Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

Main Edit Finished?

There are probably some bits and pieces to be added, as well as things to be tidied up, but the main edit is finished. Comments and suggestions on any aspect are most welcome.NinaGreen (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina I've pretty much got my hands full revising the SAQ according to the comments I got from the peer review request, so any input from me will have to wait. I imagine the article will stay close to the way it is now until Nishidani gets back in February. By that time I should have the SAQ article up to FA status (if it is ever to achieve it), and then I'll be able to chime in. Thanks for all you've done; it's good to have someone work on it who has a deep background. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I'm not certain whom I'm addressing, 71.191.5.232, but you've contributed two recent edits:

This is based on the great similarities between De Vere's life and the events and ideas in the plays attributed to "Williams Shakespeare." Edward de Vere's educational background, his experience in, and knowledge of, court life, and his personal circumstances closely coincide with the qualities of a writer who could have written the "Shakespearean" works. While a majority of scholars adhere to the traditional view of Will Shakper of Stratford as the author, many other scholars reject this claim and support the De Verean view. Almost no one supports any other claimant to the works of Shakespeare. Edward de Vere is the "most popular alternative candidate" simply because the common-sense evidence is overwhelming that he was the author.

and

All of the cities Edward de Vere visited in Italy, including Venice, appear in the play the "Merchant of Venice", strong evidence that De Vere was the author of this play.

The Edward de Vere article is currently written from a neutral point of view. It chronicles the events in Oxford's life, citing sources for those events which are accepted by Wikipedia editors as reliable, but not drawing any conclusions for or against the authorship hypothesis from the events. Your two edits are a departure from those procedures, and I wonder if you would consider discussing them on this page.NinaGreen (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If Edward de Vere "is presently the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works," would someone please tell me how they decided this? Did they take a poll? Has there been scientific study? How long has he been the most popular alternative? One year? five years? 60 years? Who was the most popular alternative before De Vere? Why is De Vere currently the most popular alternative? Have people gotten bored with the other alternatives? These are questions that come to mind after reading that statement. And surely they are worthy questions. If all the cities that De Vere visited in Italy showed up in "The Merchant of Venice" it wouldn't be a violation of the "neutal point of view" rule to point out that coincidences like this give credence to the view that he wrote the play in question. While such a view may well be a "fringe" and may well be nonsense, why would it violate any rules to point this out in the context of the authorship dispute?

Was the character of Polonius modeled off of Lord Burgley in the play Hamlet? Many scholars seem to think so. William Shakespeare of Stratord didn't know Burgley, but Edward de Vere did.

Remarkable evidence here. Was the character of Julius Caesar modeled off of Julius Caesar in the play Julius Caesar? Many scholars seem to think so. William Shakespeare of Stratford didn't know Caesar, but Cicero did. Ergo, Cicero wrote Julius Caesar. john k (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This statement makes absolutely no sense at all.

What, you don't think Cicero wrote Julius Caesar? john k (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely. He would have given himself a bigger part. My money's on Mark Antony. Paul B (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The people who believe the traditional story about William Shakespeare are not interested in "neutral points of view". They are interested in destroying any effort on this page or others on Wikipedia to link Edward de Vere to the plays ostensibly written by William Shakespeare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.122.48 (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

All ythe points you make are about what should be in the Oxfordian theory article, not this one. Wikipedia's rules require that this article should present a mainstream biography. That's why we have a separate article. Paul B (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

A "mainstream biography" is perfectly capable of being wrong. If we're only able to write about what the majority thinks, then we're never going to make any progress. You don't take a poll to see if something's right. You examine the evidence and the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.126.69 (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of wikipedia is to report on the consensus of mainstream scholarship, not to try to determine ourselves what the real truth is. john k (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this question. That is when the entire group agrees. There is a large minority viewpoint on this issue, which is why that minority viewpoint can be rightly discussed in the course of the article.

There is clear consensus among accredited scholars. The Merchant of Venice is based on a short story. It's not a travelogue of Venice. It's just set there. Plays by many other Elizabethan writers were set in Italian towns. It was something of a cliche. To say that you have to travel to a town to set a play there is silly. To say that the fact that someone travelled to a town is evidence that they wrote a play set there is even sillier. Do you think the author of The Tempest must have visited a magical island? Polonius may or may not be modelled on Burghley. We have no idea, really. But Shakespeare of Stratford would almost certainly have encountered him, so there's no reason why he couldn't base a character on him. Paul B (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Merchant of Venice" is just one example of many. And EVERY city in the play was one visited by De Vere. I can't list the multitude of similarities between De Vere's life and the plays, but when you add them all up, the evidence is clear. You're dismissive of the verified parallels between De Vere's life and the plays but then you assert without any evidence that "Shakespeare of Stratford almost certainly encountered [Burghley]". Really? How do you know this? De Vere definitely knew Burghley, who was his father-in-law. We have not an iota of evidence Will Shaksper knew Burghley. I don't believe that the only people who can count in determining the authorship question are people with Ph.Ds in Shakespearean literature, or similar folks, if those are the accredited scholars you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.116.105 (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent edit, 96.231.116.105. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, so don't put it back. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 15:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

An encyclopedia should be concerned with the truth. Just because the traditional, orthodox view of the authorship question has been around longer is no reason to blindly accept it. My appeal is to all thinking, open-minded people. If we compare the evidence, direct and circumstantial, pertaining to who wrote these plays, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of Edward de Vere. For Will Shaksper of Stratford, we have virtually nothing. The arguments for his case are full of "must haves" and "would haves". It's an insult to reason and intelligence to continue to accept this ridiculous fairy of Will Shaksper as the author of these plays. No one knew him. No records existed of him for 20 years. No real proof he was ever an actor. His death was barely noticed. But the historical documents are replete with references to many lesser known authors. Edward de Vere was "Shakespeare". He wrote these great plays. You can't order me to keep the truth out of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.114.15 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The goal of the Stratfordians is to censor and bury any view opposed to their view. But two films will soon be coming out. One is a documentary on the subject and another is a drama, probably at least somewhat fictionalized, claiming that Elizabeth I was de Vere's mother. Nevertheless, both of these films will create legions of skeptics who will no longer believe the lies put forth by the Stratfordians. The floodgates will open and de Vere will be more readily accepted as the true author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.114.15 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dream on. Hollywood films are fiction. Just like Oxfordianism. Paul B (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit by 71.191.15.32 which claimed -

"Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (12 April 1550–24 June 1604) was an Elizabethan courtier, playwright, lyric poet, sportsman and patron of the arts, and author of the works traditionally attributed to "William Shakespeare," a pseudonym used by de Vere or others as a convenient way of disguising his identity. Research in recent decades by scholars and journalists have uncovered the truth of the authorship question, though a hefty majority of establishment scholars and commentators prefer the traditional story. However, Will Shaksper of Stratford was an illiterate grain dealer. No one during his lifetime identified him as a writer, and there is no documentation for large periods of his life."

Those people who think that de Vere was Shakespeare should work on the article Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship which is currently disorganized and makes a poor case, and leave this page as a straight factual biography. Poujeaux (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The "facts" are always easy to discern. Plenty is stated about William Shakespeare in the official article on him in Wikipedia that can hardly be termed factual. There is no hard evidence he ever attended grammar school. The circumstantial evidence we have combined with the paucity of hard indicates is considerably in favor of Edward de Vere as the author of these plays. The case for the traditional is essentially nonexistent. Eventually, the public and most scholars will come around to this. Years from now, people will look back at this debate and chuckle? How could we belief such rubbish for so long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.6.122 (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In the "authorship" section at the end I removed mention of "Shakespeare specialists" because the term lacks any accepted definition. It is nothing but somebody's made-up phrase. That sentence is also argumentative on the so-called "authorship question," which is inappropriate in a bio article. There is a different article for that. None of the bio articles should try to argue authorship within themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.58.209 (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If you really believe that, you should remove all mention of it. 'Shakespeare specialists' has a fairly clear meaning. Paul B (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If you really believe that, you can go ahead and define that term right now. So, go ahead and do it. Define "Shakespeare specialist" here and now. State here and now, for everyone to see, what "Shakespeare specialist" means.

You can't, of course.

And you, yourself, wrote just above, on this page, that "There is a separate page" for the authorship question, so why are you trying to argue it here, from either side? It is not appropriate here, to argue authorship. You, yourself, already wrote that on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.58.209 (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be briefly mentioned here, to link to the main page. A Shakespeare specialist is an academic who has published extensively in reliable sources on Shakespeare and is identified by academic colleagues as an expert in the area. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The material doesn't make an awful lot of sense and is very unclear in meaning - do we have a source? --Errant ^(chat!) 13:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit too condensed, I think. I'm probably too close to the material to be confused! What do you find confusing? Paul B (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what it is trying to say, but it is a little vague and disconnected. As is the sentence before, I'll try a reword. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to "dumb it down" a bit for clarity - see what you think --Errant ^(chat!) 14:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Edward de Vere article is not written "from a neutral point of view." It is written from the point of view that he almost certainly was not the author of the Shakespearean canon. If you would not give equal weight to Intelligent Design Theory in discussing evolution, I can't see why you would treat the traditional story of Will Shakeper of Stratford as the God-given truth. Were we to discover the plays for the first time in 2011, if we had to determine who the author was for the first time, the evidence points to Oxford, not Shaksper. Oxford owned property in Stratford, which easily explains the dedication in the first folio. To borrow a line some famous prosecutors, there is a "mountain of evidence" that Oxford was "Shakespeare." What we have on Shaksper's side is 400 years of tradition--that's it. So stop pretending this article is written from a "neutral point of view." It's a whitewash. It's rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.0.40 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Oxford did not own property in Stratford (he did own a house in Bilton, which he sold decades before the Swan of Avon reference). Even if he did, it would not explain anything. Why refer to the earl of Oxford by reference to an obscure town he didn't even live in? Were we to discover the plays for the first time in 2011 it is vastly unlikely that scholars would attribute them to an artistocrat who died in 1604, for all sorts of rather obvious reasons. Your analogy to Intelligent design is of course the utter reverse of the truth. Please check Wikipedia's rules. We follow what scholars say, not what anonymous individuals feel. There is simply no point in continuing to make these comments and additions to the article. You will be ignored and reverted. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Paul B (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's undoubtedly frustrating for you that you can't censor my comments in the discussion section. While you can censor the main article section, but not this section, it's not at all surprising that you see "no point in [me] continuing to make these comments..." There's clearly no point in your bothering to read them. Let others read them and take make their own judgments. If your interpretation of the authorship question is correct, you shouldn't fear a free and open discussion of the issue, even if it is here. An article with a neutral point of view on this matter would discuss why so many people believe Edward de Vere was the true author. It would not crush and bury those views. Not all scholars accept the orthodox view, as you know--not even all Ph.D.-accredited scholars in the field. The First Folio of "Shakespeare's" plays was produced and published by Edward de Vere's daughter, Susan; her husband, Philip Herbert; and Philip's brother William. This is an odd coincidence if Edward de Vere did not write these plays. He did own a manor house on Bilton Hall, on the River Avon, where he often rested. The reference to the "Sweet Song of Avon" was in 1623. Edward de Vere supposedly died in 1604. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.7.51 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't "fear" a free and open discussion, but that is not what talk pages are for. They are for suggestions regarding that article. I already said he owned a house in Bilton which he sold decades before the Swan of Avon reference. Even before that it was rented out. He never lived there. Don't you even read the replies? And what's this "supposedly died" business? Is this a new twist? Oxford was holed up with Marlowe, living on in secret? The plays were published by Shakespeare of Stratford's fellow actors, under the patronage of the pair of Herberts. There is no evidence whatever that Susan de Vere had anything to do with it at all. That's how things worked then. You got aristocrats to support your ventures. That they were related to Oxford is no big surprise. The aristocracy married within itself. They were related to a whole bunch of toffs. It's an odd coincidence that Shakespeare's fellow actors prepared the publication if he did not write the plays. Oxfordian views have a whole article to themselves, so they are certainly not buried or crushed. Paul B (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The sale of Bilton apparently occurred in 1592, just 12 years before Oxford died, and it was one of the last ancestral properties he disposed of. There is a reference to this country seat in one of his (Oxford's, not Shaksper's) sonnets. He didn't live there, but he spent plenty of time there. As to his death, there is some question as to the date of Oxford's death. This in an important area of research in Oxfordian studies. As for the publication of the plays by the Herberts, that they were related to Oxford is no surprise indeed if they were related to him. This is perfectly logical. Yes, these talk pages are for suggestions regarding this article, and my suggestion is that article pay more attention to the overwhelmingly evidence that Oxford was the real author of this works, that no person with the name "William Shakespeare" wrote these pages, and that Will Shaksper did not write these plays. The latter never spelled or pronounced the name attached to the plays as it now. The usual spelling was "William Shake-speare", hyphenated to indicate the fact that it was a pseudonym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.11.88 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No more commentary please. Wikipedia is not a forum and this talk page is not the place for background discussions, or to make vague suggestions. Rather than "pay more attention", we need to discuss specific wording in the article that is inappropriate (with an explanation), or to discuss specific wording to add (with an explanation). In all cases, explanations must rely on reliable secondary sources, not campaign websites. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I was puzzled by the statement "As to his death, there is some question as to the date..." Oxford was a member of the House of Lords and a significant landowner. He died intestate, which set off the process of his widow obtaining letters of administration and so forth. He was buried, and a parish register survives which records the burial. His son succeeded him in his peerages. Is there any serious challenge to the date of his death? Moonraker2 (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No serious challenge academically, but in the de Verean world three hypotheses coexist. (a) One that accepts the date, and develops a theory of secret custodianship of the manuscripts for the later plays which were gradually released for performance (b) another which argues there is no evidence the 'posthumous' plays are to be dated as Shakespearean scholarship dates them, to a period from 1604-1611 (c) that, like Marlowe, the report of his death is faked, and he survived until at least 1609, where the dedication to the Sonnets (ever-(living poet)=(de) Vere), is taken to suggest he may have been alive at that date. The anonymous IP correspondent is alluding to this last variation, expounded en passant, by Hank Whittemore and Alex McNeil. None of this speculative fantasy has, of course, anything to do with the facts of de Vere's life which we are recounting on this biographical page. Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I was unaware of this new twist, especially since so many Oxfordians love to argue that "ever living" really means dead! There is, I suppose, a fourth hypothesis - that late plays are not by Oxford-Shakespeare, or that incomplete "Shakespearean material" left behind by Oxford was completed by others such as Fletcher and Wilkins. Looney certainly proclaimed that The Tempest was not by Oxford. I am at a loss to understand why our apoplectic IP does not discuss this on the Oxfordian theory page, where it would be relevant. Paul B (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, quite probable, and you're right to remind us of Looney's take on the Tempest, and its possible inflections. Well, the relevant page has been indicated, and I think any editor should feel authorized to just shift that kind of contribution there if the problem recurs. By the way, the Bilton =Swan of Avon nonsense was disposed of by the late lamented Irv Matus in his Shakespeare: In Fact, around p.200 (haven't got the book at my elbow at the moment)Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Proponents of the orthodox view cannot lose the argument if they are the ones who decide what "reliable secondary sources" are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.7.79 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Some recent edits have attempted to insert text into the lead of this article to state that Oxford was the author of the works attributed to Shakespeare, and that Shakespeare was an illiterate merchant. A comment was just made on this page, and I have moved it to here, and will respond below. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What we now have on this page is full-blown censorship. First, the people who run the page semi-protect it to keep out anonymous comments. Then they block people who make comments with real user names. You can't get a word in here at all about the true background of Edward de Vere. When you present evidence that Edward de Vere was "Shakespeare", it's deleted. When you bring to light the considerable controversy about the question, that is deleted. When you mention prominent researchers and public figures who support de Vere's claim, that is deleted. It's utterly disgraceful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.8.227 (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia normally allows anyone to edit any article. Imagine how articles would look if everyone on the Internet came along and added stuff they "knew". That's why there has to be a proper reference to support assertions. See WP:V and WP:IRS. There are many great websites with lots of interesting information on a wide range of topics, but lots of those sites push unorthodox views: did man land on the moon? did a plane crash into the Pentagon? who killed JFK? Wikipedia does not attempt to "balance" an article by giving each opposing view "equal time". Instead, the principles outlined at WP:FRINGE are applied. In the case of whether Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works, editors are following the normal procedures: the views of mainstream academics are given priority, and reliable sources must verify each assertion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin note

The anonymous revert-warrior who most recently edited as 71.191.2.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (previously 71.191.7.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 71.191.11.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 71.191.1.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and other related IPs in the history of this page) is topic-banned under the rules of WP:ARBSAQ from all edits related to the SAQ and Edward de Vere, for persistent revert-warring. Any edits that are recognisably his, either on the article or talk page, may be reverted on sight, without regard to the 3RR or other restrictions. It is recommended that talk page postings from him should also not be responded to but removed immediately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, Fut, I don't know if you noticed that HJ Mitchell just semi'd the article for 3 months, pursuant to this ANI thread. So we're rid of the warrior from the article for a while. Not from this talkpage, though. It's up to editors to keep the talk useable for discussions of actual improvements to the article (as opposed to being filled with those classic whines about "censorship"). Note also that other IP's, non-topic-banned ones, can request constructive edits on this page, and any respectable editor (doesn't have to be an admin) can add them to the article, after discussion if appropriate. Bishonen | talk 12:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC).

What evidence do we have that Edward de Vere was the real author here, and what evidence do we have that Guilemus Shaksper was the real author. Well, we have little hard evidence either way, but we have mountains of evidence that Edward de Vere wrote these plays. The web is humming with activity about the upcoming movie "Anonymous". People who are interested in this question and who want good info that is not censored should look elsewhere. The Wikipedia articles on Edward de Vere and the Shakespearean Authorship question are constantly censored in the name of NPOVs, which are nothing of the sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.115.239 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I made a correction to the article about Oxfordian Theory that should be replicated here. I noticed that the reference to Oxford being the most "popular" actually used the term "strongest". Might someone make the same change here. The reference is Encyclopedia Britannica, after all. "Popular" sounds like some kind of contest. Also, I note that the section here on the authorship is woefully inadequate. If the man is notable for being the strongest/most popular/etc. candidate, then the final section needs a little filling out to justify that notability. I would suggest summarizing the Oxfordian Theory article for this section. Would that not be the proper approach? Even summarizing the first 3 paragraphs of the Oxfordian article would be better than what is there now. - Anton321