Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

Verifiability

Paul, here are the first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia policy on verifiability:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (The New York Times, Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

I cannot see any way in which this policy supports Tom's actions in deleting the two sources I cited. I await an explanation which does not depend on your or Tom's personal interpretation, but simply focuses on applying the foregoing policy in terms of the two sources I cited and the statements in the article for which they were cited.NinaGreen (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the policy you quote contradicts what Tom said. It says reliable sources should be used. There are policies regarding reliability. One of those is quoted by Tom. So no one is avoiding discussion of verifiability policy, since it is itself dependent on reliability. In my view, Brief Chronicles and The Oxfordian do not have meningful peer review because they do not use scholars who are not sympathetic to their fringe ideology. In a mainstream publication, a scholar who believes that, say, Wilkins was a collaborator on Pericles could still legitimately review an article written by someone who argued that he was not. If Oxfordian arguments were simply minority views using normal methods of scholarship, there would be no difficulty getting them published in mainstream journals. Both differing views are arguable within scholarly norms. But Oxfordian arguments are so far outside scholarly norms that meaningful peer review is not to be found. If you disagree, we have shown you where you can get outside opinions about the relevant policies. Tom has already done so. Both sources, by the way, would be acceptable in articles about the theory, including the Oxfordian theory article itself. Paul B (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you have ignored the opening sentence of the policy:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered

Wikipedia policy states unequivocally that minority views must be covered if they appear in reliable published sources which means that a source cannot be disqualified as reliable solely because it represents a minority view. That would turn the Wikipedia policy into an absurdity. Yet that is precisely the criterion you and Tom have employed. Brief Chronicles has peer reviewers with excellent qualifications, far superior to yours and Tom's (I merely state that as a fact). The peer review process is double-blind. The journal has been indexed by the Modern Language Association and the World Shakespeare Bibliography. An article in its first issue has already been accepted for publication in a reference text next spring. It has all the qualifications of a reliable source. Yet you and Tom have personally disqualified it on the basis that its peer reviewers hold a minority view, flying directly in the face of Wikipedia's stated policy that minority views must be covered if they appear in otherwise reliable published sources. That is simply censorship, employed by you and Tom because of your personal bias against the Oxfordian hypothesis. It is not Wikipedia policy.NinaGreen (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I just read the first sentence of your reply and despaired. How can one engage in a meaningful conversation with anyone who reads the words "Nothing in the policy you quote contradicts what Tom said. It says reliable sources should be used" and then replies "Paul, you have ignored the opening sentence of the policy: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources..."? My whole reply was in response to the question of what constitutes reliable sources. You are simply ignoring it. I see no reason to believe that the board of Brief Chronicles have "far superior" qualifications to myself (I've no idea what Tom's qualifications are), but that's beside the point. We are not footnoting anything written by myself or Tom are we? If I published relevant material in a mainstream source with full peer review, then I could quote myself, but apart from a brief discussion of the Chandos portrait in a book published by MUP, I haven't. If I was put on the board of a journal devoted to ancient Greek culture, I don't think it could be counted as a reliable source. I have a PhD, but I don't speak a word of ancient Greek. The overwhelming majority of the board of Brief Chronicles seem to have no published expertise in Elizabethan/Jacobean culture. Your comment about indexing and the mysterious "reference text" has already been made. I think the former point may be relevant, but indexes are just lists. I fail to see why the latter point is relevant since it is the journal that is at issue, not an individual article. If the "reference text" is judged to be RS then the article can be quoted then. But as I say, this is properly a discussion for the RS board, not here. Any bias against Oxfordianism is not personal, it is Wikipedia policy. I assure you I am unbiassed in my biases in that regard. We are biassed against all fringe theories. Paul B (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, after I wrote that sentence I realized I didn't know what your academic qualifications are, and I sincerely apologize for the statement. However the rest of my argument stands. You and Tom have turned the Wikipedia policy on its head. It says nothing about fringe theories. It concerns minority views and reliable published sources. An otherwise reliable published source cannot be disqualified solely because it holds a minority view. The burden of proof is on you and Tom. You have not established that Brief Chronicles is not a reliable source because your sole argument flies in the face of Wikipedia's own policy. Moreover if you want to split hairs, as you've done with the Pericles argument above, then the majority view (Stone, Pearson, Nelson etc.) is that Oxford inherited almost double the income he actually did inherit and the majority view has the facts of his debt to the Court of Wards all wrong. Wikipedia policy thus mandates that the minority view, which is supported by the primary source documents, must be represented in the Edward de Vere article, which is what the two sources I cited accomplish. Tom's removal of them thus constitutes outright censorship in favour of the majority view that Oxford inherited double the income he actually did inherit.

Moreover the argument you make concerning the areas of specialization of the members of the Brief Chronicles board is totally misplaced. Accurate portrayal of Oxford's life and the authorship issue mandates a multi-disciplinary editorial board, not a highly-specialized board. Oxford's life involves literature, drama, history, music, languages, religion, foreign travel, a multitude of legal issues etc. etc. Rather than being a negative, the fact that the editorial board is multi-disciplinary is an enormous positive.205.250.205.73 (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I should add that your mention of fringe theories is totally misplaced on yet another ground. The facts of Oxford's life are not a 'fringe theory'. That's what this article is about, and that's what the two sources I cited are about -- the facts of Oxford's life.NinaGreen (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

While I was doing some further editing, I noticed that Alan, quoting Oxford's letter, mentions the two statutes entered into by Darcy and Waldegrave on p. 294, so I've cited that page for one of the disputed references we've been discussing. This seems a good place to point out that Pearson (p.35) has the information that Darcy and Waldegrave were Oxford's guarantors correct, but she has the amount of the bonds they entered into wrong. Darcy and Waldegrave entered into bonds on Oxford's behalf to the Court of Wards in the amount of £5000 apiece, and Oxford then entered into two statutes to Darcy and Waldegrave of £6000 apiece. Pearson (p.35) has Darcy and Waldegrave entering into bonds to the Court of Wards of £6000 piece, whereas it was Oxford who entered into statutes to Darcy and Waldegrave in that amount.NinaGreen (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've also cited Pearson (p.35) for the statement that Oxford got no income from the estates set aside in his father's will for payment of debts and legacies until the period set aside had expired.NinaGreen (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's pointless to repeat the same points over and over. The majority view may well be wrong, but the policy of WP:OR precludes us from 'correcting' the majority view by our own personal research unless it is published already in a "reliable source". You write "Oxford's life involves literature, drama, history, music, languages, religion, foreign travel, a multitude of legal issues etc. etc" Yes, but all these things happened in the Elizabethan period. The fact that Oxford went on travels would not mean that someone who works as a travel agent can be a meaningful peer reviewer, since such a person would have no idea what travel was like in the Elizabethan period. The fact that it involves "languages" (whatever that means) does not mean that someone who knows some languages can usefully review what he, or Shakespeare, or anyone else might have known of foreign languages in the Elizabethan period. This is surely obvious. Paul B (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, someone please pinch me and tell me that someone with a PhD didn't write what I just read about 'travel agents'.NinaGreen (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a joke, or more accurately a reductio ad absurdum of your argument. You said that "foreign travel" is significant in Oxford's career in the context of a claim that one needn't be an expert on the Elizabethan period to be a valuable peer reviewer. This implied that an expertise in "foreign travel" outside of this historical context would be relevant. I gave the example of a travel agent to point to the absurdity of this argument. As my last sentence stated: this is surely obvious. It's no different from a modern lawyer commenting on Elizabethan legal norms and procedures about which he/she may know next to nothing. Paul B (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly 'absurdum'. :-) But to the point. Would an Elizabethan literature specialist be a better peer reviewer 'commenting on Elizabethan legal norms and procedures about which he/she may know next to nothing', or a trained and practising modern lawyer? Your criterion states that the Elizabethan literature specialist would be the better peer reviewer of the two, and on that ground you claim that Brief Chronicles cannot have meaningful peer review because a member of its editorial board has legal training. If you want an example of how an Elizabethan literature specialist performs when 'commenting on Elizabethan legal norms and procedures about which he/she may know next to nothing' you need look no further than the principal source cited throughout this article. You're clearly wrong on that point. Any practising lawyer is going to have a better grasp of legal issues, Elizabethan or otherwise, and know how to check and evaluate the legal arguments in an article, than any Elizabethan literature specialist. Your reason for denying reliability to Brief Chronicles thus falls to the ground.NinaGreen (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason why a practicing lawayer would have any grasp of legal issues at the time. They may or may not, but it would require historical knowledge quite separate from the skills required in the day job. It's exactly like a modern doctor commenting om John Hall's medical practice. They could say how unscientific it is - or maybe that there were elements of valid science or effective medicine. But such a reviewer would have no useful knowledge about how typical or not his ideas were for the time, where these ideas came from, why they were believed etc etc. These are the specific historical issues that bear on the aim of the journal. The journal is not devoted to assessing Elizabethan culture in the light of modern knowledge, its about evaluating the meaning of evidence from the period. Otherwise it's pointless. Paul B (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, no specialist in Elizabethan literature would have any grasp of the legal issues of wardship, entails, recognizances etc. etc. which are a large part of Oxford's biography.NinaGreen (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well some might, incidentally. Presumably a specialist in Elizabethan legal history would have a good grasp on this material. john k (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Lord Burghley not Oxford's guardian

Tom, I don't want to get into revert wars, so I haven't deleted the statement beneath the image of Lord Burghley which states that he was Oxford's guardian, but it's inaccurate. Although Oxford lived at Cecil House, Lord Burghley was not his guardian. Oxford was the Queen's ward, and the Queen was his legal guardian until he was released from wardship when he sued his livery in 1572.NinaGreen (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina it's not a revert war to correct errors. I thought about that when I added the image and figured you'd have the right terminology. Be bold and change the cutline accordingly. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. And by the way, I like the fact that you added the image. It adds some life to the page.NinaGreen (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I also like the additions Buckraeumer made to the box at the upper right.NinaGreen (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This article needs more images to break up the monotonous stack of grey type. Nina, do you have a good picture of Anne Cecil's tomb effigy? I found one on the internet here but it is not very good. Ideally it would be a closeup of the head. With all the millions and millions of Oxfordians out there surely one of them has taken a good photograph of it. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I agree completely, and I really like the Whitehall image you added. I don't have a good picture of Anne Cecil's tomb effigy, but I'll ask if one of the millions has one. :-) There should be a good image of Anne Vavasour out there on the internet as well.NinaGreen (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of images of Queen Elizabeth here, including the Armada portrait [1] NinaGreen (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We could also add other images - examples of Oxford's handwriting; portraits of his children, for example. Paul B (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I put in the Phoenix portrait (it's very high resolution if you click first on the picture and then once again) and the Vavasour for the moment. Here is the Wikimedia Commons page for Elizabeth. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is Vavasour blue? I'm wondering if it isn't a bad file like the old Oxford portrait, which was yellow until I replaced it.

Also are there any pics of the child, Sir Edward Vere? This is one of those topics to which Oxfordians have contributed to scholarship, and there should be a page about him or at least a section, since he was a notable soldier.

There is also a black and white picture of Oxford holding the sword of state while acting in his hereditary role of Great Chamberlain. That should be in the article also. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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" 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)

  

Oxford's Great Garden Property

Tom, thanks for adding the url for the Purnell book. I note your comment about original research, and am open to suggestions as to what might remove that concern.NinaGreen (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it right now. We'll need to call in other reviewers to give us other perspectives when that time comes, but that's way in the future for now. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, could you explain what you mean by 'call in other reviewers? This appears to be a Wikipedia policy about which I know nothing. I need to be filled in.NinaGreen (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:PR Tom Reedy (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oxford's poems

Nina, I don't know if you know or not, but you can publish Oxford's poetry (or anybody's as long as they're out of copyright) on WikiSource and link to them from there. All you have to do is put an m: before the link and use a two-part format, like this: To a Republican Friend, and it will take the reader directly to the poem. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I didn't know that.NinaGreen (talk) 19:05, 13 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)