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 |
Since, as far as I understand it, the man from Stratford-upon-Avon's name was not — nor did he call himself — "William Shakespeare," and since his name was instead Will Shaksper (or perhaps occasionally Shaxsper/Shagsper/Shakspere), why are we calling him "William Shakespeare"? It seems that both the first and the last name are not accurate. Softlavender ( talk) 09:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
________
From the authorship article:
There was no standardised spelling in Elizabethan England, and throughout his lifetime Shakespeare of Stratford's name was spelled in many different ways, including "Shakespeare". Anti-Stratfordians conventionally refer to the man from Stratford as "Shakspere" (the name recorded at his baptism) or "Shaksper" to distinguish him from the author "Shakespeare" or "Shake-speare" (the spellings that appear on the publications), who they claim has a different identity. They point out that most references to the man from Stratford in legal documents usually spell the first syllable of his name with only four letters, "Shak-" or sometimes "Shag-" or "Shax-", whereas the dramatist's name is consistently rendered with a long "a" as in "Shake". [1] Stratfordians reject this convention, believing it implies that the Stratford man spelled his name differently from the name appearing on the publications. [2] Because the "Shakspere" convention is controversial, this article uses the name "Shakespeare" throughout. Smatprt ( talk) 16:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
______________
I don't see any non-partisan, unbiased, viewable confirmation in those citations. The first citation is unclickable, and the second is quite partisan and also not backed up by anything. Here's another link (also partisan, but in an Anti-Stratfordian slant) that details the known verifiable signatures of the Stratford man:
Shakespeare’s signatures: Shaksper’s six authentic signatures are subscribed to the following documents:
- His deposition in a lawsuit brought by Stephen Bellott against his father-in-law Christopher Montjoy, a Huguenot tire-maker, of Silver-street, near Wood-street in the city of London, with whom Shaksper lodged about the year 1604; dated May 11, 1612. (Discovered by Dr. C. W. Wallace in the Public Record Office).
- Conveyance of a house in Blackfriars, London, purchased by Shaksper March 10, 1613. (Now in the Guildhall Library).
- Mortgage-deed of the same property; March 11, 1613. (Now in the British Museum).
- 5. 6. Shaksper’s Will & Testament, written on three sheets of paper, with his signature at the foot of each one; executed March 25, 1616. (Now in Somerset House).
The six signatures, one of them prefaced by the words “By me”, present a meagre total of fourteen words. The actual signatures are to be read thus:
- Willm Shakp
- William Shaksper
- Wm Shakspe
- William Shakspere
- Willm Shakspere
- By me William Shakspeare
That's all from this link I came across: [1] (Plus, my understanding is that the surname on the will [the last of the six] is not even in the man's hand, but in someone else's.) It would be very nice to have some unbiased, non-partisan, disinterested scholarship that explored this subject — that is, the Stratford man's actual name and signature before the alleged pseudonym came into being (so that the pseudonym's influence is avoided). I really don't know why everyon, we has to take sides when researching. I mean, facts are facts. Even the assertion that name spellings were fluid [that may have been the case when spelling someone else's name, but people spelled their own names consistently] and that "Shak" could be and was pronounced "Shake" consistently comes only from one stand-point and not the other, it seems. Whatever happened to pure research, uninfluenced by viewpoints? *sigh* Softlavender ( talk) 10:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
There is in fact a short treatment of the issue at the main SAQ page. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
"This is not so much a matter of "Oxfordian" imagination, or any particular group's". What an odd thing to say. In case you haven't noticed, this is the page for discussing the content of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship page. So of course when we discuss what should be on this page it is about that particular group's theories. I get the impression from what you say that you didn't quite understand what I was saying about Victorian culture. What I am saying is that it is very common at that time to spell the name of the author "Shakespear", "Shakspeare" or other variations. This continues into the early 20th century until "Shakespeare" is established as the definitive spelling. I don't know why, say, Coventry Patmore (or his editor) prefers to use the spelling "Shakspere" [4], but it has nothing to do with authorship debates. What I have "no explanation for" is why these variations become popular at certain points in history. It pre-dates the Victorians of course, Alexander Pope spells the name "Shakespear" in his edition, while his rival Lewis Theobald spelled it "Shakespeare" [5]. The explanation of why Shakespeare's name was spelled several different ways in his own day is a great deal easier. There were no rigid rules of spelling. It's not unique to him at all. It's typical of the period. Many authors' names appear in documents and in print in multiple spellings. All this is clearly discussed in the web page I linked to. Shapiro's book Contested Will gives an added reason why an 'e' or hyphen is more common in printed versions (the hyphen is pretty rare). It has to do with stabilising typset text. There is no mystery here. Johnuniq is right. It may be possible to have a page on this general issue if there are sources, though I strongly suspect it may be an under-researched area. The SAQ use of the variations could be a section on that page, which we could link to from here and from other articles. Paul B ( talk) 09:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The oxfordian debate is easy to solve. Whoever wrote the famous bardly works, he was totally in picture about Venice. He had been there, period.
The City of Venice has vast amounts of state and private archives preserved intact, spanning from the first crusade to present day. They were a paper-mill centre for much of the medieval and early modern age and put a good portion of their produce to use themselves. It appears only resolve is needed to dig through such mountains of dusty old papers and find the treasure.
If Edward de Vere stayed in Venice for almost a year as claimed, there must be ample documentation about every single movement of his. The Serenissima Republic was paranoid about all visiting foreigners, the dreaded Council of Ten had many spies just to shadow aliens day and night and kept detailed dossiers on them.
Where is the San Marco Secret Service dossier on EdV? If it was found, the content would probably show that the Merchant, Othello and Romeo and Juliet are (partly) autobiographical, thus solving the Shakes-peare debate once and for all. 87.97.102.134 ( talk) 21:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Why does it need a 6-paragraph intro? Must be longer than nearly every article in the english Wikipedia. Shall we put some of it the main article text? Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 12:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged the article for NPOV, borrowed quotes about the fringeness from the main SAQ article, chopped out the last subsection which gave undue WP:Weight to Oxfordian apologists over mainstream WP:Reliable sources and have copied over the fringe categories from the main article. All of these changes should make the article reflect policy more closely than the previous version did. There is still plenty of material that needs examination to ensure that the article evaluates sources according to their academic respectability and not their happening to support certain points of view.That disclaimer could do with excision too.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 23:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I've just found out this article, so I'm not particularly pro or anti-oxfordian theory. But seriously, this article is hugely biaised by places, so I edited :
"Oxford was praised as a dramatist and court poet of considerable merit, but none of his plays survives under his name. [citation needed]" -> How could you give a reference for this statement ? Do you want an academic paper saying "we've searched all the books of the library and found nothing" ? I can't understand how you can ask for a proof of the non-existence of something, this is a pure fallacy to me.
"However, since the 1920s, Oxford has been the most popular candidate among those who like to propose authors of the works other than Shakespeare himself." -> No seriously, did a 12 years-old write this ? "among those who like to propose authors other than Shakespeare himself" -> did this person think it's a matter of who-is-right ? Like these pro-oxfordian people are just messing things up for fun ? Seriously, this sentence was totally discrediting this whole article... -- 89.83.73.89 ( talk) 18:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Concerning the "popular" bit being discussed: I went to the online reference (EB) and found "strongest" instead of "popular", so changed it to match the reference. I then started reading the rest of the article and did a little clean-up - mostly attributing opinions to the various scholars being cited. Also noted that the history section is woefully inadequate and incomplete. I moved some awkwardly placed information from other parts of the article, but it's just a start. I'm not really sure if the non-oxfordian bits should be there at all. Thoughts? - Anton321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton321 ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed near the head of this page a red link to an archive. Was there one, and did someone delete it? Moonraker2 ( talk) 23:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Derek Jacobi, I thought, believed that it may have been a group of authors that ended up under the "Shakespeare" name. I see something to that effect in a related Wikipedia article (maybe the one making parallels in the works), but nothing really laying it out. My search online leads me to an article with the rather circularly-argumented title of "Shakespeare did not write his own plays, claims Sir Derek Jacobi" by Mark Blunden (23 Apr 2009) in the London Evening Standard—with no discussion of his group theory. Anyone have anything more on this theory of multiple authors under the same pen-name? Artaxerxes ( talk) 22:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I propose the article be moved to Oxfordian fringe theory of Shakespeare authorship. This is just to be clear that it is not an established "theory" in the sense of the theory of gravity or theory of relativity, and that the majority of scholars don't even regard it as a viable hypothesis. Gregcaletta ( talk) 07:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Recommend the removal of the above referenced sentence in the Oxfordian theory section and its #87 footnote, which informs that the Strachey letter was defended in print after Stritmatter and Kositsky had established the Strachey letter's unlikelihood as a documentary basis for 'The Tempest' and a Stratfordian scholar substantially agreed. The (textually unmentioned) author of the article, Tom Reedy, is not a credentialed professional in the field, the prevailing standard for reference. It indicates that the Wikipedia page permits unqualified authors to be quoted, if they are Stratfordian in point of view. This harms the credibility of the page. Zweigenbaum ( talk) 08:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The material peculiar to the anti-Stratfordian arguments should be excised. The section "Notable silences" and "Ogburn on the signatures" are two such examples. Those arguments should be in the main SAQ article if they are not already (I believe they are), and the anti-Stratfordian stance should be assumed instead of taking space in this article, which should cover pro-Oxfordian arguments only, IMO. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether, despite the views of Our Great Leader, there might be some merit in putting Oxfordian Theory – Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays up at WP:AfD rather than trying to merge it. Then the shortage of WP:RS and the numerous tenuous/tendentious uncited claims could be brought out into the open. Just a thought. Or maybe it would be a hornets' nest? -- Guillaume Tell 21:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Well actually if you assume that each signer of the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt represents another thousand believers, then there are millions who consider the SAQ a plausible theory—2,116,000 of them, to be exact, and I'm sure the majority of them are Oxfordians. They have been collecting signatures since April 2007, so if the average U.S. death rate is applied something like 40 of the signers have died in the intervening years. How reasonable those people are, I cannot judge, but I can say that they are vastly outnumbered by those who believe in alien abduction or creation science. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to disagree that the coverage is comprehensive.
While we may want to a avoid a "he said, she said" appearence of argument throughout, the general rule is that criticism should be incorporated into the text, not left as a separate section or sections, so I think we should try to give the mainstream views within the sections where possible. I cut out the puttenham summary by our epidemiologist because, frankly, I couldn't make head nor tail of it, or work out how it was relevant to the issue at all. We need a representative of the standard view that he is actually saying the opposite of what Oxfordians contend - that Oxford was not concealed, but already made public. Paul B ( talk) 18:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I know I'm gonna ruffle some feathers here, but I think we all need to take a refresher at fringe theory article school. There is no way that the placement of this statement (and others) can be construed as WP:NPOV. The lede states that Oxfordians reject the apparent historical record contrary to the scholarly consensus, and this section then turns around and rejects their acceptance of the historical record. And I for one want to know who said Nelson's view was common among academics. Nelson? Stratfordians are not immune to mistakes and have also been self-serving by distorting and re-interpreting the record when it was convenient (all in the noble service of fighting the evil anti-Strats, of course), and we need to avoid using those types of rebuttals if we want this article to reflect Wikipedia's highest standards.
Articles about fringe theories such as Oxfordism "should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas". I don't think anyone can describe the example quoted above as objective. We should be grinding no one's axe for them; we instead should be "clearly and objectively" describing the topic.
The guidelines also say that the article should "avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose." I think if we take a page from the SAQ article and present the material in clearly-labeled sections such as "Main arguments of the Oxfordian theory" with the various subheadings and "Case against the Oxfordian theory" (instead of "Stratfordian objections" which title in itself is POV) with the same subheadings would be more in line with policy. The article also needs to be cut down radically; no rule states that every Oxfordian argument must be detailed or rebutted.
The essay " WP:Be neutral in form" touches on some points that might be helpful also. I realise this would be a lot more work, but we have all the time in the world, so even if we only edit one sentence a day Wikipedia standards must be foremost. The most helpful thing we can do right now is to avoid making the work more difficult in the future by inserting obvious policy violations. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I think there are three main components of the Oxfordian argument (rather than generic Anti-Strat stuff).
There might be a fourth section, based on the one that is currently called "Biographical evidence" is partly also about alleged parallels between the life and the plays, but also includes some material that would be difficult to fit into that section. Roger le Strit's arguments about the Bible could go in there too. At the moment we have the odd situation that they are criticised but never explained ("there is no significant statistical correlation between the annotations in the Geneva Bible and biblical references in Shakespeare"). Of course this should involve giving more background and detail on mainstream scholarship. For example, the sonnets section as it stands virtually takes it for granted that Southampton is the fair youth. There is only one reference (very recently added) to an alternative candidate and no reference at all to the recent scholarship which argues that the sonnets do not necessarily address a single male object and a single female object. Nor is there any reference to the stylistic evidence that the sonnets were written over many years, some reflecting the language of the late plays. Paul B ( talk) 19:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The amount of "italianation" found in almost half of the "bardian canon" is said to a supporting fact towards oxenfordian authorship, considering the Earl's well-documented youthful Grand Tour across the boot-shaped peninsula. Stratfordians object and argue that W. S. of Stratford-upon-Avon could have written Romeo and Juliet and Shylock and Othello purely based on adriatic hearsay of sailors paid with drinks.
However, considering that bardian plays, including the italianate ones, quickly became famous and W. Shaksper of Stratford is known to have been a rich man in his later years, is it humanly plausible to think the aging Shaksper, no longer having a need to work for food, never took the chance to make the Grand Tour and visit Italy, to see in real life the very stage where he laid his scene so often and lament in retrospect on the faithfullness of what beauty he created on paper?
Even though the aging W. S. of Stratford was still a commoner, he had a coat of arms and a lot of money and knew influential people and a shipborne journey from London to Venice was a rather trivial 2 week business even in that age. If the stratfordian realtor and whatnot never made the pilgrimage to Italy, then we can surely say he wasn't the bard. That and it looks like most official-aligned stratfordian biographies attest W. S. of Stratford-upon-Avon never set foot outside Blighty.
In contrast, there is strong anecdotal trace in Italy, trace of the aging Earle Oxenford's SECOND, undocumented trip to Venezia and his months of staying there. This shows who the real bardian author was, the person who had feelings for his own works (and the famously willing ladyfolk of Venice, who eventually inherited his house there). 84.21.2.137 ( talk) 13:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I started a new section about the methodology of Oxfordian argument. I think that could be an organizing principle to make sense out of this hodge-podge mess of an article, i.e. the sections organized by method of argument: Biographical, cryptic allusions in literary works, etc. Right now things just spill over. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Oxfordians complain that Strats don't really explain their case and so consequently don't fairly criticise it. One point I think that needs to be included is what I call the "Italian detail theory", which explains the geographical mistakes Shakespeare made as actually a product of the superior education and first-hand knowledge of Oxford that he gained from his travels. (Mainly posting this here to remind myself.) Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The article still does not reflect WP:NPOV because it largely treats Stratfordians and Oxfordian opinions as equal in the to-and-fro debate when policy clearly states that the academic mainstream shoudl be given much more weight than fringe conspiracy theories.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 01:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Said article is a big old POV fork being used to promote the Oxfordian theory. It definitely shouldn't be its own article, but is there anything that's salvageable for this article? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this article should be merged nor deleted. To address some of the points raised above, in some detail, with a view to gaining more knowledge of the questions at hand: 1. I don't see how the article is inherently POV in favor of the Oxfordian theory - indeed, it seems to quite strongly reject it. 2. Like most people, I don't really know anything about this question, although I have heard about it since I was a child. If I want to form my own well-educated judgment about it, I will need to have access to a lot of information. This remains true even if the theory is an extreme fringe theory - in order for me to be able to defend my mind against the theory, I need to be able to understand it - and understanding it, if it is false, will not lead me to believe that it is true. 3. As far as I can see, the article has a lot of information and lots of footnotes. It doesn't seem to be "atrociously sourced" but if it is, then the correct answer to that is to improve the sourcing, not to simply delete it.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 23:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Request that we waste another year running down hares sprung from the prodigiously philoprogenitive Oxfordian breeding kennels, Mr Wales?
'If I want to form my own well-educated judgment about it, I will need to have access to a lot of information.'
one team (was) deliberately trying to get ther message across, and another team .. (was) resort(ing) to any strategy to jam the message.' Norbert Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings, (1950) 1968 p.168.
'It was Andy who uncovered that the founding father of Anglo-Saxon studies, Laurence Nowell (not a church official by the same name that previous scholars had mistakenly identified) was Edward de Vere’s tutor in 1563. And noting that in 1563 this same Laurence Nowell signed his name to the Beowulf manuscript, Andy went on to uncover Beowulf’s influence on Hamlet. Phenomenal!' source, the self-tutored Elizabethan expert cum Boston journalist Mark Anderson.
Hummm, I do wish Nishidani could avoid the temptation to put people's backs up quite so effectively! Of course there should be a "complete set of articles" on this subject as on any subject - whether it be mainstream, fringe, batshit-crazy or truth-universally-acknowledged. We have in fact created many such articles. Despite being a "Stratfordian" I have created or greatly expanded articles on Derbyite theory, on Prince Tudor theory and on many other related topics. The problem with Oxfordian Theory – Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays is that it is inherently and irretrievably biassed and it gives waaaaay to much weight to overwhelmingly weak or outright fake scholarship. It's inevitably a POV fork. At the fringe theories board there are arguments about deleting and merging articles all the time. Also, we don't typically have endless spin-offs of fringe topics going into detail about arguments for particular theories. We have articles on Atlantis and Root races, describing various theories - from the sensible to the absurd - but not Arguments for the rule of Atlantis by the Toltecs and the Aryans. The "Parallels with" article is essentially the equivalent of such an "arguments for" article (with a few token disclaimers). In fact the phase of Atlantean rule by the Toltecs and Aryans is dealt with in context in the Root race article ( Root_race#The_civilization_of_Atlantis), where these important historical theories can be seen in context and without undue weight. In this case too the content is better dealt with in a context in which it can be evaluated. Paul B ( talk) 21:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
'Hummm, I do wish Nishidani could avoid the temptation to put people's backs up quite so effectively! Of course there should be a "complete set of articles".'
I am moving my reply to Roscelese from above; otherwise this section will become yet another unreadable mish-mash.
Yes, the page was deleted, but it was then merged into this article, and then recreated with a slightly different title. Here's the history, as I outlined it in the SAQ arbitration:
1. 7/16/2009 Smatprt creates an Oxfordian article (using an unreliable promotional source).
2. On 3/24/2010, article Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare’s plays deleted as a result of afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays because of "Inherent violation of WP:NPOV: extreme undue weight given to a fringe theory."
3. That day Smatprt merges the article back into the Oxfordian article "as per talk at merge discussion". Huh??? An AfD is a "merge discussion"?
4. On 6/18/2010 he moves the material to a sandbox.
5. On 9/9/2010, after being laundered through the sandbox, he then forks it into a new article, Oxfordian Theory - Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays, replaces the colon with a dash, adds two grafs of "NPOV" disclaimer and 17 external Oxfordian links.
6. He then again deletes the material from the main article and links the two. Voilà! Wikipedia hosts virtually the exact same article! So much for WP process.
I have no idea what G4 means, but in Oxfordania, nothing ever really goes away; the arguments are recycled endlessly, even after having been thoroughly discredited. The reappearance of the page is just SOP for Oxfordians. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I am moving this recently inserted section here to discuss:
"Methodology of Oxfordian argument"
"In lieu of historical documentary evidence or any link between Shakespeare of Stratford and Oxford, Oxfordians discard the methods used by historians and use other types of arguments to make their case, the most common being supposed parallels between Oxford's life and Shakespeare's works. Another is finding cryptic allusions to Oxford's supposed play writing in other literary works of the era that to them suggest that his authorship was obvious to those "in the know". Scholars have described their methods as subjective and devoid of any evidential value, saying they use a "double standard", "consistently distort and misrepresent the historical record", "neglect to provide necessary context" and calling some of their arguments "outright fabrication". [1]"
I don't see how starting an article with a paragraph that basically calls one side of the debate liars is in any way neutral. The entire graph seems to have been inserted to influence the reader towards an editorial voice that should not even be there.
I am going to be restoring some of the material that Smatprt deleted. This page has been unsatisfactory for quite some time, but IMO it had been improved, albeit imperfectly, and I don't think restoring the old material will improve it any. Here are several key points that I think are important to keep in mind when editing the page:
1. The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. To me this indicates that the academic consensus must be present when describing Oxfordian arguments, and more so than a cursory, "Although traditional scholars reject all Oxfordian claims, (insert specific argument here.)"
2. The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. This speaks for itself: the academic consensus cannot be walled off to a few token sentences.
3. Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. So all those detailed Oxfordian arguments cannot stand alone; they must be accompanied with the academic consensus. This is clear cut.
4. Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose. Unless I'm missing something, the lede is no exception to this. Describing the ideas includes inserting summary statements about the acceptance of those ideas by the academic Shakespearean community, and stating the objective academic consensus is not calling "one side of the debate liars", nor is it a violation of WP:NPOV.
Finally, this page, and well as any page broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question, is still (and as far as I know will always be) under discretionary sanctions by the Arbitration Committee. Editors of the page must conform to expected standards of behavior and the normal editorial process, which includes talk page participation before making any controversial edits. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Tom Reedy, could you please enlighten me why my Revision as of 22:57, 10 November 2011 [7] was reverted by you as an "inappropriate edit"? Thanks. Knitwitted ( talk) 18:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Paul, Brief Chronicles meets all the criteria of WP:RS does it not ? Why are you trying to disqualify it as one ?-- Rogala ( talk) 10:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
IMO this article is poorly organized and the sections aren't sequenced logically to make a coherent argument. I propose reorganizing the existing material using the SAQ page as a model. That is, lede, overview, the Oxfordian case (the longest, with subsections for the various biographical, literary, and autobiographical parallels in the plays and poems), case against the Oxfordian case, variations of Oxfordism, history of the Oxfordian movement. I know the history needs to be covered but having it lead the article seems disproportionate to me. When readers (~1,000/day) come here they want to know what it's about, not the history.
Also the citation apparatus is hodge-podge at best, and a lot of the cites don't have page numbers or other useful finding aids. I would like to see that changed into one, high-quality system, such as one of the Harvard templates. But IMO that could wait until the article was reorganized. The reorganization will reveal the bald spots that should be filled in and the duplicated material, and following that with rewriting the cites could be a good opportunity to copy-edit the prose. Who knows that the article might not become one of Wikipedia's finest and be awarded FA status? At the very least it needs improvement up to "Good" quality. Thoughts? Accusations? Insults? Tom Reedy ( talk) 14:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Um . .well, glad to oblige altruistically, so speaking on behalf of the Anonymouse moral majority out here, get fucked! (crossed my fingers, irony is at an all time low in these places). Nishidani ( talk) 20:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a reasonable near-certainty that the director Roland Emmerich both printed and designed properly this page before writes the script of his film Anonymus. Wikipedia may request copyright. ;-) -- Sergioadamo ( talk) 07:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: Disapprove of and attempt to prevent, esp. by argument: "those who oppose capital punishment"; Actively resist or refuse to comply with (a person or a system).
Debunk: Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
While it is true that the two external sites disapprove of Oxfordism, the main purpose of them both is to expose the falseness of the belief, not just oppose it. There is nothing POV in using the plain meaning of a word. The academic consensus is that Oxfordism is a fringe belief with no merit; the two sites listed debunk Oxfordian beliefs and arguments. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion of the Oxfordian chronology page was to delete, not merge and delete. IOW, it did not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia, failing the verifiability and POV policies, as well as the notability policy. See WP:DELETE, and especially Alternatives to deletion. Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
See here. The reason given was WP:N and WP:V, i.e. it did not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia, specifically failing the verifiability and the notability policy. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Smatprt, you seem to be exhibiting the same pattern as you did before the arbitration and your topic ban: accusing your editors of uncivil behaviour and dishonesty on the flimsiest of excuses and demanding justifications from policy after it's already been provided. I have asked an administrator to review the dispute here and take action if called for. Tom Reedy ( talk) 19:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
This article is full of the most appallingly disingenuous stuff. Take the following:
Leaving aside the fact that the author apparently can't decide how to spell Eva Clark's name, this passage implies that it is fact that "this similarity of names has seemed too close to be coincidental", as though this is in some sense evidence of Oxford's authorship, as if WS could not have possibly heard of these people! In any case, there is no acknowledgement of the fact that this is barely more than the wholesale appropriation of a Derbyite argument, which just involves crossing out Derby's name and adding Oxford's instead. There is no appreciable "Oxfordian" aspect to it beyond this. Of course the Derbyites just got it from mainstream speculation that the play was inspired by famous events at the court of Navarre to start with. Thus a perfectly unremarkable bit of material is twisted to imply that this is amazing evidence in favour of Oxford. That's just one of many arguments ripped from context. The central problem is that description of an argument is presented in a way that becomes advocacy. Paul B ( talk) 15:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The following passage needs to be cited to, or removed if no citation/quotation is provided: " . . . although Marston calls the passage an example of "hotchpodge giberdige" written by bad poets, and nowhere does Marston mention Oxford explicitly as a poet, bad or otherwise." I feel a full of quote of Marston asserting this is needed.
The sentence "Mainstream scholar Scott McCrea argues . . ." Should be changed to "Stratfordian scholar Scott McCrea argues . . ." All references to "Mainstream scholars" in this article should be changed to say "Stratfordian scholars" to reflect the fact there is a highly contentious debate on this issue.
The sentence "Oxford's biographer, Alan Nelson, remarks that "(c)ontemporary observers such as Harvey, Webbe, Puttenham and Meres clearly exaggerated Oxford's talent in deference to his rank." - should note that Nelson is a Stratfordian. In fact, a number of interpolations like this one, placed in the main part of the article by obviously Stratfordian editors in order to make the Oxfordian case seem less persuasive than it actually is, should be placed in the Case Against Oxfordianism section.
What would be the purpose of changing the name of the Polonius character from Corambis in the quarto edition if not to suppress the clear link the character's name has to Burghley's motto? The article should reflect that the "mainstream" explanation for the Corambis name begs the question why change it in the first place if it merely refers to old cabbage, and is not a cunning pun on the motto of a powerful official?
Lastly, i have issues with this passage: "Contemporary writers exaggerated de Vere's poetic accomplishments in deference to his rank, and the testimony of Meres that de Vere was 'best for comedy' is followed by a further comment naming Shakespeare, which shows Meres knew that Oxford and Shakespeare were not the same man." I don't have a copy of Ogburn in front of me, but I remember pretty clearly that he explains this by quoting a list of prominent authors, from the 19th or 20th centuries, by a writer that wasn't aware that one author used a pen name for some of his works, and his real name for others. Why not include a cite/quote from this page in Ogburn's book when discussing this argument? As the Meres list is one of the favorite pieces of evidence in the Stratfordian argument, i should think that a reasonable explanation as provided by Ogburn is essential. Especially when considering this article freely cites to any and all Stratfordian work that seeks to undermine a strong Oxfordian piece of evidence. JohnDavidStutts ( talk) 21:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)JohnDavidStutts
I have absolutely no idea why you're bringing this up. If you want to contest the idea that the SAq is a fringe theory, the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard is the place to do that. However, you should do your homework and review the relevant talk pages as well as the arbitration to see what kind of response you're liable to meet and whether you think it will be worth your time. Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
For User:Tom Reedy. You undid my last editing as a joker. However, the headings should be consistent with the text. If there is a mention of "Verses Made by the Earl of Oxforde" in the article, which was the spelling of that time, so this exact wording should be kept and not arbitrarily changed. Otherwise, if you take "Oxford" instead of "Oxforde", you should rather have "Verses made by the Earl of Oxford" as a heading. For reasons of authenticity, I would prefer to change the wording back to what I proposed yesterday. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 09:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I've had a look at the content of this section, which made me rather suspicious. The way it is phrased implies that the poem (which is not named, but is PP No.18: "Whenas thine eye...") is listed as a work by Oxford. In fact, it seems that it is not. The manuscript is a transcribed bound-collection of poems by many authors: Sidney, Raleigh, Dyer, Oxford, Anne Vavasour and John Bentley - as well as the unknown author of "Whenas thine eye", which, of course, is not generally believed to be by Shakespeare, like most of the PP poems. Others are attributed in marginal annotations. It's not known when the attribution annotations were made. "Whenas mine eye" is specifically not listed as one of the poems "by the Earl of Oxforde", so unless the works of Dyer, Raleigh et al are also being claimed as the work of Oxford, this argument is yet another example of pure sleight of hand. Oh, and the full title of that section of the manuscript is "verses made by the Earl of Oxforde and Mrs Anne Vavasor". Paul B ( talk) 14:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I really don't understand why this is an argument for Oxford, but then again most Oxfordian claims lose quite a bit of impact when the context is included and the misdirection is wrung out. This incident illustrates why every Oxfordian claim in this article has to be chased down to earth. Tom Reedy ( talk) 19:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
O wait... you already did. So why can't these facts be attributed to Shapiro's Contested Will? Knitwitted ( talk) 15:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Just now saw this. I know the distinction is sometimes elusive, but "presenting each side equally" is not the same as WP:NPOV. WP:N also comes into play as well as WP:5 and WP:NOT. It really takes a while to understand these principles, and sometimes I find myself arguing on the wrong side of them because of my incomplete understanding.
As to my deletion of the material you added, I cannot find where those factoids are any significant (other minor, as far as that goes) part of the Oxfordian argument, nor were they presented as such. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Tom... appreciate the clarification. Change of subject: Is there any chance the headings in the "External links" section could be changed to "Oxfordian" and "Stratfordian" like on the "Baconian theory" page? Knitwitted ( talk) 15:25, 14 December 2011 (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 |
Since, as far as I understand it, the man from Stratford-upon-Avon's name was not — nor did he call himself — "William Shakespeare," and since his name was instead Will Shaksper (or perhaps occasionally Shaxsper/Shagsper/Shakspere), why are we calling him "William Shakespeare"? It seems that both the first and the last name are not accurate. Softlavender ( talk) 09:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
________
From the authorship article:
There was no standardised spelling in Elizabethan England, and throughout his lifetime Shakespeare of Stratford's name was spelled in many different ways, including "Shakespeare". Anti-Stratfordians conventionally refer to the man from Stratford as "Shakspere" (the name recorded at his baptism) or "Shaksper" to distinguish him from the author "Shakespeare" or "Shake-speare" (the spellings that appear on the publications), who they claim has a different identity. They point out that most references to the man from Stratford in legal documents usually spell the first syllable of his name with only four letters, "Shak-" or sometimes "Shag-" or "Shax-", whereas the dramatist's name is consistently rendered with a long "a" as in "Shake". [1] Stratfordians reject this convention, believing it implies that the Stratford man spelled his name differently from the name appearing on the publications. [2] Because the "Shakspere" convention is controversial, this article uses the name "Shakespeare" throughout. Smatprt ( talk) 16:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
______________
I don't see any non-partisan, unbiased, viewable confirmation in those citations. The first citation is unclickable, and the second is quite partisan and also not backed up by anything. Here's another link (also partisan, but in an Anti-Stratfordian slant) that details the known verifiable signatures of the Stratford man:
Shakespeare’s signatures: Shaksper’s six authentic signatures are subscribed to the following documents:
- His deposition in a lawsuit brought by Stephen Bellott against his father-in-law Christopher Montjoy, a Huguenot tire-maker, of Silver-street, near Wood-street in the city of London, with whom Shaksper lodged about the year 1604; dated May 11, 1612. (Discovered by Dr. C. W. Wallace in the Public Record Office).
- Conveyance of a house in Blackfriars, London, purchased by Shaksper March 10, 1613. (Now in the Guildhall Library).
- Mortgage-deed of the same property; March 11, 1613. (Now in the British Museum).
- 5. 6. Shaksper’s Will & Testament, written on three sheets of paper, with his signature at the foot of each one; executed March 25, 1616. (Now in Somerset House).
The six signatures, one of them prefaced by the words “By me”, present a meagre total of fourteen words. The actual signatures are to be read thus:
- Willm Shakp
- William Shaksper
- Wm Shakspe
- William Shakspere
- Willm Shakspere
- By me William Shakspeare
That's all from this link I came across: [1] (Plus, my understanding is that the surname on the will [the last of the six] is not even in the man's hand, but in someone else's.) It would be very nice to have some unbiased, non-partisan, disinterested scholarship that explored this subject — that is, the Stratford man's actual name and signature before the alleged pseudonym came into being (so that the pseudonym's influence is avoided). I really don't know why everyon, we has to take sides when researching. I mean, facts are facts. Even the assertion that name spellings were fluid [that may have been the case when spelling someone else's name, but people spelled their own names consistently] and that "Shak" could be and was pronounced "Shake" consistently comes only from one stand-point and not the other, it seems. Whatever happened to pure research, uninfluenced by viewpoints? *sigh* Softlavender ( talk) 10:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
There is in fact a short treatment of the issue at the main SAQ page. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
"This is not so much a matter of "Oxfordian" imagination, or any particular group's". What an odd thing to say. In case you haven't noticed, this is the page for discussing the content of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship page. So of course when we discuss what should be on this page it is about that particular group's theories. I get the impression from what you say that you didn't quite understand what I was saying about Victorian culture. What I am saying is that it is very common at that time to spell the name of the author "Shakespear", "Shakspeare" or other variations. This continues into the early 20th century until "Shakespeare" is established as the definitive spelling. I don't know why, say, Coventry Patmore (or his editor) prefers to use the spelling "Shakspere" [4], but it has nothing to do with authorship debates. What I have "no explanation for" is why these variations become popular at certain points in history. It pre-dates the Victorians of course, Alexander Pope spells the name "Shakespear" in his edition, while his rival Lewis Theobald spelled it "Shakespeare" [5]. The explanation of why Shakespeare's name was spelled several different ways in his own day is a great deal easier. There were no rigid rules of spelling. It's not unique to him at all. It's typical of the period. Many authors' names appear in documents and in print in multiple spellings. All this is clearly discussed in the web page I linked to. Shapiro's book Contested Will gives an added reason why an 'e' or hyphen is more common in printed versions (the hyphen is pretty rare). It has to do with stabilising typset text. There is no mystery here. Johnuniq is right. It may be possible to have a page on this general issue if there are sources, though I strongly suspect it may be an under-researched area. The SAQ use of the variations could be a section on that page, which we could link to from here and from other articles. Paul B ( talk) 09:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The oxfordian debate is easy to solve. Whoever wrote the famous bardly works, he was totally in picture about Venice. He had been there, period.
The City of Venice has vast amounts of state and private archives preserved intact, spanning from the first crusade to present day. They were a paper-mill centre for much of the medieval and early modern age and put a good portion of their produce to use themselves. It appears only resolve is needed to dig through such mountains of dusty old papers and find the treasure.
If Edward de Vere stayed in Venice for almost a year as claimed, there must be ample documentation about every single movement of his. The Serenissima Republic was paranoid about all visiting foreigners, the dreaded Council of Ten had many spies just to shadow aliens day and night and kept detailed dossiers on them.
Where is the San Marco Secret Service dossier on EdV? If it was found, the content would probably show that the Merchant, Othello and Romeo and Juliet are (partly) autobiographical, thus solving the Shakes-peare debate once and for all. 87.97.102.134 ( talk) 21:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Why does it need a 6-paragraph intro? Must be longer than nearly every article in the english Wikipedia. Shall we put some of it the main article text? Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 12:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged the article for NPOV, borrowed quotes about the fringeness from the main SAQ article, chopped out the last subsection which gave undue WP:Weight to Oxfordian apologists over mainstream WP:Reliable sources and have copied over the fringe categories from the main article. All of these changes should make the article reflect policy more closely than the previous version did. There is still plenty of material that needs examination to ensure that the article evaluates sources according to their academic respectability and not their happening to support certain points of view.That disclaimer could do with excision too.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 23:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I've just found out this article, so I'm not particularly pro or anti-oxfordian theory. But seriously, this article is hugely biaised by places, so I edited :
"Oxford was praised as a dramatist and court poet of considerable merit, but none of his plays survives under his name. [citation needed]" -> How could you give a reference for this statement ? Do you want an academic paper saying "we've searched all the books of the library and found nothing" ? I can't understand how you can ask for a proof of the non-existence of something, this is a pure fallacy to me.
"However, since the 1920s, Oxford has been the most popular candidate among those who like to propose authors of the works other than Shakespeare himself." -> No seriously, did a 12 years-old write this ? "among those who like to propose authors other than Shakespeare himself" -> did this person think it's a matter of who-is-right ? Like these pro-oxfordian people are just messing things up for fun ? Seriously, this sentence was totally discrediting this whole article... -- 89.83.73.89 ( talk) 18:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Concerning the "popular" bit being discussed: I went to the online reference (EB) and found "strongest" instead of "popular", so changed it to match the reference. I then started reading the rest of the article and did a little clean-up - mostly attributing opinions to the various scholars being cited. Also noted that the history section is woefully inadequate and incomplete. I moved some awkwardly placed information from other parts of the article, but it's just a start. I'm not really sure if the non-oxfordian bits should be there at all. Thoughts? - Anton321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton321 ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed near the head of this page a red link to an archive. Was there one, and did someone delete it? Moonraker2 ( talk) 23:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Derek Jacobi, I thought, believed that it may have been a group of authors that ended up under the "Shakespeare" name. I see something to that effect in a related Wikipedia article (maybe the one making parallels in the works), but nothing really laying it out. My search online leads me to an article with the rather circularly-argumented title of "Shakespeare did not write his own plays, claims Sir Derek Jacobi" by Mark Blunden (23 Apr 2009) in the London Evening Standard—with no discussion of his group theory. Anyone have anything more on this theory of multiple authors under the same pen-name? Artaxerxes ( talk) 22:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I propose the article be moved to Oxfordian fringe theory of Shakespeare authorship. This is just to be clear that it is not an established "theory" in the sense of the theory of gravity or theory of relativity, and that the majority of scholars don't even regard it as a viable hypothesis. Gregcaletta ( talk) 07:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Recommend the removal of the above referenced sentence in the Oxfordian theory section and its #87 footnote, which informs that the Strachey letter was defended in print after Stritmatter and Kositsky had established the Strachey letter's unlikelihood as a documentary basis for 'The Tempest' and a Stratfordian scholar substantially agreed. The (textually unmentioned) author of the article, Tom Reedy, is not a credentialed professional in the field, the prevailing standard for reference. It indicates that the Wikipedia page permits unqualified authors to be quoted, if they are Stratfordian in point of view. This harms the credibility of the page. Zweigenbaum ( talk) 08:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The material peculiar to the anti-Stratfordian arguments should be excised. The section "Notable silences" and "Ogburn on the signatures" are two such examples. Those arguments should be in the main SAQ article if they are not already (I believe they are), and the anti-Stratfordian stance should be assumed instead of taking space in this article, which should cover pro-Oxfordian arguments only, IMO. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether, despite the views of Our Great Leader, there might be some merit in putting Oxfordian Theory – Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays up at WP:AfD rather than trying to merge it. Then the shortage of WP:RS and the numerous tenuous/tendentious uncited claims could be brought out into the open. Just a thought. Or maybe it would be a hornets' nest? -- Guillaume Tell 21:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Well actually if you assume that each signer of the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt represents another thousand believers, then there are millions who consider the SAQ a plausible theory—2,116,000 of them, to be exact, and I'm sure the majority of them are Oxfordians. They have been collecting signatures since April 2007, so if the average U.S. death rate is applied something like 40 of the signers have died in the intervening years. How reasonable those people are, I cannot judge, but I can say that they are vastly outnumbered by those who believe in alien abduction or creation science. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to disagree that the coverage is comprehensive.
While we may want to a avoid a "he said, she said" appearence of argument throughout, the general rule is that criticism should be incorporated into the text, not left as a separate section or sections, so I think we should try to give the mainstream views within the sections where possible. I cut out the puttenham summary by our epidemiologist because, frankly, I couldn't make head nor tail of it, or work out how it was relevant to the issue at all. We need a representative of the standard view that he is actually saying the opposite of what Oxfordians contend - that Oxford was not concealed, but already made public. Paul B ( talk) 18:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I know I'm gonna ruffle some feathers here, but I think we all need to take a refresher at fringe theory article school. There is no way that the placement of this statement (and others) can be construed as WP:NPOV. The lede states that Oxfordians reject the apparent historical record contrary to the scholarly consensus, and this section then turns around and rejects their acceptance of the historical record. And I for one want to know who said Nelson's view was common among academics. Nelson? Stratfordians are not immune to mistakes and have also been self-serving by distorting and re-interpreting the record when it was convenient (all in the noble service of fighting the evil anti-Strats, of course), and we need to avoid using those types of rebuttals if we want this article to reflect Wikipedia's highest standards.
Articles about fringe theories such as Oxfordism "should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas". I don't think anyone can describe the example quoted above as objective. We should be grinding no one's axe for them; we instead should be "clearly and objectively" describing the topic.
The guidelines also say that the article should "avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose." I think if we take a page from the SAQ article and present the material in clearly-labeled sections such as "Main arguments of the Oxfordian theory" with the various subheadings and "Case against the Oxfordian theory" (instead of "Stratfordian objections" which title in itself is POV) with the same subheadings would be more in line with policy. The article also needs to be cut down radically; no rule states that every Oxfordian argument must be detailed or rebutted.
The essay " WP:Be neutral in form" touches on some points that might be helpful also. I realise this would be a lot more work, but we have all the time in the world, so even if we only edit one sentence a day Wikipedia standards must be foremost. The most helpful thing we can do right now is to avoid making the work more difficult in the future by inserting obvious policy violations. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I think there are three main components of the Oxfordian argument (rather than generic Anti-Strat stuff).
There might be a fourth section, based on the one that is currently called "Biographical evidence" is partly also about alleged parallels between the life and the plays, but also includes some material that would be difficult to fit into that section. Roger le Strit's arguments about the Bible could go in there too. At the moment we have the odd situation that they are criticised but never explained ("there is no significant statistical correlation between the annotations in the Geneva Bible and biblical references in Shakespeare"). Of course this should involve giving more background and detail on mainstream scholarship. For example, the sonnets section as it stands virtually takes it for granted that Southampton is the fair youth. There is only one reference (very recently added) to an alternative candidate and no reference at all to the recent scholarship which argues that the sonnets do not necessarily address a single male object and a single female object. Nor is there any reference to the stylistic evidence that the sonnets were written over many years, some reflecting the language of the late plays. Paul B ( talk) 19:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The amount of "italianation" found in almost half of the "bardian canon" is said to a supporting fact towards oxenfordian authorship, considering the Earl's well-documented youthful Grand Tour across the boot-shaped peninsula. Stratfordians object and argue that W. S. of Stratford-upon-Avon could have written Romeo and Juliet and Shylock and Othello purely based on adriatic hearsay of sailors paid with drinks.
However, considering that bardian plays, including the italianate ones, quickly became famous and W. Shaksper of Stratford is known to have been a rich man in his later years, is it humanly plausible to think the aging Shaksper, no longer having a need to work for food, never took the chance to make the Grand Tour and visit Italy, to see in real life the very stage where he laid his scene so often and lament in retrospect on the faithfullness of what beauty he created on paper?
Even though the aging W. S. of Stratford was still a commoner, he had a coat of arms and a lot of money and knew influential people and a shipborne journey from London to Venice was a rather trivial 2 week business even in that age. If the stratfordian realtor and whatnot never made the pilgrimage to Italy, then we can surely say he wasn't the bard. That and it looks like most official-aligned stratfordian biographies attest W. S. of Stratford-upon-Avon never set foot outside Blighty.
In contrast, there is strong anecdotal trace in Italy, trace of the aging Earle Oxenford's SECOND, undocumented trip to Venezia and his months of staying there. This shows who the real bardian author was, the person who had feelings for his own works (and the famously willing ladyfolk of Venice, who eventually inherited his house there). 84.21.2.137 ( talk) 13:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I started a new section about the methodology of Oxfordian argument. I think that could be an organizing principle to make sense out of this hodge-podge mess of an article, i.e. the sections organized by method of argument: Biographical, cryptic allusions in literary works, etc. Right now things just spill over. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Oxfordians complain that Strats don't really explain their case and so consequently don't fairly criticise it. One point I think that needs to be included is what I call the "Italian detail theory", which explains the geographical mistakes Shakespeare made as actually a product of the superior education and first-hand knowledge of Oxford that he gained from his travels. (Mainly posting this here to remind myself.) Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The article still does not reflect WP:NPOV because it largely treats Stratfordians and Oxfordian opinions as equal in the to-and-fro debate when policy clearly states that the academic mainstream shoudl be given much more weight than fringe conspiracy theories.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 01:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Said article is a big old POV fork being used to promote the Oxfordian theory. It definitely shouldn't be its own article, but is there anything that's salvageable for this article? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this article should be merged nor deleted. To address some of the points raised above, in some detail, with a view to gaining more knowledge of the questions at hand: 1. I don't see how the article is inherently POV in favor of the Oxfordian theory - indeed, it seems to quite strongly reject it. 2. Like most people, I don't really know anything about this question, although I have heard about it since I was a child. If I want to form my own well-educated judgment about it, I will need to have access to a lot of information. This remains true even if the theory is an extreme fringe theory - in order for me to be able to defend my mind against the theory, I need to be able to understand it - and understanding it, if it is false, will not lead me to believe that it is true. 3. As far as I can see, the article has a lot of information and lots of footnotes. It doesn't seem to be "atrociously sourced" but if it is, then the correct answer to that is to improve the sourcing, not to simply delete it.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 23:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Request that we waste another year running down hares sprung from the prodigiously philoprogenitive Oxfordian breeding kennels, Mr Wales?
'If I want to form my own well-educated judgment about it, I will need to have access to a lot of information.'
one team (was) deliberately trying to get ther message across, and another team .. (was) resort(ing) to any strategy to jam the message.' Norbert Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings, (1950) 1968 p.168.
'It was Andy who uncovered that the founding father of Anglo-Saxon studies, Laurence Nowell (not a church official by the same name that previous scholars had mistakenly identified) was Edward de Vere’s tutor in 1563. And noting that in 1563 this same Laurence Nowell signed his name to the Beowulf manuscript, Andy went on to uncover Beowulf’s influence on Hamlet. Phenomenal!' source, the self-tutored Elizabethan expert cum Boston journalist Mark Anderson.
Hummm, I do wish Nishidani could avoid the temptation to put people's backs up quite so effectively! Of course there should be a "complete set of articles" on this subject as on any subject - whether it be mainstream, fringe, batshit-crazy or truth-universally-acknowledged. We have in fact created many such articles. Despite being a "Stratfordian" I have created or greatly expanded articles on Derbyite theory, on Prince Tudor theory and on many other related topics. The problem with Oxfordian Theory – Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays is that it is inherently and irretrievably biassed and it gives waaaaay to much weight to overwhelmingly weak or outright fake scholarship. It's inevitably a POV fork. At the fringe theories board there are arguments about deleting and merging articles all the time. Also, we don't typically have endless spin-offs of fringe topics going into detail about arguments for particular theories. We have articles on Atlantis and Root races, describing various theories - from the sensible to the absurd - but not Arguments for the rule of Atlantis by the Toltecs and the Aryans. The "Parallels with" article is essentially the equivalent of such an "arguments for" article (with a few token disclaimers). In fact the phase of Atlantean rule by the Toltecs and Aryans is dealt with in context in the Root race article ( Root_race#The_civilization_of_Atlantis), where these important historical theories can be seen in context and without undue weight. In this case too the content is better dealt with in a context in which it can be evaluated. Paul B ( talk) 21:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
'Hummm, I do wish Nishidani could avoid the temptation to put people's backs up quite so effectively! Of course there should be a "complete set of articles".'
I am moving my reply to Roscelese from above; otherwise this section will become yet another unreadable mish-mash.
Yes, the page was deleted, but it was then merged into this article, and then recreated with a slightly different title. Here's the history, as I outlined it in the SAQ arbitration:
1. 7/16/2009 Smatprt creates an Oxfordian article (using an unreliable promotional source).
2. On 3/24/2010, article Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare’s plays deleted as a result of afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays because of "Inherent violation of WP:NPOV: extreme undue weight given to a fringe theory."
3. That day Smatprt merges the article back into the Oxfordian article "as per talk at merge discussion". Huh??? An AfD is a "merge discussion"?
4. On 6/18/2010 he moves the material to a sandbox.
5. On 9/9/2010, after being laundered through the sandbox, he then forks it into a new article, Oxfordian Theory - Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays, replaces the colon with a dash, adds two grafs of "NPOV" disclaimer and 17 external Oxfordian links.
6. He then again deletes the material from the main article and links the two. Voilà! Wikipedia hosts virtually the exact same article! So much for WP process.
I have no idea what G4 means, but in Oxfordania, nothing ever really goes away; the arguments are recycled endlessly, even after having been thoroughly discredited. The reappearance of the page is just SOP for Oxfordians. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I am moving this recently inserted section here to discuss:
"Methodology of Oxfordian argument"
"In lieu of historical documentary evidence or any link between Shakespeare of Stratford and Oxford, Oxfordians discard the methods used by historians and use other types of arguments to make their case, the most common being supposed parallels between Oxford's life and Shakespeare's works. Another is finding cryptic allusions to Oxford's supposed play writing in other literary works of the era that to them suggest that his authorship was obvious to those "in the know". Scholars have described their methods as subjective and devoid of any evidential value, saying they use a "double standard", "consistently distort and misrepresent the historical record", "neglect to provide necessary context" and calling some of their arguments "outright fabrication". [1]"
I don't see how starting an article with a paragraph that basically calls one side of the debate liars is in any way neutral. The entire graph seems to have been inserted to influence the reader towards an editorial voice that should not even be there.
I am going to be restoring some of the material that Smatprt deleted. This page has been unsatisfactory for quite some time, but IMO it had been improved, albeit imperfectly, and I don't think restoring the old material will improve it any. Here are several key points that I think are important to keep in mind when editing the page:
1. The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. To me this indicates that the academic consensus must be present when describing Oxfordian arguments, and more so than a cursory, "Although traditional scholars reject all Oxfordian claims, (insert specific argument here.)"
2. The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. This speaks for itself: the academic consensus cannot be walled off to a few token sentences.
3. Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. So all those detailed Oxfordian arguments cannot stand alone; they must be accompanied with the academic consensus. This is clear cut.
4. Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose. Unless I'm missing something, the lede is no exception to this. Describing the ideas includes inserting summary statements about the acceptance of those ideas by the academic Shakespearean community, and stating the objective academic consensus is not calling "one side of the debate liars", nor is it a violation of WP:NPOV.
Finally, this page, and well as any page broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question, is still (and as far as I know will always be) under discretionary sanctions by the Arbitration Committee. Editors of the page must conform to expected standards of behavior and the normal editorial process, which includes talk page participation before making any controversial edits. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Tom Reedy, could you please enlighten me why my Revision as of 22:57, 10 November 2011 [7] was reverted by you as an "inappropriate edit"? Thanks. Knitwitted ( talk) 18:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Paul, Brief Chronicles meets all the criteria of WP:RS does it not ? Why are you trying to disqualify it as one ?-- Rogala ( talk) 10:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
IMO this article is poorly organized and the sections aren't sequenced logically to make a coherent argument. I propose reorganizing the existing material using the SAQ page as a model. That is, lede, overview, the Oxfordian case (the longest, with subsections for the various biographical, literary, and autobiographical parallels in the plays and poems), case against the Oxfordian case, variations of Oxfordism, history of the Oxfordian movement. I know the history needs to be covered but having it lead the article seems disproportionate to me. When readers (~1,000/day) come here they want to know what it's about, not the history.
Also the citation apparatus is hodge-podge at best, and a lot of the cites don't have page numbers or other useful finding aids. I would like to see that changed into one, high-quality system, such as one of the Harvard templates. But IMO that could wait until the article was reorganized. The reorganization will reveal the bald spots that should be filled in and the duplicated material, and following that with rewriting the cites could be a good opportunity to copy-edit the prose. Who knows that the article might not become one of Wikipedia's finest and be awarded FA status? At the very least it needs improvement up to "Good" quality. Thoughts? Accusations? Insults? Tom Reedy ( talk) 14:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Um . .well, glad to oblige altruistically, so speaking on behalf of the Anonymouse moral majority out here, get fucked! (crossed my fingers, irony is at an all time low in these places). Nishidani ( talk) 20:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a reasonable near-certainty that the director Roland Emmerich both printed and designed properly this page before writes the script of his film Anonymus. Wikipedia may request copyright. ;-) -- Sergioadamo ( talk) 07:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: Disapprove of and attempt to prevent, esp. by argument: "those who oppose capital punishment"; Actively resist or refuse to comply with (a person or a system).
Debunk: Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
While it is true that the two external sites disapprove of Oxfordism, the main purpose of them both is to expose the falseness of the belief, not just oppose it. There is nothing POV in using the plain meaning of a word. The academic consensus is that Oxfordism is a fringe belief with no merit; the two sites listed debunk Oxfordian beliefs and arguments. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion of the Oxfordian chronology page was to delete, not merge and delete. IOW, it did not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia, failing the verifiability and POV policies, as well as the notability policy. See WP:DELETE, and especially Alternatives to deletion. Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
See here. The reason given was WP:N and WP:V, i.e. it did not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia, specifically failing the verifiability and the notability policy. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Smatprt, you seem to be exhibiting the same pattern as you did before the arbitration and your topic ban: accusing your editors of uncivil behaviour and dishonesty on the flimsiest of excuses and demanding justifications from policy after it's already been provided. I have asked an administrator to review the dispute here and take action if called for. Tom Reedy ( talk) 19:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
This article is full of the most appallingly disingenuous stuff. Take the following:
Leaving aside the fact that the author apparently can't decide how to spell Eva Clark's name, this passage implies that it is fact that "this similarity of names has seemed too close to be coincidental", as though this is in some sense evidence of Oxford's authorship, as if WS could not have possibly heard of these people! In any case, there is no acknowledgement of the fact that this is barely more than the wholesale appropriation of a Derbyite argument, which just involves crossing out Derby's name and adding Oxford's instead. There is no appreciable "Oxfordian" aspect to it beyond this. Of course the Derbyites just got it from mainstream speculation that the play was inspired by famous events at the court of Navarre to start with. Thus a perfectly unremarkable bit of material is twisted to imply that this is amazing evidence in favour of Oxford. That's just one of many arguments ripped from context. The central problem is that description of an argument is presented in a way that becomes advocacy. Paul B ( talk) 15:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The following passage needs to be cited to, or removed if no citation/quotation is provided: " . . . although Marston calls the passage an example of "hotchpodge giberdige" written by bad poets, and nowhere does Marston mention Oxford explicitly as a poet, bad or otherwise." I feel a full of quote of Marston asserting this is needed.
The sentence "Mainstream scholar Scott McCrea argues . . ." Should be changed to "Stratfordian scholar Scott McCrea argues . . ." All references to "Mainstream scholars" in this article should be changed to say "Stratfordian scholars" to reflect the fact there is a highly contentious debate on this issue.
The sentence "Oxford's biographer, Alan Nelson, remarks that "(c)ontemporary observers such as Harvey, Webbe, Puttenham and Meres clearly exaggerated Oxford's talent in deference to his rank." - should note that Nelson is a Stratfordian. In fact, a number of interpolations like this one, placed in the main part of the article by obviously Stratfordian editors in order to make the Oxfordian case seem less persuasive than it actually is, should be placed in the Case Against Oxfordianism section.
What would be the purpose of changing the name of the Polonius character from Corambis in the quarto edition if not to suppress the clear link the character's name has to Burghley's motto? The article should reflect that the "mainstream" explanation for the Corambis name begs the question why change it in the first place if it merely refers to old cabbage, and is not a cunning pun on the motto of a powerful official?
Lastly, i have issues with this passage: "Contemporary writers exaggerated de Vere's poetic accomplishments in deference to his rank, and the testimony of Meres that de Vere was 'best for comedy' is followed by a further comment naming Shakespeare, which shows Meres knew that Oxford and Shakespeare were not the same man." I don't have a copy of Ogburn in front of me, but I remember pretty clearly that he explains this by quoting a list of prominent authors, from the 19th or 20th centuries, by a writer that wasn't aware that one author used a pen name for some of his works, and his real name for others. Why not include a cite/quote from this page in Ogburn's book when discussing this argument? As the Meres list is one of the favorite pieces of evidence in the Stratfordian argument, i should think that a reasonable explanation as provided by Ogburn is essential. Especially when considering this article freely cites to any and all Stratfordian work that seeks to undermine a strong Oxfordian piece of evidence. JohnDavidStutts ( talk) 21:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)JohnDavidStutts
I have absolutely no idea why you're bringing this up. If you want to contest the idea that the SAq is a fringe theory, the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard is the place to do that. However, you should do your homework and review the relevant talk pages as well as the arbitration to see what kind of response you're liable to meet and whether you think it will be worth your time. Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
For User:Tom Reedy. You undid my last editing as a joker. However, the headings should be consistent with the text. If there is a mention of "Verses Made by the Earl of Oxforde" in the article, which was the spelling of that time, so this exact wording should be kept and not arbitrarily changed. Otherwise, if you take "Oxford" instead of "Oxforde", you should rather have "Verses made by the Earl of Oxford" as a heading. For reasons of authenticity, I would prefer to change the wording back to what I proposed yesterday. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 09:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I've had a look at the content of this section, which made me rather suspicious. The way it is phrased implies that the poem (which is not named, but is PP No.18: "Whenas thine eye...") is listed as a work by Oxford. In fact, it seems that it is not. The manuscript is a transcribed bound-collection of poems by many authors: Sidney, Raleigh, Dyer, Oxford, Anne Vavasour and John Bentley - as well as the unknown author of "Whenas thine eye", which, of course, is not generally believed to be by Shakespeare, like most of the PP poems. Others are attributed in marginal annotations. It's not known when the attribution annotations were made. "Whenas mine eye" is specifically not listed as one of the poems "by the Earl of Oxforde", so unless the works of Dyer, Raleigh et al are also being claimed as the work of Oxford, this argument is yet another example of pure sleight of hand. Oh, and the full title of that section of the manuscript is "verses made by the Earl of Oxforde and Mrs Anne Vavasor". Paul B ( talk) 14:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I really don't understand why this is an argument for Oxford, but then again most Oxfordian claims lose quite a bit of impact when the context is included and the misdirection is wrung out. This incident illustrates why every Oxfordian claim in this article has to be chased down to earth. Tom Reedy ( talk) 19:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
O wait... you already did. So why can't these facts be attributed to Shapiro's Contested Will? Knitwitted ( talk) 15:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Just now saw this. I know the distinction is sometimes elusive, but "presenting each side equally" is not the same as WP:NPOV. WP:N also comes into play as well as WP:5 and WP:NOT. It really takes a while to understand these principles, and sometimes I find myself arguing on the wrong side of them because of my incomplete understanding.
As to my deletion of the material you added, I cannot find where those factoids are any significant (other minor, as far as that goes) part of the Oxfordian argument, nor were they presented as such. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Tom... appreciate the clarification. Change of subject: Is there any chance the headings in the "External links" section could be changed to "Oxfordian" and "Stratfordian" like on the "Baconian theory" page? Knitwitted ( talk) 15:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)