Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Shapiro "Contested Will" citations

The reference used to support the idea that there is no evidence to support the Oxfordian cites James Shapiro's "Contested Will," page 7. While the "no evidence" position is certainly representative of Shapiro's personal opinion, no such statement appears on that page. The closest that page comes is to say "there is no proof that Edward de Vere was the son of Elizabeth I," which is a different argument. Shapiro also quotes a historian to say "I don't find the evidence to be complete enough - yet - to topple the man from Stratford from his literary pedestal." This is nothing like an objective determination that there is no evidence.

In any case, to cite Shapiro's opinion as an objective fact is not representative of a NPOV, especially since evidence for the theory is subsequently cited in the article.

In addition, citing Shapiro to assert that Oxfordians repeatedly argue that a lack of evidence is proof of the conspiracy's success is simply Shapiro's anecdotal assertion and cannot be sustained by any citations of Oxfordians actually doing what Shapiro describes.

Your idea of what WP:POV says is in error. Wikipedia objectively reports what scholars say about a given subject. If it were required that this article contained only objective fact, it would be about four paragraphs long, and no Oxfordian claims would be represented. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Reporting what scholars say is fine when put in the proper context. It would be appropriate, for example, to say that James Shapiro and many other scholars believe there to be no evidence, not to simply present this assertion as objective fact.

In addition, the reference is in error, simply because Shapiro does not make this assertion on page 7 of his book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallion Cornell (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe your confusion derives from overlooking this footnote. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you. On page 8 of the US edition, it has the language you're describing, although it is misrepresented in the Wikipedia article. I will change the article to accurately reflect both NPOV and Shapiro's position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallion Cornell (talk • contribs) 19:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I have also changed the citation referring to Oxfordians citing no evidence of a conspiracy as evidence of its success to reflect what Shapiro actually said, which is not even tangentially similar in either the UK or US edition of "Contested Will" to the original language used in the article . Stallion Cornell (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I’m reverting your edits, not because they’re objectionable for the article but because they’re in the wrong place. If you want to edit the article, I suggest you begin by reading the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, in this particular case WP:LEDE. The lede should be a summary of the rest of the article, not a detailed explanation with long quotations. If you want to say, “Most scholars who have studied the topic say no evidence links Oxford to Shakespeare's works,” or something along that line, without including a long direct quotation, that's fine. As to the second part, I think the sentence is a fair summary of what Shapiro write, and I’m sure we can find similar statements from Shakespeare scholars, so we’ll have to work that one out. If you want to include the details and the quotation from Shapiro, the place to do that is in the “Circumstantial evidence” section.

In fact, if you want to rewrite the entire article, help yourself, but I suggest you float any major changes on the talk page before incorporating them in the article, as per SAQ discretionary sanctions, and also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, including all the articles in the arbitration decision concerning SAQ articles. Nina Green wrote most of this article, and while the most egregious POV violations were removed as she worked, and every year or so I take a look at it and rewrite or delete the most offensive POV violations, no one has really been over it thoroughly since she finished and managed to get herself a lifetime ban from editing. (It might be instructive to review her case.)

Lastly, I caution you to thoroughly familiarize yourself with WP:POV and WP:FRINGE. The definitions used by Wikipedia and advocates of fringe theories are often at odds. Wikipedia is a place to report what the scholastic consensus is on any given subject, not a place to break new ground or report new discoveries. If Galileo had edited Wikipedia with his discoveries, he would be reverted, and rightly so, until the scientific consensus came around to his point of view. Nor is Wikipedia a newspaper reporting every cancer cure “breakthrough” or every declaration of sects of true believers.

And please take the time to learn proper talk page conventions. New edits go at the bottom, use four tildes to sign your comments, and use colons to indent beneath a comment you're responding to. I have taken the liberty of inserting them in this conversation to give you an idea of how it works. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I have done as you have suggested and changed the objectionable sentence to remove the lengthy quote and accurately reflect both Shapiro's position and the distinction between documentary and circumstantial evidence that Shapiro himself makes in the referenced source. Simply saying "no evidence exists" as an objective statement is at odds both with the source and with the distinction between circumstantial and documentary evidence, and it does not reflect a NPOV. I don't see why this should be a matter of further controversy.

As for the second sentence, there is nothing in the Shapiro citation that says anything close to what was written in the article. If you have references that demonstrate that Oxfordians frequently invoke a lack of evidence for the conspiracy's success, it would be appropriate to insert them here, as the Shapiro reference does not provide an adequate source for the point being made.

As for Wikipedia's designation of fringe theories, none of my edits have broken any new ground or tried to pretend that the Oxfordian theory is anything but shunned by the mainstream of scholarly thought. The edits are simply attempts to be consistent with the cited sources. My goal is not to revolutionize Shakespearean scholarship but rather to allow people who want to know what the Oxfordian theory is to find accurate information about the subject, fringe though it may be. Stallion Cornell (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I edited the two sentences to conform more closely to the refs, and supplied another ref. Shapiro doesn't say that there is circumstantial evidence for Oxford; he says that Oxfordians claim there is circumstantial evidence (which upon examination proves in most cases to be interpretation and a loose definition of the term). Regarding the second sentence, the statement is inferred from what Shapiro says on that page, which is WP:SYN so I removed it until someone provides a WP:RS.

On another note, I think you might have a misconception about what a neutral POV is for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is biased toward the academic consensus and has a somewhat broader interpretation of "fringe" than how most people think about it. That bias is evident in its requirements for acceptable sources, which tends to cause some people to believe that the articles are not fair representations of the topics. For example, I wish we could use Ogburn and Looney as major sources for this particular article, but since the majority of what they wrote hasn't been responded to in reliable sources, we cannot.

On still another note, I must say that you seem to believe that you were blocked because of the content of your edits. You were blocked because you violated Wikipedia policy by edit warring and reverting more than three times in 24 hours. In any case, it is a short block and if you familiarize yourself with the policies and edit in good faith you should be able to avoid any future blocks. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

All right, I’ve been sufficiently chastened. Let’s take this in small chunks and see if we can get somewhere. 


Here's the relevant passage from Wikipedia's NPOV article that applies to the reference you moved:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."



Yet now the assertion that “no evidence links Oxford to Shakespeare's works” stands as an unreferenced statement of fact akin to saying “the sky is blue.” 



 You seem to be arguing that this statement is not an opinion so it needs no reference, nor does it need to be couched in language attributing this opinion to anyone any more than an article would need to quote an expert on the color of the sky. 



Yet not even Shapiro says "no evidence." He says "no documentary evidence." It's an important distinction.

Whether or not you accept the possibility or legitimacy of the circumstantial evidence, this article contains an entire section titled “Circumstantial evidence.” An article that announces in the lede that there is "no evidence" and then contains a large section titled "Circumstantial evidence" is logically absurd.

This is why I tried to edit the article to replace the existing “no evidence” assertion with this sentence:



“Scholars point out that no direct documentary evidence links Oxford to Shakespeare's works, although Oxfordians counter that circumstantial evidence for the theory exists.”

 This is not a lengthy quote; it is a direct paraphrase of what Shapiro said in the relevant reference, and it only offers the Oxfordian assertion that circumstantial evidence exists, not validation of that assertion. It's also more consistent with the NPOV guidelines than the current version.

Would this edit be objectionable? And, if so, why? Stallion Cornell (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for removing the passage about Oxfordians trumpeting the absence of evidence for the conspiracy as evidence of its success. That was nonsense. Stallion Cornell (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

So I added all of two words to the page - instead of "no evidence links Oxford to Shakespeare's works," it now reads "no such documentary evidence links Oxford to Shakespeare's works." This ties this part of the sentence back to the beginning of the sentence, which specifically references documentary evidence. I am gun shy and hopeful that this does not turn out to be the opening salvo of a major dispute, but it seems to be a common-sense edit and one that should be allowed to stand. Stallion Cornell (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"Another is finding": awkward

I suggest that, as it stands, the meaning can be understood, but to begin a paragraph with the words "another is finding" is too awkward.

Specialists in Elizabethan literary history[who?] object to the methodology of Oxfordian arguments. In lieu of any evidence of the type commonly used for authorship attribution, Oxfordians discard the methods used by historians and employ other types of arguments to make their case, the most common being supposed parallels between Oxford's life and Shakespeare's works.

Another is finding cryptic allusions to Oxford's supposed play writing in other literary works of the era that to them suggest that his authorship was obvious to those "in the know".

That could be said more smoothly. Just make it one paragraph. There's no need for a new paragraph.

Specialists in Elizabethan literary history[who?] object to the methodology of Oxfordian arguments. In lieu of any evidence of the type commonly used for authorship attribution, Oxfordians discard the methods used by historians and employ other types of arguments to make their case, the most common being supposed parallels between Oxford's life and Shakespeare's works. Oxfordians also attempt to connect Oxford to the works by cryptic allusions to Oxford's supposed play writing in other literary works of the era that to them suggest that his authorship was obvious to those "in the know". Cdg1072 (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2018

1. Under section: "Family connections", is an illustration whose caption reads, "Shakespeare's First Folio was dedicated to Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke and his brother William Herbert. Philip Herbert was married to Oxford's daughter, Susan de Vere."

So, Philip was married to Susan.

Yet, the accompanying text contradicts this: "and the First Folio of Shakespeare's plays was dedicated to Montgomery (who married Susan de Vere) and Pembroke (who was once engaged to Bridget de Vere)."

Here, the Earl of Montgomery (not Philip, Earl of Pembroke) was married to Susan.

Please correct whichever one is incorrect.

2. The first sentence of that (above) paragraph makes no sense: "The three dedicatees of Shakespeare's works (the earls of Southampton, Montgomery and Pembroke) were each proposed as husbands for the three daughters of Edward de Vere."

Specifically: "proposed as husbands for the three daughters" is ambiguous wording. - Does this mean: Each of the earls 'proposed marriage' to each respective daughter, but there were no marriages that resulted? - Does this mean: Sources (unnamed) have proposed that each of these earls may have been married to these women, but there is no evidence to confirm their marriages to any of them?

If the author of this wiki page wants to state that the dedications in the books show clear 'de Vere family' connections then, please, simply delete the vague generalities, and replace it with each relevant connection.

Proposed change: "The First Folio, (published 1623) of Shakespeare's works was dedicated to (Persons name, their title), who was (married to, or engaged to) (daughter's name), Edward de Vere's (e.g., youngest) daughter. The (next book's name), (date of publication) was dedicated to (Persons name, their title), who was (married to, or engaged to) (daughter's name), de Vere's (e.g., middle) daughter. The (next book's name), (date of publication) was dedicated to (Persons name, their title), who was (married to, or engaged to) (daughter's name), de Vere's (e.g., oldest) daughter."

-- Robert 108.212.82.139 (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 05:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)