. Obviously the view that he was using his own name contradicts the claim that "Shakspere" is a different name, but these are different theories.
If you read WP:LEDE you will see that content in the lead section does not have to be sourced if it is sourced in the main article content, which it is. You may have a point about the fact the article as a whole does not contain any discussion of the various Oxfordian accounts of the claimed relationship between the poet (Oxford) and the Stratford man, which vary from close friendship to outright antagonism. Paul B (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

'no evidence'..... circumstantial evidence

'no evidence'

If there is really 'no evidence,' then why is there a whole section of the article dedicated to 'circumstantial evidence' of which there is plenty. I wish I could edit this but for some reason the page is protected. Could someone tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence123 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between empirical evidence and suggestions that flee from Occam's razor. The article is protected to keep conspiracy theorists from editing it. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so then surely the article should say 'there is no 'empirical' evidence,' or 'the evidence is only circumstantial' Circumstantial evidence is still evidence! So saying that there is no evidence at all is misleading.

The page is about the 'conspiracy theory' as you call it. What is the point in having an article about someone's theory if the people with that theory are not allowed to edit the article? Obviously both sides of the debate should be represented not just one side.

Has there been any specific vandalism of the page? Because I thought pages could only be protected if there has been a specific influx of 'vandalism.' Could you please tell me what this was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence123 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't create artificial balance between reality and WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories that reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. There's a difference between letting an article be a platform for conspiracy theorists and neutrally describing as wrong an idea that mainstream academia describes as wrong.

The vandalism in question was conspiracy theorists trying to "give both sides." The Arbitration Committee (basically the supreme court of Wikipedia) gave that protection the thumbs up. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There has been new research and more circumstantial evidence, which now cannot be added to the page, which is a huge shame. Please could you kindly change the 'no evidence' statement for me, as I suggested. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. May I also suggest a lot of things which are missing from the page: 'Dating Shakespeare's plays' by Kevin Gilvary, a new interpretation of the Stratford Monument by Alexander Waugh (the first complete interpretation offered,) the interpretation of the reference to Shakespeare in Covell's Polimanteia, etc. etc. Why are Diana Price, Kevin Gilvary, Richard Paul Roe, Alexander Waugh, Alex McNeil and Daniel Wright, the leading scholars of the theory at the moment not even mentioned? (only Waugh is even listed as a supporter, but none of his research is in the article). Between them they have published many thoroughly-researched books and articles which offer plenty of evidence for Oxford. But they don't even appear in this article! Why are justice John Paul Stevens and justices Scalia and Blackmun not mentioned as Oxfordians? There is so much missing from this article! Since I can't add it, would you kindly do it for me, in the least biased way possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence123 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

There are several points missing from this article.

1/ "The Shakespeare Guide to Italy" by Richard Paul Roe, and all the evidence in this book that Shakespeare went to the same places in Italy where de Vere went.

2/ Alexander Waugh's discovery of 'our-de-vere' next to the marginal note 'Sweet Shake-speare' - http://www.deveresociety.co.uk/pdf/Waugh_Secret.pdf

3/ Justice John Paul Stevens, justice Scalia and justice Blackmun can be mentioned as supporters of the theory.

4/ The front cover to Peacham's Minerva Britanna

5/ Evidence that Shakespeare was dead after 1604 (i.e 'ever-living'...'late great Ovid') and the fact that plays stopped being published as regularly and plays which were not by Shakespeare suddenly came out under his name.

6/ Could you please put both FULL QUOTES from 'the arte of English Poesie' so that people can read the quote for themselves. Also worth mentioning that Robert Greene in 'Farewell to Folly' also writes about authors using allonyms of people who could not even write.

7/ Richard Brome: 'that English Earl that loved a play and a player' seems to refer to Shakespeare

8/ This quote from John Bodenham showing that Oxford and others had written works published under others' names: "Edward, Earle of Oxenford. Ferdinando, Earle of Derby. Sir Walter Raleigh. Sir Edward Dyer. Fulke Greuile, Esquier. Sir John Harrington.From diuers essayes of their Poetrie; some extant among other Honourable personages writings; some from priuate labours and translations." 109.149.30.22 (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Terra ^❤ 10:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Overly critical intro?

The first two paragraphs of this article basically attack the notion of alternative Shakespeare authorship theories, even going so far as to imply that it is a "conspiracy theory." Is that how the article should begin? Does that adhere to NPOV? I don't have a strong opinion on the matter of Shakepearean authorship one way or the other, but I feel like the article as currently written - at least the introduction - is intended to guide the reader to the conclusion that this theory is false. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. We've tried to build this page according to established interpretations of Wikipedia's core content policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research) detailed at the page Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral on matters of opinion, but that doesn't mean treating all points of view as equally valid. For example, Wikipedia would be useless as a reference if pages like Holocaust or general relativity gave equal space to people who don't believe in their subjects; coverage of notable fringe theories is to be mostly confined to pages specifically about the fringe theories, and even there WP:FRINGE says that much more weight should be given to the mainstream view, with the fringe view "clearly described as such."

Oxfordian editors of this page who would like to use Wikipedia to promote their views have often argued that Oxfordism should be considered a significant minority view, not a fringe view, and thus deserves more weight. However, this has been discussed extensively (especially when the Arbitration Committee dealt with the subject), and an overwhelming number of reliable sources have been found explicitly calling Oxfordism a far-fringe view, many of which could be quoted in much harsher terms than are in the article; I believe Tom Reedy once posted a list of quotes from 14 different reliable sources calling anti-Stratfordians a "lunatic fringe" in those exact words. So while we shouldn't go so far as to make the page an anti-Oxfordian polemic, we aim to keep the mainstream view (that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare) prominently present throughout the article. - Cal Engime (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I remember that list, here it is: [6] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, that may not be the list you were thinking about, it´s old. It´s a "lunatic fringe" list, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The intro remains absurdly overly critical against the Oxfordian theory for an entry specifically about it. One could understand such warnings about its deviation from mainstream opinion on the main Shakespeare entry, but here? This entry should be written by Oxfordian scholars who actually advocate the theory in question in order to give readers the best possible understanding of its central arguments, while admitting to readers that this theory remains a minority view. Having Stratfordian alarm bells sound at the opening, using pejorative terms like "conspiracy theory," is anything but NPOV. Kosmocentric (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

WRONG! WRONG! The Authorship controversy is one of those controversies that arise in humanity science (e.g. linguistics, literature) where the conventional view is to deprecate the fringe view much MUCH more than it deserves. By a "majority rule" process, the so-called fringeists are relegated to a "debunked already" status. This is fine when the fringe idea really has been debunked but, as I say, some of the debunkings in some social sciences are far too aggressive. INDEED anyone who doesn't recognize that there are strong cases FOR Oxford and AGAINST Shakspere simply hasn't read objectively.

When skeptics of alternative authorship are questioned on the detailed issues, most of them refer -- just as the mumbo-jumbo words in article's intro do -- to "majority scholarly opinion", unwilling to weigh in on any (except the most trivial) of the damning circumstantial evidence.

Anyway, far be it from me to try to Edit Wikipedia. I just came hoping for a helpful soul who will answer

         "Which of the past versions of the Main Page (Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship) is more objective and avoids the snotty dismissal of Oxfordianism?"

Because Frankly, after that poorly written and dismissive intro I didn't bother to even skim the page.Jamesdowallen (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

And where did you learn exactly how much the fringe view needs to be deprecated? How did you come to know the correct amount of aggression a debunking should have? Why do you happen to know how to read things objectively? If the experts are doing all those things wrong, obviously you know better than them. Then you must be a super-expert! That means your opinion insight has been published in a reliable source, and we can quote that source, right?

Otherwise your concerns cannot be included, since we only use reliable sources, and not the private opinions of users. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly the sort of response I'd expect from a typical "debunker" ... whose only stock in trade is to repeat conventional wisdom.

There are certainly scholarly books which take a skeptical view of the Stratfordian authorship and provide much evidence; since you're so erudite why don't *you* cite them? Why would *I* waste my time in an edit battle with an entrenched anal-retentive camp already in place?00:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdowallen (talk • contribs)

The burden of proof rests on whoever makes the claim. If I'm wrong about that, then you find the policy that says so. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Flattery will get you nowhere. If you want changes in the article, you are the one who has to supply the reasons.

BTW, if that was a representative example of your powers of reasoning, it is no wonder you end up with such weird worldviews. You used the following fallacies, rhetorical techniques, and propaganda methods:

• "Exactly the sort of response", "entrenched anal-retentive camp" - Poisoning the well
• "repeat conventional wisdom" - Buzzword and Strawman. What I repeated were the basic rules of this encyclopedia: "we only use reliable sources, and not the private opinions of users". The rest of what I said was just taking you down a peg: your opinion of yourself is way too high.
• "There are certainly scholarly books" - Potemkin village. If they exist, name them.

People who argue for good ideas don't need to use such methods because they can give good reasons. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Claims and citations in the introduction

We read in the article's introductory that,

"The convergence of documentary evidence of the type used by academics for authorial attribution – title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records – sufficiently establishes Shakespeare's authorship for the overwhelming majority of Shakespeare scholars and literary historians,[5] and no evidence links Oxford to Shakespeare's works.[6]"

Reference 5 cites pages 164-165, the final two pages of the Frank W. Wadsworth (1958, University of California Press) book, The Poacher From Stratford: A Partial Account of the Controversy Over the Authorship of Shakespeare' Plays. On a reading of those pages, I dispute that they amount to more than a bald unsupported claim that, as Wadsworth writes, until contradictory factual evidence is unearthed, there appears no valid reason to doubt that the official records, the evidence of title pages, the testimony of self-described friends and fellow writers, mean what they appear to say--that William Shakespeare of Stratford was the author of the wonderful works that bear his name. (p. 164)

That was written before the work of Noemi Magri and Richard Paul Roe was published--providing ample documented evidence that people, places and events mentioned in certain of the plays and poems reveal a knowledge of Italy's history, geography social customs and laws which cannot be credibly thought--let alone shown--to have been possible for the Stratford Shaksper to have come to know. These details reveal a direct and personal acquaintance which cannot be explained other than through a presence in Italy. Thus, we have today the "contrary factual evidence" which, by Wadsworth's own admission, places his bare assertion on untenable grounds.

Q 1) How, then, does the citation of his work still validly apply here, in 2017?

Q 2) Have any of the editors of this page actually read either Magri (Magri, Noemi. Such Fruits Out of Italy: The Italian Renaissance in Shakespeare's Plays and Poems. Buchholz, Germany, Laugwitz Verlag (2014)) or Roe (Roe, Richard Paul. The Shakespeare Guide to Italy: Retracing the Bard's Unknown Travels. New York, HarperCollins Publishers, 2011. ISBN 978-0-06-207426-3) ?

Proximity1 (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723105354/http://www.authorshipstudies.org/articles/oxford_shakespeare.cfm to http://www.authorshipstudies.org/articles/oxford_shakespeare.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100731053231/http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/etexts/si/00.htm to http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/etexts/si/00.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717083810/http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/Star/toc.htm to http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/Star/toc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2016

Please could you change the sentence saying that there is 'no evidence' to saying that there is 'only circumstantial evidence' You have listed 'circumstantial evidence in the article, so it is plainly inaccurate to insist that none exists. 109.149.30.22 (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: The "No evidence" bit in the lede is sourced, and so changing that part would misrepresent the source. GAB^Hello! 00:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The source cited by the "No evidence" bit is inaccurate. It says that there is no proof that Oxford was the son of Queen Elizabeth I. It does not say there is no evidence at all for the Oxfordian theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallion Cornell (talk • contribs) 15:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what source you're referring to. Shapiro clearly reports that "Shakespeareans reply [to Oxfordian claims] that there is not a shred of documentary evidence linking anyone else to the authorship of the plays ...." See p. 7 in the British edition and 8 in the American. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)