Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Adding external links

Smatprt and Knitwitted, the burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. While the author of the blog is notable enough for his own Wiki page, that does not necessarily qualify his blog as an external link added to this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Notability:Basic criteria and here. According to Mr. Reedy, Dr. Stritmatter has been the subject of 6 independent 3rd party sources.

See WP:Notability:Academics which is "a guideline and not a rule".

See Links normally to be avoided: #11. Links to blogs... "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"

Dr. Stritmatter passes WP's notability test and hence is a WP recognized authority. He is well-known as a leading advocate of the Oxfordian theory. His Oxfordian blog should be cited. Knitwitted (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Passing a "notability test" to have a page about you on Wikipedia does not bestow recognition as an authority. External link guidelines state that the number of external links should be limited. As with all content, WP:WEIGHT is also an issue. With four Oxfordian links and two rebuttal links the weight is disproportionate to the scholarly consensus. My main problem with the Stritmatter blag is that it is mostly a personal blog where he holds court on the inevitability of the Oxfordian paradigm and the stupidity of Stratfordian academics, IOW a personal blog. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the personal blogs under "Sites refuting the Oxfordian theory" as per your the burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. Please discuss/make your case on the talk page before re-adding or show where in the archives these two cases were made. Knitwitted (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to get blocked? Both Matus and Kathman are recognized as authorities, Matus's books being reviewed and used as sources in peer-reviewed Shakespeare journals and books and Kathman writing about the topic in journals and books published by the top university presses. I ask that you self-revert your obviously disruptive edits. Administrators do not need to hold any type of dispute resolution to block anyone making those types of edits. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I see Matus' personal blog also contains posts on the subjects of Brooklyn and Urban Transit but the link posted on WP goes to his posts on Shakespeare. I suggest we use this for Stritmatter's blog. The posts in this category deal directly with his research on de Vere's Geneva Bible. Knitwitted (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

His blog and the Shakespeare Fellowship site liberally link to each other, since he is a principal to both of them, I suppose we could link to his blog and delete the Fellowship blog to maintain some kind of proper weight, but I think the Bible FAQ section would be a better section. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I see that you're topic-banned, so you can't answer. Anybody else want to chime in on this? I much prefer keeping the Fellowship site myself, since it has a lot more information and is not as personalised to one individual viewpoint. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You simply can’t keep banning people who disagree with, especially on the discussion section. Roger Stritmatter has done groundbreaking research on the Oxfordian question, demonstrating the clear links between Oxford’s Bible the “Shakespearean” plays. His work was the first dissertation supporting the Oxfordian theory that was accepted by an English department in the United States. Stritmatter has also conclusively demonstrated that the “Tempest” has nothing to do with an obscure letter written about a shipwreck near Bermuda, but was in fact written years earlier, well before Oxford died. This research directly contradicts the scholar Tom Reedy’s claim that the “Tempest” was written after Oxford’s death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Greedy (talk • contribs) 15:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Stritmatter's work has not been taken seriously by any Shakespeare scholar that I know of. By the way, even the founder of Oxfordianism believed that The Tempest was written after Oxford's death! Stritmatter's views are utterly marginal within Shakespeare studies, and even if the letter were not a source - though almost most scholars think it was - it would not change the fact that The Tempest is very unlikely to have been written before 1604. However, of course, all these arguments have a place here as this is the page for Oxfordian views to be rehearsed. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Then you don't know many serious Shakespearean scholar. You need to get out more. And moreover, you don't need to belong to an English department to be a serious Shakespearean scholar. Richard Roe was a serious Shakespearean scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Barlow Jr (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Presumable Roger Stritmatter's dissertation committee included Shakespearean scholars. Presumably these are intelligent and thoughtful people. At least four important people at his university, including the dean, had to officially approve his dissertation. That sounds serious to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Barlow Jr (talk • contribs) 18:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I know several serious Shakespeare scholars! The dissertation committee accepted it because it fulfulled the required critera for a completed piece of work, not because they agreed with it. I've assessed several PhDs myself, so I know the procedure. The Dean merely approves as a technical administrative requirement. It is the external refereees who are usually the real deciders. Of course, universities want to have successful completions. There are strong economic motives involved. However, there is no reason to doubt that the correct procedures were followed. Nevertheless, this is all irrelevant. There are literally thousands of PhDs on Shakepeare, one very minor and obscure one by a candidate who has since failed to get any academic publisher interested in it does not suddenly change academic consensus. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

One might also add that even Stritmatter's thesis self-acknowledges that it is a position represented by a small minority(!!!), though he expresses confident hopes it will grow in the following decades.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Richard Roe is, it seems, a lawyer, certainly not a "serious Shakespeare scholar". Half of anti-Strat literature is wriiten by lawyers for some reason. Paul B (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, maybe because lawyers are trained to evaluate evidence, are good at being able to spot lies and falsifications, and tend to be less credulous than non-lawyers? JohnDavidStutts (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible subtle vandalism found in the article?

"The book also claims that the queen had children by the Earl of Leicester, Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury, Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, Mary Sidney and Elizabeth Leighton."

The last two names are female, so it's unlikely the queen had children by them, considering the lack of genetical engineering in the era... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.163 (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume one is a male, just has a female-sounding name. For example, George is a boy or girl's name; one of Nancy's Friends in the "Nancy Drew" series is a girl named George. Another example: Alex = Alexander, Alex = Alexandria (or Alexandra). I know an Alex who's female. Ethg242 (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it's just that the comma after 'Leicester' should have been a colon. He's the alleged father. The others are all kids. Paul B (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

On the evidence

If "no evidence links Oxford to Shakespeare's works," then why do so many people believe he was the author? Why are most of the books and articles touting an alternative author about Oxford (and not others)? Why was a movie made about him? Why is he the most popular alternative candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.125.99 (talk • contribs)

No other candidate (including the realtor of S. upon Avon) have the necessary background for the italian job. Almost half of the works published as "by W.S." deal with Italy, with such an accuracy that locations can be traced to the doorway, even today. Oxenford was all over Italy, including, but not limited to italian womanfolk. No matter how much power and influence the british royalty expended to erase all trace leading of E. O., the italian job cannot be undone from the W.S. canon, even though the stratfordster never set foot outside Blighty. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If no evidence exists that Oxford wrote the plays (and absolutely none does) the correct approach to validate the theory would be to find some. Instead, what Oxfordians have done is chain together a mountain of inference, supposition and deduction allied to a huge list of alleged similarities between Oxford,s life and the events portrayed in the plays as if they were autobiographical instead of works of imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfa-16 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Derby probably went to Italy too; Marlowe certainly went to the continent. For all we know, WS may have done too. There is no evidence whatever that the "stratfordster never set foot outside Blighty". Still, there's no special knowledge of Italy in the plays, however hard one tries to invent it. And "the British royalty" have no motivation whatever to deny Oxford's authorship of any plays. Paul B (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"For all we know, WS may have done too" is a very weak argument. For all we know, Shakespeare from Stratford may have been to Denmark. He be an ancestor of Glenn Close. He may have been a lot of things. "There is no evidence whatever that the 'stratfordster never set foot outside Blighty'." The same bad argument. Very difficult to prove a negative statement. There is no evidence that Shakespeare from Stratford never visited Scotland. You could make millions of such statements. We have solid proof that Oxford visited Italy, was literate, and knew Italian. "Still, there's no special knowledge of Italy in the plays, however hard one tries to invent it." Wrong again. There is special, specific knowledge that is contemporaneous with the Italy at the time. Whoever wrote the plays had to have access to this first-hand knowledge in some way. "And 'the British royalty' have no motivation whatever to deny Oxford's authorship of any plays." This statement is an irrelevant non sequitur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.2.40 (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. Of course there's no evidence connecting any of the alternative candidates. There is no simple answer, but I think it's that he fulfils the emotional needs of alternative author theorists better than the others. There is some discussion of this in Shapiro and Gibson, but it's a neglected topic. Paul B (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Minerva Britanna

The article states "Edward de Vere was known to Peacham, since in 1612 his Minerva Britanna anagramed Vere's name on the frontispiece, denoting him as the Minerva (or Mind) of the Age." Strangely this very claim was removed from the main article by our esteemed colleague Smatprt, [1] presumably because he did not think it helped make the case, and perhaps because the wording there drew attention to the spuriousness of the claim itself (The wording was, a device from Henry Peacham's Minerva Britanna (1612) depicting a hand appearing from behind a curtain and writing the Latin motto MENTE VIDEBOR ("By the mind I shall be seen") was first used to support Bacon's candidacy, but is seen by Oxfordians as a clue to Oxford's hidden authorship. By interpreting the final full stop as the beginning of an "I", the phrase becomes an anagram of TIBI NOM. DE VERE ("Thy Name is De Vere"). Paul B (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This piece of analysis by Mark Anderson has been comprehensively discredited. There is no indication in the 'device' that it was intended to have an additional letter 'I'. Indeed the hand has already written an 'I' and the new letter it appears to be adding is completely different. There is space for at least four more letters on the empty part of the scoll. There is no latin word 'videbori' in any case. and TIBI NOM DE VERE is an incorrect use of the indicative pronoun. Proponents ignore the fact that Minerva is female and a Goddess and if you want to find a powerful, goddess-like female to associate with 'Britannia' you do not have to look very far at the Elizabethan court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfa-16 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Parallels with the plays"-long and ludicrous

Just a question for right now - what is this long section on "parallels with the plays" doing in an encyclopedia article? It is full of such utterly ludicrous passages as on "As You Like It":"One of the sights Oxford may have taken in on his 1575–76 Christmas season visit to Siena, Italy was its cathedral, whose artwork includes a mosaic of the Seven Ages of Man." Maybe Oxford went to the cathedral and maybe he looked at a mosaic and maybe this is where he got an idea for a speech in a play? It actually shocks me to see such obvious speculation in a supposed neutral source of information ( maybe I am easily shocked). That whole long passage is just a lot of speculative rubbish it seems to me, it should all be deleted and just two or three of the plays such as Hamlet and Love's Labours Lost which "Oxfordians" believe demonstrate their case best discussed. I am very new here and have no intention of trying to delete anything at the moment but just wanted to say that as a pair of fresh eyes coming to this article that passage on "parallels with the plays" is way too long, not neutral at all, and full of quite laughable speculation.Smeat75 (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

True, but in case you are not aware, this topic has been very contentious with sustained efforts by enthusiasists to use Wikipedia to explain the TRUTH regarding the issue, and was the subject of an arbitration case. The main article is Shakespeare authorship question (which, due to heroic efforts by its principal authors, is a featured article), and that SAQ article is good. There are some references in the section you mention, and some of those point to secondary sources that describe the claims in the article, so it might be reasonable that the Oxfordian case is presented. It can be difficult knowing how best to do that in a due manner. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That section was once a stand-alone article, which by consensus was merged here. The most devoted Oxfordian editor tends to resist the removal of even the most ridiculous arguments like the seven ages one you mention. Of course the "Seven Ages" was almost as familiar a concept as the four seasons, and if you look at the Siena images they are completely different from Shakespeare's (no lover, no soldier for example). Paul B (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

So there are users of Wikipedia who would like to deny every single trace of Edward de Vere in Shakespeare´s work or even remove all the traces. This is a futile effort. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare's seven ages speech derives primarily from Zodiacus Vitae, a school text. The argument connecting it to the Siena designs is frankly desperate. This supposed effort is not futile, since it is supported by almost all serious Shakespeare scholars. But of course this page is for discussion of the theory, which means that the arguments should be obviously be included. Nevertheless, the page should be coherent - not a rag-bag collection of any old idea that anyone ever had, thrown together. The case is not well supported when it is full of transparent misrepresentations of the facts. Paul B (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

One unintended consequence of having every fanciful connection reproduced here, given that Wikipedia is the 'goto' source for online argument, is that they get reproduced elsewhere. For example, the imdb board for the film was recently flooded by a poster who reproduced each tiny quoted similarity as a separate thread in the hope that serious argument would be deleted by the board's housekeeping routines. On the whole, if nonsense cannot be labelled as 'fanciful speculation' it should be omitted from an 'encyclopaedic' reference work. Readers who alight on this page are not aware that it is a ghetto for arguments that have proved unacceptable when submitted to the arbitration process elsewhere and unless there is a better warning that the page contains widely discredited argument and the unacceptable idea that Shakespeare's plays are code biography rather than works of imagination, I think the whole page should be removed.Alfa-16 (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Improvements

I feel the article has been vastly improved with just a few changes. Still needs works in the body, but the introduction is looking very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.115.210 (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You can improve the article if you add useful, content rather than assertions. Paul B (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

And preface the section by explaining that however similar the comparisons may seem, over the entire corpus of 37 plays, they do little to support the overall case of Oxford's authorship given that it would be relatively easy to come up with a similar list of 'similarities' to any other Elizabethan or Jacobean nobleman, or even members of the contemporary middle classes. It should at least acknowledge that these similarities are not seen to contribute anything to the argument outside the dedicated inner circle of Oxfordian zealots. Alfa-16 (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent vandalism has been deleted. Brilliant exposition restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.12.126 (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want a change that is retained in the article it will be necessary to understand some of the very reasonable procedures used at Wikipedia. See WP:5P for an overview, but the critical points for the attempted changes are found in WP:NPOV. Text like "convincingly demonstrates" must be attributed as someone's opinion, and the someone must be a recognized authority on the subject. Likewise "but this is hardly definitive as to their composition" and "This is a reasonable conclusion in light of recent scholarship" are the opinions of an editor: good stuff on a blog but not usable here. There are several other problems with the attempted changes. If there is a question about how to implement an improvement, please add a new section and ask. Also, you can try WP:HELPDESK.

Continuing the current line of repeating the changes and calling their reversion vandalism is just going to get the article protected so you cannot change it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oxford´s travel and his stay in Italy

Thanks to user 67.142.235.68 who removed this unbelievable nonsense concerning Oxford´s travel‎ to Italy and his stay there for almost one year. Without any justification someone tried to minimize the significance of Oxford´s stay in this beautiful and culturally important country and of the experience he gathered there for the authorship question. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your paragraph is almost a copendium of non sequiturs. He gathered no experience for the "authorship question". That sentence is nonsensical. If you mean the experience he gathered has been used by proponents of Oxford in debates about the "authorship question", then that's true of course. It's also valid to criticise that so-called evidence. Though unsourced, many of those criticisms are entirely valid and are often made. The fact that Italy is "beautiful and culturally important" is preposterously irrelevant. No-one said it isn't. So's China. And of course Oxford was the only "candidate" who went to Italy. Paul B (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am prepared to discuss with you, Paul B. First of all, you obviously misunderstood my second sentence. I was not saying: "He gathered experience for the authorship question". Instead of this, I was saying: "Someone tried to minimize the significance of Oxford´s stay in Italy and of the experience he gathered there for the authorship question. This is different. As everybody knows, WS of Stratford never visited Italy, and this fact is also significant for the pending solution of the authorship question. Those deleted unsourced criticisms were simply a guess-work without any substance. Apropos, the true author of the Shakespeare canon was an artist and was not obliged to be 100 p.c. exact in geography. However, it can be e.g. said that Bohemia was a powerful country in the Middle Ages and had in fact at a certain time even access to the Adriatic See. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Everbody does not know that WS of Stratford never visited Italy. We have no evidence for what he was doing for several years from the mid 1580s to 1592, so he might have done. But it makes no difference if he did or didn't. The stuff about Oxford in Italy is simply "guesswork without any substance". It is factually true that Shakespeare does not describe any distinctive Italian flora. It is also true that he describes a coast in Bohemia (copying from his source), which someone who had visited the area should know is wrong, and he makes other mistakes about the geography of Italy (as well as other places). But then you argue that he does not have to be "100% accurate" anyway, so the whole Oxfordian argument that you have just propounded goes out of the window! Bohemia, BTW, is a specific region. It never had a coast. The fact that the person who ruled it at one time also ruled other territories that did have a coast does not mean that Bohemia did or ever did. In any case this is utterly irrelevant, since visiting Italy in the 16th century does not give you special access to information about Medieval Bohemia and the whole coast-of-Bohemia thing is copied from Thomas Lodge's Rosalynd. Paul B (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, brainstorm there - I meant Greene's Pandosto of course, not Lodge's Rosalynd. Wrong play. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Out of the window goes nothing. You seem to be very keen to find some single argument. In any case, we have very little evidence what WS of Stratford did at any time, except e.g. that we know he was a merchant and travelled between Stratford and London. His "seven lost years", this is very special. And then out of a sudden he is the utmost poet, not a crow (Green). Where did he write the plays and sonnets? Where were his numerous books? Where are his original manuscripts? Where is his school attendance? How is it possible that his son-in-law did not mention him as a poet? How is it possible that the First Folio was initiated by sort of relatives of the Earl of Oxford? And ever heard of the Fourth T? Etc. Good night anyway for today. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You are shifting your arguments again. He wasn't the utmost poet at all in 1592. Have you read his early works? They are pretty crude, and obviously imitate earlier literature: Greene, Peele, Marlowe et al. Where did he write them? Who cares? That's a silly question, All you need is a pen, paper, a literary tradition, imagination and motivation. Where you dip your ink is the least important issue. As for his books - where are Marlowe's books, or Greene's books, or Kyd's books, or Lodge's, or Peele's, or Nashe's? Can you identify any copies of books owned by them? Why would you expect to be able to do so? There is is no evidence whatever that the First Folio was initiated by "sort of relatives" (sort of relatives?) of Oxford. It was initiated by Shakespeare's colleagues, Heminges and Condell, and was patronised by aristocrats. Aristocrats were all "sort-of" relatives of one another. They tended to inter-marry you know. Heminges and Condell have a direct, documrnted relationship with Shakespeare, not Oxford. They are listed as sharer-members of his company and they are even mentioned in his will. It doesn't get clearer than that. Paul B (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You missed the point, Paul B. Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke (10th Creation), was son-in-law of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. His wife was Lady Susan de Vere (26 May 1587–1628/29), daughter of Edward de Vere. In 1623, Philip Herbert, the then 1st Earl of Montgomery, and his elder brother, William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke (10th Creation), were, as it is well known, sponsors of the printing of the First Folio of the plays attributed until now to William Shakespeare of Stratford. For lack of evidence, their role in this important affair is utterly unclear, but there is the possibility that the brethren even possessed the original manuscripts of the plays. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Your missing the point. This page is for discussing how to improve the article so that it best reflects the assessment of the most respected academic sources on th esubject. These sources certainly would nto use phrases such as "attributed until now to William Shakespeare of Stratford". A preference for such language suggests that you are hear to advance a fringe theory and not to reflect mainstream scholarship.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "fringe theory", Peter cohen? Does this expression and the treatment of any theory as "fringe" belong to the 21st century? I can´t believe it. We are free men, we have free opinions. I don´t know what "mainstream scholarship" is. Do you want to exclude me from a talk page of Wikipedia, this world-wide medium? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on fringe theories is very well established. It is the same reason that creationists cannot write on the Age of the Earth page that while the planet has been thought up to now to be billions of years old, this position is crumbling in the light of new evidence. It's the reason that someone who thinks John F. Kennedy faked his own death cannot alter the lead to say that he allegedly died on November 22, 1963. Even if the Earl of Oxford really did write these plays and poems, Wikipedia policy is to faithfully report the overwhelming scholarly consensus that he didn't; remember, "if available in Galileo's time, [Wikipedia] would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'." - Cal Engime (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss

Cengime, your bold revisions have destroyed a page of careful consensus that was reached by discussions over 10 years. A major part of the consensus was that the "in-your-face" anti-Oxfordian rhetoric was left for the SAQ main page, and that this page was focused on the Oxfordian claims. I have therefore reverted all of your massive re-editing over the past few days and would be happy to enter into a cycle of consensus-based editing.Jdkag (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Where was that consensus reached? I searched the archives of the talk pages of both articles for discussions you participated in, but only found you seemingly arguing that Oxfordian arguments should be uncritically repeated on that page as well. ("You prefer to exploit this page to disparage the people who have held such beliefs, rather than allowing this page to be a succinct summary of their arguments." - Talk:SAQ archive 26) The reason given for adding the NPOV tag to this article was that it treats Oxfordianism too much like an equally credible position (in violation of policy against giving an inflated picture of the notability or academic acceptance of fringe theories), and I agree. - Cal Engime (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no "page of careful consensus". It has long been agreed that this page is an utter mess that violates almost all relevant Wikipedia policies. Of course this article should concentrate in detail on Oxfordian arguments, but it also should include mainstream rebuttals. I have long thought that the history section should go at the top, rather than be stuck at the end. Many of the "arguments" presented here are very distorted - some passages were and are downright erroneous. Others are pointless (e.g. the long Chapman quotation which has nothing to do with authorship as such). Paul B (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As more than a full day has passed with no defence of the reason given for the revert or further comments opposed to the revisions, I have decided to reinstate the edits and resume work on the article. For now, I'm mainly interested in trimming down or eliminating the "Parallels" sections. This article doesn't need a list of supposed evidence that long and detailed any more than Baconian theory needs a list of Bacon ciphers as long as the rest of the article or Squaring the circle needs a long explication of "proofs" of claimed methods for squaring the circle; maybe three to five specific examples should be used to illustrate the general tenor of Oxfordian arguments, but describing them in minute detail at greater length than that gives them undue weight, makes a mockery of guidelines on article size, and serves only to make this page a soapbox for its subject. - Cal Engime (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I too was waiting for a day before reminding the editors who invoked BRD that it stands for "Bold, Revert, Discuss". There is no point in invoking this if you have no intention of participating in the D part. It's not a magic incantation to ward off all edits you don't like. Also, you have to discuss the way we should present content, not use the talk page to "prove" the Oxfordian position. Paul B (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi boys! How y'all been? I've been on a bit of a wiki-holiday, but I'm slowly getting back into the saddle again. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Mostly quiet on the Oxfordshire front until this sudden flurry of skirmishes and new summer campigning. How are things in the real world? Paul B (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What real world? You mean the world where politicians say they believe in balanced budgets but not in raising taxes? Sometimes I wonder what the definition of reality is.

I'm glad to see this article is finally receiving some sustained and systematic attention. I've been raking over the de Vere bio page; a lot of fantasy was infused in the last "rewrite". Tom Reedy (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oxfordian numerology

I've just read an Oxfordian article cited in the text and replaced the copy of the abstract that was there before with this clearer summary:

A 2009 article in the Oxfordian journal Brief Chronicles noted that Meres compares 17 named English poets to 16 named classical poets, and claims that the numbers should be symmetrical, so this is proof that two of the English poets (viz., Oxford and Shakespeare) are actually one and the same.<ref>Robert Detobel and K.C. Ligon, [http://briefchronicles.com/ojs/index.php/bc/article/view/8 "Francis Meres and the Earl of Oxford,"] ''Brief Chronicles'' I (2009), 123-137.</ref>

Should this reference just be removed? I'm not sure this is a notable argument for Oxfordianism. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I find the argument ludicrous beyond words. I quite like it for that reason - since it screams out its own silliness. But of course it is not a notable argument discussed by other writers. Oxfordian editors are keen to include stuff from this journal because it comprises their main bid for academic respectability. I actually think it would be better to have a section discussing Oxfordian publications, ending with the establishment of this journal itself, noting that it aims to situate itself as a peer reviewed scholarly journal (see the Brief Chronicles article written by its editor). A few comments on the content af articles including this one could be added in that section. Paul B (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't notable in the Wikipedia sense of the term, so no, it shouldn't be included. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Stratfordian Interpretation and Analysis of the Oxfordian theory of the Shakespeare authorship

This is what the title of this article should be. "William Shakespeare" was a pseudonym sometimes spelled "Shake-speare". We have six surviving signatures of Will Shakspere from Stratford on Avon. He himself never spelled his name "Shakespeare," not even in his will, which mentions nothing of books, plays, or manuscripts. His name would not have been pronounced as we pronounce "Shakespeare" now. The dearth of hard information regarding Shakspere is incredible, as no mention of him as a person is ever made, though there are references to the pseudonym. In fact, we know more about any number of other writers who were living at the time. No one made any mention of Shakspere when he died. His children were illiterate, and neither them nor his son-in-law ever thought he was a writer. Most of the people from Stratford were illiterate. It should be mentioned that the Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford also had an estate on the river Avon, and he life in the Stratford suburb of London, two references made in the dedication to the First Folio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.125.47 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, but Wikipedia is not the place for cutting-edge analysis of the authorship question, nor does it indiscriminately collect arguments for fringe views; it is an academically conservative reference work which reflects the balance of opinion in reliable sources, none of which give any credence to these arguments. - Cal Engime (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, your generic anti-Stratfordian arguments about the lack of information about Shakespeare, supposed illiteracy of his family, etc. have nothing to do with Oxfordianism per se, and belong at articles like Shakespeare authorship question and Spelling of Shakespeare's name. The fact that de Vere inherited an estate on the Avon and lived near Stratford is in fact already mentioned in this article, in the section "Stratford connections and Oxford's annuity". - Cal Engime (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, he never lived there. He rented the property, then sold it. He owned (and usually sold) lots of properties all over the country. Of course no-one would refer to Oxford by the name of the river near a house he didn't live in and sold 20 years earlier - they'd refer to his birthplace Castle Hedingham or house in Hackney. The fact that this ludicrous argument is presented as "evidence" is indicative of the utter impossiblity of rational argument. Paul B (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in my comment was "cutting-edge analysis." These arguments have been around for decades. They've been ignored and ridiculed by orthodox scholars, but they're not new or, again, "cutting edge." The fact that they have been around for some time and have gathered the support of distguished researchers, scholars, and intellectuals is plenty argument enough that they should be included in any article that discusses Oxford as the author of the plays. This also demonstrates that they are not "fringe" theories. Various Oxfordians groups and societies exist to promote research in this area. Many articles and books have been written on the subject. Thus, they are not "fringe" theories, and your calling them so does not make them so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.120.131 (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I sympathise with your enthusiasm, but it doesn't matter how many lawyers, librarians, and independent researchers consider Shakespeare's authorship an open question. For the purpose of determining due weight, only representation in reliable sources on Elizabethan literary history is relevant, and the world's Oxfordian English professors can be counted on one hand. As long as the Oxfordian theory is, as you note, "ignored and ridiculed" by the academic establishment, Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and essays are clear that it should not be treated like an equally valid alternative to what all the experts have believed for centuries. (Please save us the trouble of the usual self-comparison to Galileo.) - Cal Engime (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you define "reliable"? The so-called experts ignore, distort, and misrepresent evidence that contradicts their point of view. For how many centuries have "experts" believed that the sun revolved around the Earth before scientists argued to the contrary. Many Shakespeare scholars simply refuse to engage the authorship question and will not let graduate students do serious research in the field if they want to become accredited in the field. Therefore, it is largely a "closed" field in academia, shut out to those who hold anything other than the traditional view. Thus, it is left to researchers outside of university English departments to write and research on the issue. This article is about, or should be about, the "Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship". It should not be about the "Stratfordian dismissal of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship," which is currently how is it written. And because it is about the Oxfordian theory, it would not be giving "undue weight" to this theory to discuss it in an objective way, rather than biased way it is being discussed now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.2.100 (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You know, I asked you politely not to compare yourself to Galileo.

Thank you for asking what makes a source "reliable" for the purposes of Wikipedia. Here is the relevant section of Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability.

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Content related to living people or medicine should be sourced especially carefully.

Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view also contains relevant material:

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as Holocaust denial, or claims the Apollo moon landing was faked.

If academics treat the whole question as a waste of time, that only further attests to its fringe status. Whether or not this treatment is justified is irrelevant. - Cal Engime (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You are using circular reasoning to define what is "reliable" in this case. Moreover, Roger Stritmatter is a Shakespeare academic who doesn't think this is a waste of time. His research demonstrates the concordance between Edward de Vere's bible and the "Shakespeare" plays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.115.11 (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Dr Stritmatter reminds me—if you are the user identified at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question as "The anon editor who most recently edited as 71.191.2.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (previously 71.191.7.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 71.191.11.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 71.191.1.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and other IPs shown in the page history of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford)", then I must inform you are subject to a topic ban on all pages related to the Shakespeare authorship question or Edward de Vere, and may not even discuss these subjects on talk pages or any other part of Wikipedia.

In any case, the standards used to determine the reliable sources on William Shakespeare and the authorship question are the same as those on every other topic covered in Wikipedia, and this is neither the time nor the place to reconsider them. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to arrest me? I understand that Wikipedia editors like ban editors who disagree with them. Just don't harm my children or other family members. Allow me my last cigarette before you put me before the firing squad.

Wikipedia is obviously not the place to discuss the Shakespeare authorship question, as all articles and discussions related to the matter are controlled by people who control the orthodox point of view, which common sense and reason demonstrate is utter nonsense. It will be left the younger generation of thinkers and scholars to lead the way, while the older generation hangs on to its Santa Clause fantasy of Shakspere from Stratford as the author of the great "Shakespearean" plays. The so-called "experts" in the field are wrong and refuse to admit it. It is not a fringe theory to explain they Shakspere wrote no plays and that Edward de Vere did. And discussing these realities is not giving them "undue weight". If I am wrong about all this, then Wikipedia as an open source of information is a failure as a source of intelligent and objective information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.0.162 (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It really is best to just ignore these types of editors and just remind them of the final arbitration decision. Talk page abuse is also covered under the sanctions, so any violations can be deleted. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, my anonymous friend, it's hard to take accusations of bias seriously when they come from someone who thinks the first sentence should be "The Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship convincingly demonstrates that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550–1604), wrote the plays and poems traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon." I would be happy to continue this discussion via e-mail, but further flagrant violations of your topic ban will be reverted. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Original research

Cal Engime, a lot of your additions seem to be WP:OR. For example, in the section Plays referring to post 1604-historical events, the very first sentence is sourced to a site that says nothing about the Oxfordian interpretation of Macbeth. Sources cited must be in context to the article, IOW they should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. And any statement that cites scholarly consensus must be sourced to a reliable reference that states exactly that; an editor cannot make that determination himself. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That is the source cited by the anonymous user who added that paragraph in 2006. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Status and purpose of a "Talk page"

What has been said to "Talk pages"?

8) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aspire to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.

So, I understand that a talk page is still a page for a free discussion of the associated article. What is a personal view which is "not allowed"? Everybody speaks from a personal point of view, user Cengime, user Tom Reedy, user Zbrnajsem. I say once more: Nobody has the right to restrict free decent discussion on Wikipedia in the 21st century. This would be completely absurd! This would be outright censorship. There can be no restrictions for talk contributions to this special page on the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship in the way that this talk page could only be used by persons adhering to the so-called mainstream theory (called by most people "Stratfordian theory"). I am to a high degree critical to voices saying that the Oxfordian theory is something like creationism or thing like this. What sort of argument is this? This arguing has no value, no dignity.

As to the "ban" on monopolization, what about this special moment? Are there people who would like to monopolize this talk page for a certain view of the Oxfordian theory, and in the same time to exclude the other view, I mean the view of the supporters of this theory as such?

And is there a possibility to criticize something like a misuse of such practices like excessive deleting on this page, which we experienced in the past days? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read the links in the information about the ArbCom sanctions I placed on your talk page.

Also please read Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines, which specifically states that "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject", as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Believe it or not, Wikipedia is not about free speech. I hope this answers your questions. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As to your other questions: this article is about "the view of the supporters of this theory as such", so the views are not being excluded, but neutrally presented and put into academic context. As far as I can see, no one has deleted any material from this page, but any off-topic abuse of the talk page can and will be deleted. I do see that the archive robot has moved some old discussions to the archives, where they may be found. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You have every right to criticise what you may consider to be "excessive deletion", though you should explain why you think specific deletions are inappropriate. And may I remind you that your recent reappearance on this talk page was to praise an editor for deleting material you didn't like, despite the fact that it was largely accurate [2]. So your complaint is not very consistent. If you want to discuss what arguments should be included and how the article should be organised you are welcome to do so. For some reason very few Oxfordian editors seem to be able to engage in discussion of that sort, but instead use the talk page to "prove" their case. So far you have been no exception, but you can still participate usefully if you choose to do so. Paul B (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have carefully read everything what was told to me above, and I can say that I find especially the response of Paul B quite helpful. I still don´t understand what "an academic context" should be. I am not a scholar specialized on literature, this I can say. However, I have earned a PhD of a certain kind, so I consider myself an academician. Or would it be false in someone´s eyes to make such a self-description? Well, I am a supporter of the Oxfordian theory, and as such I demand the right to participate on this talk page. However, I know that I would be immediately topic-banned, if I tried to state something supporting Oxford in any article concerning the Shakespeare case, not only in the article on the Oxfordian theory, but even in the article on the historical person of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. It is allowed to me just to do very minor editing, isn´t it? Does anybody think this is compatible with standards of publishing on this electronic encyclopaedia in the 21st century, this age of enlightment? I find myself remembered on some previous ages, and I strongly oppose such attitudes. The existence of the "topic-ban" is the reason why not many Oxfordians can be "useful" for this and the other articles. As soon as they say they are Oxfordians, they are confronted with a lot of reproach, to describe the real situation very tactfully. So the article on the Oxfordian theory does not say everything what is known, and there is scarcely anybody who can oversee the whole matter. The deleting of the last time was excessive, this is my opinion. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not most useful to readers as a bastion of academic freedom. It is a stodgy and conventional reference work that millions of people rely on for verifiable, mainstream information. Understandably, some people would like to exploit Wikipedia's popularity to promote their personal views among unwitting readers. Imagine that you were looking for information about radiometric dating, knowing nothing about the subject, and some creationist had written all over the page that this method is not very reliable and that many scientists now think radioactive decay is non-constant. This creationist might complain if his views were confined to a single paragraph saying that this is something creationists believe and no physicists take seriously, or even completely excluded from the page, but the article is more useful to readers if it explains the views of specialists in the relevant fields without giving equal validity to the views of millions of religious people.

What about Young Earth creationism—should that article be a POV fork where the creationist can write at length about supposed evidence for radiometric dating being useless? No: it's more helpful for people looking up young-Earth creationism if it is clearly described as pseudoscientific and everything in the article is prominently contrasted with the mainstream view.

Although Oxfordians regularly claim that their numbers are growing within and without academia, Oxfordianism has zero representation in reliable sources, and no doubt practically all of the voluminous research published on Shakespeare every year simply takes Shakespeare's authorship for granted as a well-established fact. Whether or not Oxfordianism deserves to be marginalised is not for us to judge; fringe views need to be clearly described as such.

About your specific concern of excessive deletions, most of which I was responsible for: articles that take excessively long to read are not helpful to the reader. Only a few examples of what Oxfordians claim as evidence are necessary to give an overview of the theory; anybody who decides that they want more information can easily find it in the article's sources and on the Internet. The fact that the whole theory is notable doesn't mean that any individual argument is. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You and me will obviously not very soon find the same speech and the same attitude towards the problem involved, Cal Engime. Creationism is not a good argument or example for the reasons to neglect the Oxfordian theory. Creationism is really outdated, it is something which is opposed to our modern knowledge about nature. As I see it, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship is a problem for historical research, among other fields, but mostly a problem of history in general and history of English literature in particular. I can´t agree with you, I am sorry. There can´t be any limits for historical research in a free society, and if somebody tries to create barriers for it, then this approach is not scientific. Who can be the authority to take a definitive decision on the validity of all the theories - in every detail - about the reasons why e.g. World War I broke out, and for the motives which led to it? By the way, where is the definitive, final and irreversible evidence for the so-called mainstream theory? Can there be a definitive evidence in this special case? Can´t we look for counter-evidence, and are we not allowed to present evidence, even circumstantial one, for the only different theory which matters (in my view)? Judge Stevens is a respectable person, by no means a creationist, and he has developped this view of the matter. Well, now I have seen better than before that you in fact agreed that the Oxfordian theory is notable. OK, it really is, and so more arguments, more detailed arguments, for this theory should be placed on Wikipedia. There are already many arguments presented by mainstream scholars against it on Wikipedia, and there is no equilibrium. Maybe I am not the person who will do this work to a large extent, because of my still limited knowledge of some necessary details. But for me, this theory has a great substance, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence for it, and I am almost sure there is not only circumstantial evidence. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is not an appropriate forum for general discussion of the authorship question, but I will send you an e-mail detailing some of the evidence that convinces me that the plays and poems were written by William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oxford´s finances

This time I agree with Tom Reedy. His latest remark on Oxford´s finances is correct and important. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume this comment is in reference to the discussion in the section entitled "So what's next for this article?" Please do us the courtesy of following Talk page protocol. Add comments beneath those to which they are replying in the relevant section. Do not create new sections which "reply" to a statement which you do not even identify. It makes your comment unintelligable to any new or uninvolved editor. Your (now redacted) remarks indicate that you still cannot tell the difference between arguing that a particular view should be included and advocating. Paul B (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"Coriolanus" and the 1604 question

I added a sentence in the section on the 1604 question that restores a cite to a scholarly paper asserting events in 1595 and not 1607 were source of that play's opening scenes. Hope the form of the cite is correct.JohnDavidStutts (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Restored sentence re: scholarly opinion of date of Macbeth's composition

I restored a line referring to the opinion of A.R. Braunmuller, finding the purported evidence for a 1605-6 date of composition of Macbeth to be inconclusive. Since this scholarly opinion is included in the main Macbeth article, it seems fitting to include it here: indeed, the Macbeth article seems to more accurately portray the difference in scholarly opinion on the dating of this play's composition than this article. Hope form of the cite is correct. Also made some minor edits in punctuation & style, as the first sentence of this paragraph is a run-on. JohnDavidStutts (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Also qualified the statement about references to Henry Garnet trial of 1606 as "possibly" alluded to in Macbeth, to reflect the opinion expressed in main Macbeth article about its date of composition; changed "Oxfordians respond . . . " in the next sentence to "Oxfordian scholars respond . . ." as this sentence comes from Mark Anderson, who is cited in main Macbeth article on this point. Also noted in parenthetical that Braunmuller not an Oxfordian, as prior sentence may imply he was. Not sure if all these latter minor changes are strictly correct, but sought to preserve the more even-handed treatment of this issue presented in Macbeth article than was implied here.JohnDavidStutts (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ben Jonson

Barely any mention of this writer's association with William Shakespeare. Ben Jonson called Shakespeare the "soul of the age" and their recorded relationship is primary evidence. Oxfordians need to deal with the Jonson relationship, not ignore it. And "quantitative decrypted sonnets" are not hard evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.44.233 (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ben Jonson was refering to "William Shakespeare," which was a pseudonym. He was refering to whoever wrote the names, which was not Will Shaksper. Otherwise he would have call Will Shaksper the "soul of the age." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.12.120 (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite remarkably idiotic. He clearly refers to him as the person from Stratford. Paul B (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

To the topic-banned anonymous Oxfordian user, a.k.a. "Paull Barlow"

As you have no talk page that I can be sure you'll read, I am notifying you here that I am submitting an enforcement request against you due to your persistent defiance of your topic ban and revert-warring. - Cal Engime (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope this makes you sleep better at night. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.129.175 (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

British vs. American spelling

The article presently mixes British spellings (travelled, criticises, theatre) with American ones (traveled, recognized, theorizes, centered). Considering the strong national ties of Shakespeare, de Vere, and J. Thomas Looney, I think it would be advisable to adopt British spelling throughout. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, UK spelling should be adopted except where quotations from US writers are used. Paul B (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The POV tag

Would anyone object to my removing the page's POV tag? The original complaint by Peter Cohen was that "it largely treats Stratfordians and Oxfordian opinions as equal in the to-and-fro debate when policy clearly states that the academic mainstream shoudl be given much more weight than fringe conspiracy theories." Considering the amount of soapbox material which has lately been deleted, toned down, or rebutted, I think it's time to call this issue resolved. I invited Peter to weigh in on this, but haven't heard from him in a month. - Cal Engime (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that a "Stratfordian" had put up the tag. With articles like this one can never tell. Even the earlier version received complaints that it was pro-Strat. If it serves no purpose it should go. Paul B (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've read through the article again and it is much improved. I think it would be useful to at least explain the "Stratfordian" terminology instead of just using it. It would also be useful to find some mainstream commentary for sections where the Oxfordian claim is just inserted without challenge. The Italian business is one of the things in question. I would be tempted to point out that Oxford appears never to have gone to the setting of The Tempest and therefore the cannon must be written by someoen more travelled than him, but...

So remove the tag if you want.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and suggestions. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@Peter: There are ample rebuttals to Oxfordian arguments, but one problem is that they aren't made in context to the authorship question. Cal's changing all the "Stratfordian" to "mainstream" opens up a possible avenue: instead of saying "mainstream scholars answer" (or along those lines), just state what mainstream scholars say about that point. Would that be considered OR to do that?

One example would be under the subsection Oxford's Italian travels and the settings of Shakespeare's plays, the first graf of which is, "Almost half of Shakespeare's plays are set in Italy, many of them containing details of Italian laws, customs, and culture which Oxfordians believe could only have been obtained by personal experiences in Italy, and especially in Venice.[57] One example is the use of Venice's notorious Alien Statute as a plot device in The Merchant of Venice.[58]"

That could be immediately followed with something along the lines of, "Mainstream scholars say that Shakespeare used the 1599 English translation of Gasparo Contarini's The Commonwealth and Government of Venice for those details." (Ref would be Othello Michael Neill, ed. (2006) The Oxford Shakespeare, p. 18.)

Most of this stuff is in the Wiki play articles. See The Taming of the Shrew under "Date and text" for another good example. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The OR issue is, I think, unresolvable in cases like this. Adding facts without synthesising is OK, but of course all facts are there for a reason. The OR board in my experience has never reached a consensus about this (see those endless debates about sections on historical inaccuracies in books or films). I find the anti-OR hardliners deeply unhelpful in such cases. If a film has William Pitt congratulating Wellington on his victory at Waterloo, I don't see why we should need a specific discussion of the film itself to note that Pitt died nine years before the battle. I think if we can clearly source the fact that mainstream scholars say X about an issue used in Oxfordian arguments then it is not OR to simply note this fact as there is no synthesis taking place. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

English translation of Gasparo Contarini's "The Commonwealth and Government of Venice"

This translated book was published in England in 1599. Many of the plays with Italian background were written by Shakespeare before 1599. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course they were, but anyone can write a play set in Italy, or China, or the moon. The Oxfordian argument is that somehow only someone who had actually been there could have written plays with some specific details in them. If these details are specified with regard to Venice, then it is proper to give a mainstream response. Having said that, I do think arguments that come from specific authors should always be so identified. If the view is a widespread or consensus one that can also be noted. Paul B (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I can gather the whole sentence about Venice's "notorious alien statute" is lifted more or less verbatim from William Farina [3], though more probably from the quotation used on one of Michael Delahoyde's webpages [4]. Neither provide any evidence in support of their assertions. Farina also claims that Shakespeare has knowledge of the Venetian ghetto, legal principles and even the architecture of Palladian villas! And yet, I can find no evidence of this outside of the play itself. As far as I can tell, Shakespeare was such an expert in this law because he made it up. I may be wrong about this, but I have looked through several books on this topic and none of them refer to this as a real law. Indeed Kenneth Gross in his recent Shylock is Shakespeare (2006) states "We should recall here that the play itself knows nothing about the Venetian ghetto; we get no sense of a legally separate region of Venice where Shylock must dwell." In other words Shakespeare seems very hazy about how Jews actually lived in the city. Likewise, Scott McCrea commenting on Shakespeare's "nonrealistic Venice", criticises claims for Shakespeare's legal expertise:

If this law existed, as it does in the imaginary world of the play, it should, by all logic, have been cited at the outset of the hearing. On its authority, Shylock should have been warned not to proceed further and judgment found in favor of Antonio. It makes better theatre for Portia to bring up the statute after the exciting courtroom fireworks, when it's time to punish the villain, but it's ludicrous legal procedure—even in the Author's nonrealistic Venice.
The Author makes other mistakes too. For example, only in the play's created world can a creditor not take less than is due him; Shylock, Portia insists, cannot take less than a pound of flesh. In addition, the play turns on the fact that the contract does not mention blood, yet the grant of something implies whatever is unavoidable in the obtaining of it. If you are awarded your ex-husband's TV in a divorce settlement, it's implied that you may enter his house to take it.

The OUP edition of the Merchant also states that "Shakespeare again ignores generally accepted legal principles" in this passage. (p.203)

Scholars sometimes refer to this 'law' as Portia's "Alien Statute" or "Venice's alien statute" (meaning the "Venice" of the play), so my guess is that Farina misinterpreted comments on the Venice of the play as references to the real Venice, proving that Shakespeare's Venice is astoundingly close to the reality of...Shakespeare's Venice. Again, I may be wrong about this, but we need evidence that such a "notorious" statute actually existed. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This of course raises the fundamental question about how we treat Oxfordian "scholars". Pro-Oxfordian editors have simply added these arguments in a hit-and-miss way from their various sources. There is no discernable logic accounting for the inclusion of some and exclusion of other arguments. Clearly, however, it is one one the main Oxfordian arguments that Shakespeare has great familiarity with Venice and other towns visited by Oxford. It's only proper that there should be a detailed section on this, though all the arguments along these lines put forward over the years can't be listed. But how do you distinguish significant arguments from silly ones, and should we be removing arguments that are plain wrong or responding to them? In this case we can go with what Farina says and add the comments of McCrea, Gross et al as a response; but why choose Farina? If we had Oxfordian editors who could genuinely collaborate by identifying what they think are their most important arguments and the most significant sources for them, it would greatly help matters and allow us then to assign due weight to the arguments and to the mainstream responses to them. Paul B (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Charles Ross has a lengthy discussion of this supposed law in his Elizabethan Literature and the Law of Fraudulent Conveyance: Sidney, Spenser, and Shakespeare. The tl;dr version is that Shakespeare made it up based on the 1571 English law of conveyance, which he would have been very familiar with since his father had lost his mother's estate (which would have been inherited by Shakespeare as the eldest son) by mortgaging it to his brother-in-law and then defaulting, as outlined in a 1588 lawsuit known as Shakespeare vs Lambert, in which Shakespeare is named as one of the complainants. There is much evidence that the sale of the property was a fraudulent conveyance by John in fear of it being confiscated by the state because of his religious views.

Oxfordians--and not just them, but all anti-Stratfordians--will endlessly recycle faulty arguments made by other believers as if repetition somehow added strength to it. In this case, as with many other Oxfordian myths, the real history is much less mysterious. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and in answer to your question about what Oxfordian arguments to include, I would suggest Ogburn and Anderson as the main sources to use, Anderson being more up-to-date. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Those appear to be the most popular with Oxfordians, along with Sobran, but I do think that ideally we should cover the historical range of theorising where possible. The whole Italy section needs an overhaul. The bit on Grillo needs to be put in context (was his book really published three years after his death, or is that an English translation of an Italian text?). I'll look for some reviews/comments. We should lay out the main Oxfordian arguments about Italy and the claims of back up by the odd Shakespearean who has argued that Will must/might have visited the country. I don't follow the claim that "Oxfordians do not believe that Shakespeare ever showed any interest in Italian culture". How would they know, since they claim that all his written works were not by him anyway? I guess you could say there is no evidence that he ever showed ...etc. The bit about "italian idioms" in the English dialogue of the Shrew is rather confusing. Does this refer to literal English translations of Italian idomatic phrases? It needs to be clarified. Paul B (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about the amount of detail added to this article. the history section should cover most of Looney, and the page is not meant to be a comprehensive list of every argument, and we certainly don't need another POV fork with its attendant edit and deletion wars. We should just concentrate on the main stalwarts of Oxfordian argument. For example, the inane Sobran quote about Shakespeare not being interested in Italy should just be cut instead of refuted. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you think a POV fork might be created. I guess there could be an article on "Shakespeare and Italy". It's a topic that's been widely written about. Like the "spelling" article it could have a subsection on anti-Strat ideas. One of the problems with this article is that it implies that the "he must have been in Italy" argument is specifically evidence for Oxford. In fact it was largely invented and developed by Derbyites. Oxfordians just copied it. But it's difficult to add that fact here without going off topic. I've already stated that the page cannot be a "comprehensive list of every argument". It's a question of deciding what's most important. An Oxfordian happened to add the stuff about the "notorious Alien Statute", which turns out to be notorious baloney, so we now have a response. But there is no reason why that argument happens to be here. Since it is, it needs to be replied to. The stuff at the end of the section is just incomprehensible. It refers to Italian in the banter of TOS (which is certainly there: "PETRUCHIO Signior Hortensio, come you to part the fray? Con tutto il cuore, ben trovato, may I say. HORTENSIO Alla nostra casa ben venuto, Molto honorato signor mio Petruchio."), but the longish refutation only refers to English language passages, so it needs to be clarified. Paul B (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had that chapter around here but I'm too lazy to dig through the rubble and find it. I'm going to the library tomorrow and I'll pick it up and fix the Shrew section. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly the principal promoter of Florio himself as an authorship candidate argues that his Italian in the play is so bad, it can only be designed to conceal his true nationality. See John_Florio#Shakespeare_authorship_theory. Paul B (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Just one remark. In the article, section "Italian travel", there is the following sentence: "However, Shakespeare scholars say that Shakespeare gets many details of Italian life wrong, including the laws and urban geography of Venice." OK, but what about the possibility that the author has done this on purpose? Similarly, Ed de Vere wrote to Lord Burghley that he did not like Italy very much. However, this might have been pure pretense, play-acting. He stayed in Italy for another six months. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, so now the topsy-turvey John Florio argument I've just mentioned becomes an Oxfordian one. You are certainly progressing in the great tradition of anti-Strat thinkers. Do you realise how utterly circular this reasoning is? If Shakespeare gets details of Italian life right, that's proof he (i.e. the 'real author') was in Italy. If he gets them wrong, that's because he is trying to hide the fact that he has been in Italy. We can apply that to the whole of Oxfordian claims with convincing results. If a character seems to resemble Oxford or someone in his circle, that's proof he wrote the plays. If it turns out it doesn't, that's proof he's trying to conceal the evidence that he wrote the plays... Paul B (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Things are complicated enough. Maybe in this special respect they are as complicated as I suggested just one and a half hours ago. Oxfordians say that de Vere concealed a lot. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If any published Oxfordian source makes the argument that de Vere attempted to conceal his authorship by making the plays look like they'd been written by someone who didn't know much about Italian laws and culture, and at the same time feigning lack of interest in Italian laws and culture, then that should certainly be mentioned in the article. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been posited. It certainly has all the logic of an Oxfordian argument. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Nelson and the statistical significance of an overlap

Nelson noted a "lack of statistical significance of the overlap" in case of so-called De Vere Bible. Was Nelson really correct? The overlap is approximately one quarter. I think this would be per se quite significant from the statistical point of view. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Basically what is being said is that the Oxfordian method of analysis is one-dimensional. There are two large sets: the ~1000 verses marked in the Bible, and the ~2000 verses Shakespeare alluded to. Of the 1000 Bible verses, approximately 200 (Anderson's "about a quarter") can be read as alluding to Shakespeare's usage in some way--actual quotation, allusion, or thematic--even though only about 80 of them actually overlap with his actual, recognized usage of Bible verses. So out of 2000 Biblical allusions found in Shakespeare, only about 10 percent are found marked in the Bible, which is half of the percentage touted by Oxfordians. Tom Veal does an analysis of the figures, and even including every loose interpretation, determines that the actual overlap is less than one standard deviation above chance. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You'd need to find reliable sources that challenge the statistical analysis. Gut feeling is not enough.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement is cited to several sources - not just Nelson. Part of the problem here is that this is not a subject that is can really be addressed with scientific precision. What consitutes an "allusion" is very subjective. Stritmatter has a motive for finding as many allusions as possible. He's looking for them. Also, the Bible isn't a random distribution of equally possible verse choices. It has very famous bits and very obscure bits. The famous bits are more likely to be alluded to, or marked, by anyone. We can't just say 25% is a large, small or even meaningful figure. Paul B (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the whole Shakespeare case, a lot of people have looked for allusions. I don´t see real evidence which would convince me, up to now, and nowhere. There is, for everybody, only one´s feeling. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really sure what you are getting at now. My comment referred to Biblical allusions: Shakespeare "using" specific ideas, phrases or stories from the Bible. That's what the disputed statistics refer to. Paul B (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't meant to be about convincing people it is meant to be about constructing an article that reflects the balance of opinions that appears in the best scholarship (i.e. preferable in peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Appearances are not what I let myself to be led with. The specific question to be discussed here is, if Roger Stritmatter´s findings in connection with the Bible which belonged to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, are right or not. Paul B. said: "We can't just say 25% is a large, small or even meaningful figure." Possibly it is meaningful, and Nelson just wrote something which was simply not convincing. Am I obliged to believe what Nelson or Shapiro write about the whole case of Shakespeare authorship all the time? They are committed partisans, aren´t they? What is especially new in their writings? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

We are not obliged to believe anyone, but by Wikipedia rules we are supposed to give the range of views, giving more credit to experts and more weight to mainstream views than to fringe ones. As I keep saying, Nelson is not the only source. If you really want to look at the arguments, rather than just choose to 'believe', I suggest you read some of the sources, most of which are freely available. Even Nelson can be accessed via Questia in full online. [5] [6] [7] [8] Paul B (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This illustrates very well one of the major problems with this page. Kathman says about 20 percent of the verses marked in the Bible correspond to Shakespeare's usage in some way; Anderson says "about a quarter" (the figure used in this article). The Nelson cite doesn't make sense, because the page numbers go beyond the bounds of his paper in the source and they don't correspond to his Oxford bio either, and Tom Veal's work, as much as I admire his analysis, is on a blog. That's why it's gonna take a concerted effort by more than two or three people to get this article in anywhere near even a Good status.

And IMO improving the De Vere page should precede improving this one, but it is so subtly (and not-so-subtly) distorted from what the sources say, it's gonna take months to get it sorted out. I suppose the only thing to do is keep chipping away at them. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess we could say "between 20 and 25 percent" or whatever the range is according to different sources. As for Nelson, I temporarily have no access to his full text. Does he discuss the bible at all? Paul B (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Periods after refs

Actually, Cal Engime, periods at the end of cites are WP house style. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Blogs as sources for references

Just a question. Is it allowed to use private blogs as sources for references? At least References 44, 45, 48 and 49 are connected to "private blogs", as I see it. Is it compatible with Wikipedia rules? The text of Section "Oxford´s Bible" and the choice of references are not conforming to WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View). As I see it, also at least the title of Section "Oxfordian cipher-hunting" in this article is not conforming to WP:NPOV. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Blogs should not normally be used unless the author is established as reliable. However, there are distinct rules for fringe topics, because the fringe theories are themselves supported by unreliable writers. See WP:PARITY. Paul B (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I brought this up earlier. I'm assuming Paul is referring to this from that section:

...certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review, other considerations for notability should be considered as well.

That satisfies me as far as the use of Tom Veal's criticism, because as far as I know his type of analysis hasn't been done elsewhere, and Shapiro refers to him in his authorship book.

If you want to challenge the use of the source, Zbrnajsem, you can bring it up at the Reliable sources noticeboard, which is the place for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. In this case, I feel sure that the community consensus will say that it is. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

On the naming of the section heading, I agree it's a bit "journalistic", so feel free to suggest a blander alternative. Paul B (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"Oxford" vs. "de Vere"

After the first reference, the page refers to Oxford sometimes by his surname and sometimes by his title. Shakespeare authorship question prefers "Oxford," so I'm going to change it to that throughout unless anybody strongly prefers "de Vere." - Cal Engime (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that the mix of names breaks up the monotony a bit, myself. Is there a MOS policy on this? Tom Reedy (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tom that it's really a matter of stylistic choice, but thre are times when "de Vere" is better and others when "Oxford" is better. If you are claiming there is a pun on "e vere" in the use of the word "ever" or some such, then it is obviously useful to remind the reader that the guy was called de Vere. I don't think there is a clear policy on this. The use of a subject's first name ("Edward then married William's daughter") is discourged, but even that is not ruled out. Paul B (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it, I think Ward's bio should be part of the history of the Ox. movement, since his primary purpose was to qualify de Vere as Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Juvenilia

Juvenilia is a term applied to literary, musical or artistic works produced by an author during his or her youth. User Cengime does not apply this term to someone of say 21 or 22 years of age. Cengime is very active now, making an article on "Oxfordian theory" an overall mainstream article, eliminating every thought expressed by an Oxfordian or expressed by someone else than him. For User Cengime, there is only mainstream literature and nothing else. Is it NPOV? For Cengime, Oxfordian theory is FRINGE, creationist, really bad, etc. At the end, we will have a thorough denial by Cengime of any slight possibility that there are doubts, which were expressed in connection with the mainstream theory e.g. by more than 2,400 educated people in the whole world, including persons professionally bound to Shakespearean theatre. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The term juvenilia is used by Oxfordians themselves. I agree it's wrong, but blame Oxfordian theorists, not Cengime. He would have been about 30 when he wrote the Anne Vavasour poems. If that's juvenilia, then the complete works of Marlowe, Keats and many other poets are juvenilia. Paul B (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the balance of opinion in reliable sources. If Steven May (as the article says, the leading authority on Oxford's poetry) says that Oxford's poetry is not juvenilia, and no reliable source disagrees with him, then it is simply not juvenilia. - Cal Engime (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Oxfordian theory as a theory which should be eliminated

This was one of the very few really Oxfordian thoughts in the article: "Sobran argues that the first seventeen sonnets, on the procreation theme, give indications of belonging to Burghley's campaign to make Southampton marry his granddaughter, who was Oxford's daughter Elizabeth Vere, and concludes that, '[o]bviously, Oxford would have known all three parties.... It is hard to imagine how Mr. Shaksper (of Stratford) could have known any of them. Let alone have been invited to participate in the effort to encourage the match.'(ref)Sobran-p.197.(ref) Sobran also observes that in 16th-century England, actors and playwrights did not presume to give advice to the nobility, and asserts "It is clear, too, that the poet is of the same rank as the youth. He praises, scolds, admonishes, teases, and woos him with the liberty of a social equal who does not have to worry about seeming insolent.... 'Make thee another self, for love of me' (Sonnet 10), is impossible to conceive as a request from a poor poet to his patron: it expresses the hope of a father — or a father-in-law. And Oxford was, precisely, Southampton's prospective father-in-law." (ref)"Sobran-p198".(ref)"

Now most of this, arguments made by Sobran which seem to me quite plausible, has been eliminated by User Cengime. Please compare. So this article shall, according to User Cengime, obviously contain no Oxfordian arguments. The Oxfordian theory is then something, which is no more explained in this article, which is eliminated as source of information or as a product of human thinking. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(Diff of the edit in question.) Looking at the edit in question and per WP:AGF, I would assume that Cengime was not trying to remove all Oxfordian thoughts or something, but rather felt that the section suffered from WP:UNDUE weight. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ian's assumption would be correct. The length and tone of these quotes (of which there were many prior to recent editing) is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. - Cal Engime (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Zbrnajsem, if you would acquaint yourself with the content guidelines at WP:FRINGE I believe you would find reasons for most of Cal Engime's edits. This article is about a fringe theory, and while I don't agree with all of Cengime's edits, on the whole he has improved the article and brought it more into compliance with Wikipedia standards. Generally speaking, we are here to describe the theory, not argue it. Instead of constantly making complaints here on the talk page, why not begin to educate yourself about the policies and guidelines used here so you'll know the difference between Wikipedia and other Oxfordian web pages? We have plenty of time for you to catch up and you can ask questions about things you don't understand; this page is not going anywhere. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don´t think that the section on Shakespeare's sonnets should have been shortened, and especially not in the way User Cengime did. On the contrary, the section concerning the Sonnets should be enlarged. There is so much to be said! If somebody reads the Sonnets and does not get at least some doubts on the wisdom of the mainstream theory, so he/she possibly has not read the poems with due reflection. It is especially the Sonnets which for me contain (in themselves!) so many allusions to a noble descent of their author, to his equal relationships to persons of undoubtedly high birth and of his personal fate, which in their entirety cannot be connected with the person of WS of Stratford. I don´t know every work on the Sonnets, but what came to my eyes and ears (and it was quite a lot) could not in any way persuade me to believe in WS´s authorship. And in such a case further doubts come from alone. What I can extract out of the comments above is that we are freely discussing a theory. I don´t consider the Oxfordian theory to be a fringe theory. And I have the full right to say so on a talk page. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So in other words you didn't read one word I wrote. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I have read almost everything what you wrote about questions related to the complex questions of the "Shakespeare canon" up to now, Tom Reedy. I am a very carefull reader, so I have also read everything in this section of our talk. And I reflect all the time everything what I have read. I know that your knowledge of the Shakespeare canon, of the whole literature is great. However, this is no reason for me to agree with you as far as the two existing theories are concerned. All other theories are of no importance, this is what I would say. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not been arguing the theory with you or anyone else. I am trying to acquaint you with the policies and procedures of Wikipedia. Nobody cares what you believe or don't believe; the only thing that matters here is the requirements of the encyclopedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reported myself on your behalf at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Why, Cengime - on my behalf? I have not asked you for this. We are discussing, nothing else. Be a little bit more patient. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that procreation sonnets were written for Southampton and Elizabeth. Maybe they were, but we have no idea, really, who they were written for, or in what circumstances. Since we know that Southampton was the dedicatee to Shakespeare's narrative works, Sobran's assertion that "It is hard to imagine how Mr. Shaksper (of Stratford) could have known any of them" is ludicrous. It's essentially a circular argument ("Shaksper" wasn't "Shakespeare"; therefore the man who dedicated the poems wasn't the man from Stratford; therefore there's no reason why he should have known Southampton). If we were to have a full examination of this, we would have to look at the range of mainstream views (including alternative candidates for the "fair youth" and the view that there is no single male addressee). We would have to look at scholarly views about the way poets of lower social status spoke in verse to patrons. The confidence of Sobran and Farina that literary intimacy is somehow out of the question could be debated. Then we might look at all the quite different Oxfordian theories about the meaning of the sonnets (they loom large in the writings of Prince Tudor believers); all that stuff about lameness and 'bearing the canopy' could be included, along with rebuttals. In the end the sonnet section would be of mountainous size, and would probably be unreadable. We'd end up with a WP:POV fork article, which is the last thing we need. What we do need are clear examples of Oxfordian arguments, maybe something on the evolution of the ideas, and mainstream rebuttals. It should be concise. That would be in line with the policies that Tom keeps pointing you to. Paul B (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So what's next for this article?

It's in a lot better shape than it was, but still a long way from Good status. For one thing, all of the citations need to be checked, and then the veracity of the citation should be determined and if it's questionable, it either needs to be noted or deleted. (I'm not too sure of Ogburn's claim about Michael Lok, for example.) In fact, should the spurious evidence Oxfordians give be rebutted as soon as it's mentioned? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Monstrous Adversary confirms a £3,000 investment in this voyage by Oxford on credit. Are you suggesting that there may now be too much immediate rebuttal or too little? - Cal Engime (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying Ogburn's interpretation of it may be faulty, and that all of his assertions need to be checked with other sources and rebutted if need be. My recollection is hazy, but I seem to recall that Michael Lok was the father of one of Oxford's servants, and Oxford stiffed him for a decade or so of back wages. I'll check when I get back in town. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the name "Michael Lok" significant in some way for Ogburn? Are we supposed to connect it with "Shy - lock"? Is that the idea? Paul B (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The main problem with this article is that it is almost impossible to decide what arguments are sufficiently important to include and what are not. It's also very difficult to find a model for organising the arguments. The article suffers from the worst of "Wikipedia syndrome" - bits of Oxfordian argument thrown in higgledipiggldy, with "Stratfordian" rebuttals scattered about. What's included and what's excluded seems almost arbitrary. Paul B (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If we don't strictly limit the depth of this article, the never-ending stream of Oxfordian editors demanding to know why the article doesn't include decisive arguments X, Y, and Z will bloat it to the size of one of their thousand-page books. - Cal Engime (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Howdy Cengime! What is the maximum size *any* Wikipedia page can be? Thanks! Knitwitted (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The community-established guidelines at Wikipedia:Article size say that an article above 60 kB of readable prose should probably be split; this article is currently 57 kB, having been shortened from 73 kB. When the "Parallels" section was split in the past, it was subsequently merged back into this article because of community consensus that devoting more than one page to the Oxfordian theory gives it undue weight. - Cal Engime (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Knitwitted (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Stritmatter's themes

There seems to be an edit war over the addition/removal of Roger S's "themes", listed by Knitwitted as follows:

• 1. The responsibilities of the rich and powerful.
• 2. The virtue of charity.
• 3. The evils of usury.
• 4. The nature of sin.
• 5. Prophecy.
• 6. The value of secret works.
• 7. The nature of providence in eschatological end times.
• 8. The nature of proper speech.

As a matter of fact I agree that this has little obvious relevance to Oxfordian theory, since these themes are not in any obvious way "Shakespearean", nor are they listed as part of an argument that they are. However, I tend to take the view that Oxfordians should given some leeway to say what they think are the most important of their arguments, as long as they accept that refutations/rebuttals will also be added in response. If I were the one writing the article - deciding what should be "in" and what should be "out" - I would certainly not include this list. There are many more pertinant arguments that could be included. If Knitwitted could say why she thinks this is important, it would help. Paul B (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Paul B. Thank you for very kindly improving my statement... much better! Regarding your inquiry, I'm not an Oxfordian so may be I have zero right to edit their page, but in all the "arguments" of theirs I've read, the de Vere Bible themes seem to explain *why* Oxford could have been "Shakespeare". Perhaps the Oxfordians reviewing this page could have the final say on whether or not to include this. Thanks Paul! Knit Knitwitted (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You are not an Oxfordian? Well all I can say is that you do a very good impression of one! Still, we have no desire to make windows into editors' souls, as de Vere's girlfriend almost said. Paul B (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, *not* an Oxfordian. I don't *do* circumstantial evidence. Hope we can still be friends tho'. Knitwitted (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You dont "do" circumstantial evidence? I've no idea what that means. I've chosen not to revert the inclusion of these eight themes myself for the reasons given, but I still have no idea why yoyu think they are important to the article. How do they support Oxfordian theory? Paul B (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cengrime: I don't see how this moves the Oxfordian theory forward one whit, nor has any academic responded to it, AFAIK. You're going to need more than a subjective reason for including it. Does Stritmatter explicitly say this explains why Oxford was Shakespeare? If so, we need to include it; if not, this needs to be cut.

Tom, Introduction (p.11) of Stritmatter's dissertation: "The De Vere Bible is not a 'smoking gun.' It does, however, supply researchers with a revealing look into the devotional practices which sustained the annotator's creative life and bring to bear for the first time a cornucopia of hitherto unnoticed confirmatory evidence supporting the Oxfordian thesis." (p.12) "Quantitative arguments play a role, but only one role, in the arguments which follow." Per Mark Anderson *Shakespeare by Another Name, p. 382: "Statistics, however, tell only a small part of the story to be found within" the de Vere Bible. The markings "also exhibit a continued interest in a series of themes..." If their premise is Oxford *is* the author of Shakespeare, wouldn't *any* facts regarding the author's creative life be relevant? Knitwitted (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Duh Tom. Kindly read the above per Stritmatter and per Anderson. Knitwitted (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing but vague assertions unsupported by any evidence or examples. This article is not a collection of opinions, but examples of the actual arguments. Please revert yourself until you or someone else can show how this argument advances the Oxfordian theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

They would be relevant if they were linked to Shakespeare, but they are not. They don't on the surface appear to be themes in which the author of the Shakespeare canon seems especially interested. Eschatology? End times? Usury? Usury is not a concern even in the Merchant. Shylock demands that Antonio forfeit "a bond", which is not an example of usury, since no interest is involved! Paul B (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

re: Usury. Shaheen (1999, 2011): "Laws of Usury" pp. 167-8... Merchant of Venice 1.3.132-37 supported by 3 Bible passages including Leviticus 25.35-37 (MARKED in the de Vere Bible). Knitwitted (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitwitted (talk contribs) 14:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's mentioned, but it's not a major concern of the play. That's the point. The plot is not about usury, because a "pound of flesh" is by definition not usury. So you have this as one of the Bible annotator's main concerns, according to Roger, but it is only briefly mentioned in one play out of 37+ and is not even the main theme of that one! That's a pretty poor fit. Paul B (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I fail to see anything in Oxford's biography that supports any of the "themes", especially the first one. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

re: The responsibilities of the rich and powerful & The nature of sin. Arundel accused Oxford of saying "that he cold make a better and more orderlie scripture in six dayes warninge". Arundel Libel Suit Against Oxford -- Per Mark Anderson *Shakespeare By Another Name* (2005), p. 167, Alan H. Nelson "essentially treats the Libels as statements of documentary fact.” Knitwitted (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

re: Charity. Between 1564 and 1599 some 33 works included dedications to him by authors including Arthur Golding, John Lyly, Robert Greene and Anthony Munday. Knitwitted (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

re: Secret works. Arundel accused Oxford of saying "that he culd prove by scripture that after this life we shuld be as yf we had never ben". Arundel Libel Suit Against Oxford -- Per Mark Anderson *Shakespeare By Another Name* (2005), p. 167, Alan H. Nelson "essentially treats the Libels as statements of documentary fact.” Knitwitted (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Tom, there are plenty of examples relating the thematically marked passages to the Shakespeare canon per Dr. Shaheen in Roger's dissertation. Knitwitted (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see my last response at the end of this section. And FYI: I fail to see your points in your first and last examples; I remember thinking the same thing when I read it in Anderson (damn, has it been almost 8 years since his book came out?) and took it as an example of confused Oxfordian thinking. And charity is not a quid pro quo, nor did all dedications result in gifts. There is ample evidence of Oxford's generosity towards writers he patronised, but if you interpret that as "charity" you would have to say that Queen Elizabeth was the most charitable person of her time, since she was the most prolific patron.

Why can't you find a passage in Stritmatter's thesis or Anderson's book that clearly states that the "themes" are evidence for Oxford's authorship? Why all this going-around-the-bend and strained interpretations? Tom Reedy (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This list might be appropriate as part of a detailed summary of the dissertation at the Roger Stritmatter page, but I don't think it's a good use of space (= readers' time) here. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Cengime, I did add the themes to the Roger Stritmatter page see here but was deleted by... ahem... someone. Knitwitted (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What I would like to remark is that this article is primarily about the "Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship" (OTSA), and not about the historical person of William Shakespeare of Stratford. Everything which is connected to OTSA and to the person of Earl of Oxford should be welcome on this page. In my view, it should be welcome disregarding the "ideologic" position of the editor. So all editors including Knitwitted have the right to edit on this page, if they obey by the rules of Wikipedia. And I don´t see that Knitwitted would have done anything against the rules. I don´t think that an edit warring on Knitwitted´s last editing would be appropriate in the present situation (see the rule on three deletings). As far as I can see now, the editing of Knitwitted is part of this article on OTSA, and it should, according to my view, remain part of it. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You say "Everything which is connected to OTSA and to the person of Earl of Oxford should be welcome on this page." No, that would be the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page. This page is for Oxfordian theory. Everything related to the theory is welcome. And that includes criticism of theory on the grounds that William of Stratford was perfectly capable of writing plays himself. Of course, we can't and shouldn't include every single Oxfordian argument ever made, as the article would go on forever, so we have to choose the most relevant arguments. Paul B (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And who voted your group should choose the most relevant arguments? Knitwitted (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have already said that I believe that Oxfordians should decide what they think are the most relevant arguments, but that's only possible if Oxfordians act in accordance with the basic rules of Wikipedia and that they accept that rebuttals will be made to those arguments. Paul B (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So why didn't an Oxfordian revert my edit for any reason? Knitwitted (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Ask them on Facebook. I didn't revert you, but as I have already said, I can't see why you think this list is important. You could have quoted Anderson, I guess, saying that the annotations in some way match Oxford's biography. Can't see how myself, but Oxfordian writers are the ones who say what their argument actually is. Paul B (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have again deleted the edit including the "themes" Stritmatter says he detects in the various Bible verses until Knitwitted or someone else can explain how they relate to the Oxfordian theory. As Paul states above, no one has ever demonstrated that those themes are particularly Shakespearean, and in my reading I've never seen anybody claim Oxford was concerned with them, either, in thought, word, or deed. Someone feel free to point me to a source that demonstrates that he was--but again, even if he was, the point stands that those are not particularly Shakespearean, nor do they make any kind of case for Oxford writing Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"I've never seen anybody claim Oxford was concerned with them..." umm Tom... That's what Dr. S's dissertation proved. He took a previously uninterpreted personal source, and extracted *and* grouped the annotations into meaningful, recurring themes. Knitwitted (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If Roger proved that the annotator of the Bible was concerned with those issues, then he could not have been Oxford, because they do not fit his biography.

Please sum up Roger's argument that the annotations prove that Oxford was Shakespeare, if he in fact made one. The Oxfordian theory is what this article is about; it's not a catch-all for everything ever written or speculated about Oxford. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Stritmatter p. 55: "Close examination reveals strong thematic regularities..." "Such connections allow the investigator to identify thematic relations between the Bible annotations and De Vere's life as it has been documented by Looney (1920), Ward (1928), Miller (1975 et seq.) or Ogburn (1984). For example, ..." Anderson pp. 382-91: 5 themes listed with examples from the Shakespeare canon. Clearly both researchers assert the themes relate to the Oxfordian theory. Knitwitted (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So you say that they say, but you haven't shown us. " . . . any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."

You appear to think that I am arguing a case against including the material. I am not. If the material is an appreciable part of the Oxfordian argument and you can point to some direct support for it, it needs to be included, but you have not done so, except in a casual, "take my word for it" WP:OR type of manner. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

John Florio

Thanks to Paul Barlow for adding the partial sentence "there is no evidence that William Shakespeare ever left England” to the previous wording "but Oxford undoubtedly visited the area" (i.e. Italy). However, if "other scholars have found Grillo's arguments unpersuasive, arguing that Shakespeare could have derived much of this material from John Florio", so this is in fact not persuasive at all. This is a might-have-been-kind of argument, which does not convince me. Do we know for sure that William Shakespeare of Stratford really knew John Florio or that they were kind of friends? And what about the possibility that even if WS had known Florio, he would not have picked up such an excellent Italian for the play concerned from him? There is no evidence for the whole construction of those "other scholars". --Zbrnajsem (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Editors are not supposed to exercise their own judgement about what seems likely. If the experts thought that George Washington killed Adolf Hitler in a duel, Wikipedia would report it as a fact. - Cal Engime (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

How about reading a bit further down the page, Zbrnajsem? It gives specific information about Shakespeare's debt to Florio, so the sentence you object to is not a might-have-been kind of argument, but one based on concrete evidence. In fact, how about reading the play itself before making a pronouncement on Shakespeare's use of Italian on the evidence of three sentences. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User Cal Engime, you gave a very strange example. I don´t think that anybody on Wikipedia would consider editing such a nonsense. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC) And if so, the non-logical nonsense would be very quickly deleted by some other editor. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's just a vivid way of illustrating that we should follow what experts say, even if we are convinced that they must be wrong. As for the Italian, we don't have to posit that Shakespeare knew Florio personally, but it would be surprising if he didn't. He might just have read his books. The argument is that the Italian is not particularly good, or at least not very colloquial (colloquial speech is what we might expect from someone learning it from actual Italians in Italy). BTW, anyone who has had Latin crammed into him for years in school should have very little difficulty learning to read Italian. Paul B (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole construction about the influence of John Florio on William Shakespeare of Stratford in this article (and there are more presumptions on possible impacts of Florio´s works, even quite early ones) would be only valid, if we could presume, or better, if we were quite certain that WS had a sufficient level of education, linguistic abilities, and access to literature, especially books. Nothing more and nothing less. It would be better, if we had tangible evidence on presumptions of this kind. Not everyone in Elizabethan England really had the opportunity to attend a good grammar school or get private teaching. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

We know that Shakespeare did have the opportunity to attend a good grammar school, as I explained in our conversation by e-mail. Please do not continue to use this talk page simply to express personal doubts about the mainstream view, as this could be construed as abuse. - Cal Engime (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

User Cal Engime, your interpretation of the nature and privileges of a talk page is not correct. A talk page is there for discussing the problems of the article concerned. If it is thought by a contributor to Wikipedia that there is a need to discuss some problems of a particular article, so he has the full right to open a discussion on these problems on the Talk Page attached to this article and to ask questions (as I did), as long as he writes his contributions in a civilized manner. There are no restrictions regarding the personal opinions on the theory itself. If it were so, there could not be any free discussion on any issue at all. We do not live in an ideologically closed society. Please read the decision of the Arbitrary Committee regarding the Talk Pages and please interprete this decision correctly as it has been put down in writing. Moreover, please do not mention our private correspondence any more on Wikipedia. This would not find my approval, as our previous correspondence was not part of Wikipedia, and it is finished. Furthermore, I would like to point out that I am not obliged to share any of your personal opinions on any issue. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The very first sentences of WP:TALK are "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Now, of course we have to have some leeway. Useful discussion is hampered by an over-rigid approach to such rules. But the essential point is that your last comment just added personal reflections about the fact that we cannot be certain that WS had "a sufficient level of education, linguistic abilities, and access to literature, especially books." This is a point made by all anti-Strat writers, so it is debatable whether it is relevant to this page, but you could argue that it should go in somewhere on that basis. You did not. You just made an observation. You add "Not everyone in Elizabethan England really had the opportunity to attend a good grammar school". But you know perfectly well that Shakespeare did have such an opportunity, as Cal Engime has told you already, and as you can easily find out from the main SAQ page. So it is perfectly reasonable for Cal Engime to comment that your edit appears to be just "chat" about the topic, rather than an attempt to discuss what content should be included, where and how. Paul B (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Stritmatter´s themes (2)

The first section on this highly interesting topic is now overloaded and difficult to read. I suggest we may continue here. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Zbrnajsem! Knitwitted (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Roger's dissertation (p.57, paraphrasing): The themes are evidence to identify the annotator as de Vere; the annotations establish a mental unity between the annotator and Shakespeare. He further writes "when the reader entertains the proposition already put forth by Oxfordians that the annotator was..." the author of the works attributed to Shakespeare. Per (p.11) "new evidence contained in this document should be evaluated in a comparative context, as one element in a larger circumstantial case, other pieces of which have been assembled through many decades of past research." Tom, either the themes go on the Oxfordian Theory page *or* on the Edward de Vere page. And BTW, your ploy to get me to type his entire dissertation so you can finally read it without buying a copy... it ain't gonna work. Knitwitted (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you think you posted, but none of it is even close to showing that the themes contribute to the Oxfordian theory, nor has it been demonstrated and accepted by any reliable source that the annotations are Oxford's. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the "reliable sources" don´t want to accept anything Oxfordian as granted. They simply close their eyes, User Tom Reedy. The circumstantial evidence of the one side is being taken as sufficient, that of the other side is not accepted, including the counter-evidence. And they will try to reject any obviously correct evidence even if it is more than circumstantial. As far as I know, responsible persons at the Folger Library have not accepted a request to carry out certain investigations concerning Oxford´s Bible. In this way, we can continue discussing until the end of the world. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, frankly, I'm utterly fed up with this nonsense. Can you and Knittwitted just stop waffling and suggest a concise few sentences which summarise Roger's argument about the relationship between Oxford, the markings, and Shakespeare's work? Can't you understand that just listing 'themes' without finding a form of words to relate them to to Oxfordian theory and then wandering off to tout vague and unspecified conspiracy theories about the Folger (what "investigations"?) is not what this talk page is for? Paul B (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

How 'bout: "Stritmatter also ascertained the annotations could be grouped into recurring themes which could be used to identify the annotator as de Vere. He identified several themes including: The responsibilities of the rich and powerful; the virtue of charity; the evils of usury; the nature of sin; prophecy; the value of secret works; the nature of providence in eschatological end times; the nature of proper speech. Based on prior knowledge of Oxford's life, Stritmatter was able to connect the themes to de Vere." Best, Knitwitted (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

My lines were only a reply to the lines by Tom Reedy: "None of it (what was written by Knitwitted, my remark) is even close to showing that the themes contribute to the Oxfordian theory, nor has it been demonstrated and accepted by any reliable source that the annotations are Oxford's." As I see it Stritmatter posted exactly this - the annotations are Oxford´s. However, this fact has not yet been accepted by the mainstream researchers. And RS came then to some conclusions in favour of the Oxfordian theory. So it is difficult to write any contribution to this article (not to its talk page) about what Oxfordians think and what is their complex theory about, if the manifested aim of the other side is nothing else than a complete rebuttal of precisely this whole theory and of any contribution in favour of this theory, disregarding the quality or weakness of own, i.e. mainstream arguments. Please look at what kind of manifesto was posted at the beginning of this Talk Page. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Stritmatter posited that the annotations are Oxford's, but there's no real evidence of that. One person's cross or line is virtually impossible to distinguish from another's. But the central point is that we should be using the talk page to suggest specific improvements or changes to the text. I've no idea what "RS came then to some conclusions in favour of the Oxfordian theory" means (what RS? What conclusions?), nor what "manifesto" you have in mind. Paul B (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

RS... Reliable Source i.e. Roger Stritmatter. Knitwitted (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's very debatable, but I'm not objecting to Roger's claims being included (indeed they already are), only noting that they have to be presented as part of an Oxfordian argument. Paul B (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Stritmatter's thesis greatly undermines claims for its reliability when it says in the introduction that nobody would have funded his research but Oxfordian private donors and that he went into comparative literature specifically because his work would have been rejected by any English department. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Cal, that is really not the point. We don't care if Roger is a reliable source or not, and we don't care if his allegation is even true. The point is if he says that the themes he discerned in the Bible annotations were evidence for Oxford's authorship, that needs to be stated and his rationale needs to be explained. We don't care if it's true, if the scholarly consensus objects or even if they responded. What we want from Knitwitted and/or Zbrnajsem is a clear, concise, referenced, and (most of all) coherent statement to that effect. So far all we've been able to discover is that they either don't understand what Roger said or they can't express it in terms that the average person can comprehend. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, Tom Reedy, you have now been explicit. I accept your position as granted in view of your firm support for the mainstream theory. I frankly admit that I know quite well what is Roger Stritmatter´s argumentation, and I am his firm supporter, but I have yet to study RS´s main work thoroughly. It is certainly necessary to write the following for "our" article on Oxfordian theory: a) What are RS´s sources; b) what leads him to be convinced about EO´s having been the owner of this particular Geneva Bible and the writer of the annotations concerned; c) concise and referenced statement about RS´s conclusions from the annotations which lead him to be certain they are supportive to the Oxfordian theory. For this purpose, I and maybe other persons need a lot of time. Nevertheless, you and me have now cleared our positions. You and Paul B. have certainly seen that those Oxfordians who are now regularly on the Talk Pages (including my person - obviously we are not very numerous "thanks" to the banishment of some other Oxfordians from their work on WP) do not aim to disrupt the present articles. This is simply because they are quite informative especially for those readers who can read "between the lines" (I suppose you understand what I mean). I am very well capable of this, I have learned this kind of reading in my youth. I hope Mr. Jimmy Wales (for whom I have a great admiration) is still from time to time reading the articles (and the talk pages) and getting further information about the whole complex matter (Shakespearean cannon) as he explicitly wished. For the very next time, there are some reasons why I can´t do very much for studying the above topic and editing the pages on WP. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently your habit of reading "between the lines" prevents your comprehension of plain, unnuanced prose. You should begin by reading what I said instead of going off on what you think I must have said. "referenced" does not mean "What are RS's sources"; it means where in his work does it say what you say it says, in the form of a page number. And your (b) is irrelevant--as far as I can make out what you're trying to say. Only (c) is what we are asking for.

Your attempt at sucking up to Jimmy Wales is noted. Unfortunately, only Wikipedia policies and guidelines are relevant to this discussion. You might try reading them. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Tom. Stritmatter determined the themes are evidence to identify the annotator as de Vere and the annotations establish a mental unity between the annotator and Shakespeare. By ascertaining the annotations could be grouped into recurring themes which could be used to identify the annotator, Stritmatter identified several themes including: The responsibilities of the rich and powerful; the virtue of charity; the evils of usury; the nature of sin; prophecy; the value of secret works; the nature of providence in eschatological end times; the nature of proper speech. Based on prior knowledge of Oxford's life, Stritmatter was able to connect the themes to de Vere. Based on both the recurring themes and the underlying annotations, Stritmatter determined the de Vere Bible is relevant to the Oxfordian argument. Knitwitted (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope everybody has a high esteem of User Jimbo Wales, as his work, i.e. Wikipedia, is really a great contribution to the advancement of mankind. And it is a free media above all. I don´t understand, Tom Reedy, what is the rationale behind your remark that I was "attempting at sucking up to Jimmy Wales". You are a little bit unpolite to me, aren´t you? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection template

Can somebody please explain what's happening with the protection template coming and going?

02:37, 14 August 2012‎ Lowercase sigmabot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (109,991 bytes) (+55)‎ . . (Adding protection template to protected page) (bot) (undo)

01:26, 18 August 2012‎ DumbBOT (talk | contribs)‎ . . (108,786 bytes) (-55)‎ . . (removing a protection template from a non-protected page (info)) (undo)

01:26, 18 August 2012‎ DumbBOT (talk | contribs)‎ . . (108,786 bytes) (-55)‎ . . (removing a protection template from a non-protected page (info)) (undo)

17:37, 19 August 2012‎ CIreland (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (108,813 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (Protection icon.) (undo)

01:27, 20 September 2012‎ DumbBOT (talk | contribs)‎ . . (113,951 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (removing a protection template from a non-protected page (info)) (undo)

Artaxerxes (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It gets semi-protected when the person who uses Ips 96.231... and 71.191... goes on one of his rampages, which he does regularly in spurts - sometimes using his expanding sock farm. After he goes and plays somewhere else, it's freed up. Paul B (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion re: So-called "Fringe" theory WP pages

Perhaps Wikipedia should allow 2 pages for each of the SAQ Candidates:

A. Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship as written by the Oxfordians

B. Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship as written by the Stratfordians

That way, each group can determine what's important and stay off of each other's page. Personally, I think it would really give Wikipedia viewers a chance to learn about each side's position fairly. So why does Wikipedia assume its readership isn't qualified to judge the evidence for themselves?

Else, how 'bout just replacing the Oxf theory Article with its Talk Page (including Archives). That should really give Wikipedia viewers a chance to learn the real goings-on.

Thanking those in advance for their consideration. :) Knitwitted (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what is not allowed. See WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK. Oxfordians can - and, believe it or not, do - have their own webpages in which they can invent as many arguments as they like without fear of contradiction, but that's not how it works here. Paul B (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul makes an excellent point that would not have been necessary if Knitwitted and Zbrnajsem would just read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They've been told to do so since they first posted to WP, but they seem to think they're above learning the way WP works. I say reply to no more suggestions from either of them until they demonstrate that they've done so. To date, all they've managed to do is waste everybody's time. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Tom. Unlike you, I don't have time to read an endless supply of Wikimpedian mumbo jumbo. Curious as to why people like you hang around the Oxfordians especially since it's such a waste of everybody's time. Knitwitted (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, what happened to the idea that WP is a collaborative effort? i.e. Why can't one person post the beginnings of a source, and then another come in and fill in the blanks? Is every WP editor expected to be an expert in WP editing? Knitwitted (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)