Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

Revert Wars Again

In the previous thread I wrote:

Paul, you wrote:

You say they are not being adhered to, others say they are.

Essentially, I'm saying they're not being adhered to because they don't exist. What are the guidelines which govern these free-for-alls on the RS noticeboard? Spell them out, please. I haven't been able to find any.

All I can see that's relevant is this:

While we attempt to give a second opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. This is not the place for content disputes which should be directed to the article talk page or associated.

How can one determine whether Brief Chronicles is a reliable source when that's the policy?

I still haven't received an answer to my question as to where the guidelines are which govern discussions on the RS Noticeboard.

Morover Wikipedia clearly states that 'answers on the RS Noticeboard are not Wikipedia policy'.

Nonetheless Tom has started a revert war by deleting two citations he personally considers 'not RS' without replacing them with factually accurate citations from sources he considers RS. And the fact of the matter is that there are no factually accurate citations for the information in both cases other than the ones Tom has deleted.

We can do better than this. Let's co-operate, not engage in counter-productive revert wars. NinaGreen (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, I didn't remove the sources because I "personally consider them 'not RS'". In the discussion about Brief Chronicles at WP:RS/N only one editor said it "might qualify", but after investigation he said "I don't think this publication clears the minimum bar to be a reliable source for even these mundane matters." And being a fringe publication The Oxfordian is certainly not RS, no matter if I added it, Nishidani added it, or Jimbo Wales himself added it.

Don't worry about the tags. I've seen them stay for years. Someone will come along and furnish a cite, reword the statement to fit the source, or delete it altogether. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, unfortunately that's just what you did, i.e. remove them because you personally consider them 'not RS'. I've twice stated the Wikipedia policy directly from the RS noticeboard page, which is that 'answers on the RS noticeboard are not Wikipedia policy'. Since answers on the RS noticeboard are not Wikipedia policy, no determination has been made this time as to whether Brief Chronicles is a reliable source, just as no determination was made the first time, which is why I could not see any point in going through the process again.

Moreover, although I have asked twice on this page, I have not received an answer to my question as to what guidelines govern the free-for-alls on the RS noticeboard. I asked twice for the guidelines to be spelled out, and no-one has done so, because guidelines don't exist. In the absence of guidelines for what goes on on the RS noticeboard (which means there are no guidelines for a determination there as to what is or is not a reliable source), and in light of the stated Wikipedia policy that answers on the RS noticeboard are 'not Wikipedia policy', removing the citation to my article was censorship, pure and simple. Wikipedia's policy is that all editors are equal. For an editor to remove another editor's citation under these circumstances is nothing but censorship. It seems that one or two editors of this page have decided what constitutes reliable sources for this page, and there are no Wikipedia criteria involved. It is merely their own personal view that nothing any Oxfordian writes can or will ever be cited on Wikipedia if they can prevent it, which constitutes outright censorship. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, since it doesn't appear that you can be bothered to go to the page and read the header, I'm bringing it to you. Everything you want to know about reliable sources and the process of determining what one is for a particular article can be found either in the header or at a site it links to.

de:Wikipedia:Belege/Fließbandfa:ویکی‌پدیا:تابلوی اعلانات منابع معتبرfr:Projet:Sources/Chez Manonka:ვიკიპედია:სანდო წყაროები/სანდოობის შემოწმებაpt:Wikipédia:Fontes fiáveis/Central de fiabilidademl:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:വിശ്വാസ്യതാനിർണ്ണയവേദി

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

Tom Reedy (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me also make a further comment concerning reliable sources. I've cited Alan's book dozens of times in the editing I've been doing on the article because for some facts Alan's book can be relied on, and there's really no other source I can cite for those facts. But Alan's book is not a reliable source in an overall sense. One has to pick and choose carefully amongst the statements in his book. Thus, reliability isn't an absolute, either for Alan's book or for other sources, which is why some leeway has to be allowed for specific factually accurate articles from Brief Chronicles and The Oxfordian. Just by way of example, here's an egregious example I just noticed today while transcribing a letter from Edward Fitton to Lord Burghley dated 30 June 1578. Alan's animosity towards Oxford has led him into a comically egregious error. The John Passe mentioned in Edward Fitton's letter was a poor servant of Oxford's who lived in Cheshire on a 'mean farm of a mark rent by year'. Yet on p. 179 of Monstrous Adversary, in connection with another letter from Fitton to Burghley mentioning John Passe, Alan erroneously calls him Lord Burghley's servant, and 'a notorious drunk'. On p. 204, Alan repeats the same statements, again calling John Passe Lord Burghley's servant, and 'a notorious drunkard'.

Alan has drawn this ludicrous inference from Arundel's statement concerning Oxford on p. 204: 'and if I accounted otherwise of him than of John Passe, to whom I have most aptly often compared him'. Arundel's reference is not to John Passe, Oxford's poor servant in Chester, but to John Pace, jester to Henry VIII and the Duke of Norfolk. All Arundel is saying is: 'and if I account otherwise of Oxford than of the court jester John Pace, to whom I have most aptly often compared him'. For the jester John Pace, see the entry in the online DNB.

Can anyone find an egregious and ludicrous error of this nature in either my article in Brief Chronicles or Christopher Paul's article in The Oxfordian? I'm certain they cannot. So what does this say about reliable sources? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the reference to Christopher Paul's article which Tom deleted was put there by Nishidani during his earlier revision of the article.NinaGreen (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Censorship

Tom, I'm starting a new thread because the old one is too cluttered with that page you imported into it. That page has already been cited several times, and it obviously doesn't answer my question at all. It merely states what needs to be included in a request when an opinion is sought on the RS noticeboard (which is irrelevant to the current discussion), and it also clearly states the point I've made so many times now already, that answers given on the RS noticeboard are 'not Wikipedia policy'. Ergo, since no determination by Wikipedia has yet been made that Brief Chronicles is not a reliable source, removing it from my edit was censorship. I come back to my question. Where are the Wikipedia policy rules which have allowed you to make a definitive determination that Brief Chronicles is not a reliable source? I have not seen any such rules. And frankly, it seems a bit disingenuous of you to keep stating that I will not look at the relevant Wikipedia rules, as you have done many times now, when the fact is that you cannot find any Wikipedia rules which support your unilateral actions. NinaGreen (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes that Wikipedia states that it does not make definitive determinations that something is 'not a reliable source'. How could Wikipedia do that, and not risk being sued right, left and center for damages by books publishers and authors?NinaGreen (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Nina, Wikipedia can and does make black-and-white decisions about what publications are reliable to use as sources for its articles, as you would know if you had gone to WP:RS/N and read the discussions there. Every answer to your questions can be found at [[WP:RS}} and WP:V, but I'm tired of dealing with your supercilious attitude so you'll have to find them yourself.

If you had read those three pages (and understood them), you would know that

(1.) Brief Chronicles and The Oxfordian are not acceptable sources for this article, and

(2.) My action was not "unilateral" nor was it "censorship". Tom Reedy (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, Wikipedia policy is clear. The RS noticeboard page states unequivocally that answers on the RS noticeboard 'are not Wikipedia policy'. You can try to get around that forever, but you can't get around it. That is Wikipedia policy. There has been no determination by Wikipedia that Brief Chronicles is not a reliable source. There has only been a unilateral determination to that effect by you, and on the basis of your unilateral decision, you deleted Brief Chronicles as a source from my edit, which is censorship, plain and simple. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Answers on the RS board are not policy no; they are - or can be - consensus. Wikipedia cannot have written policy that would cover every permissible or impermissible use of every source. It would become an intolerable bureaucracy. So we have policies, guidelines and mechanisms for establishing consensus. It can be rather rough and ready and it can be inconsistent, but that's the way it works. Paul B (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I question this statement:

So we have policies, guidelines and mechanisms for establishing consensus.

According to Wikipedia policy, the issue is not 'establishing consensus'. According to Wikipedia policy, the issue is verifiability. That's what we need to focus on.NinaGreen (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability depends on sources and that depends on reliability and that depends on the relationship between various policies (WP:V; WP:RS; WP:FRINGE etc). The relationship between these is negotiated through consensus. If you stop speaking in abstractions we might be able to deal with issues more straightforwardly. What do you want to add that's at issue? Paul B (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul,

I am not speaking in abstractions in the slightest. I have asked that I be directed to the Wikipedia policy which supports Tom's deletion of two of the sources in my article. Neither you nor Tom has pointed me to that policy, from which I infer that there is no policy which supports his actions. I have stated that the focus needs to be on the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. What's abstract about that? Let's start a new thread. I'll quote the first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia policy on verifiability, and you show me how Tom's actions are supported by that policy, which is one of the three pillars of Wikipedia.NinaGreen (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No doubt about it, there is a tremendous amount of censorship on this page. None of the well-researched books and articles supporting the Oxfordian claim are listed as references, and when they are added, someone else deletes them. The only sources allowed by the censors are selected works that debunk De Vere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.0.23 (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There are no "neutral" points of view on this page. This page is dedicated to minimizing, belittling, and discrediting the notion the Edward de Vere wrote the "Shakespearean" plays. It accepts the traditional view as gospel and rubbishs any evidence that points the other way. All sources in the reference list are there because they do denigrate Edward de Vere and his claim. Any source, no matter how credible or well-researched that supports Edward De Vere is deleted, and all such sources are labeled as "not reliable". Even in the discussion section, supporters of the Stratford view had deleted sections that cast doubt on the traditional view. This is censorship in its purest form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.0.23 (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states that mainstream views of the academy should be presented as the norm. The academy overwhelmingly rejects Oxfordian theory, along with all the other alternative author theories (about which, btw, you appear to know nothing whatever). Your edits are personal endorsements of a book that cannot be considered to be a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, and which is full of absurd non sequiturs. You appear to have made no effort to study the relevant rules regarding this. Of course Oxfordian theory should be described and discussed, but your edits are endorsements, and you even try to delete the consensus view. As far as I am aware no part of the discussion section has been deleted (if by that you mean this talk page). Paul B (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, Wikipedia policy also states that minority views are to be represented. But let's leave that aside because Wikipedia policies on the respective representation of mainstream and minority views are not the issue we're discussing. The issue we're discussing is that certain editors of this page, principally Tom and you, continue to misrepresent Wikipedia policy concerning reliable sources. Wikipedia policy unequivocally states that answers on the RS noticeboard 'are not Wikipedia policy'. In other words, it is not Wikipedia policy to create blacklists or an Index of Forbidden Books. When individual editors of this page do create a blacklist, it constitutes outright censorship. We need to get into a discussion of what Wikipedia policy on reliable sources actually is, and stop the propaganda that answers on the RS noticeboard constitute Wikipedia policy when Wikipedia itself clearly states that they are 'not Wikipedia policy'. NinaGreen (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the deal, Nina: I've given you ample links to the Wikipedia guidelines and policies for you to learn what those are. Given your statements above, it is apparent you haven't read them past what you continue to reiterate: that noticeboard opinions--which are tools to determine consensus--are not considered to be policy. Consequently you don't know enough about Wikipedia policy or about the encyclopedia to have a productive discussion, given your display of an attitude of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself. Those two sources are not WP:RS for this article, and if you think that's censorship go to the noticeboards and make your complaints. You asked who to appeal to and we gave you the proper forums: WP:ANI, WP:RS/N and Jimbo Wales.

I had hoped that you would be able to contribute to this article in a cooperative way and help to bring it up to WP:FA quality standards. It appears my hope is not to be fulfilled, at least not with your contributions, but that's OK; Nishidani will be back in February and his goal for the article is also to bring it up to FA standards. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, the issue is not that I need to 'learn' what the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies are. The issue is that you and Paul have been misrepresenting on this page what the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies are, and the reason the discussion is not productive is because you continue to misrepresent Wikipedia guidelines and policies in order to create your own personal blacklist and Index of forbidden books. If there were any Wikipedia policy which supported what you and Paul are doing, both of you would have cited it here long ago. Because there is no such policy which permits individual editors to create personal blacklists and Indexes of Forbidden Books, you and Paul both hide behind the false claim that I don't understand Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, I understand Wikipedia policy very clearly. Wikipedia policy concerns verifiability, not consensus, and Wikipedia policy clearly states that answers on the RS noticeboard, which you have been using as a vehicle to enforce your personal blacklist and Index of Forbidden Books, are 'not Wikipedia policy'. What is happening here is censorship, pure and simple. If you wish to engage in a productive discussion you need to cite the specific Wikipedia policy on which you claim to be relying in creating your personal blacklist. So far you have not done so.NinaGreen (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No one has been misrepresenting anything. There is certainly room for different interpretations of policies and guidelines. No one will dispute that. That's why we have the board and why we rely on consensus. People do disagree, regularly. As for "blacklists" and "forbidden books", yes, we do in practice have both of those. Some websites, for example, are outright blacklisted because of their content. If you try to add them, the system will not allow you to do so. Other books and websites will not be considered Reliable Sources under any circumstance. Yet others may be acceptable in one article but not in others. There is nothing unusual about this. Editors refuse to accept or remove sources all the time. It's normal practice. As Tom says, you can raise this as an issue if you want to lodge a complaint as WP:ANI. It seems to me Nina, that your problem is that you think you should be able to "win" by arguments here, but Wikipedia policy against OR was designed to avoid precisely the problem that some editors will push and push for their interpretations and not accept other points of view. You insist, for example, that you "won" the debate with Buchraeumer. I see no evidence of that, but what I do see is that Buchraeumer and Tom now both refuse to talk to you because you apparently refuse to see any position other than the one you want to see. Paul B (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Nina, you are the person doing the misrepresenting. You were long ago notified of this from WP:PARITY:

"Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable."

Both Brief Chronicles and The Oxfordian fit that definition and are not usable for this article. Any further objections of yours about this need to be directed to a third party, not me. I will no longer respond to your complaint. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, again you are misrepresenting Wikipedia policy to create your own blacklist and Index of Forbidden Books. It has not been established that Brief Chronicles and The Oxfordian do not have 'any meaningful peer review'. Both journals had from the outset, and continue to have, double-blind peer review, and in the case of Brief Chronicles the credentials of the members of the editorial board who conduct the peer reviews are available at the Brief Chronicles website for all the world to see. All the members of the editorial board of Brief Chronicles have excellent academic credentials, and almost all of them teach at universities. While you have university degrees, you do not have the academic qualifications they clearly have, and you do not teach at a university. Yet you are imposing your own personal view of their credentials on Wikipedia in order to blacklist the journal and damage the reputations of respected members of the academic community. Moreover you are not in the slightest a disinterested party in doing this. You have been a vigorous opponent of the Oxfordian hypothesis for the past two decades. That is your prerogative, of course, but it does not entitle you to misrepresent Wikipedia policy and exercise censorship on Wikipedia by creating a blacklist and an Index of Forbidden Books.

In addition, by citing the Wikipedia policy on peer review, you are once again jumping ahead of yourself and distracting attention from the Wikipedia policy which needs to be the focus of the discussion, i.e. the Wikipedia policy on verifiability, which is one of the three pillars of Wikipedia. Both you and Paul appear to want to avoid a discussion of the verifiability policy at all costs.NinaGreen (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nina and I would add the following two points. First, it is a FACT that the "What to accept. What to Delete" section of the discussion was deleted a couple of weeks or so ago. I had to restore it. If Paul doesn't believe this, he can check the record. It may take a little but it is there. Second, it may be fine to state that the vast majority of scholars believe a certain point of view, but you can delete references to others to hold other points of view. Mark Anderson's book was written after Nelson's book and is a fine piece of scholarship. If you want to say only a few people do not accept the traditional view, that is okay, but you can't delete a minority view just because it is a minority. When we say Mark Anderson has gathered a large circumstantial case in favor of Oxford, that is true. You may not agree with this circumstantial case, but there it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.5.233 (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been through the edits. It was never deleted. It was archived by MiszaBot [1], which is just a machine that puts sections in an archive if there hasn't been any discussion for a set period. It's an automatic mechanism to stop the page getting too long, and has nothing to do with censorship. No-one has censored your section. All sections with no recent contributions were automatically archived. Mark anderson's book is not a fine piece of scholarship at all. If you had any acquaintance with actual scholarship, you'd know that. But your personal opinion is really irrelevant. The rules of WP:RS are what matter here. The fact that it is (very slightly) more recent than Nelson is also irrelevant. Most its arguments are rehashes of discredited claims that go back decades. Paul B (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why it was archived so quickly. It was quite new. And then it disappeared. I'll have to investigate. I don't know who decides what a discredited claim is. If the majority view is what decides what a discredited claim is, then I doubt we would have gotten out of the Middle Ages in terms of scientific knowledge. Many intelligent people have examined the case for Stratford and Oxford and determined that the circumstantial case for Oxford is much more convincing. In fact, we have little hard evidence either way, but if you stack up all the parallels between Oxford and the plays, they are substantial. You can't find any such similarities between Stratford and the plays. We have 6 signatures from Stratford--that's the only proof that he wrote anything in his own hand. Three of those signatures may not even have been his. The record is clear to those people with an open mind who want to study it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.3.150 (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't, as I have already said, determine authorship by comparing the plots of plays to the lives of real people. If we did we'd be arguing that half of the Elizabethan/Jacobean playwrights were psychopaths. Playwrighting in that period was rather like film-making today. It was a commercial enterprise in which stories were chosen for their appeal to a wide audience. By your criterion we would disqualify John Ford as the director of the fiilms attributed to him because he was not a gunman in the wild west. I've already made this point about Ridley Scott. The same applies to Shakespeare. He was writing with the "genres" popular at the time. Why do you think we should have more signatures? People didn't collect autographs then. How many signatures of other playwrights from the time do you think exist? Not many is the answer. Paul B (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Semiprotected

All right, there are too many edit-warring IP's on this article, with too few users behind them. I have semi-protected it for two weeks. Nina, this means you won't be able to edit as an IP, but since I see above that you have figured out how to log in, you shouldn't have any trouble. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

Verifiability and Meaningful Peer Review

Paul's comparison involving 'travel agents' at the end of the last thread was so off topic that I've started a new thread here.

Earlier I quoted the first two paragraphs of Wikipedia's 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.

The Wikipedia policy of verifiability states that all significant minority views that have appeared in reliable published sources must be covered in Wikipedia articles. That leads into a discussion of what constitutes a reliable published source in which a minority view has appeared, and it is obvious that the reliability of the publication cannot be discounted solely on the ground that it holds a minority view because that would render the Wikipedia policy concerning the coverage of a minority view meaningless. The Wikipedia criteria by which the reliability of publications are to be judged are straightforward, and Brief Chronicles meets them. However Paul has added a criterion of his own invention, namely that a journal which deals with the Oxfordian hypothesis and the facts of Oxford's life must have peer reviewers who are all experts in the Elizabethan period for peer review to be meaningful. That is not Wikipedia policy. That is Paul's own criterion. And since it is Paul's own criterion, the burden of proof is on Paul to establish that that is Wikipedia's policy, and not merely his own criterion superimposed on Wikipedia policy.NinaGreen (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oxfordism is not a minority view; it is a well-recognised fringe theory. It is a notable fringe theory, and as such has its own article on Wikipedia, along with a few satellite articles.

As you stated above, this article is a biography, not a fringe theory. And fringe journals cannot be used as a source for any article except that particular fringe theory. I have already quoted all the relevant polices abut this, so I will not repeat them again.

Look at this diff from the old Shakespeare Authorship Page: [2] You will see that the editor of Brief Chronicles, Roger Stritmatter, AKA BenJonson, added a link to the journal to the external link section under the category of "Oxfordian". That means it is an Oxfordian journal, and an Oxfordian journal is a journal about a fringe theory, so Brief Chronicles does not meet the test of a reliable source for any article except the article on Oxfordism. So you can now drop the subject.

You're welcome. Carry on. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote:

Oxfordism is not a minority view; it is a well-recognised fringe theory.

Please refer me to the Wikipedia arbitration case which made that determination.NinaGreen (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't "determine" that a certain field is a fringe theory; it reflects the current academic consensus, which can be found here. You can also search the WP:FT/N archives and find many confirmations of that, such as this one from 2007, where dab (𒁳) closes the discussion with the comment, "Shakespearean authorship question is a fringe topic. there's nothing wrong with debating fringe theories in articles dedicated to fringe theories. The problem with Smatprt seems to be that he prefers one flavour of fringe over another, that's a matter of WP:OWN, not WP:FRINGE (since the entire article is fringy)." Tom Reedy (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, the citations you've referred me to are all fairly out of date. In the past few years, particularly with Shapiro's Contested Will, the authorship controversy has become a minority view.NinaGreen (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You're getting very good at moving the goalposts, Nina. Have you always been this disingenuous or are you just channelling your coach?

But it doesn't really make any difference. Your Procrustean attempts to fit reality into your funhouse mirror-world only work for you, not the rest of us. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I don't have a 'coach'. I deduced all by myself from the prominence of Shapiro's Contested Will, from Roland Emmerich's soon to be released film 'Anonymous', and from Hardy Cook's request on the Shaksper list for strategies for an academic response to Anonymous that the authorship controversy has moved into the mainstream, and meets Wikipedia's standards for a minority view which must be represented. Sometimes the goalposts do move, and in this case, they have.NinaGreen (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I should also have given credit to David Kathman, Terry Ross and you for moving the authorship issue into the mainstream. You can't have a website subtitled 'Dedicated to the Proposition that Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare' on the internet for years without eventually turning the majority view into a 'proposition' and elevating the status of the Oxfordian hypothesis to that of a credible minority view. The Shakespeare Authorship Page has made thousands of internet users aware of the authorship issue without being able to deliver a knockout blow to the Oxfordian hypothesis. In the process it has helped turn the Oxfordian hypothesis into a credible minority view, which Wikipedia policy mandates must be represented.NinaGreen (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, more people believe in alien abduction than believe that Oxford (or any other alternative candidate) wrote Shakespeare. I admire your tenacious determination to try to make it a mainstream "minority" view, but I must warn you that in my experience after a while self-delusion has serious psychological consequences. Denial is the most corrosive defence-mechanism there is, and I see its effects every day in my job. DON'T BE A VICTIM! Tom Reedy (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's impossible - short of inventing a time machine - to deliver a knock-out blow to Oxfordianism, or for that matter Marlovianism or Derbyism or Whateleyism, because these theories are what Popper called "unfalsifiable". They depend on essentially inventing arguments by finding parallels and discovering secret ciphers. Some of the specific arguments may be falsifiable, but others are not - and new ones can always be created. Ultimately we can't prove that any actual author wrote the works attributed to them. Maybe Alexander Pope kept the real poet locked up in his grotto and forced him to write heroic couplets for rations of cheese and bread. It's impossible to disprove this. Paul B (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I'm surprised that someone like you who is obviously seriously interested in the authorship issue doesn't realize that it's not the counter-theories themselves which prevent the knock-out blow from being delivered. It's the inherent weakness of the Stratfordian position. That was made very clear on Hardy Cook's Shaksper list recently when he asked for suggested strategies for academics to employ when Roland Emmerich's film Anonymous is released. The weak response astonished me. No-one can authoritively prove the orthodox position on the authorship with any concrete evidence.NinaGreen (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Again you seem not to 'hear' what you read. Of course no one can "authoritively prove the orthodox position on the authorship with any concrete evidence". That's exactly what it said - assuming that by 'concrete' you mean 'absolutely undeniable'. There is of course an abundance of actual evidence. Short of inventing a time machine we can't prove that any author of the past wrote their works, including Pope. We can't prove that Socrates didn't write Euripides' plays or that Chaucer wrote Chaucer or that Francis Bacon didn't write all the works of Marlowe and Cervantes, as has been claimed. None of this can be proven. But we don't make historical judgements by inventing stories of what might have happened. Paul B (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you're off topic. I don't know whether you're a member of Hardy Cook's Shaksper list. I am, and the response by academics to Hardy Cook's request was weak. It wasn't a matter of providing 'absolutely undeniable' evidence. It was a matter of providing any really cogent evidence at all. I expected academic participants on the list to jump in with concise summaries of all the really salient facts which establish that William of Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays. That didn't happen. Most of the suggestions by academics were along the lines of 'our best strategy is to mock Oxfordians'. It's as I said above. It's not the counter-theories themselves which prevent the knock-out blow from being delivered in the authorship controversy. It's the inherent weakness of the orthodox Stratfordian position. The growing awareness in academia of the weakness of that position is causing concern of the sort that gave rise to Shapiro's book. One doesn't title a book 'Contested Will' because it's some sort of fringe theory which everyone is brushing off.NinaGreen (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What people said on some webpage is trivial. Maybe they didn't come up with elaborate arguments because they thought it isn't worth doing so. The rest of your post is the same ol' fantasy that anti-Statfordians have had for well over a century. Our support is growing! We are on the edge of academic acceptance! We are criticised because our enemies are increasingly scared of us! You can read exactly the same confident assertions made by Baconians 100 years ago and Derbyites 50 years ago. And Oxfordians too. It comes from having marginal acquaintance with what's actually going on in modern Shakespeare studies. Paul B (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the ad hoc nature of the theories seems to be mirrored in the debate style of the advocates. But in any case, that is no matter to the writing of this article, since writing the biography of Oxford based on reliable sources has nothing to do with the Shakespeare authorship question.

I would like to put this to rest, since the talk page is not a place intended to debate the merits of fringe theories. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, much of what you've written above is completely off topic, so I won't respond. But I must remind you that it was you who made the claim that Brief Chronicles cannot be accepted as a reliable source because the authorship controversy is a fringe theory. It is therefore perfectly legitimate, and in fact necessary, to deal with your claim on this page. My position is a very reasonable one. Did Shapiro write Contested Will because of a fringe theory? Hardly. He wrote it because there is an authorship controversy which has become a mainstream issue. There is therefore a minority view on the authorship, and Wikipedia policy mandates that that minority view must be fairly represented. For that reason, and for all the other reasons mentioned thus far, including the excellent academic credentials of its editorial board and peer reviewers, its double-blind peer review process, etc., Brief Chronicles must be considered a reliable source.NinaGreen (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom and Paul, consider this article from the LA Times:

Emmerich's film is one more sign that conspiracy theories about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays have gone mainstream.

For the entire article, see http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/11/opinion/la-oe-shapiro11-2010apr11 NinaGreen (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So what? John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories have been mainstream for decades, and they're still fringe theories. Whether a topic is mainstream has no bearing on their acceptance by academe or the public. Child sexual abuse is mainstream; you can hardly pick up a newspaper without reading about it, but I hope you won't try to argue that it's a "minority" practice. And I would disagree with Shapiro: the SAQ has been mainstream since the 1880s.

The bottom line is that Oxfordism and all other alternative Shakespeare authorship theories are fringe theories, and no amount of assertion will change that fact, and Brief Chronicles is a fringe journal and not a reliable source for this article, and no amount of assertion by you or any other fringe theory believer will change that fact, so you might as well quit wasting your time on it. We don't have an infinite amount of time, you know. I doubt seriously that when you're on your deathbed you'll wish you had spent more time arguing for the acceptance of Brief Chronicles as a reliable source for the Oxford biography. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you are not stating Wikipedia policy. You are merely stating your own personal view. You are only one editor, as am I. If you want to argue with Shapiro, you can ask Wikipedia to arbitrate the issue.75.155.156.29 (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)NinaGreen (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Nina, you are the one trying to ramrod your personal view contrary to policy; nobody has agreed with you, and every statement I've made about this matter is based on Wikipedia policy, which you would know if you had read all the policies and guidelines to which I have furnished links. It is the burden of the person who wants to use a source when challenged to show that it is permissible by policy, not by quoting a newspaper article or referring to a web site or trying to make a case based on argument.

And why should I ask for arbitration "to argue with Shapiro"? You won't even go to the noticeboards to contribute to the discussion about the source. Instead you stubbornly insist that all other editors have to acknowledge your method of doing things. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't work the way your personal web site works, a point you obviously haven't been able to grasp in your monomaniacal obsession of willfully ignoring what people have been trying to tell you. You are a closed system; nothing from the outside penetrates, and you go round and round repeating yourself. I've had no problem with most of your edits, but you want everything 100 percent your way. That's not a realistic expectation on Wikipedia, and it won't happen, believe me, so quit wasting your time. The only thing you are accomplishing is the amusement of all the editors and admins watching this talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I am aware of Wikipedia policies, and I am following them. Nor do in the slightest want everything my way. Please stop making allegations which are untrue. I wanted to stay away from the authorship issue as my purpose in editing this page is to help to produce a factually accurate article on Edward de Vere's life. But you have now dragged the authorship issue into the discussion of whether Brief Chronicles is a reliable source by claiming that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory and that for that reason alone Brief Chronicles must be termed a fringe journal and cannot be considered a reliable source. That was not your earlier argument, nor was it your argument on the RS noticeboard, but it is your argument now. And you are wrong on that point. Shapiro is against you, by your own admission the website you are involved with is against you (it is dedicated to the 'proposition' that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, not to the 'fact' that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare), and a whole variety of other evidence is against you on your argument that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, including the fact that there are authorship studies programs offered at two universities. There has been no formal determination by Wikipedia that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory. That is merely your own personal opinion. And although you are certainly entitled to your own personal opinion, you cannot force your personal opinion on Wikipedia by claiming that your personal opinion is Wikipedia policy. 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.NinaGreen (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Did Shapiro write Contested Will because of a fringe theory? Hardly. He wrote it because there is an authorship controversy which has become a mainstream issue." That's simply not true, at least as far as Wikipedia's definition of 'mainstream' goes. I've no idea why he wrote the book, but he's not the first by a long chalk. There have been several books written by mainstream scholars on the history of SAQ, at least as far back as The Poacher from Stratford in 1958. As for the "mainstream" status of SAQ arguments, I'd say it got closest to that around the beginning of the twentieth century when cutting edge science seemed to support Baconism and many noted intellectuals came out in favour of anti-Stratfordian positions. Since then, the science has all gone the other way. Shapiro makes it quite clear in his book that scholarly consensus dismisses SAQ arguments completely. However he does mention that sites like Wikipedia make it more popularly known. But that's true of numerous fringe theories, such as the claim that Jews were responsible for 9/11 and that Obama is secretly a non-American and Muslim. Paul B (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you're arguing with Shapiro about his own use of language. That's an argument which you need to take up with Shapiro, not with Wikipedia. And let's be clear that no-one is arguing about what the majority view of the authorship is, as opposed to the minority view, or with the fact that the majority view must be clearly and fully presented on Wikipedia. The argument is about presentation of the minority view. 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.

Also, could you and Tom would desist from using irrelevant analogies which merely serve to confuse the issue? Are there programs offered at two universities on the claim that the Jews were responsible for 9/11 or that Obama is secretly a non-American and Muslim? We're all going to be very surprised if you answer 'yes'. But are there Shakespeare authorship studies programs offered at two universities? Yes, there are, one in the UK and one in the US.NinaGreen (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with Shapiro about anything, though I do disagree with the book on some points (I think he's very unfair about Looney's politics), but that's neither here nor there. 'Mainstream' is just a normal word that can be used in many ways. What matters here is how it's used on Wikipedia. Shapiro did not use it to mean that SAQ theories have achieved any kind of scholarly acceptance - and you know that. I've no idea whether universities discuss such matters as Obama's religion, but such patently barmy ideas as melanin theory have been taught in US colleges. See Leonard Jeffries. Look at what Mary Daly taught. I know nothing about the course in the US, but the one in the UK adopts a kind of 'postmodern' slant and it is not taught by an expert. As it happens, I even used to teach SAQ myself when I had a course called Envisaging Shakespeare. Paul B (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, again you're using irrelevant analogies which only serve to confuse the issue. I asked:

Are there programs offered at two universities on the claim that the Jews were responsible for 9/11 or that Obama is secretly a non-American and Muslim? We're all going to be very surprised if you answer 'yes'. But are there Shakespeare authorship studies programs offered at two universities? Yes, there are, one in the UK and one in the US.

You evaded the question, but the clear answer is 'no', there are no university programs on the Jews being responsible for 9/11 or Obama being secretly a non-American and a Muslim. The fact that authorship studies programs are offered at two universities is the sort of criterion which distinguishes a minority view from a fringe theory. 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.NinaGreen (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't evade the question, I said I don't know if the subjects are discussed in University programmes. I then went on to point out that the mere existence of a university course is not in itself evidence of the non-fringe character of a theory by giving examples I do happen to know of. Paul B (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, the question wasn't whether the Jews being responsible for 9/11 or Obama being secretly a non-American and a Muslim are 'discussed in University programmes'. The question was whether there are university programs on those subjects. There are not. But two universities do offer Shakespeare authorship studies programs, which is a criterion which clearly differentiates a minority view from a fringe theory. Another criterion which clearly differentiates a minority view from a fringe theory is full-length books written by specialists in the field which deal with the minority view, as is the case with Shapiro's Contested Will and Scott McCrea's The Case For Shakespeare.

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.NinaGreen (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You can take it to arbitration if you like. No-one is stopping you are they? It has been repeatedly discussed on the Fringe Theories board and the outcome has always been the same. The argument that it is somehow legitimised because there are books about it by academics is palpably false. There are many books about the Blood Libel against Jews for example. That does not make the theory that Jews abducted Christian children and drank their blood a legitimate "minority position" in academia. The argument about university courses has more merit, but the courses (at least the UK one) are not teaching the theory as a "truth", but as a cultural-historical phenomenon. It is not taught by a Shakespeare expert and is very very marginal. As for the US, it is possible to find many very weird theories taught in colleges, especially in the US, where all forms of fundamentalism thrive and commercialism rules in academia. Paul B (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, could you stay on point, and stop dragging all these red herrings and far-fetched analogies across the path? Do you think statements about the Jewish blood libel would be a convincing argument in a Wikipedia arbitration on the authorship controversy? If so, I wish you luck.NinaGreen (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am on point Nina. The analogy is designed to show the illogicality of your argument. That's the whole point of the reductio ad absurdum. It says "if you believe this, logically you must believe that too. You can't possibly believe that, therefore your argument does not make sense." If you don't get that, you don't get reasoning at all, and you certainly have no conception of what a red herring is. The reductio is a mechanism for making clearly visible flaws in logic. A red herring is a device for misdirecting or evading points. It's what you do all the time. Paul B (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

She won't start an arbitration because she knows what will happen; it's much easier to bloviate on the talk page and complain about how we're forcing our "personal views" on Wikipedia. She wouldn't even participate in the Brief Chonicles noticeboard discussion. Nina, isn't it time you started another section to go round and round again about what you repeated in the previous sections? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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. 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 you've made, you'd be off to arbitration in a flash.NinaGreen (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Tom, I notice you've avoided comment on the fact that the website you're associated with is subtitled 'Dedicated to the Proposition that Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare'. 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.NinaGreen (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You'll just have to start an arbitration to find out, won't you?

All this chit-chat is amusing, but it's basically a waste of time. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I won't be doing that. No-one goes to arbitration when the status quo is in their favour. Wikipedia has as yet made no determination that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, so the status quo is in my favour. It's not a fringe theory until Wikipedia policy says it is, no matter how many times, or on how many different Wikipedia pages, you and Paul Barlow claim it is. Incidentally, consider this paragraph from the opening page of Shapiro's Contested Will:

Since 1850 or so, thousands of books and articles have been published urging that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the plays. At first, bibliographers tried to keep count of all the works inspired by the controversy. By 1884 the list ran to 255 items; by 1949 it had swelled to over 4000. Nobody bothered trying to keep a running tally after that. . . . Over time, and for all sorts of reasons, leading artists and intellectuals from all walks of life joined the ranks of the skeptics. I can think of little else that unites Henry James and Malcolm X, Sigmund Freud and Charlie Chaplin, Helen Keller and Orson wells, or Mark Twain and Sir Derek Jacobi.

Doesn't sound like a fringe theory to me. Sounds like a minority view which Wikipedia policy mandates must be represented.NinaGreen (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Another quotation from Shapiro's Contested Will. Shapiro has just described the 1987 moot court trial of the authorship controversy before three Supreme Court Justices in which all candidates were ruled out apart from Shakespeare of Stratford and Oxford, and although the justices ruled for Shakespeare of Stratford on the basis of the evidence presented to them, Justice Stevens said that "if the author was not the man from Stratford then there is a high probability that it was Edward de Vere . . . I think the evidence against the others is conclusive'. Shapiro writes (p.207):

The moot court proved to be a turning point in the decades-long struggle to promote Oxford's cause. More than anything else, the Supreme Court justices had provided legitimacy; the Oxfordians were no longer the "deviants" vilified by Schoenbaum (and one immediate effect of the moot court was that this harsh language was considerably toned down when Schoenbaum revised his Shakespeare's Lives in 1991). If Supreme Court justices could take the Oxfordians seriously and deem them the only serious rivals to Shakespeare, so could others.

Looks like Tom and Paul didn't get the memo from either the Supreme Court justices or from Shapiro.NinaGreen (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"Tom, I won't be doing that. No-one goes to arbitration when the status quo is in their favour. Wikipedia has as yet made no determination that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, so the status quo is in my favour."

Sorry Nina, but you're wrong. The SAQ has long been deemed a fringe theory on Wikipedia, and its coverage is governed by WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. If you want to go to arbitration, just insert it in this or any other mainstream article in an unbalanced way and you'll quickly learn what I suspect you already know (I know well the strategy of trying to reframe the debate, but it didn't work for previous editors and it won't work for any others). As long as you refrain from that, you are free to believe anything you want about Wikipedia policy or Shakespeare. I really don't care.

Now would you please stop trying to debate this issue on this talk page? An article's talk page is not a forum for off-topic discussion or debate. I know I do so myself; I'll do my best to comply with the talk page guidelines. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote: 'The SAQ has long been deemed a fringe theory on Wikipedia'. 'Deeming' simply means you and Paul and Nishidani have 'deemed' it so. That does not make it Wikipedia policy. And because it is only you and Paul and Nishidani who have deemed it so, it is not true that 'its coverage is governed by WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT', as you keep contending. The only way to make it Wikipedia policy is for you and Paul and Nishidani to take it to arbitration and obtain a ruling. Then, and only then, will its 'coverage is governed by WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT'. Until then it is subject to the same rules as any other Wikipedia topic.

And please let me gently remind you that I did not bring this 'fringe theory' topic up. You did. And it is you who are keeping the discussion going by insisting that your view prevails over Wikipedia policy, and that merely because you and Paul and Nishidani have 'deemed' something to be so, it is so. There have to be some rules which govern editing, as you have so rightly insisted. 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.NinaGreen (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Earlier in this thread I wrote in response to Paul:

Paul, I'm surprised that someone like you who is obviously seriously interested in the authorship issue doesn't realize that it's not the counter-theories themselves which prevent the knock-out blow from being delivered. It's the inherent weakness of the Stratfordian position.

Shapiro confirms this repeatedly in his book, but perhaps nowhere more succinctly than on p. 223 at the beginning of his chapter The Evidence for Shakespeare:

It's one thing to explain how claims that others wrote the plays rest on unfounded assumptions; it's another to show that Shakespeare of Stratford really did write them.

Nothing could demonstrate more clearly that the authorship controversy is a minority view which must be fairly represented by Wikipedia than this admission by Shapiro that supporters of the orthodox position have difficulty in showing that Shakespeare wrote the plays.NinaGreen (talk) 17:21, 10 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 [3] 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)

Brief Chronicles Again

With the fringe theory issue now put aside until someone feels he can make a convincing case at a Wikipedia arbitration that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, let's get back to the issue we were discussing before Tom brought up the fringe theory, namely whether Brief Chronicles can be cited as a reliable source. In that regard, it's again useful to consult Shapiro's Contested Will. On p. 202 Shapiro writes:

Imagine the disbelief that would have greeted a contributor to the Shakespeare Oxford Society Newsletter in the early 1980s, who, rejecting all the hand-wringing, urged fellow Oxfordians to be patient and predicted that in twenty-five years the movement would be thriving:

By 2010, universities in the U.S. and U.K. will be offering advanced degrees in the authorship question. . . . Oxfordians will, like mainstream academics, have their own peer-reviewed literary journals . . ..

There's much more to Shapiro's imaginary letter on p. 203 which demonstrates how difficult it would be to get a Wikipedia arbitration to make a determination that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory rather than a minority view, but that's not my point in drawing attention to Shapiro's imaginary letter. My point is that Shapiro accepts that Oxfordians have peer-reviewed literary journals. Shapiro does not question the peer review process of those journals. He accepts it. Shapiro states that 'like mainstream academics [Oxfordians] have their own peer-reviewed literary journals'. According to Wikipedia's policy of verifiability, that's sufficient. Brief Chronicles can be cited as a reliable source.NinaGreen (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend you do so. If you do, it will be deleted. The key words in Shapiro's sentence are "their own", and Shapiro does not determine Wikipedia policy anyway, so your bringing in his comments is irrelevant. The issue was taken to WP:RS/N, discussed, and settled, and you chose not to participate, for whatever reason. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I dislike the threatening 'just try it and you'll find out what happens' aspect of the foregoing comment, and another of your earlier previous comments to the same effect. It is as if you are taking the attitude that you own the authorship controversy discussion on Wikipedia, and that you alone will determine how it plays out, irrespective of Wikipedia policy. The point has been made over and over again that Wikipedia policy states clearly that discussions on the RS Noticeboard page do not constitute Wikipedia policy, but I obviously need to repeat the point because you are once again taking the position that a determination about the use of Brief Chronicles as a source was made on the RS Noticeboard, which Wikipedia unequivocally states cannot happen. If you want a determination on that point, you first have to convince a Wikipedia arbitration that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory (a very uphill battle in light of the evidence in Shapiro's book alone). If you get the result you want from a Wikipedia arbitration, you can then take the position that the authorship controversy is governed by WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, and that sources concerning the authorship controversy are governed by WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT accordingly. But you can't claim that a determination which constitutes Wikipedia policy has been made on either the issue of fringe theory vs minority view, or on the issue of the reliability of Brief Chronicles as a source, until you obtain a determination on the first of those points via an arbitration. That's Wikipedia policy, like it or not.

Your comment that 'Shapiro does not determine Wikipedia policy anyway' is completely off topic. No-one said he did. The key Wikipedia policy, however, is verifiability. And on the matter of Oxfordian peer-reviewed journals, Shapiro has stated that 'like mainstream academics [Oxfordians] have their own peer-reviewed literary journals'. Shapiro is an established member of the academic community, and he would not have mentioned the Oxfordian peer-reviewed journals in the context of one of the astonishing achievements of the Oxfordian movement in the past 30 years had he not been of the opinion that they are like the peer-reviewed journals of mainstream academics, which is precisely what he said. You are either trying to read Shapiro's mind, or you are trying to subvert the Wikipedia policy of verifiability by trying to get at what you think is the truth of the matter (in violation of Wikipedia policy) rather than merely accepting a statement because it meets the Wikipedia criterion of verifiability because it is stated in a reliable secondary source (Shapiro's Contested Will). You have taken me to task repeatedly for allegedly not knowing, or following, Wikipedia policy. But it seems that there is a real reluctance on your part to follow Wikipedia policy when it goes against what you would like to see happen. Am I wrong on that point?NinaGreen (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, I did not say "just try it and you'll find out what happens"; I specifically told you what would happen. No threat implied, just a note that it would be useless to try to use BC as a source against all consensus, both here and at the noticeboard. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, it's still a threat, and inappropriate because Wikipedia policy states that (1) Wikipedia is not a democracy and (2) Wikipedia does not operate by consensus. Wikipedia policy states that all editors are equal, and (I obviously have to repeat it again) that answers on the Wikipedia notice board do not constitute Wikipedia policy. You have no right to remove a citation merely because you and a few others 'deem' certain things to be so. That directly contravenes Wikipedia policy.NinaGreen (talk) 20:49, 10 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)

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)

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)