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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The reference used to support the idea that there is no evidence to support the Oxfordian cites James Shapiro's "Contested Will," page 7. While the "no evidence" position is certainly representative of Shapiro's personal opinion, no such statement appears on that page. The closest that page comes is to say "there is no proof that Edward de Vere was the son of Elizabeth I," which is a different argument. Shapiro also quotes a historian to say "I don't find the evidence to be complete enough - yet - to topple the man from Stratford from his literary pedestal." This is nothing like an objective determination that there is no evidence.
In any case, to cite Shapiro's opinion as an objective fact is not representative of a NPOV, especially since evidence for the theory is subsequently cited in the article.
In addition, citing Shapiro to assert that Oxfordians repeatedly argue that a lack of evidence is proof of the conspiracy's success is simply Shapiro's anecdotal assertion and cannot be sustained by any citations of Oxfordians actually doing what Shapiro describes.
I edited the two sentences to conform more closely to the refs, and supplied another ref. Shapiro doesn't say that there is circumstantial evidence for Oxford; he says that Oxfordians claim there is circumstantial evidence (which upon examination proves in most cases to be interpretation and a loose definition of the term). Regarding the second sentence, the statement is inferred from what Shapiro says on that page, which is WP:SYN so I removed it until someone provides a WP:RS.
On another note, I think you might have a misconception about what a neutral POV is for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is biased toward the academic consensus and has a somewhat broader interpretation of "fringe" than how most people think about it. That bias is evident in its requirements for acceptable sources, which tends to cause some people to believe that the articles are not fair representations of the topics. For example, I wish we could use Ogburn and Looney as major sources for this particular article, but since the majority of what they wrote hasn't been responded to in reliable sources, we cannot.
On still another note, I must say that you seem to believe that you were blocked because of the content of your edits. You were blocked because you violated Wikipedia policy by edit warring and reverting more than three times in 24 hours. In any case, it is a short block and if you familiarize yourself with the policies and edit in good faith you should be able to avoid any future blocks. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I suggest that, as it stands, the meaning can be understood, but to begin a paragraph with the words "another is finding" is too awkward.
Specialists in Elizabethan literary history[who?] object to the methodology of Oxfordian arguments. In lieu of any evidence of the type commonly used for authorship attribution, Oxfordians discard the methods used by historians and employ other types of arguments to make their case, the most common being supposed parallels between Oxford's life and Shakespeare's works.
Another is finding cryptic allusions to Oxford's supposed play writing in other literary works of the era that to them suggest that his authorship was obvious to those "in the know".
That could be said more smoothly. Just make it one paragraph. There's no need for a new paragraph.
Specialists in Elizabethan literary history[who?] object to the methodology of Oxfordian arguments. In lieu of any evidence of the type commonly used for authorship attribution, Oxfordians discard the methods used by historians and employ other types of arguments to make their case, the most common being supposed parallels between Oxford's life and Shakespeare's works. Oxfordians also attempt to connect Oxford to the works by cryptic allusions to Oxford's supposed play writing in other literary works of the era that to them suggest that his authorship was obvious to those "in the know".
Cdg1072 (
talk) 14:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1. Under section: "Family connections", is an illustration whose caption reads, "Shakespeare's First Folio was dedicated to Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke and his brother William Herbert. Philip Herbert was married to Oxford's daughter, Susan de Vere."
So, Philip was married to Susan.
Yet, the accompanying text contradicts this: "and the First Folio of Shakespeare's plays was dedicated to Montgomery (who married Susan de Vere) and Pembroke (who was once engaged to Bridget de Vere)."
Here, the Earl of Montgomery (not Philip, Earl of Pembroke) was married to Susan.
Please correct whichever one is incorrect.
2. The first sentence of that (above) paragraph makes no sense: "The three dedicatees of Shakespeare's works (the earls of Southampton, Montgomery and Pembroke) were each proposed as husbands for the three daughters of Edward de Vere."
Specifically: "proposed as husbands for the three daughters" is ambiguous wording. - Does this mean: Each of the earls 'proposed marriage' to each respective daughter, but there were no marriages that resulted? - Does this mean: Sources (unnamed) have proposed that each of these earls may have been married to these women, but there is no evidence to confirm their marriages to any of them?
If the author of this wiki page wants to state that the dedications in the books show clear 'de Vere family' connections then, please, simply delete the vague generalities, and replace it with each relevant connection.
Proposed change: "The First Folio, (published 1623) of Shakespeare's works was dedicated to (Persons name, their title), who was (married to, or engaged to) (daughter's name), Edward de Vere's (e.g., youngest) daughter. The (next book's name), (date of publication) was dedicated to (Persons name, their title), who was (married to, or engaged to) (daughter's name), de Vere's (e.g., middle) daughter. The (next book's name), (date of publication) was dedicated to (Persons name, their title), who was (married to, or engaged to) (daughter's name), de Vere's (e.g., oldest) daughter."
-- Robert 108.212.82.139 ( talk) 03:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. —
LeoFrank
Talk 05:29, 1 July 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The reference used to support the idea that there is no evidence to support the Oxfordian cites James Shapiro's "Contested Will," page 7. While the "no evidence" position is certainly representative of Shapiro's personal opinion, no such statement appears on that page. The closest that page comes is to say "there is no proof that Edward de Vere was the son of Elizabeth I," which is a different argument. Shapiro also quotes a historian to say "I don't find the evidence to be complete enough - yet - to topple the man from Stratford from his literary pedestal." This is nothing like an objective determination that there is no evidence.
In any case, to cite Shapiro's opinion as an objective fact is not representative of a NPOV, especially since evidence for the theory is subsequently cited in the article.
In addition, citing Shapiro to assert that Oxfordians repeatedly argue that a lack of evidence is proof of the conspiracy's success is simply Shapiro's anecdotal assertion and cannot be sustained by any citations of Oxfordians actually doing what Shapiro describes.
I edited the two sentences to conform more closely to the refs, and supplied another ref. Shapiro doesn't say that there is circumstantial evidence for Oxford; he says that Oxfordians claim there is circumstantial evidence (which upon examination proves in most cases to be interpretation and a loose definition of the term). Regarding the second sentence, the statement is inferred from what Shapiro says on that page, which is WP:SYN so I removed it until someone provides a WP:RS.
On another note, I think you might have a misconception about what a neutral POV is for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is biased toward the academic consensus and has a somewhat broader interpretation of "fringe" than how most people think about it. That bias is evident in its requirements for acceptable sources, which tends to cause some people to believe that the articles are not fair representations of the topics. For example, I wish we could use Ogburn and Looney as major sources for this particular article, but since the majority of what they wrote hasn't been responded to in reliable sources, we cannot.
On still another note, I must say that you seem to believe that you were blocked because of the content of your edits. You were blocked because you violated Wikipedia policy by edit warring and reverting more than three times in 24 hours. In any case, it is a short block and if you familiarize yourself with the policies and edit in good faith you should be able to avoid any future blocks. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I suggest that, as it stands, the meaning can be understood, but to begin a paragraph with the words "another is finding" is too awkward.
Specialists in Elizabethan literary history[who?] object to the methodology of Oxfordian arguments. In lieu of any evidence of the type commonly used for authorship attribution, Oxfordians discard the methods used by historians and employ other types of arguments to make their case, the most common being supposed parallels between Oxford's life and Shakespeare's works.
Another is finding cryptic allusions to Oxford's supposed play writing in other literary works of the era that to them suggest that his authorship was obvious to those "in the know".
That could be said more smoothly. Just make it one paragraph. There's no need for a new paragraph.
Specialists in Elizabethan literary history[who?] object to the methodology of Oxfordian arguments. In lieu of any evidence of the type commonly used for authorship attribution, Oxfordians discard the methods used by historians and employ other types of arguments to make their case, the most common being supposed parallels between Oxford's life and Shakespeare's works. Oxfordians also attempt to connect Oxford to the works by cryptic allusions to Oxford's supposed play writing in other literary works of the era that to them suggest that his authorship was obvious to those "in the know".
Cdg1072 (
talk) 14:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1. Under section: "Family connections", is an illustration whose caption reads, "Shakespeare's First Folio was dedicated to Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke and his brother William Herbert. Philip Herbert was married to Oxford's daughter, Susan de Vere."
So, Philip was married to Susan.
Yet, the accompanying text contradicts this: "and the First Folio of Shakespeare's plays was dedicated to Montgomery (who married Susan de Vere) and Pembroke (who was once engaged to Bridget de Vere)."
Here, the Earl of Montgomery (not Philip, Earl of Pembroke) was married to Susan.
Please correct whichever one is incorrect.
2. The first sentence of that (above) paragraph makes no sense: "The three dedicatees of Shakespeare's works (the earls of Southampton, Montgomery and Pembroke) were each proposed as husbands for the three daughters of Edward de Vere."
Specifically: "proposed as husbands for the three daughters" is ambiguous wording. - Does this mean: Each of the earls 'proposed marriage' to each respective daughter, but there were no marriages that resulted? - Does this mean: Sources (unnamed) have proposed that each of these earls may have been married to these women, but there is no evidence to confirm their marriages to any of them?
If the author of this wiki page wants to state that the dedications in the books show clear 'de Vere family' connections then, please, simply delete the vague generalities, and replace it with each relevant connection.
Proposed change: "The First Folio, (published 1623) of Shakespeare's works was dedicated to (Persons name, their title), who was (married to, or engaged to) (daughter's name), Edward de Vere's (e.g., youngest) daughter. The (next book's name), (date of publication) was dedicated to (Persons name, their title), who was (married to, or engaged to) (daughter's name), de Vere's (e.g., middle) daughter. The (next book's name), (date of publication) was dedicated to (Persons name, their title), who was (married to, or engaged to) (daughter's name), de Vere's (e.g., oldest) daughter."
-- Robert 108.212.82.139 ( talk) 03:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. —
LeoFrank
Talk 05:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)