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 |
Editor CIreland deleted the following contribution by Knitwitted - without any explanation.
"Stratfordian Edgar I. Fripp suggests the Earl of Oxford owned a copy of at least Sonnets 1-26 which, according to Fripp, are based on the pending marriage of his daughter, Elizabeth, to the Earl of Southampton. Fripp furthers that de Vere's widow, Elizabeth Trentham "may have let the manuscript go, consisting of 154 sonnets and A Lover's Complaint", to Thomas Thorpe upon the break-up of her residence at King's Place in Hackney in 1609. [1]"
The book was published by Oxford University Press, 1938, 2nd printing 1964. If such an acknowledged publishing house brings out a book, why is it forbidden to cite out of it on Wikipedia? And why there was no explanation for the deleting? In my opinion, the deleting by CIreland was againt the rules of Wikipedia. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 11:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to be very short. If a Stratfordian author says that the Earl of Oxford possessed Sonnets 1 to 26 (originals or copies?), and Elisabeth Trentham gave the Sonnets to Thomas Thorpe in 1609 (without knowing what literary value they had), is this of no importance for the SAQ? Until very recently, nobody spoke of these obvious facts on Wikipedia. What is now the consequence for our discussions? -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 20:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of Frippin' references in Oxfordian literature. And frankly, Fripp provides a lot more "cherries" than what is mentioned in the current article. Again, I marvel that you, Tom & Paul, have not come across any. But I will assume good faith, and take you at your word that you are ignorant of such mentions. I will post several here in the next few days. However... I have a real job, folks, and while I consider this a good use of my volunteer hours, those hours are spare. I'm sure you understand. If I can, I'll even try to post some tonight, but my lap top is in the shop and I'll be posting from my iphone, so the typing... she goes s l o w ... cheers. Smatprt ( talk) 01:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Think about the implications. I would say, the play Richard III from 1592 was part of Tudor government propaganda against this old enemy, and Oxford was taking actively part in it. He knew the history much better than some other people, but he had a task, so he wrote what was asked. I am sorry, but after all he was paid 1,000 pounds a year. The other problem, you mean that the Fripp citation should be placed somewhere else in the article? It is a valid argument, as you see, either as a citation by a known Oxfordian or just for itself. And it should in all cases be included in this article on the Oxfordian theory, as it confirms some important Oxfordian points. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 15:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't have a lot of time this afternoon for editing, but for Paul and Tom, here are some Oxfordian publications, websites and blogs that discuss Fripp's speculations:
:Brenda James, William Rubinstein (re: Law)
After reading the refs - especially those in "Shine Forth", there is a whole lot more that could be said about Fripp's speculations and how they have impacted Oxfordianism, as well as the whole SAQ. But frankly, I have to wonder what this whole article section is about? Why is it here? Shouldn't these items (cherry picked for sure) be in their relevant sections? As it stands now, given its odd heading, it could be expanded ten-fold or even be its own article. Is that where this section is headed? Personally, I'd do away with the whole thing and incorporate what little is there into the article. But if the section stands, it definitely needs expansion. Smatprt ( talk) 23:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm reviewing the article for neutrality and find it comes up quite lacking. Perhaps this is why the article is rated so poorly. Simply reviewing for WP:AVOID I found an astounding number of uses of the words "claim" and "assert" - almost 30 (iirc) used to describe Oxfordian beliefs. But just once on the Stratfordian response. Such an obvious imbalance can hardly be a mistake, which is why (I might guess) so many complaints keep appearing regarding neutrality problems being ignored here. Given that this precise complaint ( WP:AVOID) has been raised before, its disheartening to see so many violations still exist. I addressed as many as I could find, but the whole article needs a top to bottom review to address, if nothing else, these glaring neutrality issues. Thanks. Smatprt ( talk) 02:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Let me address the second one first since, upon review, I believe we are both wrong. It's not a claim, it's not a belief, it's a critical response to the whole idea of a large conspiracy, right? Lets just say "mainstream critics respond", shall we, and be done with that one? Smatprt ( talk) 05:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The article currently states: "Although most Oxfordians accuse mainstream academics of rejecting their theory only because they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, they often cite the work of individual scholars to create the appearance of widespread agreement on an issue, even when the opinion in question is more widely considered eccentric or outdated. The great volume of literature on Shakespeare makes it easy for Oxfordians to find mainstream scholars who have expressed opinions favourable to their theory."
This is a prime example of what is wrong with this article. The paragraph presents opinion as fact, contains a distinct editorial voice (that is clearly not neutral), and generalizes with ad hominem statements. And not one source, not one reference. In fact, it seems as if the whole section was created simply to lump "most" Oxfordians together, and then denigrate them. Also I find it odd that the first two examples, which support the pro-Oxfordian 1604 issue, have been removed from that section altogether. No wonder so many editors find fault with this article and it has been rated so poorly. Smatprt ( talk) 18:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
May I cite Paul B. He wrote, obviously addressing me: Do you know what, Zbrnajsem, I actually long for an Oxfordian editor who shows basic competence, is not driven by obssessive resentment or bizarre, indecipherable enthusiasm; one who can distinguish between arguments that are actually used by Oxfordians and those that are not. Does it mean that Paul B. thinks my competence in Oxfordian and SAQ matters would not even be basic? That I am driven by obssessive resentment or bizarre, indecipherable enthusiasm? That I cannot distinguish between arguments that are actually used by Oxfordians and those that are not? Was this all an attack ad hominem or was it not? Besides this, neither Paul B. nor Tom Reedy have declared that Fripp´s information was not correct or not verifiable. In my opinion, this information should be placed in the article regardless of it having been used by a (renown?) Oxfordian or not. Is this article there just to cite arguments used in works published by Oxfordians? There is a lot of other things in this article. Mainstream arguments are also cited, and it appears that this article is possibly only thought to be there, after all, to declare the Oxfordian theory for an erroneous one. So why was Fripp´s information deleted already three times, as far as I can count? Or twice, if we don´t count the editing by sanctioned Knitwitted (a teenager according to Tom Reedy). I guess there are people who would like to declare even me as a teenager. If somebody tries to do so, then I am prepared to tell him in private how old I really am as an existing person. And: What does it mean that I am, already for the second time, reminded by Tom Reedy on my talk page that I might be also sanctioned? This is a little bit strange. Only people who show some inclination to the Oxfordian theory as such are treated like this. Am I reminded by Tom Reedy because I dare to participate in this very discussion? He gave no explanation to me whatsoever why he reminded me. I could qualify his behaviour, but I don´t do it now. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 14:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
You are not entitled to be a judge over me, Cal Engime. It is very uncommon to publish such harsh statements about another user, threatening him with ArbCom sanctions without any reason. Furthermore, and this is a point for serious discussion, may I remind you of Tom Reedy´s own point (4) from above? He stated: This article's purpose is to summarise the Oxfordian theory and the mainstream thinking about it. As far as I know, Fripp (and Jonathan Bate) are both renown Stratfordians. So Fripp´s "speculations" were those by a Stratfordian. What you said is a clear contradiction to the above statement by Tom Reedy. Please be more carefull with your reasoning. Second: What does it mean if you say my superior command of the English language qualifies me to say that Fripp's statement is speculative? Do you want to say that my command (i.e. that of the underwriter of this sentence) of the English language is (much) worse than yours? This was, in my view, an attack ad hominem committed by you. The rules of Wikipedia say, i.a., that the users should be polite to each other. I don´t perceive your behaviour towards me as polite. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 10:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Several editors have edited "Contemporary references to Shakespeare as alive or dead" to include the quote from Jonathan Bate, "ever-living was an epithet applied to dead poets, not living ones." I've removed this again because I find it misleading. Here is the entire relevant section of the text:
A further objection to the proposition that W. H. is really W. S. would be that it seems odd for Thorpe to refer to Shakespeare twice, first by initials, then as 'our ever-living poet'. But Thorpe's language is highly wrought: 'wisheth the well-wishing' might be said to be equally redundant. It is quite possible that Thorpe was making an elegant conceit: he wishes earthly happiness and heavenly eternity for the mortal person Master William Shakespeare, just as the immortal poet of the sonnets eternizes the fair youth. If Thorpe had read the sonnets carefully, he would have noticed that they do not follow the classical convention of claiming immortality for the poet—they claim immortality for the poet's beloved. Where Horace or Ovid would have written 'So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, / So long lives this, and this gives life to me', Shakespeare writes in sonnet 18, 'So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, / So long lives this, and this gives life to thee' (my italics). It is thus left for Thorpe to wish life to Shakespeare.
An alternative explanation is that 'our ever-living poet' does not in fact refer to Shakespeare. 'Ever-living' was an epithet applied to dead poets, not living ones. The point was that they were dead, but they lived eternally through their work. 'Our ever-living poet' might therefore refer to a great dead English poet who had written on the great theme of poetic immortality. Certain poets were so well known that they did not have to be named. In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare writes, 'Therefore the poet / Did feign that Orpheus drew trees, stones, and floods' (5.1.79–80)—the poet is not named because it is assumed that everyone will know it is Ovid (though some scholars have argued that it is Horace). By the same account, Thorpe's 'our ever-living poet' could refer to Sir Philip Sidney or Edmund Spenser, by 1609 both routinely associated with the idea of poetic immortality. Spenser famously wrote in his Ruins of Time that the Muses gave eternity to poets; he ended his translation of Joachim du Bellay's sonnet sequence, Ruins of Rome, with an envoy addressed to du Bellay himself, saying that the great dead French poet was 'worthy of immortality' and would 'all eternity survive'. As Spenser promises immortality to du Bellay, so Thorpe imagines Spenser, now immortal, welcoming Shakespeare to the same eternal company.
Quoting the sentence in question out of context suggests that Bate was stating as a fact that "ever-living" was applied only to dead poets. However, it should be clear from this that he was offering it only as part of one "alternative explanation". The preceding paragraph makes it perfectly clear that he thinks it could refer to a still-living Shakespeare. - Cal Engime ( talk) 00:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Please clarify the meaning of the sentence written by Jonathan Bate. If there is a slight possibility that Bate is unsure about the phrase "ever-living poet" (if it refers to Shakespeare or not), so it should be stated in the article in an appropriate way. What about asking Bate personally? He could then specify in a mainstream journal. For me, it is clear that the phrase used by Thorpe refers to Shake-Speare. He was that ever-living poet, which means that... Everybody can go ahead with the proper explanation. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 17:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Smatprt, when you copy from another article using Harvard source formatting, go ahead and copy the ref template also and paste it in the ref section here. The Bethell ref link you copied doesn't go anywhere. (If you look at the "things to do" at the top of this page you'll see that conforming all refs is at the top. Tom Reedy ( talk) 12:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I would respectfully request that this deleted information [2] be restored until a consensus is achieved to delete it. Oxfordians cite "Hamlet" as THE most autobiographical play and quote this list of parallels regularly. Entire news articles have quoted them. To summarily delete over 3500 bytes of data from one section needs discussion and consensus, as required by the ArbCom rules. As you have started the BOLD-REVERT-DISCUSS cycle, and I have raised this issue, please User:Cengime follow the rules and revert while this is under discussion. Thank you. Smatprt ( talk) 00:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
One of Hamlet’s chief opponents at court was Laertes, the son of Polonius, while Oxford continually sought the help of Robert Cecil, the son of Lord Burghley, to seek the queen's favour, with no results.
Polonius sent the spy Reynaldo to watch his son when Laertes was away at school, and for similar reasons Burghley sent a spy to watch his son, Thomas, when he was away in Paris.
In 1575, when Oxford travelled through the area of Mantua in Lombardy, the ruler was Guglielmo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua. The Duke was a member of the same Gonzaga family of the wife of the Duke of Urbino, who was killed in 1538 by a poisoned lotion rubbed into his ears by his barber. Some scholars think that The Murder of Gonzago, the unknown play which was reworked by Hamlet into The Mousetrap (the play within a play) that reenacted Hamlet's father's murder by poison poured into his ear, might have been a popular theatrical reenactment of Urbino's assassination. Mark Anderson accepts that it is the same story, and says that Oxford having passed through the area that Gonzaga ruled was in some way responsible for Hamlet's play-within-the-play.<ref>Anderson (2005) p. 197.</ref>
In 1921, Lilian Winstanley claimed "absolute" certainty that "the historical analogues exist; that they are important, numerous, detailed and undeniable" and that "Shakespeare is using a large element of contemporary history in Hamlet."<ref>{{harvnb|Winstanley|1921|pp=165-6}}.</ref> She compared Hamlet with both the Earl of Essex and James I. She also identified Polonius with Burghley parallels, and noted a "curious parallel" in the relationship between Ophelia and Hamlet with that of Burghley's daughter, Anne Cecil, and her husband, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Winstanley noted similar parallels in the relationship of Elizabeth Vernon and Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton.<ref>{{harvnb|Winstanley|1921|pp=122-4}}.</ref>
Why is one study conducted by students (undergraduates) at Claremont College (see http://willyshakes.com/elliott_sfiles.htm) attributed to "Scholars" and featured in this article, when another study conducted by students at Dartmouth is dismissed as a student project? How can we Wiki editors value one over the other? Either they should both be mentioned, or neither. Comments? Smatprt ( talk) 01:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I was hoping we could improve this article without any edit warring, but it's painfully obvious that that's what's been happening. Cngime, would it be too much to ask that you use accurate edit summaries? Deleting 3.6 MB of material with the edit summary "Turned bullet-pointed list into paragraphs" is not conducive to collaborative editing. Thanks for reversing your deletion, but the next time if a section is unsourced, tag it as such. If a section is redundant, tell us where it is repeated. And if you think a section is unimportant, discuss it on the talk page before deleting it. And Smatprt deleting the Claremont study in retaliation for Cengime's deleting the Dartmouth paper is not a good move.
Let's try to avoid edit warring and topic banning and get the article up to a better quality. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
01:08, 28 February 2013 Smatprt (talk | contribs) . . (120,013 bytes) (-518) . . (removing the claremont study, also conducted by students and "student run teams", presently being given way too much weight, as per [WP:Scholarship])
00:52, 28 February 2013 Cengime (talk | contribs) . . (120,531 bytes) (+3,580) . . (Undid revision 541084717 by Cengime (talk) - BRD)
00:51, 28 February 2013 Cengime (talk | contribs) . . (116,951 bytes) (-506) . . (Undid revision 541087933 by Smatprt (talk) - A student project is hardly "a study conducted at Dartmouth")
00:25, 28 February 2013 Smatprt (talk | contribs) . . (117,457 bytes) (+506) . . (added Dartmouth results. Relying on one study invites "undue weight", as per WP:scholarship "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research... Avoid undue weight when using single studies")
00:06, 28 February 2013 Cengime (talk | contribs) . . (116,951 bytes) (-3,580) . . (Undid revision 541084190 by Smatprt (talk) - This info is unimportant, unsourced, or redundant.)
00:02, 28 February 2013 Smatprt (talk | contribs) . . (120,531 bytes) (+3,580) . . (ooops - previous edit blanked lots of info. Was this what you were trying to do (lose the bullets?) Personally, I think the bullets help break it up)
23:14, 27 February 2013 Cengime (talk | contribs) . . (116,932 bytes) (-3,610) . . (→Hamlet: Turned bullet-pointed list into paragraphs)
I don't mean to be an alarmist, but when I look at an edit history and see alternate read and green ink along with exact pluses and minuses, the first thing I think of is an edit war, and I think most editors would agree. And summarily deleting major material--whether it's just been added or it's been there a while--on an article that is under sanctions is not just "bold editing"; it's provocative and potentially inflammatory.
Ideally all major edits should be discussed, not just plopped on the page with an edit summary. I may be overly skittish because I would like to see this page improved without anyone being admonished or topic banned, and I think we all need to be super careful and think before we revert or comment. It's OK to have second thoughts and redact and move past it, but when it comes to an article with this kind of history, I think caution should be the watchword. I don't think we have to be bogged down with a major discussion on every minor edit, but anything that is radically different from what is now on the page I think should be discussed. As a rule I think an editor should have just as many talk pages edits as page edits, especially on a page that is under sanctions. Towards that end I think we should avoid a flurry of edits before someone else looks at the page, and high megabyte edits that overlap subtopics. When that happens the followup editor usually blanket-reverts the entire lot, rather than trawling through the entire edit and picking and choosing what to keep and what to delete. With smaller, fewer edits, it's much easier to isolate the objectionable material.
Did I mention I think we should be cautious on this page? Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Smatprt I don't think it helps the page to begin with a wall of text. The reason the history was put first was to give some context before delving into esoteric detailed arguments. That's also the reason why the "case against" preceded the "case for": the history gave some context for the reader to get some mental traction before highlighting the nature of the scholastic objections. As it is now, beginning with the "case against" leaves the naive reader wondering what on earth is being referenced. And starting with the details is like you were blindfolded and led into the forest and then left there to study the trees to try to orient yourself. The tl;dr here is that the present layout wasn't haphazard, and there was some fair amount of discussion and experimentation before it was decided the history should be at the front. Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
And here's where I contradict myself. Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is when the history section was moved up. I may be arguing out of familiarity, but not seeing any images until late in the article is depressing. Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
And here is the subsequent discussion. Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I am repeating some material from a 2011 post that I think bears repeating. Here are several key points that I think are important to keep in mind when editing the page:
1. The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. To me this indicates that the academic consensus must be present when describing Oxfordian arguments, and more so than a cursory, "Although traditional scholars reject all Oxfordian claims, (insert specific argument here.)"
2. The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. This speaks for itself: the academic consensus cannot be walled off to a few token sentences.
3. Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. So all those detailed Oxfordian arguments cannot stand alone; they must be accompanied with the academic consensus. This is clear cut.
4. Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated (my emphasis), easy to read, and accurate article prose. Unless I'm missing something, the lede is no exception to this. Describing the ideas includes inserting summary statements about the acceptance of those ideas by the academic Shakespearean community, and stating the objective academic consensus is not calling "one side of the debate liars", nor is it a violation of WP:NPOV.
5. This page, and well as any page broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question, is still (and as far as I know always will be) under discretionary sanctions by the Arbitration Committee. Editors of the page must conform to expected standards of behavior and the normal editorial process, which includes talk page participation before making any controversial edits. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision.
Finally, I think we need to realize that these apply to all editors, not just those sympathetic to one view or another. Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
These may or may not be useful: stylometric comparison charts. Tom Reedy ( talk) 02:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is the Ashbourne portrait pictured twice, with near-identical captions?
(Oh, and by the way, just as an outside reader, I'm not entirely clear what the relevance of the painting would be anyway. Do Oxfordians actually claim that some contemporary who knew about Oxford's authorship divised this as an elaborate visual metaphor of the truth, i.e. somebody went and deliberately took a portrait of Oxford and painted Shakespeare over it, to transport "Shakespeare was really Oxford" as a hidden message through it? If that's the case, the claim is so extravagant and far-fetched we'd really need a clearer reference for it. Or are they saying that somebody in the 19th century found a portrait of some guy, thought it looked vaguely like Shakespeare, made some alterations so as to be able to sell it as a Shakespeare portrait, and that 17th-century guy just happened to be Oxford? In this latter case, why would the story be of any relevance to the authorship issue?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I read somewhere that the portrait of Oxford as an older man was in fact a picture of the 16th earl that had been misidentified and subsequently mislabeled. Anybody know anything about it? Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
To my mind, the sections 2.1 Edward de Vere, 2.3 Oxford's literary reputation, 2.6 Oxford's Italian travels and the settings of Shakespeare's plays, 2.8 Parallels with the plays, and 2.9 Parallels with the sonnets and poems, should all be subsections under 2.5 Biographical evidence. And 2.8 Parallels with the plays, and 2.9 Parallels with the sonnets and poems, should be group together under the heading Biographical parallels in the Shakespeare canon.
Also Smatprt, is it too much to ask that you format your references in the same style as the rest of them, that is, Harvard style? It's not that difficult, and it's No. 1 on the "List of things to do" for this page. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I am just now beginning to look closely through the new edits by Smatprt, and right off the bat I found a deliberate distortion not supported by any of the sources and a POV slant to the language, changes that were introduced under a misleading edit summary. They can be examined by comparing the diffs of my edit. If there are any questions about my edit I'll be happy to answer them. For purposes of comparison, here's the last version of that section. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the last changes for these reasons:
1. Both of the Oxford poems are attributed in the book, but its first mention implies that it was anonymous and later attributed. It's a bit confusing: his "Were I a king" is followed by "Were't thou a king" jammed under it as if they were the same poem (V.a.89 p. 7), and both are attributed with "Vere finis". The second stanza is thought to be by Sir Phillip Sydney, so half the attribution could be wrong. The other poem, "When I was fair and young" (V.a.89 p. 12), is attributed to "E: of Oxford", but was also attributed to Queen Elizabeth during her lifetime. (It gets even trickier: one of the Vavasour poems is thought to have been written by either Oxford or Sir Henry Lee, but that's not an important detail.)
2. The sentence in which it was presumed that Anne had written the book needs someone to do the presuming, so it needs either to be tied to the scholars in the following sentence or it needs a scholar or someone else added to the sentence.
3. Marshall's opinion that the book was given to doesn't depend on the two hands, as implied by prefacing the sentence with the "however" phrase. In fact the Marotti ref needs to be tacked on, because that's where the "two different hands" derives.
4. Jaggard didn't "assign" the poem to Shakespeare, which implies some type of scholarly study to determine the correct author; he just grabbed a bunch that were circulating around and printed them under Shakespeare's name.
None of those changes are critically important to the overall meaning of the book to the Oxfordian theory, but we should be as accurate as we can when following the sources. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently you don't really understand the essential point of his argument, but you can have it your way. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I've tried to restore the page to a more coherent state. Pretty much everything after the section "Case against Oxfordian theory" is formulated as an argument and needs to be described and summarised instead of argued. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I haven't finished reading it, but thus far, John de Vere comes off as a vengeful idiot, and not a flattering portrayal at all. Perhaps I'm simply approaching it from a modern perspective or I need to finish reading the play before I make a comment. I left off act at Act IV, scene 6 on my train ride this morning. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 16:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been looking over this almost wholly unreadable article, trying to think of a way of rewriting it so that a reader can get a clear sense of the main Oxfordian arguments and the main responses to them without getting lost in the he-said-she-said style of most of the sections. At the moment I'm just making the whole thing longer, but hope to be able to cut out some of the detail. I intend to put the main Oxfordian arguments in a section comparable to the "Case against Shakespeare's authorship" section in the main SAQ article. That section would state the case without criticising it, following the SAQ model. At the moment arguments are thrown around chaotically, and are often just introduced as "Oxfordians say", as if there is unanimity. Some of the more significant specific arguments can then be thrashed out in detailed sections retaining the back-and-forth approach for readers who have the stomach for such detail. I've included a brief section of generic anti-Strat arguments, but only as presented by Looney, to tie them directly to the origin of the Oxford theory specifically. I think this is for a reader coming to this "cold", as it were. Paul B ( talk) 13:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship ???????? that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford wrote the plays and poems traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.Contends? Asserts? Argues? Declares? "Asserts" is the closest IMO, but "proposes" connotes a cautious hesitancy that's not there. Tom Reedy ( talk) 01:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Should Shakespearean be changed to Shakespearian throughout the article? The latter seems to be the prevailing form among British scholars. - Cal Engime ( talk) 23:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It may interest regular editors of this page to know that the article on Brief Chronicles has been nominated for deletion. - Cal Engime ( talk) 23:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please strike out the duplicate word "consistently" in the following sentence:
Their arguments are "not taken seriously by Shakespeare scholars because they consistently consistently distort and misrepresent the historical record",
99.117.113.190 ( talk) 03:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
RE: "Snobbishness". I would recommend changing this word to "snobbery", a more common or correct form. Would recommend dropping the extra words, "is based on simple", and just write, "is" snobbery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.151.48 ( talk) 14:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I've just deleted some material in the "1604" section citing academics to qualify mainstream opinion about the dates of the plays, with no attribution of Oxfordians who have drawn on their work to support Oxfordism. There are many, many minority views about Shakespeare, and citing one as an "Oxfordian response" without an Oxfordian source takes it out of context. Distorting sources like this should be considered WP:OR at best, and dishonest POV-pushing at worst.
For example, in my recent rewrite, I removed the false statement that Alfred Harbage had dated many of Shakespeare's later works before 1604, citing Harbage's edition of Shakespeare as the source. The actual source seems to have been Mark Anderson, who argues that since Harbage gives his dates with margins of error, we can take his earliest possible date for every single play, then turn to Karl Elze for favourable dates for the two remaining post-1604 plays. Another example would be the long-standing information about Ernesto Grillo's book, an ancient source adduced to support an opinion of no weight whatsoever with no cited connection to Oxfordism.
I'll soon be deleting the similar stuff about non-Oxfordians who drew a connection between Burghley and Polonius if no Oxfordian source is added to justify it. In the future, Oxfordian arguments or rebuttals added to the page without citation of the fringe publication they were found in should be reverted immediately. - Cal Engime ( talk) 01:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I have deleted this section:
"Oxfordians interpret certain 16th- and 17th-century literary allusions as indicating that Oxford was one of the more prominent suppressed anonymous and/or pseudonymous writers of the day. Under this scenario, Shakespeare was either a "front man" or "play-broker" who published the plays under his own name or was merely an actor with a similar name, misidentified as the playwright since the first Shakespeare biographies of the early 1700s."
The first sentence is correct but should be sourced. The second is a personal interpretation of the theory which does not reflect the Oxfordian position. Some Oxfordians, Charlton Ogburn for example, maintain that he was not an actor at all. None positively identify him as a frontman or playbroker or as having published plays "under his own name" as most Oxfordians say that "Shaksper" or "Shaxper" was his "own" name. Nor do any Oxfordians I am aware of or have read identify him as physically "publishing" any plays at all. Also, the expression "Under this scenario" and the closing phrase "misidentified..." violates NPOV guidelines. Burdenedwithtruth ( talk) 17:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
'no evidence'
If there is really 'no evidence,' then why is there a whole section of the article dedicated to 'circumstantial evidence' of which there is plenty. I wish I could edit this but for some reason the page is protected. Could someone tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence123 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so then surely the article should say 'there is no 'empirical' evidence,' or 'the evidence is only circumstantial' Circumstantial evidence is still evidence! So saying that there is no evidence at all is misleading.
The page is about the 'conspiracy theory' as you call it. What is the point in having an article about someone's theory if the people with that theory are not allowed to edit the article? Obviously both sides of the debate should be represented not just one side.
Has there been any specific vandalism of the page? Because I thought pages could only be protected if there has been a specific influx of 'vandalism.' Could you please tell me what this was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence123 ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There has been new research and more circumstantial evidence, which now cannot be added to the page, which is a huge shame. Please could you kindly change the 'no evidence' statement for me, as I suggested. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. May I also suggest a lot of things which are missing from the page: 'Dating Shakespeare's plays' by Kevin Gilvary, a new interpretation of the Stratford Monument by Alexander Waugh (the first complete interpretation offered,) the interpretation of the reference to Shakespeare in Covell's Polimanteia, etc. etc. Why are Diana Price, Kevin Gilvary, Richard Paul Roe, Alexander Waugh, Alex McNeil and Daniel Wright, the leading scholars of the theory at the moment not even mentioned? (only Waugh is even listed as a supporter, but none of his research is in the article). Between them they have published many thoroughly-researched books and articles which offer plenty of evidence for Oxford. But they don't even appear in this article! Why are justice John Paul Stevens and justices Scalia and Blackmun not mentioned as Oxfordians? There is so much missing from this article! Since I can't add it, would you kindly do it for me, in the least biased way possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence123 ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are several points missing from this article.
1/ "The Shakespeare Guide to Italy" by Richard Paul Roe, and all the evidence in this book that Shakespeare went to the same places in Italy where de Vere went.
2/ Alexander Waugh's discovery of 'our-de-vere' next to the marginal note 'Sweet Shake-speare' - http://www.deveresociety.co.uk/pdf/Waugh_Secret.pdf
3/ Justice John Paul Stevens, justice Scalia and justice Blackmun can be mentioned as supporters of the theory.
4/ The front cover to Peacham's Minerva Britanna
5/ Evidence that Shakespeare was dead after 1604 (i.e 'ever-living'...'late great Ovid') and the fact that plays stopped being published as regularly and plays which were not by Shakespeare suddenly came out under his name.
6/ Could you please put both FULL QUOTES from 'the arte of English Poesie' so that people can read the quote for themselves. Also worth mentioning that Robert Greene in 'Farewell to Folly' also writes about authors using allonyms of people who could not even write.
7/ Richard Brome: 'that English Earl that loved a play and a player' seems to refer to Shakespeare
8/ This quote from John Bodenham showing that Oxford and others had written works published under others' names: "Edward, Earle of Oxenford. Ferdinando, Earle of Derby. Sir Walter Raleigh. Sir Edward Dyer. Fulke Greuile, Esquier. Sir John Harrington.From diuers essayes of their Poetrie; some extant among other Honourable personages writings; some from priuate labours and translations." 109.149.30.22 ( talk) 00:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs of this article basically attack the notion of alternative Shakespeare authorship theories, even going so far as to imply that it is a "conspiracy theory." Is that how the article should begin? Does that adhere to NPOV? I don't have a strong opinion on the matter of Shakepearean authorship one way or the other, but I feel like the article as currently written - at least the introduction - is intended to guide the reader to the conclusion that this theory is false. 108.254.160.23 ( talk) 23:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
WRONG! WRONG! The Authorship controversy is one of those controversies that arise in humanity science (e.g. linguistics, literature) where the conventional view is to deprecate the fringe view much MUCH more than it deserves. By a "majority rule" process, the so-called fringeists are relegated to a "debunked already" status. This is fine when the fringe idea really has been debunked but, as I say, some of the debunkings in some social sciences are far too aggressive. INDEED anyone who doesn't recognize that there are strong cases FOR Oxford and AGAINST Shakspere simply hasn't read objectively.
When skeptics of alternative authorship are questioned on the detailed issues, most of them refer -- just as the mumbo-jumbo words in article's intro do -- to "majority scholarly opinion", unwilling to weigh in on any (except the most trivial) of the damning circumstantial evidence.
Anyway, far be it from me to try to Edit Wikipedia. I just came hoping for a helpful soul who will answer
"Which of the past versions of the Main Page (Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship) is more objective and avoids the snotty dismissal of Oxfordianism?"
Because Frankly, after that poorly written and dismissive intro I didn't bother to even skim the page. Jamesdowallen ( talk) 15:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Exactly the sort of response I'd expect from a typical "debunker" ... whose only stock in trade is to repeat conventional wisdom.
There are certainly scholarly books which take a skeptical view of the Stratfordian authorship and provide much evidence; since you're so erudite why don't *you* cite them? Why would *I* waste my time in an edit battle with an entrenched anal-retentive camp already in place?00:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdowallen ( talk • contribs)
We read in the article's introductory that,
Reference 5 cites pages 164-165, the final two pages of the Frank W. Wadsworth (1958, University of California Press) book, The Poacher From Stratford: A Partial Account of the Controversy Over the Authorship of Shakespeare' Plays. On a reading of those pages, I dispute that they amount to more than a bald unsupported claim that, as Wadsworth writes, until contradictory factual evidence is unearthed, there appears no valid reason to doubt that the official records, the evidence of title pages, the testimony of self-described friends and fellow writers, mean what they appear to say--that William Shakespeare of Stratford was the author of the wonderful works that bear his name. (p. 164)
That was written before the work of Noemi Magri and Richard Paul Roe was published--providing ample documented evidence that people, places and events mentioned in certain of the plays and poems reveal a knowledge of Italy's history, geography social customs and laws which cannot be credibly thought--let alone shown--to have been possible for the Stratford Shaksper to have come to know. These details reveal a direct and personal acquaintance which cannot be explained other than through a presence in Italy. Thus, we have today the "contrary factual evidence" which, by Wadsworth's own admission, places his bare assertion on untenable grounds.
Q 1) How, then, does the citation of his work still validly apply here, in 2017?
Q 2) Have any of the editors of this page actually read either Magri [1] (Magri, Noemi. Such Fruits Out of Italy: The Italian Renaissance in Shakespeare's Plays and Poems. Buchholz, Germany, Laugwitz Verlag (2014)) or Roe [2] (Roe, Richard Paul. The Shakespeare Guide to Italy: Retracing the Bard's Unknown Travels. New York, HarperCollins Publishers, 2011. ISBN 978-0-06-207426-3) ?
Proximity1 ( talk) 15:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please could you change the sentence saying that there is 'no evidence' to saying that there is 'only circumstantial evidence' You have listed 'circumstantial evidence in the article, so it is plainly inaccurate to insist that none exists. 109.149.30.22 ( talk) 00:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
This is incorrect. The source cited by the "No evidence" bit is inaccurate. It says that there is no proof that Oxford was the son of Queen Elizabeth I. It does not say there is no evidence at all for the Oxfordian theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallion Cornell ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
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 |
Editor CIreland deleted the following contribution by Knitwitted - without any explanation.
"Stratfordian Edgar I. Fripp suggests the Earl of Oxford owned a copy of at least Sonnets 1-26 which, according to Fripp, are based on the pending marriage of his daughter, Elizabeth, to the Earl of Southampton. Fripp furthers that de Vere's widow, Elizabeth Trentham "may have let the manuscript go, consisting of 154 sonnets and A Lover's Complaint", to Thomas Thorpe upon the break-up of her residence at King's Place in Hackney in 1609. [1]"
The book was published by Oxford University Press, 1938, 2nd printing 1964. If such an acknowledged publishing house brings out a book, why is it forbidden to cite out of it on Wikipedia? And why there was no explanation for the deleting? In my opinion, the deleting by CIreland was againt the rules of Wikipedia. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 11:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to be very short. If a Stratfordian author says that the Earl of Oxford possessed Sonnets 1 to 26 (originals or copies?), and Elisabeth Trentham gave the Sonnets to Thomas Thorpe in 1609 (without knowing what literary value they had), is this of no importance for the SAQ? Until very recently, nobody spoke of these obvious facts on Wikipedia. What is now the consequence for our discussions? -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 20:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of Frippin' references in Oxfordian literature. And frankly, Fripp provides a lot more "cherries" than what is mentioned in the current article. Again, I marvel that you, Tom & Paul, have not come across any. But I will assume good faith, and take you at your word that you are ignorant of such mentions. I will post several here in the next few days. However... I have a real job, folks, and while I consider this a good use of my volunteer hours, those hours are spare. I'm sure you understand. If I can, I'll even try to post some tonight, but my lap top is in the shop and I'll be posting from my iphone, so the typing... she goes s l o w ... cheers. Smatprt ( talk) 01:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Think about the implications. I would say, the play Richard III from 1592 was part of Tudor government propaganda against this old enemy, and Oxford was taking actively part in it. He knew the history much better than some other people, but he had a task, so he wrote what was asked. I am sorry, but after all he was paid 1,000 pounds a year. The other problem, you mean that the Fripp citation should be placed somewhere else in the article? It is a valid argument, as you see, either as a citation by a known Oxfordian or just for itself. And it should in all cases be included in this article on the Oxfordian theory, as it confirms some important Oxfordian points. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 15:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't have a lot of time this afternoon for editing, but for Paul and Tom, here are some Oxfordian publications, websites and blogs that discuss Fripp's speculations:
:Brenda James, William Rubinstein (re: Law)
After reading the refs - especially those in "Shine Forth", there is a whole lot more that could be said about Fripp's speculations and how they have impacted Oxfordianism, as well as the whole SAQ. But frankly, I have to wonder what this whole article section is about? Why is it here? Shouldn't these items (cherry picked for sure) be in their relevant sections? As it stands now, given its odd heading, it could be expanded ten-fold or even be its own article. Is that where this section is headed? Personally, I'd do away with the whole thing and incorporate what little is there into the article. But if the section stands, it definitely needs expansion. Smatprt ( talk) 23:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm reviewing the article for neutrality and find it comes up quite lacking. Perhaps this is why the article is rated so poorly. Simply reviewing for WP:AVOID I found an astounding number of uses of the words "claim" and "assert" - almost 30 (iirc) used to describe Oxfordian beliefs. But just once on the Stratfordian response. Such an obvious imbalance can hardly be a mistake, which is why (I might guess) so many complaints keep appearing regarding neutrality problems being ignored here. Given that this precise complaint ( WP:AVOID) has been raised before, its disheartening to see so many violations still exist. I addressed as many as I could find, but the whole article needs a top to bottom review to address, if nothing else, these glaring neutrality issues. Thanks. Smatprt ( talk) 02:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Let me address the second one first since, upon review, I believe we are both wrong. It's not a claim, it's not a belief, it's a critical response to the whole idea of a large conspiracy, right? Lets just say "mainstream critics respond", shall we, and be done with that one? Smatprt ( talk) 05:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The article currently states: "Although most Oxfordians accuse mainstream academics of rejecting their theory only because they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, they often cite the work of individual scholars to create the appearance of widespread agreement on an issue, even when the opinion in question is more widely considered eccentric or outdated. The great volume of literature on Shakespeare makes it easy for Oxfordians to find mainstream scholars who have expressed opinions favourable to their theory."
This is a prime example of what is wrong with this article. The paragraph presents opinion as fact, contains a distinct editorial voice (that is clearly not neutral), and generalizes with ad hominem statements. And not one source, not one reference. In fact, it seems as if the whole section was created simply to lump "most" Oxfordians together, and then denigrate them. Also I find it odd that the first two examples, which support the pro-Oxfordian 1604 issue, have been removed from that section altogether. No wonder so many editors find fault with this article and it has been rated so poorly. Smatprt ( talk) 18:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
May I cite Paul B. He wrote, obviously addressing me: Do you know what, Zbrnajsem, I actually long for an Oxfordian editor who shows basic competence, is not driven by obssessive resentment or bizarre, indecipherable enthusiasm; one who can distinguish between arguments that are actually used by Oxfordians and those that are not. Does it mean that Paul B. thinks my competence in Oxfordian and SAQ matters would not even be basic? That I am driven by obssessive resentment or bizarre, indecipherable enthusiasm? That I cannot distinguish between arguments that are actually used by Oxfordians and those that are not? Was this all an attack ad hominem or was it not? Besides this, neither Paul B. nor Tom Reedy have declared that Fripp´s information was not correct or not verifiable. In my opinion, this information should be placed in the article regardless of it having been used by a (renown?) Oxfordian or not. Is this article there just to cite arguments used in works published by Oxfordians? There is a lot of other things in this article. Mainstream arguments are also cited, and it appears that this article is possibly only thought to be there, after all, to declare the Oxfordian theory for an erroneous one. So why was Fripp´s information deleted already three times, as far as I can count? Or twice, if we don´t count the editing by sanctioned Knitwitted (a teenager according to Tom Reedy). I guess there are people who would like to declare even me as a teenager. If somebody tries to do so, then I am prepared to tell him in private how old I really am as an existing person. And: What does it mean that I am, already for the second time, reminded by Tom Reedy on my talk page that I might be also sanctioned? This is a little bit strange. Only people who show some inclination to the Oxfordian theory as such are treated like this. Am I reminded by Tom Reedy because I dare to participate in this very discussion? He gave no explanation to me whatsoever why he reminded me. I could qualify his behaviour, but I don´t do it now. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 14:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
You are not entitled to be a judge over me, Cal Engime. It is very uncommon to publish such harsh statements about another user, threatening him with ArbCom sanctions without any reason. Furthermore, and this is a point for serious discussion, may I remind you of Tom Reedy´s own point (4) from above? He stated: This article's purpose is to summarise the Oxfordian theory and the mainstream thinking about it. As far as I know, Fripp (and Jonathan Bate) are both renown Stratfordians. So Fripp´s "speculations" were those by a Stratfordian. What you said is a clear contradiction to the above statement by Tom Reedy. Please be more carefull with your reasoning. Second: What does it mean if you say my superior command of the English language qualifies me to say that Fripp's statement is speculative? Do you want to say that my command (i.e. that of the underwriter of this sentence) of the English language is (much) worse than yours? This was, in my view, an attack ad hominem committed by you. The rules of Wikipedia say, i.a., that the users should be polite to each other. I don´t perceive your behaviour towards me as polite. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 10:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Several editors have edited "Contemporary references to Shakespeare as alive or dead" to include the quote from Jonathan Bate, "ever-living was an epithet applied to dead poets, not living ones." I've removed this again because I find it misleading. Here is the entire relevant section of the text:
A further objection to the proposition that W. H. is really W. S. would be that it seems odd for Thorpe to refer to Shakespeare twice, first by initials, then as 'our ever-living poet'. But Thorpe's language is highly wrought: 'wisheth the well-wishing' might be said to be equally redundant. It is quite possible that Thorpe was making an elegant conceit: he wishes earthly happiness and heavenly eternity for the mortal person Master William Shakespeare, just as the immortal poet of the sonnets eternizes the fair youth. If Thorpe had read the sonnets carefully, he would have noticed that they do not follow the classical convention of claiming immortality for the poet—they claim immortality for the poet's beloved. Where Horace or Ovid would have written 'So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, / So long lives this, and this gives life to me', Shakespeare writes in sonnet 18, 'So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, / So long lives this, and this gives life to thee' (my italics). It is thus left for Thorpe to wish life to Shakespeare.
An alternative explanation is that 'our ever-living poet' does not in fact refer to Shakespeare. 'Ever-living' was an epithet applied to dead poets, not living ones. The point was that they were dead, but they lived eternally through their work. 'Our ever-living poet' might therefore refer to a great dead English poet who had written on the great theme of poetic immortality. Certain poets were so well known that they did not have to be named. In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare writes, 'Therefore the poet / Did feign that Orpheus drew trees, stones, and floods' (5.1.79–80)—the poet is not named because it is assumed that everyone will know it is Ovid (though some scholars have argued that it is Horace). By the same account, Thorpe's 'our ever-living poet' could refer to Sir Philip Sidney or Edmund Spenser, by 1609 both routinely associated with the idea of poetic immortality. Spenser famously wrote in his Ruins of Time that the Muses gave eternity to poets; he ended his translation of Joachim du Bellay's sonnet sequence, Ruins of Rome, with an envoy addressed to du Bellay himself, saying that the great dead French poet was 'worthy of immortality' and would 'all eternity survive'. As Spenser promises immortality to du Bellay, so Thorpe imagines Spenser, now immortal, welcoming Shakespeare to the same eternal company.
Quoting the sentence in question out of context suggests that Bate was stating as a fact that "ever-living" was applied only to dead poets. However, it should be clear from this that he was offering it only as part of one "alternative explanation". The preceding paragraph makes it perfectly clear that he thinks it could refer to a still-living Shakespeare. - Cal Engime ( talk) 00:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Please clarify the meaning of the sentence written by Jonathan Bate. If there is a slight possibility that Bate is unsure about the phrase "ever-living poet" (if it refers to Shakespeare or not), so it should be stated in the article in an appropriate way. What about asking Bate personally? He could then specify in a mainstream journal. For me, it is clear that the phrase used by Thorpe refers to Shake-Speare. He was that ever-living poet, which means that... Everybody can go ahead with the proper explanation. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 17:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Smatprt, when you copy from another article using Harvard source formatting, go ahead and copy the ref template also and paste it in the ref section here. The Bethell ref link you copied doesn't go anywhere. (If you look at the "things to do" at the top of this page you'll see that conforming all refs is at the top. Tom Reedy ( talk) 12:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I would respectfully request that this deleted information [2] be restored until a consensus is achieved to delete it. Oxfordians cite "Hamlet" as THE most autobiographical play and quote this list of parallels regularly. Entire news articles have quoted them. To summarily delete over 3500 bytes of data from one section needs discussion and consensus, as required by the ArbCom rules. As you have started the BOLD-REVERT-DISCUSS cycle, and I have raised this issue, please User:Cengime follow the rules and revert while this is under discussion. Thank you. Smatprt ( talk) 00:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
One of Hamlet’s chief opponents at court was Laertes, the son of Polonius, while Oxford continually sought the help of Robert Cecil, the son of Lord Burghley, to seek the queen's favour, with no results.
Polonius sent the spy Reynaldo to watch his son when Laertes was away at school, and for similar reasons Burghley sent a spy to watch his son, Thomas, when he was away in Paris.
In 1575, when Oxford travelled through the area of Mantua in Lombardy, the ruler was Guglielmo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua. The Duke was a member of the same Gonzaga family of the wife of the Duke of Urbino, who was killed in 1538 by a poisoned lotion rubbed into his ears by his barber. Some scholars think that The Murder of Gonzago, the unknown play which was reworked by Hamlet into The Mousetrap (the play within a play) that reenacted Hamlet's father's murder by poison poured into his ear, might have been a popular theatrical reenactment of Urbino's assassination. Mark Anderson accepts that it is the same story, and says that Oxford having passed through the area that Gonzaga ruled was in some way responsible for Hamlet's play-within-the-play.<ref>Anderson (2005) p. 197.</ref>
In 1921, Lilian Winstanley claimed "absolute" certainty that "the historical analogues exist; that they are important, numerous, detailed and undeniable" and that "Shakespeare is using a large element of contemporary history in Hamlet."<ref>{{harvnb|Winstanley|1921|pp=165-6}}.</ref> She compared Hamlet with both the Earl of Essex and James I. She also identified Polonius with Burghley parallels, and noted a "curious parallel" in the relationship between Ophelia and Hamlet with that of Burghley's daughter, Anne Cecil, and her husband, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Winstanley noted similar parallels in the relationship of Elizabeth Vernon and Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton.<ref>{{harvnb|Winstanley|1921|pp=122-4}}.</ref>
Why is one study conducted by students (undergraduates) at Claremont College (see http://willyshakes.com/elliott_sfiles.htm) attributed to "Scholars" and featured in this article, when another study conducted by students at Dartmouth is dismissed as a student project? How can we Wiki editors value one over the other? Either they should both be mentioned, or neither. Comments? Smatprt ( talk) 01:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I was hoping we could improve this article without any edit warring, but it's painfully obvious that that's what's been happening. Cngime, would it be too much to ask that you use accurate edit summaries? Deleting 3.6 MB of material with the edit summary "Turned bullet-pointed list into paragraphs" is not conducive to collaborative editing. Thanks for reversing your deletion, but the next time if a section is unsourced, tag it as such. If a section is redundant, tell us where it is repeated. And if you think a section is unimportant, discuss it on the talk page before deleting it. And Smatprt deleting the Claremont study in retaliation for Cengime's deleting the Dartmouth paper is not a good move.
Let's try to avoid edit warring and topic banning and get the article up to a better quality. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
01:08, 28 February 2013 Smatprt (talk | contribs) . . (120,013 bytes) (-518) . . (removing the claremont study, also conducted by students and "student run teams", presently being given way too much weight, as per [WP:Scholarship])
00:52, 28 February 2013 Cengime (talk | contribs) . . (120,531 bytes) (+3,580) . . (Undid revision 541084717 by Cengime (talk) - BRD)
00:51, 28 February 2013 Cengime (talk | contribs) . . (116,951 bytes) (-506) . . (Undid revision 541087933 by Smatprt (talk) - A student project is hardly "a study conducted at Dartmouth")
00:25, 28 February 2013 Smatprt (talk | contribs) . . (117,457 bytes) (+506) . . (added Dartmouth results. Relying on one study invites "undue weight", as per WP:scholarship "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research... Avoid undue weight when using single studies")
00:06, 28 February 2013 Cengime (talk | contribs) . . (116,951 bytes) (-3,580) . . (Undid revision 541084190 by Smatprt (talk) - This info is unimportant, unsourced, or redundant.)
00:02, 28 February 2013 Smatprt (talk | contribs) . . (120,531 bytes) (+3,580) . . (ooops - previous edit blanked lots of info. Was this what you were trying to do (lose the bullets?) Personally, I think the bullets help break it up)
23:14, 27 February 2013 Cengime (talk | contribs) . . (116,932 bytes) (-3,610) . . (→Hamlet: Turned bullet-pointed list into paragraphs)
I don't mean to be an alarmist, but when I look at an edit history and see alternate read and green ink along with exact pluses and minuses, the first thing I think of is an edit war, and I think most editors would agree. And summarily deleting major material--whether it's just been added or it's been there a while--on an article that is under sanctions is not just "bold editing"; it's provocative and potentially inflammatory.
Ideally all major edits should be discussed, not just plopped on the page with an edit summary. I may be overly skittish because I would like to see this page improved without anyone being admonished or topic banned, and I think we all need to be super careful and think before we revert or comment. It's OK to have second thoughts and redact and move past it, but when it comes to an article with this kind of history, I think caution should be the watchword. I don't think we have to be bogged down with a major discussion on every minor edit, but anything that is radically different from what is now on the page I think should be discussed. As a rule I think an editor should have just as many talk pages edits as page edits, especially on a page that is under sanctions. Towards that end I think we should avoid a flurry of edits before someone else looks at the page, and high megabyte edits that overlap subtopics. When that happens the followup editor usually blanket-reverts the entire lot, rather than trawling through the entire edit and picking and choosing what to keep and what to delete. With smaller, fewer edits, it's much easier to isolate the objectionable material.
Did I mention I think we should be cautious on this page? Tom Reedy ( talk) 23:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Smatprt I don't think it helps the page to begin with a wall of text. The reason the history was put first was to give some context before delving into esoteric detailed arguments. That's also the reason why the "case against" preceded the "case for": the history gave some context for the reader to get some mental traction before highlighting the nature of the scholastic objections. As it is now, beginning with the "case against" leaves the naive reader wondering what on earth is being referenced. And starting with the details is like you were blindfolded and led into the forest and then left there to study the trees to try to orient yourself. The tl;dr here is that the present layout wasn't haphazard, and there was some fair amount of discussion and experimentation before it was decided the history should be at the front. Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
And here's where I contradict myself. Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is when the history section was moved up. I may be arguing out of familiarity, but not seeing any images until late in the article is depressing. Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
And here is the subsequent discussion. Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I am repeating some material from a 2011 post that I think bears repeating. Here are several key points that I think are important to keep in mind when editing the page:
1. The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. To me this indicates that the academic consensus must be present when describing Oxfordian arguments, and more so than a cursory, "Although traditional scholars reject all Oxfordian claims, (insert specific argument here.)"
2. The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. This speaks for itself: the academic consensus cannot be walled off to a few token sentences.
3. Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. So all those detailed Oxfordian arguments cannot stand alone; they must be accompanied with the academic consensus. This is clear cut.
4. Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated (my emphasis), easy to read, and accurate article prose. Unless I'm missing something, the lede is no exception to this. Describing the ideas includes inserting summary statements about the acceptance of those ideas by the academic Shakespearean community, and stating the objective academic consensus is not calling "one side of the debate liars", nor is it a violation of WP:NPOV.
5. This page, and well as any page broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question, is still (and as far as I know always will be) under discretionary sanctions by the Arbitration Committee. Editors of the page must conform to expected standards of behavior and the normal editorial process, which includes talk page participation before making any controversial edits. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision.
Finally, I think we need to realize that these apply to all editors, not just those sympathetic to one view or another. Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
These may or may not be useful: stylometric comparison charts. Tom Reedy ( talk) 02:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is the Ashbourne portrait pictured twice, with near-identical captions?
(Oh, and by the way, just as an outside reader, I'm not entirely clear what the relevance of the painting would be anyway. Do Oxfordians actually claim that some contemporary who knew about Oxford's authorship divised this as an elaborate visual metaphor of the truth, i.e. somebody went and deliberately took a portrait of Oxford and painted Shakespeare over it, to transport "Shakespeare was really Oxford" as a hidden message through it? If that's the case, the claim is so extravagant and far-fetched we'd really need a clearer reference for it. Or are they saying that somebody in the 19th century found a portrait of some guy, thought it looked vaguely like Shakespeare, made some alterations so as to be able to sell it as a Shakespeare portrait, and that 17th-century guy just happened to be Oxford? In this latter case, why would the story be of any relevance to the authorship issue?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I read somewhere that the portrait of Oxford as an older man was in fact a picture of the 16th earl that had been misidentified and subsequently mislabeled. Anybody know anything about it? Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
To my mind, the sections 2.1 Edward de Vere, 2.3 Oxford's literary reputation, 2.6 Oxford's Italian travels and the settings of Shakespeare's plays, 2.8 Parallels with the plays, and 2.9 Parallels with the sonnets and poems, should all be subsections under 2.5 Biographical evidence. And 2.8 Parallels with the plays, and 2.9 Parallels with the sonnets and poems, should be group together under the heading Biographical parallels in the Shakespeare canon.
Also Smatprt, is it too much to ask that you format your references in the same style as the rest of them, that is, Harvard style? It's not that difficult, and it's No. 1 on the "List of things to do" for this page. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I am just now beginning to look closely through the new edits by Smatprt, and right off the bat I found a deliberate distortion not supported by any of the sources and a POV slant to the language, changes that were introduced under a misleading edit summary. They can be examined by comparing the diffs of my edit. If there are any questions about my edit I'll be happy to answer them. For purposes of comparison, here's the last version of that section. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the last changes for these reasons:
1. Both of the Oxford poems are attributed in the book, but its first mention implies that it was anonymous and later attributed. It's a bit confusing: his "Were I a king" is followed by "Were't thou a king" jammed under it as if they were the same poem (V.a.89 p. 7), and both are attributed with "Vere finis". The second stanza is thought to be by Sir Phillip Sydney, so half the attribution could be wrong. The other poem, "When I was fair and young" (V.a.89 p. 12), is attributed to "E: of Oxford", but was also attributed to Queen Elizabeth during her lifetime. (It gets even trickier: one of the Vavasour poems is thought to have been written by either Oxford or Sir Henry Lee, but that's not an important detail.)
2. The sentence in which it was presumed that Anne had written the book needs someone to do the presuming, so it needs either to be tied to the scholars in the following sentence or it needs a scholar or someone else added to the sentence.
3. Marshall's opinion that the book was given to doesn't depend on the two hands, as implied by prefacing the sentence with the "however" phrase. In fact the Marotti ref needs to be tacked on, because that's where the "two different hands" derives.
4. Jaggard didn't "assign" the poem to Shakespeare, which implies some type of scholarly study to determine the correct author; he just grabbed a bunch that were circulating around and printed them under Shakespeare's name.
None of those changes are critically important to the overall meaning of the book to the Oxfordian theory, but we should be as accurate as we can when following the sources. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently you don't really understand the essential point of his argument, but you can have it your way. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I've tried to restore the page to a more coherent state. Pretty much everything after the section "Case against Oxfordian theory" is formulated as an argument and needs to be described and summarised instead of argued. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I haven't finished reading it, but thus far, John de Vere comes off as a vengeful idiot, and not a flattering portrayal at all. Perhaps I'm simply approaching it from a modern perspective or I need to finish reading the play before I make a comment. I left off act at Act IV, scene 6 on my train ride this morning. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 16:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been looking over this almost wholly unreadable article, trying to think of a way of rewriting it so that a reader can get a clear sense of the main Oxfordian arguments and the main responses to them without getting lost in the he-said-she-said style of most of the sections. At the moment I'm just making the whole thing longer, but hope to be able to cut out some of the detail. I intend to put the main Oxfordian arguments in a section comparable to the "Case against Shakespeare's authorship" section in the main SAQ article. That section would state the case without criticising it, following the SAQ model. At the moment arguments are thrown around chaotically, and are often just introduced as "Oxfordians say", as if there is unanimity. Some of the more significant specific arguments can then be thrashed out in detailed sections retaining the back-and-forth approach for readers who have the stomach for such detail. I've included a brief section of generic anti-Strat arguments, but only as presented by Looney, to tie them directly to the origin of the Oxford theory specifically. I think this is for a reader coming to this "cold", as it were. Paul B ( talk) 13:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship ???????? that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford wrote the plays and poems traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.Contends? Asserts? Argues? Declares? "Asserts" is the closest IMO, but "proposes" connotes a cautious hesitancy that's not there. Tom Reedy ( talk) 01:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Should Shakespearean be changed to Shakespearian throughout the article? The latter seems to be the prevailing form among British scholars. - Cal Engime ( talk) 23:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It may interest regular editors of this page to know that the article on Brief Chronicles has been nominated for deletion. - Cal Engime ( talk) 23:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please strike out the duplicate word "consistently" in the following sentence:
Their arguments are "not taken seriously by Shakespeare scholars because they consistently consistently distort and misrepresent the historical record",
99.117.113.190 ( talk) 03:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
RE: "Snobbishness". I would recommend changing this word to "snobbery", a more common or correct form. Would recommend dropping the extra words, "is based on simple", and just write, "is" snobbery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.151.48 ( talk) 14:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I've just deleted some material in the "1604" section citing academics to qualify mainstream opinion about the dates of the plays, with no attribution of Oxfordians who have drawn on their work to support Oxfordism. There are many, many minority views about Shakespeare, and citing one as an "Oxfordian response" without an Oxfordian source takes it out of context. Distorting sources like this should be considered WP:OR at best, and dishonest POV-pushing at worst.
For example, in my recent rewrite, I removed the false statement that Alfred Harbage had dated many of Shakespeare's later works before 1604, citing Harbage's edition of Shakespeare as the source. The actual source seems to have been Mark Anderson, who argues that since Harbage gives his dates with margins of error, we can take his earliest possible date for every single play, then turn to Karl Elze for favourable dates for the two remaining post-1604 plays. Another example would be the long-standing information about Ernesto Grillo's book, an ancient source adduced to support an opinion of no weight whatsoever with no cited connection to Oxfordism.
I'll soon be deleting the similar stuff about non-Oxfordians who drew a connection between Burghley and Polonius if no Oxfordian source is added to justify it. In the future, Oxfordian arguments or rebuttals added to the page without citation of the fringe publication they were found in should be reverted immediately. - Cal Engime ( talk) 01:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I have deleted this section:
"Oxfordians interpret certain 16th- and 17th-century literary allusions as indicating that Oxford was one of the more prominent suppressed anonymous and/or pseudonymous writers of the day. Under this scenario, Shakespeare was either a "front man" or "play-broker" who published the plays under his own name or was merely an actor with a similar name, misidentified as the playwright since the first Shakespeare biographies of the early 1700s."
The first sentence is correct but should be sourced. The second is a personal interpretation of the theory which does not reflect the Oxfordian position. Some Oxfordians, Charlton Ogburn for example, maintain that he was not an actor at all. None positively identify him as a frontman or playbroker or as having published plays "under his own name" as most Oxfordians say that "Shaksper" or "Shaxper" was his "own" name. Nor do any Oxfordians I am aware of or have read identify him as physically "publishing" any plays at all. Also, the expression "Under this scenario" and the closing phrase "misidentified..." violates NPOV guidelines. Burdenedwithtruth ( talk) 17:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
'no evidence'
If there is really 'no evidence,' then why is there a whole section of the article dedicated to 'circumstantial evidence' of which there is plenty. I wish I could edit this but for some reason the page is protected. Could someone tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence123 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so then surely the article should say 'there is no 'empirical' evidence,' or 'the evidence is only circumstantial' Circumstantial evidence is still evidence! So saying that there is no evidence at all is misleading.
The page is about the 'conspiracy theory' as you call it. What is the point in having an article about someone's theory if the people with that theory are not allowed to edit the article? Obviously both sides of the debate should be represented not just one side.
Has there been any specific vandalism of the page? Because I thought pages could only be protected if there has been a specific influx of 'vandalism.' Could you please tell me what this was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence123 ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There has been new research and more circumstantial evidence, which now cannot be added to the page, which is a huge shame. Please could you kindly change the 'no evidence' statement for me, as I suggested. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. May I also suggest a lot of things which are missing from the page: 'Dating Shakespeare's plays' by Kevin Gilvary, a new interpretation of the Stratford Monument by Alexander Waugh (the first complete interpretation offered,) the interpretation of the reference to Shakespeare in Covell's Polimanteia, etc. etc. Why are Diana Price, Kevin Gilvary, Richard Paul Roe, Alexander Waugh, Alex McNeil and Daniel Wright, the leading scholars of the theory at the moment not even mentioned? (only Waugh is even listed as a supporter, but none of his research is in the article). Between them they have published many thoroughly-researched books and articles which offer plenty of evidence for Oxford. But they don't even appear in this article! Why are justice John Paul Stevens and justices Scalia and Blackmun not mentioned as Oxfordians? There is so much missing from this article! Since I can't add it, would you kindly do it for me, in the least biased way possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence123 ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are several points missing from this article.
1/ "The Shakespeare Guide to Italy" by Richard Paul Roe, and all the evidence in this book that Shakespeare went to the same places in Italy where de Vere went.
2/ Alexander Waugh's discovery of 'our-de-vere' next to the marginal note 'Sweet Shake-speare' - http://www.deveresociety.co.uk/pdf/Waugh_Secret.pdf
3/ Justice John Paul Stevens, justice Scalia and justice Blackmun can be mentioned as supporters of the theory.
4/ The front cover to Peacham's Minerva Britanna
5/ Evidence that Shakespeare was dead after 1604 (i.e 'ever-living'...'late great Ovid') and the fact that plays stopped being published as regularly and plays which were not by Shakespeare suddenly came out under his name.
6/ Could you please put both FULL QUOTES from 'the arte of English Poesie' so that people can read the quote for themselves. Also worth mentioning that Robert Greene in 'Farewell to Folly' also writes about authors using allonyms of people who could not even write.
7/ Richard Brome: 'that English Earl that loved a play and a player' seems to refer to Shakespeare
8/ This quote from John Bodenham showing that Oxford and others had written works published under others' names: "Edward, Earle of Oxenford. Ferdinando, Earle of Derby. Sir Walter Raleigh. Sir Edward Dyer. Fulke Greuile, Esquier. Sir John Harrington.From diuers essayes of their Poetrie; some extant among other Honourable personages writings; some from priuate labours and translations." 109.149.30.22 ( talk) 00:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs of this article basically attack the notion of alternative Shakespeare authorship theories, even going so far as to imply that it is a "conspiracy theory." Is that how the article should begin? Does that adhere to NPOV? I don't have a strong opinion on the matter of Shakepearean authorship one way or the other, but I feel like the article as currently written - at least the introduction - is intended to guide the reader to the conclusion that this theory is false. 108.254.160.23 ( talk) 23:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
WRONG! WRONG! The Authorship controversy is one of those controversies that arise in humanity science (e.g. linguistics, literature) where the conventional view is to deprecate the fringe view much MUCH more than it deserves. By a "majority rule" process, the so-called fringeists are relegated to a "debunked already" status. This is fine when the fringe idea really has been debunked but, as I say, some of the debunkings in some social sciences are far too aggressive. INDEED anyone who doesn't recognize that there are strong cases FOR Oxford and AGAINST Shakspere simply hasn't read objectively.
When skeptics of alternative authorship are questioned on the detailed issues, most of them refer -- just as the mumbo-jumbo words in article's intro do -- to "majority scholarly opinion", unwilling to weigh in on any (except the most trivial) of the damning circumstantial evidence.
Anyway, far be it from me to try to Edit Wikipedia. I just came hoping for a helpful soul who will answer
"Which of the past versions of the Main Page (Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship) is more objective and avoids the snotty dismissal of Oxfordianism?"
Because Frankly, after that poorly written and dismissive intro I didn't bother to even skim the page. Jamesdowallen ( talk) 15:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Exactly the sort of response I'd expect from a typical "debunker" ... whose only stock in trade is to repeat conventional wisdom.
There are certainly scholarly books which take a skeptical view of the Stratfordian authorship and provide much evidence; since you're so erudite why don't *you* cite them? Why would *I* waste my time in an edit battle with an entrenched anal-retentive camp already in place?00:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdowallen ( talk • contribs)
We read in the article's introductory that,
Reference 5 cites pages 164-165, the final two pages of the Frank W. Wadsworth (1958, University of California Press) book, The Poacher From Stratford: A Partial Account of the Controversy Over the Authorship of Shakespeare' Plays. On a reading of those pages, I dispute that they amount to more than a bald unsupported claim that, as Wadsworth writes, until contradictory factual evidence is unearthed, there appears no valid reason to doubt that the official records, the evidence of title pages, the testimony of self-described friends and fellow writers, mean what they appear to say--that William Shakespeare of Stratford was the author of the wonderful works that bear his name. (p. 164)
That was written before the work of Noemi Magri and Richard Paul Roe was published--providing ample documented evidence that people, places and events mentioned in certain of the plays and poems reveal a knowledge of Italy's history, geography social customs and laws which cannot be credibly thought--let alone shown--to have been possible for the Stratford Shaksper to have come to know. These details reveal a direct and personal acquaintance which cannot be explained other than through a presence in Italy. Thus, we have today the "contrary factual evidence" which, by Wadsworth's own admission, places his bare assertion on untenable grounds.
Q 1) How, then, does the citation of his work still validly apply here, in 2017?
Q 2) Have any of the editors of this page actually read either Magri [1] (Magri, Noemi. Such Fruits Out of Italy: The Italian Renaissance in Shakespeare's Plays and Poems. Buchholz, Germany, Laugwitz Verlag (2014)) or Roe [2] (Roe, Richard Paul. The Shakespeare Guide to Italy: Retracing the Bard's Unknown Travels. New York, HarperCollins Publishers, 2011. ISBN 978-0-06-207426-3) ?
Proximity1 ( talk) 15:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please could you change the sentence saying that there is 'no evidence' to saying that there is 'only circumstantial evidence' You have listed 'circumstantial evidence in the article, so it is plainly inaccurate to insist that none exists. 109.149.30.22 ( talk) 00:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
This is incorrect. The source cited by the "No evidence" bit is inaccurate. It says that there is no proof that Oxford was the son of Queen Elizabeth I. It does not say there is no evidence at all for the Oxfordian theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallion Cornell ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)