This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
With the fringe theory issue now put aside until someone feels he can make a convincing case at a Wikipedia arbitration that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, let's get back to the issue we were discussing before Tom brought up the fringe theory, namely whether Brief Chronicles can be cited as a reliable source. In that regard, it's again useful to consult Shapiro's Contested Will. On p. 202 Shapiro writes:
There's much more to Shapiro's imaginary letter on p. 203 which demonstrates how difficult it would be to get a Wikipedia arbitration to make a determination that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory rather than a minority view, but that's not my point in drawing attention to Shapiro's imaginary letter. My point is that Shapiro accepts that Oxfordians have peer-reviewed literary journals. Shapiro does not question the peer review process of those journals. He accepts it. Shapiro states that 'like mainstream academics [Oxfordians] have their own peer-reviewed literary journals'. According to Wikipedia's policy of verifiability, that's sufficient. Brief Chronicles can be cited as a reliable source. NinaGreen ( talk) 16:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Tom, it's still a threat, and inappropriate because Wikipedia policy states that (1) Wikipedia is not a democracy and (2) Wikipedia does not operate by consensus. Wikipedia policy states that all editors are equal, and (I obviously have to repeat it again) that answers on the Wikipedia notice board do not constitute Wikipedia policy. You have no right to remove a citation merely because you and a few others 'deem' certain things to be so. That directly contravenes Wikipedia policy. NinaGreen ( talk) 20:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Paul, here are the first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia policy on verifiability:
I cannot see any way in which this policy supports Tom's actions in deleting the two sources I cited. I await an explanation which does not depend on your or Tom's personal interpretation, but simply focuses on applying the foregoing policy in terms of the two sources I cited and the statements in the article for which they were cited. NinaGreen ( talk) 17:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Paul, after I wrote that sentence I realized I didn't know what your academic qualifications are, and I sincerely apologize for the statement. However the rest of my argument stands. You and Tom have turned the Wikipedia policy on its head. It says nothing about fringe theories. It concerns minority views and reliable published sources. An otherwise reliable published source cannot be disqualified solely because it holds a minority view. The burden of proof is on you and Tom. You have not established that Brief Chronicles is not a reliable source because your sole argument flies in the face of Wikipedia's own policy. Moreover if you want to split hairs, as you've done with the Pericles argument above, then the majority view (Stone, Pearson, Nelson etc.) is that Oxford inherited almost double the income he actually did inherit and the majority view has the facts of his debt to the Court of Wards all wrong. Wikipedia policy thus mandates that the minority view, which is supported by the primary source documents, must be represented in the Edward de Vere article, which is what the two sources I cited accomplish. Tom's removal of them thus constitutes outright censorship in favour of the majority view that Oxford inherited double the income he actually did inherit.
Moreover the argument you make concerning the areas of specialization of the members of the Brief Chronicles board is totally misplaced. Accurate portrayal of Oxford's life and the authorship issue mandates a multi-disciplinary editorial board, not a highly-specialized board. Oxford's life involves literature, drama, history, music, languages, religion, foreign travel, a multitude of legal issues etc. etc. Rather than being a negative, the fact that the editorial board is multi-disciplinary is an enormous positive. 205.250.205.73 ( talk) 18:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I've also cited Pearson (p.35) for the statement that Oxford got no income from the estates set aside in his father's will for payment of debts and legacies until the period set aside had expired. NinaGreen ( talk) 00:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Paul, someone please pinch me and tell me that someone with a PhD didn't write what I just read about 'travel agents'. NinaGreen ( talk) 02:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Tom, I don't want to get into revert wars, so I haven't deleted the statement beneath the image of Lord Burghley which states that he was Oxford's guardian, but it's inaccurate. Although Oxford lived at Cecil House, Lord Burghley was not his guardian. Oxford was the Queen's ward, and the Queen was his legal guardian until he was released from wardship when he sued his livery in 1572. NinaGreen ( talk) 16:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This article needs more images to break up the monotonous stack of grey type. Nina, do you have a good picture of Anne Cecil's tomb effigy? I found one on the internet here but it is not very good. Ideally it would be a closeup of the head. With all the millions and millions of Oxfordians out there surely one of them has taken a good photograph of it. Tom Reedy ( talk) 05:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Tom, I agree completely, and I really like the Whitehall image you added. I don't have a good picture of Anne Cecil's tomb effigy, but I'll ask if one of the millions has one. :-) There should be a good image of Anne Vavasour out there on the internet as well. NinaGreen ( talk) 21:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Tom, thanks for adding the url for the Purnell book. I note your comment about original research, and am open to suggestions as to what might remove that concern. NinaGreen ( talk) 21:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Nina, I don't know if you know or not, but you can publish Oxford's poetry (or anybody's as long as they're out of copyright) on WikiSource and link to them from there. All you have to do is put an m: before the link and use a two-part format, like this: To a Republican Friend, and it will take the reader directly to the poem. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I didn't know that. NinaGreen ( talk) 19:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It's time for all of you to let go of the notion that your disagreements can be dealt with in arbitration. Arbitration is not a Supreme Court of Everything on Wikipedia; it's a rather specialised board exclusively for dealing with conflicts involving conduct. If you consider that the members of the Arbitration Committee are volunteers just like yourselves, I think you'll realise why; there is no way they would have time to deal with all the conflicts involving content, for example. Nor does the ArbCom create policy; they don't have time for that either. Please note the significant fact that most requests for Arbitration are turned down cold; either because they're requests about content, or because they're requests for policy-making, or because the conflict isn't deemed to be ripe for arbitration (which is supposed to be the last stage of dispute resolution, after all other avenues have been tried). All three turn-down reasons would come into play if any of you requested arbitration of the basic conflict on this talkpage. As I think Tom and Paul have pointed out, the best places for resolving it are outlined at the top of the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Considering how embattled the positions have become, I would suggest, amongst the wide range of possibilities, that you invite outside comment via WP:RFC. But there are plenty of other good ideas at WP:RSN.
There is in fact a conduct issue here, though hardly one that is ripe for arbitration, and that is the repetitiveness of NinaGreen's posting. Nina, you seem to be trying to wear down opposition by saying the same thing over and over. That's not a legitimate talkpage debating style; it's tendentious editing, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. By way of example, I did a search on the word "arbitration" (which as I said has no business here even once), and, from the section "Verifiability and Meaningful Peer Review" [2] alone, garnered this collection:
To address claim number 11; no, it's not called arbitration, and there are no "Wikipedia rules" that have any relevance to the personal attacks and the wikilawyering quoted above. Nina, you are making up these notions of Wikipedia policy out of whole cloth. I realise you're a new user, but please make a start on reading the basic policies in good faith, and on listening to more experienced colleagues. Eleven out of the eleven comments above are in error, and haughty and sarcastic with it. The sheer repetition is what troubles me the most. Please read WP:Gaming the system. The nutshell version goes like this:
"Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden"
Don't do that. Don't play the
IDIDNTHEARTHAT game. Only post on this talkpage when you have something to say that is not a copy of what you've said before, in either wording or substance. If I don't see any improvement in this respect, I'm sorry to say you may eventually face a
block.
Tom, I see you discussing arbitrating the conflict also: "She won't start an arbitration because she knows what will happen". (BTW the "she" is rather rude, IMO.) No, I don't think Nina does know that, or even that you do, and I'm trying to explain it as gently as possible to you both. Nothing very alarming would happen; it would merely be useless, and a waste of time and energy, as the case would be briskly ruled unsuitable for arbitration. We all need to aim for not wasting time, our own or other people's. Nina, please reconsider your bad-faith debating style. The other editors are obviously hoping for you to change your approach and become an asset to the article. So am I, as you have a lot of valuable expertise. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC). P.S. On the principle of not wasting time, I won't be re-posting or rewording any of the above unless I see good reason to.
I'm shocked at your statement about blocking me on the ground that I'm not listening to what you say. I have read carefully what you've said in both your postings above. But as I stated very clearly in my last posting, what you have said does not concern the issue, and we are obviously unfortunately talking past each other in some way which I can't quite understand. The issue is NOT reliable sources, so I don't understand why you keep referring me to the RS noticeboard page, which is all about reliable sources. The issue is David Kathman's 2003 statement on the Shakespeare authorship controversy page on Wikipedia that the Shakespeare authorship controversy is a 'fringe theory'. David Kathman is a stock analyst. He does not teach at a university, and his statement is completely out of date in light of McCrae's and Shapiro's books, Sir Derek Jacobi's views, the graduate program in Shakespeare authorship studies at Brunel University, the academics who have PhDs who are on the Board of Brief Chronicles and teach at universities, Roland Emmerich's upcoming film, etc. etc. and even the fact that Paul Barlow said he taught the authorship controversy when he taught Shakespeare. Kathman's statement needs to be deleted from the Shakespeare authorship controversy page, and updated with something which more accurately reflects the current reality. Surely we can agree on that. NinaGreen ( talk) 01:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Dave Kathman is considered an expert on the SAQ, as testified not only by the Oxford Shakespeare entry authored by him, but by his upcoming articles in Bruce Smith's Cambridge Encyclopedia of Shakespeare and Patricia Parker's Shakespeare Encyclopedia. (He is also considered an expert on boy actors and early Elizabethan playing companies.)
Shapiro is quoted 58 times on the SAQ page, so he's not being ignored. At no time has he said that the SAQ is not a fringe theory or that it is a minority view, nor does he do so in his book or in subsequent interviews. I have several other sources specifically stating that the SAQ is a fringe theory, and in fact I have several academics sources that say it is a manifestation of a mental illness and in terms that are nothing kind, and these aren't old sources, either. They are quite a bit harsher than the sources now used, but I am loath to use such statements.
A fringe theory is one that deviates significantly from the mainstream view and that has very few adherents. Judging by the most generous standards, every anti-Stratfordian in the world could meet in a medium-sized football stadium with plenty of room to spare. Another point is that you don't have academics vandalising Wikipedia by inserting nonsense into the authorship articles the way the same IP vandal does in this and the SAQ article. The man is a respected professional in his field and should know better than to indulge in such childish hijinks, but for some reason extreme beliefs lead people to do stupid things in the name of "justice" and "fairness" for the True Author.
As far as I'm concerned, this topic has worn out its welcome on this talk page. If you want an "official" determination of whether anti-Stratfordism is a fringe theory, use the dispute resolution mechanism on the WP:Fringe theories noticeboard page. You could find many statements to that fact on Wikipedia; the consensus doesn't change with the weather or with the release of every new book on the topic. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Nina, please see WP:TALKNO, especially the last sentence in that section, before you make another repetitious post. Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Tom, my posting above is not at all repetitious. The New York Times survey is highly relevant to the topic under discussion, and has not been mentioned before.
The statement you referred me to reads:
I am not using the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. My comments are directed solely towards improving the article. At the moment the Edward de Vere article is highly restricted in terms of sources which can be cited because of the violation of Wikipedia's policy of neutrality mentioned above, whereby solely on the basis of a 2003 statement from David Kathman, who is highly partisan, the Shakespeare authorship controversy has been declared a 'fringe theory'. Removing David Kathman's statement from the SAQ article would restore the neutrality which is Wikipedia's policy, thereby improving this and all other Wikipedia articles which have any bearing on the SAQ by allowing the authorship controversy to be treated as a minority view, which the New York Times survey of Shakespeare professors who are actually involved in teaching the subject clearly shows it is. It is astonishing to me that rather than accept the results of the New York Times survey, you choose to try to use it as an example of 'repetitiousness' to get me banned from Wikipedia. It is obviously difficult for you to be neutral on this topic, and Wikipedia demands neutrality from its editors. You should recuse yourself. NinaGreen ( talk) 23:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It appears that my comment above was copied and pasted here by Charles Darnay. It was made in response to his remarks about Don Foster. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)(Domald Foster's malfeasances have nothing to do with this.CD.
years both link Will to the pandering trade.You guys are so far back on your Shakespeare biographical data that you didn't know one of them existed.And this is the thanks you give. Charles Darnay ( talk) 20:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I cited as a source yesterday an article in the online edition of The Dictionary of National Biography. Alan Nelson's DNB article has also been cited as a source by another editor. The online edition is only available to subscribers. I'm wondering whether this has been considered before. Should there be a link to the DNB homepage where people can subscribe if they wish? Most of the articles in the old hardcopy DNB have been revised for the online edition, as I understand it, and there are many entirely new articles in the online edition, so it's often not possible to cite the old hardcopy DNB for certain things. Comments, anyone? NinaGreen ( talk) 19:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Tom for fixing up the ODNB citation, and to Buchraeumer for pointing out my slip. I'm a subscriber to the online ODNB, and I need to stop referring to it as the DNB. Habit dies hard. :-) NinaGreen ( talk) 00:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I added Oxford's verses back into the final section, which I've retitled Reputation. I don't know whether the verses had somehow dropped out, or whether an editor took them out. They look a bit odd, and perhaps they can be fixed up. If not, I don't mind if they're eliminated, although I like them there because Puttenham actually quoted them.
I was thinking of dealing in the Reputation section with two other aspects of Oxford's reputation, i.e. character and financial. I haven't had time to do that yet. Comments, anyone? NinaGreen ( talk) 22:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
There are probably some bits and pieces to be added, as well as things to be tidied up, but the main edit is finished. Comments and suggestions on any aspect are most welcome. NinaGreen ( talk) 00:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not certain whom I'm addressing, 71.191.5.232, but you've contributed two recent edits:
and
The Edward de Vere article is currently written from a neutral point of view. It chronicles the events in Oxford's life, citing sources for those events which are accepted by Wikipedia editors as reliable, but not drawing any conclusions for or against the authorship hypothesis from the events. Your two edits are a departure from those procedures, and I wonder if you would consider discussing them on this page. NinaGreen ( talk) 23:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
If Edward de Vere "is presently the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works," would someone please tell me how they decided this? Did they take a poll? Has there been scientific study? How long has he been the most popular alternative? One year? five years? 60 years? Who was the most popular alternative before De Vere? Why is De Vere currently the most popular alternative? Have people gotten bored with the other alternatives? These are questions that come to mind after reading that statement. And surely they are worthy questions. If all the cities that De Vere visited in Italy showed up in "The Merchant of Venice" it wouldn't be a violation of the "neutal point of view" rule to point out that coincidences like this give credence to the view that he wrote the play in question. While such a view may well be a "fringe" and may well be nonsense, why would it violate any rules to point this out in the context of the authorship dispute?
Was the character of Polonius modeled off of Lord Burgley in the play Hamlet? Many scholars seem to think so. William Shakespeare of Stratord didn't know Burgley, but Edward de Vere did.
This statement makes absolutely no sense at all.
The people who believe the traditional story about William Shakespeare are not interested in "neutral points of view". They are interested in destroying any effort on this page or others on Wikipedia to link Edward de Vere to the plays ostensibly written by William Shakespeare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.122.48 ( talk) 00:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no consensus on this question. That is when the entire group agrees. There is a large minority viewpoint on this issue, which is why that minority viewpoint can be rightly discussed in the course of the article.
"The Merchant of Venice" is just one example of many. And EVERY city in the play was one visited by De Vere. I can't list the multitude of similarities between De Vere's life and the plays, but when you add them all up, the evidence is clear. You're dismissive of the verified parallels between De Vere's life and the plays but then you assert without any evidence that "Shakespeare of Stratford almost certainly encountered [Burghley]". Really? How do you know this? De Vere definitely knew Burghley, who was his father-in-law. We have not an iota of evidence Will Shaksper knew Burghley. I don't believe that the only people who can count in determining the authorship question are people with Ph.Ds in Shakespearean literature, or similar folks, if those are the accredited scholars you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.116.105 ( talk) 11:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
An encyclopedia should be concerned with the truth. Just because the traditional, orthodox view of the authorship question has been around longer is no reason to blindly accept it. My appeal is to all thinking, open-minded people. If we compare the evidence, direct and circumstantial, pertaining to who wrote these plays, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of Edward de Vere. For Will Shaksper of Stratford, we have virtually nothing. The arguments for his case are full of "must haves" and "would haves". It's an insult to reason and intelligence to continue to accept this ridiculous fairy of Will Shaksper as the author of these plays. No one knew him. No records existed of him for 20 years. No real proof he was ever an actor. His death was barely noticed. But the historical documents are replete with references to many lesser known authors. Edward de Vere was "Shakespeare". He wrote these great plays. You can't order me to keep the truth out of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.114.15 ( talk) 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The goal of the Stratfordians is to censor and bury any view opposed to their view. But two films will soon be coming out. One is a documentary on the subject and another is a drama, probably at least somewhat fictionalized, claiming that Elizabeth I was de Vere's mother. Nevertheless, both of these films will create legions of skeptics who will no longer believe the lies put forth by the Stratfordians. The floodgates will open and de Vere will be more readily accepted as the true author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.114.15 ( talk) 23:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The "facts" are always easy to discern. Plenty is stated about William Shakespeare in the official article on him in Wikipedia that can hardly be termed factual. There is no hard evidence he ever attended grammar school. The circumstantial evidence we have combined with the paucity of hard indicates is considerably in favor of Edward de Vere as the author of these plays. The case for the traditional is essentially nonexistent. Eventually, the public and most scholars will come around to this. Years from now, people will look back at this debate and chuckle? How could we belief such rubbish for so long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.6.122 ( talk) 00:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You can't, of course.
And you, yourself, wrote just above, on this page, that "There is a separate page" for the authorship question, so why are you trying to argue it here, from either side? It is not appropriate here, to argue authorship. You, yourself, already wrote that on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.58.209 ( talk) 13:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The Edward de Vere article is not written "from a neutral point of view." It is written from the point of view that he almost certainly was not the author of the Shakespearean canon. If you would not give equal weight to Intelligent Design Theory in discussing evolution, I can't see why you would treat the traditional story of Will Shakeper of Stratford as the God-given truth. Were we to discover the plays for the first time in 2011, if we had to determine who the author was for the first time, the evidence points to Oxford, not Shaksper. Oxford owned property in Stratford, which easily explains the dedication in the first folio. To borrow a line some famous prosecutors, there is a "mountain of evidence" that Oxford was "Shakespeare." What we have on Shaksper's side is 400 years of tradition--that's it. So stop pretending this article is written from a "neutral point of view." It's a whitewash. It's rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.0.40 ( talk) 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
It's undoubtedly frustrating for you that you can't censor my comments in the discussion section. While you can censor the main article section, but not this section, it's not at all surprising that you see "no point in [me] continuing to make these comments..." There's clearly no point in your bothering to read them. Let others read them and take make their own judgments. If your interpretation of the authorship question is correct, you shouldn't fear a free and open discussion of the issue, even if it is here. An article with a neutral point of view on this matter would discuss why so many people believe Edward de Vere was the true author. It would not crush and bury those views. Not all scholars accept the orthodox view, as you know--not even all Ph.D.-accredited scholars in the field. The First Folio of "Shakespeare's" plays was produced and published by Edward de Vere's daughter, Susan; her husband, Philip Herbert; and Philip's brother William. This is an odd coincidence if Edward de Vere did not write these plays. He did own a manor house on Bilton Hall, on the River Avon, where he often rested. The reference to the "Sweet Song of Avon" was in 1623. Edward de Vere supposedly died in 1604. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.7.51 ( talk) 20:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The sale of Bilton apparently occurred in 1592, just 12 years before Oxford died, and it was one of the last ancestral properties he disposed of. There is a reference to this country seat in one of his (Oxford's, not Shaksper's) sonnets. He didn't live there, but he spent plenty of time there. As to his death, there is some question as to the date of Oxford's death. This in an important area of research in Oxfordian studies. As for the publication of the plays by the Herberts, that they were related to Oxford is no surprise indeed if they were related to him. This is perfectly logical. Yes, these talk pages are for suggestions regarding this article, and my suggestion is that article pay more attention to the overwhelmingly evidence that Oxford was the real author of this works, that no person with the name "William Shakespeare" wrote these pages, and that Will Shaksper did not write these plays. The latter never spelled or pronounced the name attached to the plays as it now. The usual spelling was "William Shake-speare", hyphenated to indicate the fact that it was a pseudonym. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.191.11.88 (
talk)
05:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Proponents of the orthodox view cannot lose the argument if they are the ones who decide what "reliable secondary sources" are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.7.79 ( talk) 00:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The anonymous revert-warrior who most recently edited as 71.191.2.38 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) (previously 71.191.7.125 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 71.191.11.102 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 71.191.1.240 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and other related IPs in the history of this page) is topic-banned under the rules of WP:ARBSAQ from all edits related to the SAQ and Edward de Vere, for persistent revert-warring. Any edits that are recognisably his, either on the article or talk page, may be reverted on sight, without regard to the 3RR or other restrictions. It is recommended that talk page postings from him should also not be responded to but removed immediately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
What evidence do we have that Edward de Vere was the real author here, and what evidence do we have that Guilemus Shaksper was the real author. Well, we have little hard evidence either way, but we have mountains of evidence that Edward de Vere wrote these plays. The web is humming with activity about the upcoming movie "Anonymous". People who are interested in this question and who want good info that is not censored should look elsewhere. The Wikipedia articles on Edward de Vere and the Shakespearean Authorship question are constantly censored in the name of NPOVs, which are nothing of the sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.115.239 ( talk) 04:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
No actionable request, see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:ARBSAQ#Discretionary_sanctions |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I made a correction to the article about Oxfordian Theory that should be replicated here. I noticed that the reference to Oxford being the most "popular" actually used the term "strongest". Might someone make the same change here. The reference is Encyclopedia Britannica, after all. "Popular" sounds like some kind of contest. Also, I note that the section here on the authorship is woefully inadequate. If the man is notable for being the strongest/most popular/etc. candidate, then the final section needs a little filling out to justify that notability. I would suggest summarizing the Oxfordian Theory article for this section. Would that not be the proper approach? Even summarizing the first 3 paragraphs of the Oxfordian article would be better than what is there now. - Anton321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton321 ( talk • contribs) 08:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Anton, you won't have any luck with the editors of this page. They will crush any effort to present a balanced claim of the authorship question and the overwhelming evidence that supports de Vere's claim. There is not an "almost unanimous consensus of academic sources" on the issue, and even so, there is no reason to ignore other researchers. The evidence supporting the conventional view of Shakspere of Stratford as the author is flimy and unconvincing. Most academics, however, refuse to consider, any other alternative. You can present a mountain of evidence in support of evolution but creationists and other religious people will refuse to accept it. It doesn't matter. In short, the view that Edward de Vere wrote these plays is not a "fringe theory," as many prominent researchers, public intellectuals, and celebrities have embraced this view. Don't try to reason with Nishani or any of the other censors on here. It's pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.4.36 ( talk) 02:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're wrong. And if that is the best you can do, that is pretty sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.119.116 ( talk) 17:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
No evidence whatever? There is a vast literature on Oxford---in journals, in books--by serious scholars who are not certified Ph.Ds in the field and don't have to be. Hank Whittemore has written a 900 tome that persuasively demonstrates Edward de Vere was not only the author but fathered a son with Elizabeth I. Mark Anderson has written a critically acclaimed book entitled, "Shakespeare by Another Name", which the editors on here will not allow to be listed in the references. The only scholars allowed to edit this site are the ones approved by the Stratford mafia--those who hold the ridiculous orthodox view that continues to be taught in schools. There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that de Vere was the author of these plays, and the growing acceptance and discussion of this view is something that should be reflected in the content of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.14.4 ( talk) 01:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The religion here is the religion of Stratfordianism. What hard evidence do we have supporting the orthodox view. Almost none. The dedication page is to a "William Shakespeare" but that is no how the "Shakespeare" of Stratford spelled his name. This man may have gone to Stratford Grammar School but there is no hard evidence he did. No one remarked upon his death. But plenty of people knew de Vere. They were references to his intelligence and literary ability. There is conclusive proof of his education and his experiences in travel and court tha bear similarities to his plays. With the Stratford man we have none of this. It's all a ridiculous fantasy embraced by people like those who would deny evolution, despite monumental evidence supporting. The people who suppress a fair discussion of this issue are beginning to look very silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.15.127 ( talk) 06:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The was a witty, and accurate, comment on my part. Many of the editors at the Shakespeare authorship question page are the same ones who haunt this page. They edited the page to minimize the possibility that someone else wrote the plays, with scant attention to the "most popular" candidate, Edward de Vere. The page is a whitewash and a sham. Stratforidans such as James Shapiro and Alan Nelson, who wrote a hatchet job on Edward de Vere, are cited favorably. Even on that page, you will not see works by any number of authors who have written favorably of Edward de Vere. And just for the record, Alan Nelson is literature professor, not a historian. So the bottom line is that you will not get a useful discussion of this issue, or a fair presentation of it, on Wikipedia. For those interested in the subject, look elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.118.146 ( talk) 18:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The spelling issue is a phony one. While there were numerous spellings, the variations were quite rare. The vast majority were consistent, for the Stratford man and for the pseudonym. Shapiro's book is just another whitewash. He ignores everything about de Vere that could link him to the plays. It's a work of fantasy. Here is a link that should be of interest to objective people. http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic782699.files/oxford.earl.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.2.75 ( talk) 17:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deal with it accordingly, then. Many specialists in the field flatly refuse to consider alterative authorship theories. Alan Nelson's book is not a high quality source. The other thing we have supported the theory that the grain dealer from Stratford wrote these plays is a name similar to his on the dedication page to some of his plays. Based on this flimsy connection, scores of "specialists" in the field have unwaveringly supported the Straford line. How can we put these specialists at the top of some pyramid? Is there any room for reason here? Finally, I'd like to know what the implication of your threat is in the final line of your rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.114.155 ( talk) 02:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC) How silly these editors look, banning people who try to discuss the authorship controversy in a reasonable way. First they lock the main page, so no changes that they do not agree with are banned. Then they ban those same people from discussing the issue on the Talk Page. They say that only information from "reliable secondary sources" can be use but they decide what is reliable. It is censorship plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.128.66 ( talk) 19:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
As promised in November, I've come back to give a thorough review of the page. In general, there is far too much original quotation in extenso which only redoubles on what the narrative says. Most of the quotations belong to the genre of writings to secure courtly patronage, and are characterised by hyperbole and flattery, and are never regarded by historians as testaments to facts other than the dynamics of bidding for favour or influence or patronage. I have removed the garbled (too much detail, much of its lacking the requested sourcing) and post it here.
The fines assessed against Oxford in the Court of Wards included £2000 for his wardship and marriage, £1257 18s 3/4d for his livery, and £48 19s 9-1/4d for mean rates, a total of £3306 17s 10d. citation needed To guarantee payment, Oxford entered into bonds to the Court of Wards totalling £11,000. citation needed Oxford's own bonds to the Court of Wards were in turn guaranteed by bonds to the Court of Wards in the amount of £5000 apiece entered into by two guarantors, John, Lord Darcy of Chiche, and Sir William Waldegrave. [1] In return for these guarantees, Oxford had entered into two statutes of £6000 apiece to Darcy and Waldegrave. citation needed Having sued his livery, Oxford was entitled to yearly revenues from his lands and the office of Lord Great Chamberlain of approximately £2200, [2] although he was not entitled to the income from the estates comprising his mother's jointure until after her death in 1568 citation needed nor to the income from certain estates set aside to pay his father's debts until 1583. [3]
Perhaps a section dedicated to his finances would be better. In any case, too much detail is to be avoided. Thoughts? Nishidani ( talk) 21:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Since he had over 20 book dedications, clearly one cannot punctuate a brief narrative of his life by continual interruptions, month by month or year by year, noting these dedications. I have collected some of them here. Perhaps, if needed, they can be compiled in chronological order in a late section.
In early 1572 Oxford wrote a Latin epistle to Bartholomew Clerke’s De Curiali, a translation into Latin of Baldassare Castiglione’s Il Cortegiano, [4] and in the same year Thomas Twyne dedicated his Breviary of Britain to Oxford, noting that 'your Honour taketh singular delight' in 'books of geography, histories and other good learning. [4]In 1573 Oxford wrote a commendatory letter and verses for his friend Thomas Bedingfield's Cardanus’ Comfort, a translation from the Latin of De Consolatione by the Italian mathematician and physician Girolamo Cardano. [5]In 1574 Oxford's surgeon, George Baker, dedicated to him a work containing two translations, The Composition or Making of . . . Oleum Magistrale, and The Third Book of Galen. [6] Nishidani ( talk) 10:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
quite right to exclude the oxford-wrote-shakespeare bores but you might like to include the detailed account of the Earl of Oxford in Sicily which only Edward Chaney seems to have noticed and which he argues could relate, via Robert Greene's Pandosto, to Shakespeare's Winter's Tale; see E. Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour, 2nd ed. (Routledge, 2000), pp. 10-12. Wendy hardacre ( talk) 15:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 15:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
According to Edward Webbe's Rare and Wonderfull Things, published in 1590, Oxford travelled further afield than generally thought. 'One thing', he writes, 'did greatly comfort me which I saw long since in Sicilia, in the cite of Palermo, a thing worthie of memorie, where the right honourable the Earle of Oxenford a famous man fo Chivalrie, at what time he travailed into forraine countries, being then personally present, made there a challenge against al maner of persons whatsoever, & at all manner of weapons, as Turniments, Barriors with Horse and armour, to fight and combat with any whatsoever, in the defence of his Prince and countrey...so that al Italy over, he is acknowledged ever since for the same, the onely Chivallier and Noble man of England...'. If Oxford indeed travelled to Sicily and this was known among the literati,together with knowledge of his suspicions about his daughter's paternity, this may have been in Robert Greene's mind when he published Pandosto in 1588. Greene's popular novella concerning a falsely accused queen obliged to abandon her daughter, who is then brought up by shepherds in Sicily, in turn inspired his younger collaborator and rival, that 'upstart crow' William Shakespeare, to write the Winter's Tale, which is also partly set in Sicily. Edward Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour: Anglo-Italian Cultural Relations since the Renaissance, 2nd ed. (Routledge, 2000) pp. 10-12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendy hardacre ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I think one should compare this, esp. the later sections, to most Elizabethan biographies. There is no distinction between important and trivial incident, seminal moments and minor facts, no narrative value, and no attempt to group anything thematically. Indeed chronological sequence has trumped thematic grouping, so his amorous and theatrical interests interleave his failed speculations, and there is far too much useless citation of boring primary sources. It goes well down to about 1570 and thereafter is unreadably tedious in its rapid juxtaposition of excessive detail and sketchy marginalia . ? Nishidani ( talk) 21:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
This definitely needs a rewrite to compress the article down, removing minor irrelevant events, and folding things into each other. At the moment this article contains 12356 words. This compares to 2590 for the Earl of Essex, who is a far more important figure in the context of the Elizabethan period, 6830 for William Shakespeare, and 8828 for Elizabeth herself! And this doesn't even include all the extra stuff about Oxford that Wikipedia has under the Authorship Speculation articles. For these reasons I think this article needs to be cut down to about half its present size, the many quotes need to be cut down to the most relevant parts or deleted when they are unnecessary - the article on Elizabeth only has one quote that exceeds 6 lines, and generally the quotes are just 2 or 4 lines. 94.170.118.163 ( talk) 20:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
should be added to foreign travel section:
According to Edward Webbe's Rare and Wonderfull Things, published in 1590, Oxford travelled further afield than generally thought. 'One thing', he writes, 'did greatly comfort me which I saw long since in Sicilia, in the cite of Palermo, a thing worthie of memorie, where the right honourable the Earle of Oxenford a famous man fo Chivalrie, at what time he travailed into forraine countries, being then personally present, made there a challenge against al maner of persons whatsoever, & at all manner of weapons, as Turniments, Barriors with Horse and armour, to fight and combat with any whatsoever, in the defence of his Prince and countrey...so that al Italy over, he is acknowledged ever since for the same, the onely Chivallier and Noble man of England...'. If Oxford indeed travelled to Sicily and this was known among the literati,together with knowledge of his suspicions about his daughter's paternity, this may have been in Robert Greene's mind when he published Pandosto in 1588. Greene's popular novella concerning a falsely accused queen obliged to abandon her daughter, who is then brought up by shepherds in Sicily, in turn inspired his younger collaborator and rival, that 'upstart crow' William Shakespeare, to write the Winter's Tale, which is also partly set in Sicily. Cite to Edward Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour: Anglo-Italian Cultural Relations since the Renaissance, 2nd ed. (Routledge, 2000) pp. 10-12. Wendy hardacre (( talk) 18:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Some recent edits have attempted to insert text into the lead of this article to state that Oxford was the author of the works attributed to Shakespeare, and that Shakespeare was an illiterate merchant. A comment was just made on this page, and I have moved it to here, and will respond below. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
That man did not land on the moon and that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon are fringe views. But that Edward de Vere was the real Shakespeare is not a "fringe view."
It is not a conspiracy theory. John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia are not conspiracy theorists. Sigmund Freud, Orson Welles, and Derek Jacobi are not conspiracy theorists. Academics are supposed to be open-minded, but on this issue, they are not. If most will not even discuss the issue, how can it be properly examined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.11.42 ( talk) 04:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
These are the words of Justice Stevens himself: "I would submit that, if their thesis is sound, that one has to assume that the conspiracy--I would not hesitate to call it a "conspiracy," because there is nothing necessarily invidious about the desire to keep the true authorship a secret--it had to have been participated in by the men I have mentioned earlier, Heminge and Condell and Digges and Ben Jonson, for sure. I also think it had to have been the result--because the questions of motives are so difficult to answer--it had to have been the result of a command from the monarch." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/debates/americanudebate.html Crassiodorus ( talk) 22:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
It says, " ... is currently the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works." According to what authorities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.153.158 ( talk) 22:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
If Oxford's Men played at court and that supposedly means that Oxford produced the entertainment, does that mean that when the King's Men played at court that King James produced the entertainment? No, it does not, and to interpret the first as saying or implying the second is OR. Tom Reedy ( talk) 01:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Smatprt, you are not listening, nor are you participating in the BRD process (the last letter stands for "discuss"). Ward does not say that Oxford produced court entertainment on those two pages you cite, and the section is self-admittedly speculation, as I have said several times (and even offered to send you a copy of those pages; apparently you are quoting a source which you don't have). Neither does your other source state that Oxford produced court entertainments, BECAUSE HE DID NOT DO SO! Producing court entertainments was the job of the Master of the Revels, not the Lord Great Chamberlain.
As to Oxford's service in the Armada, he performed no such service, nor is there any record of him outfitting a ship at his own expense to repel the invaders. Quoting an outdated and incorrect source and then backing it up with another source quoting the original source is not acceptable for scholarship or Wikipedia articles. Please do not continue to restore these statements or these sources. Tom Reedy ( talk) 12:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I have added some material to the lede and deleted a paragraph about the 16th Earl and put it on his page. This sentence that was a part of the transferred material: "The Earl was known as a sportsman, and among his son's earliest accomplishments were mastery of riding, shooting and hawking." is supported by Ward, pages 9–10. However, Ward does not state that information as a fact, but writes, "With such a father we may be sure that riding, shooting, and hawking were among the earliest accomplishments learned by the young Lord Bulbeck." I'll look for another source for that information and put it back in if I find it.
Also Oxford's temperament and impetuous behavior and its consequences are given short shrift in this article, despite it being among the very first elements of his life mentioned by all modern biographers. This article is not meant to be a foundation for the Oxfordian theory page, and it should follow the scholastic consensus as far as weight. As it stands it is a disorganized listing of facts, with no organizing principle except to mention his literary and patronage accomplishments at every opportunity. I suggest we begin with culling all the mentions of patronage and putting them in one section instead of having them sprinkled throughout in chronological order. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I am going through and checking the B. M. Ward references to remove his speculation. War is problematical because half of his book is speculation (in the sections called "Interludes", see pp. ix-x) and he also inserts them through out the text. For example, Ward gives no evidence for his statement that "Oxford never spoke of his step-father thereafter except contemptuously", and in fact Nelson interprets the bequest of a horse as evidence that they were on good terms. (In any case the fact is too trivial to include in this article.) Since Ward's hagiography was written to give a veneer of academic support to the Oxfordian theory and is outdated anyway, I'm culling his cites as I go through the article (which will take a while) and replacing them with other references. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Article has numerous unclosed reference tags. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
In the article, a historian should depict the family background of Edward de Vere in more detail. He was the 17th Earl of Oxford, after all, so the line of his ancestry was really very impressive. And his family name de Vere - of course of Norman or even other French origin. These details are not very well known to me, and possibly are interesting for all readers. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 08:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I cannot determine what the problem is with the refs in this article. Beginning at ref 86, the refs don't link to anything, and clicking backward from the cite section the refs go to unpredictable places. Can anybody help find the problem? Thanks. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
They are haphazardly sprinkled through the article in chronological order. I am cutting them and storing them here for a dedicated section to be created later. Tom Reedy ( talk) 18:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The next year 1577, John Brooke dedicated an English translation of Guy de Brès' The Staff of Christian Faith to Oxford. [7]
where Gabriel Harvey dedicated his Gratulationes Valdinenses to the Queen. The work consists of four ‘books’, the first addressed to the Queen, the second to Leicester, the third to Lord Burghley, and the fourth to Oxford, Sir Christopher Hatton, and Leicester's nephew Philip Sidney, with whom he would famously quarrel. Harvey's dedication to Oxford is a double-edged criticism, praising his English and Latin verse and prose, yet advising him to 'put away your feeble pen, your bloodless books, your impractical writings'. [8]
During this time, several works were dedicated to Oxford, Geoffrey Gates' Defense of Military Profession and Anthony Munday's Mirror of Mutability in 1579, [9] and John Hester's A Short Discourse . . . of Leonardo Fioravanti, Bolognese, upon Surgery, John Lyly's Euphues and his England, and Anthony Munday's Zelauto in 1580. [10] In the dedication to Zelauto, Munday also mentioned having delivered the now lost Galien of France to Oxford for his 'courteous and gentle perusing'. Both Lyly and Munday were in Oxford's service at the time. [11] In addition, in his A Light Bundle of Lively Discourses Called Churchyard's Charge, and A Pleasant Labyrinth Called Churchyard's Chance, Thomas Churchyard promised to dedicate future works to the Earl. [12] By now he had taken over the Earl of Warwick's playing company, which may have included the famous comedian, Richard Tarleton. [13]
In this troubled period Thomas Watson dedicated his Hekatompathia or Passionate Century of Love to Oxford, noting that the Earl had taken a personal interest in the work. [14]
During this time Anthony Munday dedicated his Primaleon; The First Book to Oxford. [15]
In 1597 Oxford's servant, Henry Lok, published his Ecclesiastes containing a sonnet to Oxford. In his Palladis Tamia, published in 1598, Francis Meres referred to Oxford as one of "the best for Comedy amongst vs". [16]
In 1599 John Farmer dedicated a second book to Oxford, The First Set of English Madrigals, alluding in the dedication to Oxford's own proficiency as a musician. In the same year, George Baker dedicated a second book to Oxford, his Practice of the New and Old Physic, a translation of a work by Conrad Gesner. [17]
Nelson 2003 281–2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Text: "On 14 April 1589 Oxford was among the peers who found Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, the eldest son and heir of Oxford's cousin, Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, guilty of treason.[91] Arundel eventually fled to Spain and put himself in the service of King Philip II of Spain." The latter statement might not be correct, see Saint Philip Howard, 20th Earl of Arundel. Or is the destiny of the Saint not correctly depicted in the article on him? -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 07:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
With the fringe theory issue now put aside until someone feels he can make a convincing case at a Wikipedia arbitration that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, let's get back to the issue we were discussing before Tom brought up the fringe theory, namely whether Brief Chronicles can be cited as a reliable source. In that regard, it's again useful to consult Shapiro's Contested Will. On p. 202 Shapiro writes:
There's much more to Shapiro's imaginary letter on p. 203 which demonstrates how difficult it would be to get a Wikipedia arbitration to make a determination that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory rather than a minority view, but that's not my point in drawing attention to Shapiro's imaginary letter. My point is that Shapiro accepts that Oxfordians have peer-reviewed literary journals. Shapiro does not question the peer review process of those journals. He accepts it. Shapiro states that 'like mainstream academics [Oxfordians] have their own peer-reviewed literary journals'. According to Wikipedia's policy of verifiability, that's sufficient. Brief Chronicles can be cited as a reliable source. NinaGreen ( talk) 16:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Tom, it's still a threat, and inappropriate because Wikipedia policy states that (1) Wikipedia is not a democracy and (2) Wikipedia does not operate by consensus. Wikipedia policy states that all editors are equal, and (I obviously have to repeat it again) that answers on the Wikipedia notice board do not constitute Wikipedia policy. You have no right to remove a citation merely because you and a few others 'deem' certain things to be so. That directly contravenes Wikipedia policy. NinaGreen ( talk) 20:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Paul, here are the first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia policy on verifiability:
I cannot see any way in which this policy supports Tom's actions in deleting the two sources I cited. I await an explanation which does not depend on your or Tom's personal interpretation, but simply focuses on applying the foregoing policy in terms of the two sources I cited and the statements in the article for which they were cited. NinaGreen ( talk) 17:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Paul, after I wrote that sentence I realized I didn't know what your academic qualifications are, and I sincerely apologize for the statement. However the rest of my argument stands. You and Tom have turned the Wikipedia policy on its head. It says nothing about fringe theories. It concerns minority views and reliable published sources. An otherwise reliable published source cannot be disqualified solely because it holds a minority view. The burden of proof is on you and Tom. You have not established that Brief Chronicles is not a reliable source because your sole argument flies in the face of Wikipedia's own policy. Moreover if you want to split hairs, as you've done with the Pericles argument above, then the majority view (Stone, Pearson, Nelson etc.) is that Oxford inherited almost double the income he actually did inherit and the majority view has the facts of his debt to the Court of Wards all wrong. Wikipedia policy thus mandates that the minority view, which is supported by the primary source documents, must be represented in the Edward de Vere article, which is what the two sources I cited accomplish. Tom's removal of them thus constitutes outright censorship in favour of the majority view that Oxford inherited double the income he actually did inherit.
Moreover the argument you make concerning the areas of specialization of the members of the Brief Chronicles board is totally misplaced. Accurate portrayal of Oxford's life and the authorship issue mandates a multi-disciplinary editorial board, not a highly-specialized board. Oxford's life involves literature, drama, history, music, languages, religion, foreign travel, a multitude of legal issues etc. etc. Rather than being a negative, the fact that the editorial board is multi-disciplinary is an enormous positive. 205.250.205.73 ( talk) 18:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I've also cited Pearson (p.35) for the statement that Oxford got no income from the estates set aside in his father's will for payment of debts and legacies until the period set aside had expired. NinaGreen ( talk) 00:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Paul, someone please pinch me and tell me that someone with a PhD didn't write what I just read about 'travel agents'. NinaGreen ( talk) 02:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Tom, I don't want to get into revert wars, so I haven't deleted the statement beneath the image of Lord Burghley which states that he was Oxford's guardian, but it's inaccurate. Although Oxford lived at Cecil House, Lord Burghley was not his guardian. Oxford was the Queen's ward, and the Queen was his legal guardian until he was released from wardship when he sued his livery in 1572. NinaGreen ( talk) 16:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This article needs more images to break up the monotonous stack of grey type. Nina, do you have a good picture of Anne Cecil's tomb effigy? I found one on the internet here but it is not very good. Ideally it would be a closeup of the head. With all the millions and millions of Oxfordians out there surely one of them has taken a good photograph of it. Tom Reedy ( talk) 05:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Tom, I agree completely, and I really like the Whitehall image you added. I don't have a good picture of Anne Cecil's tomb effigy, but I'll ask if one of the millions has one. :-) There should be a good image of Anne Vavasour out there on the internet as well. NinaGreen ( talk) 21:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Tom, thanks for adding the url for the Purnell book. I note your comment about original research, and am open to suggestions as to what might remove that concern. NinaGreen ( talk) 21:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Nina, I don't know if you know or not, but you can publish Oxford's poetry (or anybody's as long as they're out of copyright) on WikiSource and link to them from there. All you have to do is put an m: before the link and use a two-part format, like this: To a Republican Friend, and it will take the reader directly to the poem. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I didn't know that. NinaGreen ( talk) 19:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It's time for all of you to let go of the notion that your disagreements can be dealt with in arbitration. Arbitration is not a Supreme Court of Everything on Wikipedia; it's a rather specialised board exclusively for dealing with conflicts involving conduct. If you consider that the members of the Arbitration Committee are volunteers just like yourselves, I think you'll realise why; there is no way they would have time to deal with all the conflicts involving content, for example. Nor does the ArbCom create policy; they don't have time for that either. Please note the significant fact that most requests for Arbitration are turned down cold; either because they're requests about content, or because they're requests for policy-making, or because the conflict isn't deemed to be ripe for arbitration (which is supposed to be the last stage of dispute resolution, after all other avenues have been tried). All three turn-down reasons would come into play if any of you requested arbitration of the basic conflict on this talkpage. As I think Tom and Paul have pointed out, the best places for resolving it are outlined at the top of the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Considering how embattled the positions have become, I would suggest, amongst the wide range of possibilities, that you invite outside comment via WP:RFC. But there are plenty of other good ideas at WP:RSN.
There is in fact a conduct issue here, though hardly one that is ripe for arbitration, and that is the repetitiveness of NinaGreen's posting. Nina, you seem to be trying to wear down opposition by saying the same thing over and over. That's not a legitimate talkpage debating style; it's tendentious editing, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. By way of example, I did a search on the word "arbitration" (which as I said has no business here even once), and, from the section "Verifiability and Meaningful Peer Review" [2] alone, garnered this collection:
To address claim number 11; no, it's not called arbitration, and there are no "Wikipedia rules" that have any relevance to the personal attacks and the wikilawyering quoted above. Nina, you are making up these notions of Wikipedia policy out of whole cloth. I realise you're a new user, but please make a start on reading the basic policies in good faith, and on listening to more experienced colleagues. Eleven out of the eleven comments above are in error, and haughty and sarcastic with it. The sheer repetition is what troubles me the most. Please read WP:Gaming the system. The nutshell version goes like this:
"Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden"
Don't do that. Don't play the
IDIDNTHEARTHAT game. Only post on this talkpage when you have something to say that is not a copy of what you've said before, in either wording or substance. If I don't see any improvement in this respect, I'm sorry to say you may eventually face a
block.
Tom, I see you discussing arbitrating the conflict also: "She won't start an arbitration because she knows what will happen". (BTW the "she" is rather rude, IMO.) No, I don't think Nina does know that, or even that you do, and I'm trying to explain it as gently as possible to you both. Nothing very alarming would happen; it would merely be useless, and a waste of time and energy, as the case would be briskly ruled unsuitable for arbitration. We all need to aim for not wasting time, our own or other people's. Nina, please reconsider your bad-faith debating style. The other editors are obviously hoping for you to change your approach and become an asset to the article. So am I, as you have a lot of valuable expertise. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC). P.S. On the principle of not wasting time, I won't be re-posting or rewording any of the above unless I see good reason to.
I'm shocked at your statement about blocking me on the ground that I'm not listening to what you say. I have read carefully what you've said in both your postings above. But as I stated very clearly in my last posting, what you have said does not concern the issue, and we are obviously unfortunately talking past each other in some way which I can't quite understand. The issue is NOT reliable sources, so I don't understand why you keep referring me to the RS noticeboard page, which is all about reliable sources. The issue is David Kathman's 2003 statement on the Shakespeare authorship controversy page on Wikipedia that the Shakespeare authorship controversy is a 'fringe theory'. David Kathman is a stock analyst. He does not teach at a university, and his statement is completely out of date in light of McCrae's and Shapiro's books, Sir Derek Jacobi's views, the graduate program in Shakespeare authorship studies at Brunel University, the academics who have PhDs who are on the Board of Brief Chronicles and teach at universities, Roland Emmerich's upcoming film, etc. etc. and even the fact that Paul Barlow said he taught the authorship controversy when he taught Shakespeare. Kathman's statement needs to be deleted from the Shakespeare authorship controversy page, and updated with something which more accurately reflects the current reality. Surely we can agree on that. NinaGreen ( talk) 01:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Dave Kathman is considered an expert on the SAQ, as testified not only by the Oxford Shakespeare entry authored by him, but by his upcoming articles in Bruce Smith's Cambridge Encyclopedia of Shakespeare and Patricia Parker's Shakespeare Encyclopedia. (He is also considered an expert on boy actors and early Elizabethan playing companies.)
Shapiro is quoted 58 times on the SAQ page, so he's not being ignored. At no time has he said that the SAQ is not a fringe theory or that it is a minority view, nor does he do so in his book or in subsequent interviews. I have several other sources specifically stating that the SAQ is a fringe theory, and in fact I have several academics sources that say it is a manifestation of a mental illness and in terms that are nothing kind, and these aren't old sources, either. They are quite a bit harsher than the sources now used, but I am loath to use such statements.
A fringe theory is one that deviates significantly from the mainstream view and that has very few adherents. Judging by the most generous standards, every anti-Stratfordian in the world could meet in a medium-sized football stadium with plenty of room to spare. Another point is that you don't have academics vandalising Wikipedia by inserting nonsense into the authorship articles the way the same IP vandal does in this and the SAQ article. The man is a respected professional in his field and should know better than to indulge in such childish hijinks, but for some reason extreme beliefs lead people to do stupid things in the name of "justice" and "fairness" for the True Author.
As far as I'm concerned, this topic has worn out its welcome on this talk page. If you want an "official" determination of whether anti-Stratfordism is a fringe theory, use the dispute resolution mechanism on the WP:Fringe theories noticeboard page. You could find many statements to that fact on Wikipedia; the consensus doesn't change with the weather or with the release of every new book on the topic. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Nina, please see WP:TALKNO, especially the last sentence in that section, before you make another repetitious post. Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Tom, my posting above is not at all repetitious. The New York Times survey is highly relevant to the topic under discussion, and has not been mentioned before.
The statement you referred me to reads:
I am not using the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. My comments are directed solely towards improving the article. At the moment the Edward de Vere article is highly restricted in terms of sources which can be cited because of the violation of Wikipedia's policy of neutrality mentioned above, whereby solely on the basis of a 2003 statement from David Kathman, who is highly partisan, the Shakespeare authorship controversy has been declared a 'fringe theory'. Removing David Kathman's statement from the SAQ article would restore the neutrality which is Wikipedia's policy, thereby improving this and all other Wikipedia articles which have any bearing on the SAQ by allowing the authorship controversy to be treated as a minority view, which the New York Times survey of Shakespeare professors who are actually involved in teaching the subject clearly shows it is. It is astonishing to me that rather than accept the results of the New York Times survey, you choose to try to use it as an example of 'repetitiousness' to get me banned from Wikipedia. It is obviously difficult for you to be neutral on this topic, and Wikipedia demands neutrality from its editors. You should recuse yourself. NinaGreen ( talk) 23:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It appears that my comment above was copied and pasted here by Charles Darnay. It was made in response to his remarks about Don Foster. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)(Domald Foster's malfeasances have nothing to do with this.CD.
years both link Will to the pandering trade.You guys are so far back on your Shakespeare biographical data that you didn't know one of them existed.And this is the thanks you give. Charles Darnay ( talk) 20:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I cited as a source yesterday an article in the online edition of The Dictionary of National Biography. Alan Nelson's DNB article has also been cited as a source by another editor. The online edition is only available to subscribers. I'm wondering whether this has been considered before. Should there be a link to the DNB homepage where people can subscribe if they wish? Most of the articles in the old hardcopy DNB have been revised for the online edition, as I understand it, and there are many entirely new articles in the online edition, so it's often not possible to cite the old hardcopy DNB for certain things. Comments, anyone? NinaGreen ( talk) 19:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Tom for fixing up the ODNB citation, and to Buchraeumer for pointing out my slip. I'm a subscriber to the online ODNB, and I need to stop referring to it as the DNB. Habit dies hard. :-) NinaGreen ( talk) 00:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I added Oxford's verses back into the final section, which I've retitled Reputation. I don't know whether the verses had somehow dropped out, or whether an editor took them out. They look a bit odd, and perhaps they can be fixed up. If not, I don't mind if they're eliminated, although I like them there because Puttenham actually quoted them.
I was thinking of dealing in the Reputation section with two other aspects of Oxford's reputation, i.e. character and financial. I haven't had time to do that yet. Comments, anyone? NinaGreen ( talk) 22:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
There are probably some bits and pieces to be added, as well as things to be tidied up, but the main edit is finished. Comments and suggestions on any aspect are most welcome. NinaGreen ( talk) 00:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not certain whom I'm addressing, 71.191.5.232, but you've contributed two recent edits:
and
The Edward de Vere article is currently written from a neutral point of view. It chronicles the events in Oxford's life, citing sources for those events which are accepted by Wikipedia editors as reliable, but not drawing any conclusions for or against the authorship hypothesis from the events. Your two edits are a departure from those procedures, and I wonder if you would consider discussing them on this page. NinaGreen ( talk) 23:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
If Edward de Vere "is presently the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works," would someone please tell me how they decided this? Did they take a poll? Has there been scientific study? How long has he been the most popular alternative? One year? five years? 60 years? Who was the most popular alternative before De Vere? Why is De Vere currently the most popular alternative? Have people gotten bored with the other alternatives? These are questions that come to mind after reading that statement. And surely they are worthy questions. If all the cities that De Vere visited in Italy showed up in "The Merchant of Venice" it wouldn't be a violation of the "neutal point of view" rule to point out that coincidences like this give credence to the view that he wrote the play in question. While such a view may well be a "fringe" and may well be nonsense, why would it violate any rules to point this out in the context of the authorship dispute?
Was the character of Polonius modeled off of Lord Burgley in the play Hamlet? Many scholars seem to think so. William Shakespeare of Stratord didn't know Burgley, but Edward de Vere did.
This statement makes absolutely no sense at all.
The people who believe the traditional story about William Shakespeare are not interested in "neutral points of view". They are interested in destroying any effort on this page or others on Wikipedia to link Edward de Vere to the plays ostensibly written by William Shakespeare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.122.48 ( talk) 00:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no consensus on this question. That is when the entire group agrees. There is a large minority viewpoint on this issue, which is why that minority viewpoint can be rightly discussed in the course of the article.
"The Merchant of Venice" is just one example of many. And EVERY city in the play was one visited by De Vere. I can't list the multitude of similarities between De Vere's life and the plays, but when you add them all up, the evidence is clear. You're dismissive of the verified parallels between De Vere's life and the plays but then you assert without any evidence that "Shakespeare of Stratford almost certainly encountered [Burghley]". Really? How do you know this? De Vere definitely knew Burghley, who was his father-in-law. We have not an iota of evidence Will Shaksper knew Burghley. I don't believe that the only people who can count in determining the authorship question are people with Ph.Ds in Shakespearean literature, or similar folks, if those are the accredited scholars you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.116.105 ( talk) 11:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
An encyclopedia should be concerned with the truth. Just because the traditional, orthodox view of the authorship question has been around longer is no reason to blindly accept it. My appeal is to all thinking, open-minded people. If we compare the evidence, direct and circumstantial, pertaining to who wrote these plays, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of Edward de Vere. For Will Shaksper of Stratford, we have virtually nothing. The arguments for his case are full of "must haves" and "would haves". It's an insult to reason and intelligence to continue to accept this ridiculous fairy of Will Shaksper as the author of these plays. No one knew him. No records existed of him for 20 years. No real proof he was ever an actor. His death was barely noticed. But the historical documents are replete with references to many lesser known authors. Edward de Vere was "Shakespeare". He wrote these great plays. You can't order me to keep the truth out of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.114.15 ( talk) 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The goal of the Stratfordians is to censor and bury any view opposed to their view. But two films will soon be coming out. One is a documentary on the subject and another is a drama, probably at least somewhat fictionalized, claiming that Elizabeth I was de Vere's mother. Nevertheless, both of these films will create legions of skeptics who will no longer believe the lies put forth by the Stratfordians. The floodgates will open and de Vere will be more readily accepted as the true author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.114.15 ( talk) 23:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The "facts" are always easy to discern. Plenty is stated about William Shakespeare in the official article on him in Wikipedia that can hardly be termed factual. There is no hard evidence he ever attended grammar school. The circumstantial evidence we have combined with the paucity of hard indicates is considerably in favor of Edward de Vere as the author of these plays. The case for the traditional is essentially nonexistent. Eventually, the public and most scholars will come around to this. Years from now, people will look back at this debate and chuckle? How could we belief such rubbish for so long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.6.122 ( talk) 00:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You can't, of course.
And you, yourself, wrote just above, on this page, that "There is a separate page" for the authorship question, so why are you trying to argue it here, from either side? It is not appropriate here, to argue authorship. You, yourself, already wrote that on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.58.209 ( talk) 13:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The Edward de Vere article is not written "from a neutral point of view." It is written from the point of view that he almost certainly was not the author of the Shakespearean canon. If you would not give equal weight to Intelligent Design Theory in discussing evolution, I can't see why you would treat the traditional story of Will Shakeper of Stratford as the God-given truth. Were we to discover the plays for the first time in 2011, if we had to determine who the author was for the first time, the evidence points to Oxford, not Shaksper. Oxford owned property in Stratford, which easily explains the dedication in the first folio. To borrow a line some famous prosecutors, there is a "mountain of evidence" that Oxford was "Shakespeare." What we have on Shaksper's side is 400 years of tradition--that's it. So stop pretending this article is written from a "neutral point of view." It's a whitewash. It's rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.0.40 ( talk) 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
It's undoubtedly frustrating for you that you can't censor my comments in the discussion section. While you can censor the main article section, but not this section, it's not at all surprising that you see "no point in [me] continuing to make these comments..." There's clearly no point in your bothering to read them. Let others read them and take make their own judgments. If your interpretation of the authorship question is correct, you shouldn't fear a free and open discussion of the issue, even if it is here. An article with a neutral point of view on this matter would discuss why so many people believe Edward de Vere was the true author. It would not crush and bury those views. Not all scholars accept the orthodox view, as you know--not even all Ph.D.-accredited scholars in the field. The First Folio of "Shakespeare's" plays was produced and published by Edward de Vere's daughter, Susan; her husband, Philip Herbert; and Philip's brother William. This is an odd coincidence if Edward de Vere did not write these plays. He did own a manor house on Bilton Hall, on the River Avon, where he often rested. The reference to the "Sweet Song of Avon" was in 1623. Edward de Vere supposedly died in 1604. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.7.51 ( talk) 20:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The sale of Bilton apparently occurred in 1592, just 12 years before Oxford died, and it was one of the last ancestral properties he disposed of. There is a reference to this country seat in one of his (Oxford's, not Shaksper's) sonnets. He didn't live there, but he spent plenty of time there. As to his death, there is some question as to the date of Oxford's death. This in an important area of research in Oxfordian studies. As for the publication of the plays by the Herberts, that they were related to Oxford is no surprise indeed if they were related to him. This is perfectly logical. Yes, these talk pages are for suggestions regarding this article, and my suggestion is that article pay more attention to the overwhelmingly evidence that Oxford was the real author of this works, that no person with the name "William Shakespeare" wrote these pages, and that Will Shaksper did not write these plays. The latter never spelled or pronounced the name attached to the plays as it now. The usual spelling was "William Shake-speare", hyphenated to indicate the fact that it was a pseudonym. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.191.11.88 (
talk)
05:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Proponents of the orthodox view cannot lose the argument if they are the ones who decide what "reliable secondary sources" are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.7.79 ( talk) 00:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The anonymous revert-warrior who most recently edited as 71.191.2.38 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) (previously 71.191.7.125 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 71.191.11.102 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 71.191.1.240 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and other related IPs in the history of this page) is topic-banned under the rules of WP:ARBSAQ from all edits related to the SAQ and Edward de Vere, for persistent revert-warring. Any edits that are recognisably his, either on the article or talk page, may be reverted on sight, without regard to the 3RR or other restrictions. It is recommended that talk page postings from him should also not be responded to but removed immediately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
What evidence do we have that Edward de Vere was the real author here, and what evidence do we have that Guilemus Shaksper was the real author. Well, we have little hard evidence either way, but we have mountains of evidence that Edward de Vere wrote these plays. The web is humming with activity about the upcoming movie "Anonymous". People who are interested in this question and who want good info that is not censored should look elsewhere. The Wikipedia articles on Edward de Vere and the Shakespearean Authorship question are constantly censored in the name of NPOVs, which are nothing of the sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.115.239 ( talk) 04:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
No actionable request, see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:ARBSAQ#Discretionary_sanctions |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I made a correction to the article about Oxfordian Theory that should be replicated here. I noticed that the reference to Oxford being the most "popular" actually used the term "strongest". Might someone make the same change here. The reference is Encyclopedia Britannica, after all. "Popular" sounds like some kind of contest. Also, I note that the section here on the authorship is woefully inadequate. If the man is notable for being the strongest/most popular/etc. candidate, then the final section needs a little filling out to justify that notability. I would suggest summarizing the Oxfordian Theory article for this section. Would that not be the proper approach? Even summarizing the first 3 paragraphs of the Oxfordian article would be better than what is there now. - Anton321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton321 ( talk • contribs) 08:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Anton, you won't have any luck with the editors of this page. They will crush any effort to present a balanced claim of the authorship question and the overwhelming evidence that supports de Vere's claim. There is not an "almost unanimous consensus of academic sources" on the issue, and even so, there is no reason to ignore other researchers. The evidence supporting the conventional view of Shakspere of Stratford as the author is flimy and unconvincing. Most academics, however, refuse to consider, any other alternative. You can present a mountain of evidence in support of evolution but creationists and other religious people will refuse to accept it. It doesn't matter. In short, the view that Edward de Vere wrote these plays is not a "fringe theory," as many prominent researchers, public intellectuals, and celebrities have embraced this view. Don't try to reason with Nishani or any of the other censors on here. It's pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.4.36 ( talk) 02:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're wrong. And if that is the best you can do, that is pretty sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.119.116 ( talk) 17:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
No evidence whatever? There is a vast literature on Oxford---in journals, in books--by serious scholars who are not certified Ph.Ds in the field and don't have to be. Hank Whittemore has written a 900 tome that persuasively demonstrates Edward de Vere was not only the author but fathered a son with Elizabeth I. Mark Anderson has written a critically acclaimed book entitled, "Shakespeare by Another Name", which the editors on here will not allow to be listed in the references. The only scholars allowed to edit this site are the ones approved by the Stratford mafia--those who hold the ridiculous orthodox view that continues to be taught in schools. There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that de Vere was the author of these plays, and the growing acceptance and discussion of this view is something that should be reflected in the content of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.14.4 ( talk) 01:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The religion here is the religion of Stratfordianism. What hard evidence do we have supporting the orthodox view. Almost none. The dedication page is to a "William Shakespeare" but that is no how the "Shakespeare" of Stratford spelled his name. This man may have gone to Stratford Grammar School but there is no hard evidence he did. No one remarked upon his death. But plenty of people knew de Vere. They were references to his intelligence and literary ability. There is conclusive proof of his education and his experiences in travel and court tha bear similarities to his plays. With the Stratford man we have none of this. It's all a ridiculous fantasy embraced by people like those who would deny evolution, despite monumental evidence supporting. The people who suppress a fair discussion of this issue are beginning to look very silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.15.127 ( talk) 06:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The was a witty, and accurate, comment on my part. Many of the editors at the Shakespeare authorship question page are the same ones who haunt this page. They edited the page to minimize the possibility that someone else wrote the plays, with scant attention to the "most popular" candidate, Edward de Vere. The page is a whitewash and a sham. Stratforidans such as James Shapiro and Alan Nelson, who wrote a hatchet job on Edward de Vere, are cited favorably. Even on that page, you will not see works by any number of authors who have written favorably of Edward de Vere. And just for the record, Alan Nelson is literature professor, not a historian. So the bottom line is that you will not get a useful discussion of this issue, or a fair presentation of it, on Wikipedia. For those interested in the subject, look elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.118.146 ( talk) 18:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The spelling issue is a phony one. While there were numerous spellings, the variations were quite rare. The vast majority were consistent, for the Stratford man and for the pseudonym. Shapiro's book is just another whitewash. He ignores everything about de Vere that could link him to the plays. It's a work of fantasy. Here is a link that should be of interest to objective people. http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic782699.files/oxford.earl.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.2.75 ( talk) 17:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deal with it accordingly, then. Many specialists in the field flatly refuse to consider alterative authorship theories. Alan Nelson's book is not a high quality source. The other thing we have supported the theory that the grain dealer from Stratford wrote these plays is a name similar to his on the dedication page to some of his plays. Based on this flimsy connection, scores of "specialists" in the field have unwaveringly supported the Straford line. How can we put these specialists at the top of some pyramid? Is there any room for reason here? Finally, I'd like to know what the implication of your threat is in the final line of your rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.114.155 ( talk) 02:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC) How silly these editors look, banning people who try to discuss the authorship controversy in a reasonable way. First they lock the main page, so no changes that they do not agree with are banned. Then they ban those same people from discussing the issue on the Talk Page. They say that only information from "reliable secondary sources" can be use but they decide what is reliable. It is censorship plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.128.66 ( talk) 19:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
As promised in November, I've come back to give a thorough review of the page. In general, there is far too much original quotation in extenso which only redoubles on what the narrative says. Most of the quotations belong to the genre of writings to secure courtly patronage, and are characterised by hyperbole and flattery, and are never regarded by historians as testaments to facts other than the dynamics of bidding for favour or influence or patronage. I have removed the garbled (too much detail, much of its lacking the requested sourcing) and post it here.
The fines assessed against Oxford in the Court of Wards included £2000 for his wardship and marriage, £1257 18s 3/4d for his livery, and £48 19s 9-1/4d for mean rates, a total of £3306 17s 10d. citation needed To guarantee payment, Oxford entered into bonds to the Court of Wards totalling £11,000. citation needed Oxford's own bonds to the Court of Wards were in turn guaranteed by bonds to the Court of Wards in the amount of £5000 apiece entered into by two guarantors, John, Lord Darcy of Chiche, and Sir William Waldegrave. [1] In return for these guarantees, Oxford had entered into two statutes of £6000 apiece to Darcy and Waldegrave. citation needed Having sued his livery, Oxford was entitled to yearly revenues from his lands and the office of Lord Great Chamberlain of approximately £2200, [2] although he was not entitled to the income from the estates comprising his mother's jointure until after her death in 1568 citation needed nor to the income from certain estates set aside to pay his father's debts until 1583. [3]
Perhaps a section dedicated to his finances would be better. In any case, too much detail is to be avoided. Thoughts? Nishidani ( talk) 21:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Since he had over 20 book dedications, clearly one cannot punctuate a brief narrative of his life by continual interruptions, month by month or year by year, noting these dedications. I have collected some of them here. Perhaps, if needed, they can be compiled in chronological order in a late section.
In early 1572 Oxford wrote a Latin epistle to Bartholomew Clerke’s De Curiali, a translation into Latin of Baldassare Castiglione’s Il Cortegiano, [4] and in the same year Thomas Twyne dedicated his Breviary of Britain to Oxford, noting that 'your Honour taketh singular delight' in 'books of geography, histories and other good learning. [4]In 1573 Oxford wrote a commendatory letter and verses for his friend Thomas Bedingfield's Cardanus’ Comfort, a translation from the Latin of De Consolatione by the Italian mathematician and physician Girolamo Cardano. [5]In 1574 Oxford's surgeon, George Baker, dedicated to him a work containing two translations, The Composition or Making of . . . Oleum Magistrale, and The Third Book of Galen. [6] Nishidani ( talk) 10:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
quite right to exclude the oxford-wrote-shakespeare bores but you might like to include the detailed account of the Earl of Oxford in Sicily which only Edward Chaney seems to have noticed and which he argues could relate, via Robert Greene's Pandosto, to Shakespeare's Winter's Tale; see E. Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour, 2nd ed. (Routledge, 2000), pp. 10-12. Wendy hardacre ( talk) 15:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 15:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
According to Edward Webbe's Rare and Wonderfull Things, published in 1590, Oxford travelled further afield than generally thought. 'One thing', he writes, 'did greatly comfort me which I saw long since in Sicilia, in the cite of Palermo, a thing worthie of memorie, where the right honourable the Earle of Oxenford a famous man fo Chivalrie, at what time he travailed into forraine countries, being then personally present, made there a challenge against al maner of persons whatsoever, & at all manner of weapons, as Turniments, Barriors with Horse and armour, to fight and combat with any whatsoever, in the defence of his Prince and countrey...so that al Italy over, he is acknowledged ever since for the same, the onely Chivallier and Noble man of England...'. If Oxford indeed travelled to Sicily and this was known among the literati,together with knowledge of his suspicions about his daughter's paternity, this may have been in Robert Greene's mind when he published Pandosto in 1588. Greene's popular novella concerning a falsely accused queen obliged to abandon her daughter, who is then brought up by shepherds in Sicily, in turn inspired his younger collaborator and rival, that 'upstart crow' William Shakespeare, to write the Winter's Tale, which is also partly set in Sicily. Edward Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour: Anglo-Italian Cultural Relations since the Renaissance, 2nd ed. (Routledge, 2000) pp. 10-12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendy hardacre ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I think one should compare this, esp. the later sections, to most Elizabethan biographies. There is no distinction between important and trivial incident, seminal moments and minor facts, no narrative value, and no attempt to group anything thematically. Indeed chronological sequence has trumped thematic grouping, so his amorous and theatrical interests interleave his failed speculations, and there is far too much useless citation of boring primary sources. It goes well down to about 1570 and thereafter is unreadably tedious in its rapid juxtaposition of excessive detail and sketchy marginalia . ? Nishidani ( talk) 21:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
This definitely needs a rewrite to compress the article down, removing minor irrelevant events, and folding things into each other. At the moment this article contains 12356 words. This compares to 2590 for the Earl of Essex, who is a far more important figure in the context of the Elizabethan period, 6830 for William Shakespeare, and 8828 for Elizabeth herself! And this doesn't even include all the extra stuff about Oxford that Wikipedia has under the Authorship Speculation articles. For these reasons I think this article needs to be cut down to about half its present size, the many quotes need to be cut down to the most relevant parts or deleted when they are unnecessary - the article on Elizabeth only has one quote that exceeds 6 lines, and generally the quotes are just 2 or 4 lines. 94.170.118.163 ( talk) 20:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
should be added to foreign travel section:
According to Edward Webbe's Rare and Wonderfull Things, published in 1590, Oxford travelled further afield than generally thought. 'One thing', he writes, 'did greatly comfort me which I saw long since in Sicilia, in the cite of Palermo, a thing worthie of memorie, where the right honourable the Earle of Oxenford a famous man fo Chivalrie, at what time he travailed into forraine countries, being then personally present, made there a challenge against al maner of persons whatsoever, & at all manner of weapons, as Turniments, Barriors with Horse and armour, to fight and combat with any whatsoever, in the defence of his Prince and countrey...so that al Italy over, he is acknowledged ever since for the same, the onely Chivallier and Noble man of England...'. If Oxford indeed travelled to Sicily and this was known among the literati,together with knowledge of his suspicions about his daughter's paternity, this may have been in Robert Greene's mind when he published Pandosto in 1588. Greene's popular novella concerning a falsely accused queen obliged to abandon her daughter, who is then brought up by shepherds in Sicily, in turn inspired his younger collaborator and rival, that 'upstart crow' William Shakespeare, to write the Winter's Tale, which is also partly set in Sicily. Cite to Edward Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour: Anglo-Italian Cultural Relations since the Renaissance, 2nd ed. (Routledge, 2000) pp. 10-12. Wendy hardacre (( talk) 18:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Some recent edits have attempted to insert text into the lead of this article to state that Oxford was the author of the works attributed to Shakespeare, and that Shakespeare was an illiterate merchant. A comment was just made on this page, and I have moved it to here, and will respond below. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
That man did not land on the moon and that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon are fringe views. But that Edward de Vere was the real Shakespeare is not a "fringe view."
It is not a conspiracy theory. John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia are not conspiracy theorists. Sigmund Freud, Orson Welles, and Derek Jacobi are not conspiracy theorists. Academics are supposed to be open-minded, but on this issue, they are not. If most will not even discuss the issue, how can it be properly examined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.11.42 ( talk) 04:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
These are the words of Justice Stevens himself: "I would submit that, if their thesis is sound, that one has to assume that the conspiracy--I would not hesitate to call it a "conspiracy," because there is nothing necessarily invidious about the desire to keep the true authorship a secret--it had to have been participated in by the men I have mentioned earlier, Heminge and Condell and Digges and Ben Jonson, for sure. I also think it had to have been the result--because the questions of motives are so difficult to answer--it had to have been the result of a command from the monarch." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/debates/americanudebate.html Crassiodorus ( talk) 22:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
It says, " ... is currently the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works." According to what authorities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.153.158 ( talk) 22:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
If Oxford's Men played at court and that supposedly means that Oxford produced the entertainment, does that mean that when the King's Men played at court that King James produced the entertainment? No, it does not, and to interpret the first as saying or implying the second is OR. Tom Reedy ( talk) 01:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Smatprt, you are not listening, nor are you participating in the BRD process (the last letter stands for "discuss"). Ward does not say that Oxford produced court entertainment on those two pages you cite, and the section is self-admittedly speculation, as I have said several times (and even offered to send you a copy of those pages; apparently you are quoting a source which you don't have). Neither does your other source state that Oxford produced court entertainments, BECAUSE HE DID NOT DO SO! Producing court entertainments was the job of the Master of the Revels, not the Lord Great Chamberlain.
As to Oxford's service in the Armada, he performed no such service, nor is there any record of him outfitting a ship at his own expense to repel the invaders. Quoting an outdated and incorrect source and then backing it up with another source quoting the original source is not acceptable for scholarship or Wikipedia articles. Please do not continue to restore these statements or these sources. Tom Reedy ( talk) 12:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I have added some material to the lede and deleted a paragraph about the 16th Earl and put it on his page. This sentence that was a part of the transferred material: "The Earl was known as a sportsman, and among his son's earliest accomplishments were mastery of riding, shooting and hawking." is supported by Ward, pages 9–10. However, Ward does not state that information as a fact, but writes, "With such a father we may be sure that riding, shooting, and hawking were among the earliest accomplishments learned by the young Lord Bulbeck." I'll look for another source for that information and put it back in if I find it.
Also Oxford's temperament and impetuous behavior and its consequences are given short shrift in this article, despite it being among the very first elements of his life mentioned by all modern biographers. This article is not meant to be a foundation for the Oxfordian theory page, and it should follow the scholastic consensus as far as weight. As it stands it is a disorganized listing of facts, with no organizing principle except to mention his literary and patronage accomplishments at every opportunity. I suggest we begin with culling all the mentions of patronage and putting them in one section instead of having them sprinkled throughout in chronological order. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I am going through and checking the B. M. Ward references to remove his speculation. War is problematical because half of his book is speculation (in the sections called "Interludes", see pp. ix-x) and he also inserts them through out the text. For example, Ward gives no evidence for his statement that "Oxford never spoke of his step-father thereafter except contemptuously", and in fact Nelson interprets the bequest of a horse as evidence that they were on good terms. (In any case the fact is too trivial to include in this article.) Since Ward's hagiography was written to give a veneer of academic support to the Oxfordian theory and is outdated anyway, I'm culling his cites as I go through the article (which will take a while) and replacing them with other references. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Article has numerous unclosed reference tags. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
In the article, a historian should depict the family background of Edward de Vere in more detail. He was the 17th Earl of Oxford, after all, so the line of his ancestry was really very impressive. And his family name de Vere - of course of Norman or even other French origin. These details are not very well known to me, and possibly are interesting for all readers. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 08:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I cannot determine what the problem is with the refs in this article. Beginning at ref 86, the refs don't link to anything, and clicking backward from the cite section the refs go to unpredictable places. Can anybody help find the problem? Thanks. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
They are haphazardly sprinkled through the article in chronological order. I am cutting them and storing them here for a dedicated section to be created later. Tom Reedy ( talk) 18:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The next year 1577, John Brooke dedicated an English translation of Guy de Brès' The Staff of Christian Faith to Oxford. [7]
where Gabriel Harvey dedicated his Gratulationes Valdinenses to the Queen. The work consists of four ‘books’, the first addressed to the Queen, the second to Leicester, the third to Lord Burghley, and the fourth to Oxford, Sir Christopher Hatton, and Leicester's nephew Philip Sidney, with whom he would famously quarrel. Harvey's dedication to Oxford is a double-edged criticism, praising his English and Latin verse and prose, yet advising him to 'put away your feeble pen, your bloodless books, your impractical writings'. [8]
During this time, several works were dedicated to Oxford, Geoffrey Gates' Defense of Military Profession and Anthony Munday's Mirror of Mutability in 1579, [9] and John Hester's A Short Discourse . . . of Leonardo Fioravanti, Bolognese, upon Surgery, John Lyly's Euphues and his England, and Anthony Munday's Zelauto in 1580. [10] In the dedication to Zelauto, Munday also mentioned having delivered the now lost Galien of France to Oxford for his 'courteous and gentle perusing'. Both Lyly and Munday were in Oxford's service at the time. [11] In addition, in his A Light Bundle of Lively Discourses Called Churchyard's Charge, and A Pleasant Labyrinth Called Churchyard's Chance, Thomas Churchyard promised to dedicate future works to the Earl. [12] By now he had taken over the Earl of Warwick's playing company, which may have included the famous comedian, Richard Tarleton. [13]
In this troubled period Thomas Watson dedicated his Hekatompathia or Passionate Century of Love to Oxford, noting that the Earl had taken a personal interest in the work. [14]
During this time Anthony Munday dedicated his Primaleon; The First Book to Oxford. [15]
In 1597 Oxford's servant, Henry Lok, published his Ecclesiastes containing a sonnet to Oxford. In his Palladis Tamia, published in 1598, Francis Meres referred to Oxford as one of "the best for Comedy amongst vs". [16]
In 1599 John Farmer dedicated a second book to Oxford, The First Set of English Madrigals, alluding in the dedication to Oxford's own proficiency as a musician. In the same year, George Baker dedicated a second book to Oxford, his Practice of the New and Old Physic, a translation of a work by Conrad Gesner. [17]
Nelson 2003 281–2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Text: "On 14 April 1589 Oxford was among the peers who found Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, the eldest son and heir of Oxford's cousin, Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, guilty of treason.[91] Arundel eventually fled to Spain and put himself in the service of King Philip II of Spain." The latter statement might not be correct, see Saint Philip Howard, 20th Earl of Arundel. Or is the destiny of the Saint not correctly depicted in the article on him? -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 07:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)