Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

Tendentious editing

• Cross-posted on User talk:NinaGreen and Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.

It's time for all of you to let go of the notion that your disagreements can be dealt with in arbitration. Arbitration is not a Supreme Court of Everything on Wikipedia; it's a rather specialised board exclusively for dealing with conflicts involving conduct. If you consider that the members of the Arbitration Committee are volunteers just like yourselves, I think you'll realise why; there is no way they would have time to deal with all the conflicts involving content, for example. Nor does the ArbCom create policy; they don't have time for that either. Please note the significant fact that most requests for Arbitration are turned down cold; either because they're requests about content, or because they're requests for policy-making, or because the conflict isn't deemed to be ripe for arbitration (which is supposed to be the last stage of dispute resolution, after all other avenues have been tried). All three turn-down reasons would come into play if any of you requested arbitration of the basic conflict on this talkpage. As I think Tom and Paul have pointed out, the best places for resolving it are outlined at the top of the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Considering how embattled the positions have become, I would suggest, amongst the wide range of possibilities, that you invite outside comment via WP:RFC. But there are plenty of other good ideas at WP:RSN.

There is in fact a conduct issue here, though hardly one that is ripe for arbitration, and that is the repetitiveness of NinaGreen's posting. Nina, you seem to be trying to wear down opposition by saying the same thing over and over. That's not a legitimate talkpage debating style; it's tendentious editing, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. By way of example, I did a search on the word "arbitration" (which as I said has no business here even once), and, from the section "Verifiability and Meaningful Peer Review"[1] alone, garnered this collection:

1. "Please refer me to the Wikipedia arbitration case which made that determination."
2. "If you want to argue with Shapiro, you can ask Wikipedia to arbitrate the issue."
3. "If you want to turn your personal opinion into Wikipedia policy, you need to take the matter to arbitration. That's the only way you can turn your own personal opinion into Wikipedia policy."
4. "If you and Tom want a determination from Wikipedia that the authorship controversy must be presented on Wikipedia as a fringe theory, you need to take the matter to arbitration to obtain a formal determination to that effect."
5. "If you and Tom wish to hold the personal view that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, you have the right to do so, but your personal view is not Wikipedia policy, and you cannot turn your personal view into Wikipedia policy without taking the matter to arbitration."
6. "You and Tom are entitled to hold the view that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, but you can't turn your personal views into Wikipedia policy without taking the matter to arbitration."
7. "Tom and Paul, it's you who are making the assertion that Wikipedia must treat the authorship controversy as a fringe theory, not me. It's therefore your obligation to take it to arbitration if you want to make it Wikipedia policy. You've been making the assertion that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory everywhere on Wikipedia where you could find a forum, but so far it's merely your own personal opinion, albeit repeated endlessly [sic]. If you want to make it Wikipedia policy, take it to arbitration. If you were as sure of the outcome as you've claimed to be in every one of the countless assertions [sic] you've made, you'd be off to arbitration in a flash."
8. "I'm interested in knowing how you would explain to a Wikipedia arbitration board that in your view its only a 'proposition' that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare canon."
9. "No-one goes to arbitration when the status quo is in their favour." (What... ? Nina, have you even looked at the page for requesting arbitration ? Here it is.)
10. "The only way to make it Wikipedia policy is for you and Paul and Nishidani to take it to arbitration and obtain a ruling."
11. "And you and Paul and Nishidani are not following Wikipedia rules if you are merely 'deeming' something to be so, and then claiming that what you 'deem' to be so is now Wikipedia policy, and everyone else must abide by what you have 'deemed' to be so. There is a process on Wikipedia by which what you 'deem' to be so can be turned into Wikipedia policy. It's called arbitration."

To address claim number 11; no, it's not called arbitration, and there are no "Wikipedia rules" that have any relevance to the personal attacks and the wikilawyering quoted above. Nina, you are making up these notions of Wikipedia policy out of whole cloth. I realise you're a new user, but please make a start on reading the basic policies in good faith, and on listening to more experienced colleagues. Eleven out of the eleven comments above are in error, and haughty and sarcastic with it. The sheer repetition is what troubles me the most. Please read WP:Gaming the system. The nutshell version goes like this:

"Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden"

Don't do that. Don't play the IDIDNTHEARTHAT game. Only post on this talkpage when you have something to say that is not a copy of what you've said before, in either wording or substance. If I don't see any improvement in this respect, I'm sorry to say you may eventually face a block.

Tom, I see you discussing arbitrating the conflict also: "She won't start an arbitration because she knows what will happen". (BTW the "she" is rather rude, IMO.) No, I don't think Nina does know that, or even that you do, and I'm trying to explain it as gently as possible to you both. Nothing very alarming would happen; it would merely be useless, and a waste of time and energy, as the case would be briskly ruled unsuitable for arbitration. We all need to aim for not wasting time, our own or other people's. Nina, please reconsider your bad-faith debating style. The other editors are obviously hoping for you to change your approach and become an asset to the article. So am I, as you have a lot of valuable expertise. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC). P.S. On the principle of not wasting time, I won't be re-posting or rewording any of the above unless I see good reason to.

Bishonen, you wrote:

It's time for all of you to let go of the notion that your disagreements can be dealt with in arbitration.

Fine. Let's say you're right. You then wrote:

As I think Tom and Paul have pointed out, the best places for resolving it are outlined at the top of the Reliable Sources noticeboard.

I disagree, for two reasons. Firstly, the identical arguments which have been made on this Discussion page are merely moved over to the RS Noticeboard and repeated there by the same people, and because I'm vastly outnumbered there, just as I am here, the result appears to be a 'vote' in favour of the other side (and Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that Wikipedia policy is not determined by votes). Moving this point over to the RS Noticeboard is thus merely a way of squashing my argument. Secondly, the topic is not suitable for the RS Noticeboard because the real issue is NOT about reliable sources. It has taken me a while to realize it because I'm new to Wikipedia editing, and because I haven't paid attention to the Wikipedia article on the Shakespeare authorship controversy, but the real issue is that David Kathman's 2003 view that the authorship issue is a fringe theory has been set in stone in the Shakespeare authorship controversy article, and that affects every other Wikipedia article which is related in any way to the Shakespeare authorship controversy and restricts the sources which can be used for every other such Wikipedia article. As I say, it's taken me a while to realize that this is what is at the heart of the problem. David Kathman does not work in the academic community, and his 2003 comments are getting close to a decade old. Things have changed dramatically in the academic community in the past few years, particularly with James Shapiro's Contested Will and Shapiro's LA Times article stating that the authorship controversy has gone mainstream. And things have not just changed in the academic community. Consider the comments about Sir Derek Jacobi's position on the Shakespeare authorship controversy in this review in the Telegraph of the new production of King Lear:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/8196501/Sir-Derek-Jacobi-Bard-to-the-bone.html. And consider the forthcoming film on the authorship controversy by Roland Emmerich. Wikipedia reflects the state of knowledge in the world as it is, not the state of knowledge as it was almost a decade ago. In light of Shapiro, Emmerich, Jacobi et al, it's obviously necessary to revisit the idea that the Shakespeare authorship controversy is a fringe theory, and to consider whether it is not instead a minority view.

You also wrote:

There is in fact a conduct issue here, though hardly one that is ripe for arbitration, and that is the repetitiveness of NinaGreen's posting. Nina, you seem to be trying to wear down opposition by saying the same thing over and over.

Again, I disagree. It is only because I have persisted in trying to understand and apply the relevant Wikipedia policies that we have gotten to the point of realizing that the issue is not about whether one specific source is a reliable source which can be cited in the Edward de Vere article, but about an out-of-date determination in the Shakespeare authorship controversy article that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory rather than a minority view, an out-of-date determination which affects the content and sourcing of every other related Wikipedia article.

I'm open to suggestions, but it seems to me that perhaps the discussion of the fringe theory topic needs to be moved off this page and onto the Shakespeare authorship controversy page.NinaGreen (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the place for that conversation would be the WP:FRINGE/N page. The source quoted (Kathman) is as WP:RS as you can get, and I think you forget that Wikipedia is supposed to mirror the academy. And why you think arbitration would give you a better result than a policy noticeboard such as WP:RS/N, I have no idea. The same people (admins) comment on the same boards. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, if Wikipedia is supposed to 'mirror the academy', why is David Kathman, whose career for years has been as a stock analyst for Morningstar, being quoted on Wikipedia to represent the views of the academy? And why are you bringing up arbitration yet again, when in my last posting I agreed with Bishonen that arbitration wasn't the answer? Did you not read what I said?NinaGreen (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh... ? You're misreading my post grossly. Are you doing it in good faith? I hope so, but it's frankly beginning to look remote. Did I say "the best place for resolving this is the Reliable Sources noticeboard"? No. Did I say "the best places for resolving it are outlined at the top of the Reliable Sources noticeboard" ? Why, yes, I did! You even quote me saying it. And here's the passage in question, look:

"The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Identifying reliable sources. The policy that most directly relates is: Verifiability. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page. If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. If your question is about undue weight, or other neutral point of view issues please use the NPOV noticeboard."

You ignore virtually everything I say, including my (surely very visible) eleven-fold quote of your variations on a single (mistaken) accusation. Please understand that I can and will block you, or ban you from this page, if you persist in posting while refusing to listen to anybody else. I have already warned you about wikilawyering and gaming the system. I hope you took the trouble to click on those links. Please listen to the experienced users on this page, instead of going into lawyering mode every time anybody addresses you. A drop of humility would save you from a peck of notions like the one you offer above: that you have a right not to be outnumbered because Wikipedia is not a democracy... Bishonen | talk 00:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

I'm shocked at your statement about blocking me on the ground that I'm not listening to what you say. I have read carefully what you've said in both your postings above. But as I stated very clearly in my last posting, what you have said does not concern the issue, and we are obviously unfortunately talking past each other in some way which I can't quite understand. The issue is NOT reliable sources, so I don't understand why you keep referring me to the RS noticeboard page, which is all about reliable sources. The issue is David Kathman's 2003 statement on the Shakespeare authorship controversy page on Wikipedia that the Shakespeare authorship controversy is a 'fringe theory'. David Kathman is a stock analyst. He does not teach at a university, and his statement is completely out of date in light of McCrae's and Shapiro's books, Sir Derek Jacobi's views, the graduate program in Shakespeare authorship studies at Brunel University, the academics who have PhDs who are on the Board of Brief Chronicles and teach at universities, Roland Emmerich's upcoming film, etc. etc. and even the fact that Paul Barlow said he taught the authorship controversy when he taught Shakespeare. Kathman's statement needs to be deleted from the Shakespeare authorship controversy page, and updated with something which more accurately reflects the current reality. Surely we can agree on that.NinaGreen (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, the film is a work of fiction, for crying out loud. You may as well say that Shakespeare in Love is evidence that Will made up the plot of Romeo and Juliet as he went along. The very fact that you refer to fiction as evidence shows how far off reality your argument is. McCrae's and Shapiro's books both clearly identify SAQ as fringe theory, even though they don't use that expression, not being concerned with Wikipedia terminology. Derek Jacobi is an actor. The fact that he has played Shakespeare characters does not give him any special insight into authorship issues, anymore that the fact that he played Brother Cadfael make him an expert on medieval herbal medicines. As for Kathman, his status as a reliable source derives from his chapter in the book edited by Stanley Wells and Lena Orlin for Oxford University Press. I get the impression that you think that the term "fringe theory" means something similar to "obscure theory". It doesn't. Fringe theories may be very well known and discussed as cultural/historical phenomena. You never seem to get this point. I referred earlier to the Blood libel. This is a well known 'theory' that is discussed in many books and university courses. But the theory itself is fringe in wikipedia's sense. Being discused in universities does not make a theory non-fringe. What matters is how it is discussed. Paul B (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

David Kathman's degree is in linguistics, and he makes his living as a stock analyst with Morningstar. If someone is going to be cited as representing the views of the academic community on the Wikipedia Shakespeare authorship controversy page, it should be someone with a degree in the subject area who works in the academic community. That is so obvious it should go without saying. James Shapiro comes to mind.NinaGreen (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

His article is considered to by WP:RS because it is published by a quality academic press in a book edited by one of the world's foremost experts on Shakespeare. It can therefore be used in any relevant article, as it has clearly passed a full and proper peer review by experts in the field. According to WP:fringe non-RS sources can be used to explain and describe the fringe theory in question. So Ogburn, for example can be quoted to describe the beliefs of Oxfordians. WP:PARITY states that non-RS (peer reviewed) sources may be used to counter fringe claims in article dedicated to them, which could allow the Kathman/Ross website, but only for some articles. I realise that all this bureaucratic jargon is confusing, but if you can negotiate your way through Elizabethan records, wikipedia policy pages should be a doddle. Paul B (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dave Kathman is considered an expert on the SAQ, as testified not only by the Oxford Shakespeare entry authored by him, but by his upcoming articles in Bruce Smith's Cambridge Encyclopedia of Shakespeare and Patricia Parker's Shakespeare Encyclopedia. (He is also considered an expert on boy actors and early Elizabethan playing companies.)

Shapiro is quoted 58 times on the SAQ page, so he's not being ignored. At no time has he said that the SAQ is not a fringe theory or that it is a minority view, nor does he do so in his book or in subsequent interviews. I have several other sources specifically stating that the SAQ is a fringe theory, and in fact I have several academics sources that say it is a manifestation of a mental illness and in terms that are nothing kind, and these aren't old sources, either. They are quite a bit harsher than the sources now used, but I am loath to use such statements.

A fringe theory is one that deviates significantly from the mainstream view and that has very few adherents. Judging by the most generous standards, every anti-Stratfordian in the world could meet in a medium-sized football stadium with plenty of room to spare. Another point is that you don't have academics vandalising Wikipedia by inserting nonsense into the authorship articles the way the same IP vandal does in this and the SAQ article. The man is a respected professional in his field and should know better than to indulge in such childish hijinks, but for some reason extreme beliefs lead people to do stupid things in the name of "justice" and "fairness" for the True Author.

As far as I'm concerned, this topic has worn out its welcome on this talk page. If you want an "official" determination of whether anti-Stratfordism is a fringe theory, use the dispute resolution mechanism on the WP:Fringe theories noticeboard page. You could find many statements to that fact on Wikipedia; the consensus doesn't change with the weather or with the release of every new book on the topic. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, it has nothing to do with "justice" and "fairness" for the True Author. It has to do with the Wikipedia policy of neutrality. David Kathman has for more than a decade been THE foremost opponent of the hypothesis that Shakespeare of Stratford did not write the plays. The Wikipedia policy of neutrality is violated by having someone as openly partisan as David Kathman frame the entire Wikipedia discussion by citing him on the SAQ page as THE SOLE authority for terming it a 'fringe theory', a determination which affects everything which can be said on Wikipedia on the topic, and every source which can be cited. Your defense of David Kathman is understandable, since you are associated with him on his website, which of course makes you partisan in this discussion of whether David Kathman should be allowed to frame the entire debate on Wikipedia. In line with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, you should recuse yourself from discussion of this topic since you obviously have a vested personal interest in maintaining David Kathman as THE authority on the 'fringe theory' issue because of your personal association with him.NinaGreen (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop your offensive nonsense. It is not I who arbitrates whether Dave Kathman is an expert on the SAQ; it is Stanley Wells (I assume you know who he is) and Lena Cowen Orlin, Shakespeare scholar and former Executive Director of the Folger Institute and Executive Director of the Shakespeare Association of America, who edited Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide, published by the Oxford University Press; it is Shakespeare scholar and former president of the Shakespeare Association of America Bruce Smith, who edited the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Shakespeare, which will be published by the Cambridge University Press; and it is Shakespeare critic and scholar Patricia Parker, who edited the five-volume Shakespeare Encyclopedia: Life, Works, World, and Legacy, which will be published by Greenwood Press.

According to your ridiculous ad hoc standard, all these people should voice no opinion on whether the SAQ is a fringe theory because of their association with Dave Kathman. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that Stanley Wells is so desperate to find a Strat authorship authority that he had to go to a Chicago stock broker with no expertise in the field and who uses a clog in a minor Texas law enforcement agency as his primary public spokesman. By the way since Wells endorses Kathman and Kathman refuses to repudiate lunatic Stratman Donald Foster(se article here on Donald Foster) does that in your opinion serve to rehabilitate Foster as a valid forensic source.

So far as Wells is concerned, I remember attending the Stratford authorship trial in London with John Heath Stubbs and John breaking out iin laughter during Stanley testimony. "Poor Stanley," he explained afterwards, "it must be hard on him being married to a woman who can invent horror stories so much better than he does."Charles Darnay (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I must remind you that this is not a newsgroup and that insulting remarks about living people are not looked upon kindly at Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. He used Kathman because Kathman has established his expertise. Most "Strats" are interested in researching Shakespeare, not fringe Victorian ideologies, so they would rather read literature of their period than Delia Bacon or your own dyer preferences. If empty insult is all that you can offer, we may as well shut down this increasingly silly discussion now. But at least you didn't mention the sex trade this time. Paul B (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, it is not 'offensive nonsense' in the slightest. We are not talking about reliable sources here. The issue is neutrality, one of the pillars of Wikipedia. If the Wikipedia policy of neutrality is to be upheld, the entire debate on an issue cannot be framed by an extreme partisan (David Kathman) who is neither a member of the academy in question nor trained in that field of specialization, and who has been actively proselytizing in a partisan manner on the internet and in every other venue available to him for more than a decade. Yet that is what has happened in the SAQ article by allowing David Kathman's 2003 statement that the Shakespeare authorship controversy is a 'fringe theory' to shape the entire debate, including what sources can be cited in the SAQ article and in every other related Wikipedia article. I can't think that everyone involved in editing the SAQ article has been blind to the fact that that is what has happened, and that I'm the first person to ever realize what has taken place there, in violation of the Wikipedia policy of neutrality.

The issue of whether you should recuse yourself from the discussion is an entirely separate one. As a partisan who is actively involved with David Kathman on his website, you can't suddenly don the mantle of an impartial and neutral Wikipedia editor on the topic of the citation of David Kathman's 2003 statement in the SAQ article that the Shakespeare authorship controversy is a so-called 'fringe theory'. In fact something you said suggests that in fact you may be the Wikipedia editor responsible for the citation.

Your argument about Stanley Wells and the other individuals associated with David Kathman is a red herring. They are not trying to don the mantle of impartial and neutral Wikipedia editors on the subject of citing Kathman in the Wikipedia SAQ article. You are.NinaGreen (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Further evidence that the SAQ is a minority view rather than a fringe theory is found in a 2007 New York Times survey. 17% of Shakespeare professors surveyed thought that there was either "good reason," or "possibly good reason," for doubt. Moreover 72% of professors said they address the authorship question in their classes. This is evidence from the academy that we are dealing with a minority view, not a fringe theory. See the survey at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/education/shakespeare.html?_r=1 NinaGreen (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, please see WP:TALKNO, especially the last sentence in that section, before you make another repetitious post. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, my posting above is not at all repetitious. The New York Times survey is highly relevant to the topic under discussion, and has not been mentioned before.

The statement you referred me to reads:

Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article.

I am not using the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. My comments are directed solely towards improving the article. At the moment the Edward de Vere article is highly restricted in terms of sources which can be cited because of the violation of Wikipedia's policy of neutrality mentioned above, whereby solely on the basis of a 2003 statement from David Kathman, who is highly partisan, the Shakespeare authorship controversy has been declared a 'fringe theory'. Removing David Kathman's statement from the SAQ article would restore the neutrality which is Wikipedia's policy, thereby improving this and all other Wikipedia articles which have any bearing on the SAQ by allowing the authorship controversy to be treated as a minority view, which the New York Times survey of Shakespeare professors who are actually involved in teaching the subject clearly shows it is. It is astonishing to me that rather than accept the results of the New York Times survey, you choose to try to use it as an example of 'repetitiousness' to get me banned from Wikipedia. It is obviously difficult for you to be neutral on this topic, and Wikipedia demands neutrality from its editors. You should recuse yourself.NinaGreen (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I must remind you that this is not a newsgroup and that insulting remarks about living people are not looked upon kindly at Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But perhaps that was only just over the edge? I don't see a problem with calling someone "partisan", which doesn't draw any blood, but perhaps the "highly" and "extreme" could be left out without the meaning suffering. Always better to understate... Moonraker2 (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that my comment above was copied and pasted here by Charles Darnay. It was made in response to his remarks about Don Foster. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)(Domald Foster's malfeasances have nothing to do with this.CD.

Anti-Stratfordian John Heath Stubbs for fifty years was universally held to be one of the most distinguished men of letters on the Cambridge Oxford circuit.He wasn't being insulting he was, quite accurately, assessing Stanley's wretched performance and regretting that he was too unintelligent to learn anythiing from his wife Susan whose "Woman in Black" was playing the West End.

Lots of people would like to have invited Susan to their gatherings but when it meant listening to Stanley blathering on about Shakespeare they preferred not.I am praising the perspicasity of John Heath Stubbs in hopes that Stanley is not too old to benefits constructively from his observations.

As Heath Stubbs paraphrasing Yeats would say,"A politician is a man who learns his lies by rote,And then he buys some journalist to stuff them down your throat."Charles Darnay (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. He used Kathman because Kathman has established his expertise. Most "Strats" are interested in researching Shakespeare, not fringe Victorian ideologies, so they would rather read literature of their period than Delia Bacon or your own dyer preferences. If empty insult is all that you can offer, we may as well shut down this increasingly silly discussion now. But at least you didn't mention the sex trade this time. Paul B (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul,can't you get anything straight? The last time you were arguing that Dave established his authority through being hired by Stanley(Wells that is,not Laural) who got his authority through being hired on as gun by the Stratford something or other.

Ok, so you want to brag that if Derbyites John Heath Stubbs,Andre Gide and Ernst Curtius walked into a gathering at the British Shakespeare Association the attendees would be so so culturally illiterate of twentieth century literature as to continue visiting with Dave and Stanley at the other end of the room.

If they only wished to converse about Elizabethan boy actors on the other hand,I agree that none of the above Titans would have added much,if anything, to the discussion.

Dyer? You ought to be very interested as Alden Brooks wrote the meanest things in the twentieth century about Edward de Vere until Alan decided to imitate him and resuscitate the Arundel libels which no other historian writing since the seventeenth century(at least known to me) has taken seriously.

Still I agree that, like Shakespeare Authorship,the belief in the veracity of Charles Arundel is a minority view held by two well versed scholars, though defended through sheer perversity, by the other individuals endorsing it on this blog.

"Skin trade"? Paul,I did you and Tom a favor.Strats have made exactly two direct manuscript discoveries in over a hundred

years both link Will to the pandering trade.You guys are so far back on your Shakespeare biographical data that you didn't know one of them existed.And this is the thanks you give.Charles Darnay (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't you get anything straight? 'Dave' derives his authority as a source for wikipedia because he appears in Wells' book. He derives his authority for Wells (the person who has the capacity to judge such matters in the outside world) on the basis of his expertise. One answer referred to Wikpedia protocol, the other referred to judgements made by accredited experts about other experts in their field. It is the rule on Wikpedia that we as editors cannot determine expertise on the basis of our own personal judgement, but should do so according rules defined in policies laid out in WP:RS. The two discoveries that "link Will to the pandering trade" do not do so. You misrepresented Hotson, who says nothing whatever about 'the pandering trade'. The other shows that he knew someone who was linked to it (or more probably in it). Well so what? How is this even relevant to authorship issues? Do you have any idea what the theatre world was like at that time? Have you read anything about the lives of Jonson, Greene, Marlowe etc etc. Greene lived with a prostitute. Jonson was a convicted felon; Marlowe was up to anything and everything. And what about other genteel poets and playwrights? Barnabe Barnes was convicted of attempted murder. John Day murdered fellow playwright Henry Porter. It would be astonishing if Shakespeare did not know someone who was involved in the sex business, especially since the theatres were actually in the red-light area. You still give no explanation of why this is relevant. Your comments about mid-20th century Derbyites are utterly unintelligable. I'm sure Shakespeare scholars are as interested in 20th century writing as anyone else who likes literature, but professionally, I can't imagine that they would derive much benefit from such people, though it's possible that Andre Gide might have some useful practical experience of boy actors. The only SAQ writer who has genuinely contributed in any serious way to Shakespeare scholarship is Lefranc. Paul B (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't you get anything straight,Paul? You undoubtedly came over here with this balderdash in hopes that your readers(if any) won't know what was originally said on the other thread at Shakespeare Authorship discussion:subhead Wilkins.The discussion was supposed to be about how a manuscript containing Shakespeare matteer came to be adulterated by a third rate hack named Wilkins who was never to appear in an authorial capaciity again.

Two documents were cited,as a preliminary thereto.The second document was discovered by a man(previously unknown to you and Reedy) called Hotson who incorporated it into a book(equally unknown to you and Reedy).It is that document which is pertinent-- not Hotson's(whom you,as late as yesterday believed to be somebody named Hodson) failure to incorporate any coherent interpretation of said document in his book(which Reedy may still believe to be a pamphlet.

As to your further misconceptions about available source material I'll try to reply to them where they belong.I mean the Wilkins section,not the sand box.

"I'm sure Shakespeare scholars are as interested in 20th century writing as anyone else who likes literature, but professionally, I can't imagine that they would derive much benefit from such people," Such people! Paul,do you actually know who Ernst Robert Curtius is? It is one thing not to know Leslie Hotson but not to know Curtius shows an equal ignorance of expertise in Modern,Renaissance and Medieval Literature.Try googling "Curtius James Joyce" or "Curtius,Literature and the Latin Middle Ages".The latter was,may still be,a standard Columbia graduate text for many generations.Too bad that Shapiro was too dellinquent in his studies to consult it.

I know Sussex isn't in the same league as the Ox-Cam circuit but this is unbelievable. Though I agree that Dave and Stanley's style expertise would render them impervious to whatever Curtius will continue to offer.:::Now let's get back on topic,the life of Oxford(which seeing that Nina trounced you guys,you are understandably reluctant to do}. No one except Alden Brooks of Harvard and copycat Alan Nelson(Berkeley,1967)is known to have believed the Arundel charges in the past four hundred years.This definitely meets the Wikipedia definition of Fringe theory.In so far as they seek to relate themselves to the life of Edward de Vere they are fringe theorists,by definition on this blog (whether or not this is a desirable definition you claiim to be outside the purview oof mortal man). Further,as you have had your free daily lessons in remediable Shakespeare 0002,remediable World Literature 0001, and Edward de Vere 0000,I trust that you may eventually come to understand why you are not qualified to describe yourself as mainstream.Charles Darnay (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation of Articles in Online DNB

I cited as a source yesterday an article in the online edition of The Dictionary of National Biography. Alan Nelson's DNB article has also been cited as a source by another editor. The online edition is only available to subscribers. I'm wondering whether this has been considered before. Should there be a link to the DNB homepage where people can subscribe if they wish? Most of the articles in the old hardcopy DNB have been revised for the online edition, as I understand it, and there are many entirely new articles in the online edition, so it's often not possible to cite the old hardcopy DNB for certain things. Comments, anyone?NinaGreen (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL, I think that helps. Keep the citation as accurate as possible, even if it is behind the paywall, links to home pages are a pain in the proverbial. NtheP (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do always supply the link that directly goes to the article, homepage only tends not to be accepted by WP reviewers at GA or FA. Tom can advise you how to use some web citation template, or you can simply add "(subscription required)". Please note also that there is a huge difference between the 1890s Dictionary of National Biography and the ODNB which you are referring to here. Although WP has copied thousands of PD articles from the old one it is hopelessly outdated on at lest the major 16th century figures. Buchraeumer (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I added the link to the template, as well as the access date. Just like academic sources, the site can be accessed free at most university libraries. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For me, Buchraeumer, the greatest difference between the DNB and the ODNB is that the DNB is a work of superb old-fashioned scholarship, while of course lacking the benefit of several generations of research, whereas the ODNB is good in parts. Some ODNB contributors are terribly hit or miss in their approach, getting things wrong for no good reason or else converting some small grain of possibility into a statement of fact. I take a modest smack at it in the early life of Adam Houghton, but my scepticism does not prevent me from citing it when I have no reason to doubt it. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am afraid I missed my real point here. It was that we at Wikipedia must really always differentiate between the DNB and the new OxfordDNB, so as not to confuse them. Just because we have so many of the old articles. -- Of course some of the new entries even today lack a hundred years of research, but that doesn't make the old black-legend-inspired character assassinations or the old hagiographies any better. Buchraeumer (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, of course, there were some sad hagiographies. We are certainly better off without the Victorian suppression of parts of the truth, not to mention the skirts on the piano legs. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Tom for fixing up the ODNB citation, and to Buchraeumer for pointing out my slip. I'm a subscriber to the online ODNB, and I need to stop referring to it as the DNB. Habit dies hard. :-)NinaGreen (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, if you mean you pay a subscription, you can get into the ODNB online using the number on almost any UK public library card. Here's what mine supplies. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonraker. Yes, I do subscribe. It's expensive, but I find that for the time being at least it's worth it just to be able to look things up at home when I'm transcribing documents for my website.NinaGreen (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Final Section

I added Oxford's verses back into the final section, which I've retitled Reputation. I don't know whether the verses had somehow dropped out, or whether an editor took them out. They look a bit odd, and perhaps they can be fixed up. If not, I don't mind if they're eliminated, although I like them there because Puttenham actually quoted them.

I was thinking of dealing in the Reputation section with two other aspects of Oxford's reputation, i.e. character and financial. I haven't had time to do that yet. Comments, anyone? NinaGreen (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The more material we have to work with the better and more comprehensive the article will be in its final form. It's no trick at all to cut and summarise as long as the material is there to do it with, IMO. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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.