Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship

Reinstating POV tag

The article still does not reflect WP:NPOV because 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.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't forget that this page is a page about the Oxfordian theory; It is not a page about the to-and-fro debate. If you want to read about the debate, there is a separate page for that, and this page should link to it, but the bulk of this page should be an exposition of the Oxfordian theory. The Oxfordian scholars are the mainstream here even if they are not mainstream on any other page. Criticism of the Oxford theory (that is, specifically of the Oxford theory and not of anti-stratford thought in general) should appear here, but it should be confined to its own section near the end. 74.111.185.200 (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

proposed move

I propose the article be moved to Oxfordian fringe theory of Shakespeare authorship. This is just to be clear that it is not an established "theory" in the sense of the theory of gravity or theory of relativity, and that the majority of scholars don't even regard it as a viable hypothesis. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't editorialise in titles. However, we should have uniformity across the four main alternate theories. At the moment we have Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, Derbyite theory of Shakespeare authorship, Baconian theory and Marlovian theory (and various redirect pages). This article was originally just titled "Oxfordian theory" and was changed last year by Oxfordian editor user:Smatprt with the following edit summary: "moved Oxfordian theory to Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship: several reasons - to avoid any confusion with either Oxford University, or Oxfordian Stage (which is a geological time interval) , and to properly describe what the theory is ab[out]." I fancy there may have been other reasons too, but these are valid arguments. There are several other things that may be described as "Oxfordian". The problem also applies to "Baconian theory", since that term is sometimes used to refer to inductionism or to other aspects of Bacon's thought. The title of the Derby article was created by me as an exact mirror of this one. The problem with the current title is the prominence it gives to the the Oxford-Shakespeare link. I think that's why we should try to get consensus for a common title convention for all four. Paul B (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the four articles could all be merged into Shakespeare authorship question which should probably itself be moved to Shakespeare authorship fringe theories. There is no "question" according to most scholars. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged. The general rules is that separate articles can be created when there is too much material for a single main article. I think that's the case here, but the danger is that this one becomes a POV fork, which is something to be avoided. BTW, there are more than four articles. There is also Prince Tudor theory, and of course articles on various "authorship scholars" such as J. Thomas Looney Charlton Ogburn, Delia Bacon etc. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Footnote #87 material in 'Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship'

Recommend the removal of the above referenced sentence in the Oxfordian theory section and its #87 footnote, which informs that the Strachey letter was defended in print after Stritmatter and Kositsky had established the Strachey letter's unlikelihood as a documentary basis for 'The Tempest' and a Stratfordian scholar substantially agreed. The (textually unmentioned) author of the article, Tom Reedy, is not a credentialed professional in the field, the prevailing standard for reference. It indicates that the Wikipedia page permits unqualified authors to be quoted, if they are Stratfordian in point of view. This harms the credibility of the page.Zweigenbaum (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Tom Reedy, is not a credentialed professional in the field, the prevailing standard for reference." False. Reliability depends on the academic review process and publisher. See WP:RS. Your argument would only be valid if Tom's article were self-published. BTW, S and K did not "establish" any such thing. Their arguments have been rebutted by more than one writer. "This harms the credibility of the page." That's a joke. Most of the footnotes are to books that were self-published or published by people with no expertise whatever. By your argument, Sobran, Anderson, Ogburn et al should all go. Paul B (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that entire section misrepresents not only what my paper was about, but other arguments also. In addition, it teems with OR (such as the Pepys diary material) and POV issues.

As far as "credentialed professional in the field", what does that mean, exactly? The only person I know who has ever been called a professional Oxfordian is Roger Stritmatter. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Pepys reference is wrong. It was the 24th Dec. [1] The context makes ir clear he is referring to a new 'production' as we would now say. I've no idea what this "Elizabethan" marketing is supposed to refer to, even leaving aside the fact that this was Jacobean, not Elizabethan England. Paul B (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Oxfordian Theory – Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays

Said article is a big old POV fork being used to promote the Oxfordian theory. It definitely shouldn't be its own article, but is there anything that's salvageable for this article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree - it should be merged. Paul B (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be merged. It was created to reinsert a page that had been deleted because of Inherent violation of WP:NPOV: extreme undue weight given to a fringe theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge. It's been so lazily edited that even an obvious link to a major figure was neglected. Poorly written, badly organized, repetitive, and atrociously sourced. I've done a bit of rewriting to flense the blubber, but the whale is still stranded on a forlorn shore, humongous and rather on the nose.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, it was deleted before? How was it not G4'd? Anyway, given what seems to be agreement that there should be no article, the question is what, if anything, should be merged. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be merged nor deleted. To address some of the points raised above, in some detail, with a view to gaining more knowledge of the questions at hand: 1. I don't see how the article is inherently POV in favor of the Oxfordian theory - indeed, it seems to quite strongly reject it. 2. Like most people, I don't really know anything about this question, although I have heard about it since I was a child. If I want to form my own well-educated judgment about it, I will need to have access to a lot of information. This remains true even if the theory is an extreme fringe theory - in order for me to be able to defend my mind against the theory, I need to be able to understand it - and understanding it, if it is false, will not lead me to believe that it is true. 3. As far as I can see, the article has a lot of information and lots of footnotes. It doesn't seem to be "atrociously sourced" but if it is, then the correct answer to that is to improve the sourcing, not to simply delete it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is not really a list of parallels; it is a list of imaginative cherry-picked details that Oxfordians use to support the idea that the plays are chunks of thinly-disguised biography written by Oxford because there is no evidence whatsoever that Oxford wrote Shakespeare. Most of the "parallels" require exaggerated or flat-out wrong perspectives of Oxford's biography (a classic exercise in confirmation bias), and similar such lists have been shown to be just as valid for other alternative candidates of the nobility, including King James and the 6th Earl of Derby; the only real difference is that Oxford is the most popular candidate at the moment.

The "lot of information" consists of Oxfordian talking points, and it's a bit like having a separate article detailing all the arguments of Moon landing conspiracy theories that gives only one side, in addition to the main article. While there is an article about the Examination of Apollo Moon photographs, each individual point is convincingly and scientifically rebutted, far from the token "While mainstream scholars assert that [this or that Oxfordian claim] is invalid ..." type of NPOV "disclaimer" to try to slide under the WP:UNDUE bar that peppers the "parallels" page.

In short, the article is meant to be a promotional source page for potential Oxfordian recruits. In order to inject some semblance of balance to the article, a list should be included of all the characters and events that don't match Oxford's life as reconstructed in the Oxfordian imagination, as well as a list of the many points of congruity with William Shakespeare's life that appear in the works. While I suppose that is possible, had we but world enough and time, it hardly seems to me the proper use of an encyclopedia to furnish a sanctioned battleground for fringe theorists.

The article's sources cannot be improved, because the sources claiming the "parallels" are all questionable according to Wikipedia standards, nor are the independent or reliable. I've often thought that WP needs to make some provisions so that fringe sources could be used in articles about fringe theories, but that has not yet happened. The fact that they have been and are still used in most anti-Stratfordian articles testifies to the lack of labor and time of WP editors, not to the reliability of the sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a very good summary of the problem. I would also like to reiterate that if it has previously been deleted per a deletion discussion, as is the case, and is currently in a similar form to that deleted, which seems likely, anyone would be at liberty to G4 speedy-delete it, so the question is "delete or merge," not "keep or merge." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of useful play-by-play material in the Parallels article - it would be very long if it was merged in here as-is. I do think some of the Parallels article material is rather repetitive and not always accurate or well-sourced though. I could point to a number of errors in it from a quick reading - it needs some work! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Request that we waste another year running down hares sprung from the prodigiously philoprogenitive Oxfordian breeding kennels, Mr Wales?

The Oxfordians are masters in wrapping up everyone's time in an ever-expanding universe of furphies, shabby, quixotic, pseudo-scholastic 'ideas' which feed off the very scholarship that systematically dismantles their every 'talking point'. Since they regard scholarship as a systematic establishmentarian game of covering up 'the truth', nothing one says serves any other purpose than to ratchet up further controversy, since they misinterpret any rebuttal, and generate further mother-lodes of nonsense on the basis of their inability to read, or refusal to understand normal cognitive methods of evidence evaluation. I'll deal with just one issue. You state:-

'If I want to form my own well-educated judgment about it, I will need to have access to a lot of information.'

If you want information, you won't get it from this article.

The Shakespeare Authorship Question took a whole year of intense editing in order to make a neat distinction for the reader between (a) what disinformed people, true-believers and unlettered fundamentalists say or assert or fantasize and (b) what the best Elizabethan-period scholarship says, with regard to the fringe theory.

At least for myself, as one of several editors of the FA article, the operative idea in cleaning up the other mess, was to make a distinction between 'noise' and 'information' in a communicative system. The noise came from poor sources, the information came from the best RS on Elizabethan and, specifically, Shakespearean scholarship. Operationally it was difficult to edit because, as in the game theory of von Neumann:

one team (was) deliberately trying to get ther message across, and another team .. (was) resort(ing) to any strategy to jam the message.' Norbert Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings, (1950) 1968 p.168.

What you call the 'information' amassed on this page is 'noise': the jerryrigged compilation of 'takes' that add up to the subliminal message 'you, reader, have been had by the academic establishment,' and here at least you can 'decide for yourself' on where 'the truth lies.' In making this elementary confusion between information and disinformation (the insider's dope) you fail to catch what is going on here.

Take 'concealed writer'. We have a whole section on it. But this is not an 'Oxfordian' position, and whoever edited that covered up the theft. It was, like 95% of the pabulum, hijacked from the earlier Baconian theory a century ago, and relies on a single line in one letter, dated 1603, a year before Oxford's death, of Francis Bacon in which he requests of Sir John Davies, who was to meet the king, to put in a good word on his behalf to his majesty: 'desiring you to be good to concealed poets, I continue, yours very assured, Fr. Bacon.'.

No Baconian scholar of standing has ever taken this to mean that (a) Bacon was a poet of great standing as opposed to an occasional versifer, like everyone of his day (b) or that 'concealed' here means 'suppressed'. (c) There is no evidence that De Vere, by extension, was also a 'concealed poet'. The phrase is borrowed from Baconian theory, via Charles Wisner Barrell several decades ago, a Shakespearean amateur who notoriously got everything he touched wrong and is suspected of faking evidence, and artfully confused with the common practice of 'pseudonymous/anonymous' publication, which is another kettle of fish altogether. The blob of information, given in the original, and then, in paraphrase from George Puttenham's own 'anonymous' 1589 treatise about nobles writing only for court entertainment. In Oxfordian lore, Puttenham's passage is conflated with an earlier remark he made:'I know very many notable gentlemen in the Court that have written commendably, And suppressed it again, or else suffered it to be published without their own names to it: as if it were a discredit for a gentleman to seem learned,' where Oxford is not mentioned, nor poetry, nor plays, in order to give the impression the second passage is to be interpreted in terms of the first. The one passage talks of publications by nobles who are 'learned' (treatises, like Puttenham's own), the other of court compositions (for leisurely delectation). Typically, whoever wrote what we have, was too lazy to connect even the dots in the Oxfordian thesis, and left out the key passage in Puttenham's treatise which allows them to read what is quoted as proof Oxford was a 'suppressed/concealed' poet.

How is this sourced (my 'atrocious sourcing' to which, at a glance you take exception)

We have a primary source, an Elizabethan book published before the usual dates for the beginning of Shakespeare's career as a writer. This is glossed by a paraphrase written by the recently deceased Andrew Hannas, an epidemiologist, whom we are told was also a trained classical scholar with a knowledge of Latin. (Oxford Society Website).

One pauses: if one is a trained classical scholar', adding as if it were extra information 'with a knowledge of Latin' is rather like saying in an obituary: 'Einstein was a physicist, with a knowledge of mathematics.' This is the sort of quarter-baked comment one has to deal with in reading these tertiary reports of second-hand glosses on half-baked vanity publications written by journalists and assorted odd-bods who have never troubled themselves to take a degree in the subjects they descant on.

Who was Hannas?

'It was Andy who uncovered that the founding father of Anglo-Saxon studies, Laurence Nowell (not a church official by the same name that previous scholars had mistakenly identified) was Edward de Vere’s tutor in 1563. And noting that in 1563 this same Laurence Nowell signed his name to the Beowulf manuscript, Andy went on to uncover Beowulf’s influence on Hamlet. Phenomenal!' source, the self-tutored Elizabethan expert cum Boston journalist Mark Anderson.

Fact. That Laurence Nowell, de Vere's tutor, and antiquarian Anglo-Saxon scholar, was a distinct person from Laurence Nowell the Dean of Lichfield, was discovered by Retha Warnicke (1974), and further sorted out by Thomas Hahn (1983) and Carl Berkhout (1985). (Source Raymond J. S. Grant Laurence Nowell, William Lambarde, and the laws of the Anglo-Saxons, Rodopi 1996 p.12)

The 'sourcing' you approve of, all breaks down, in at least 60 instances, to something like this. Those who know the subject can see this at a glance. Those curious about the subject will have no idea that this is all Potemkin village stuff, rigged out to give a good impression of palpably incompetent editing.

In short, on this minor point, the sourcing is either primary, or unreliable, as the casual example from an epidemiologist shows, not a reliable source for the construal of Elizabethan treatises. A whole section suppresses a mass of scholarship, which we could supply of course, to contextualize the misrepresentations flourished on the page. An innuendo is seeded, then another. Your position is: 'Hey, don't delete. Fix it' which in plain man's terms says: 'If sloppy editors create and sustain disinformative pages, committed editors should take time off their lives, reading, and wikiwork, to gently engage them, page after page, for several months so that the nonsense is appropriately contextualized according to the scholarship which the incompetent original editors refuse to read or acknowledge or harvest. You would have been more neutral had you simply asked the Oxfordians to adhere to a rigorous reading of policy, get their own act together and, when editing, prove their bona fides by doing the work asked of them, rather than messily pushing a fringe theory and then getting others, who have serious interests, to clean up after them. Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a rant. I'm entirely unpersuaded by it. I'm sorry you seem to be angry at someone, but that's really quite a bit beside the point. We need to have a good, complete, robust set of articles on this topic. If you, despite your clear passion for the subject, don't want to take time off from your life to write it, that's totally fine with me. Just don't stop others from doing it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr Wales. We write articles, and to do so, work comprehensively to review what the best literature says of anything. You're unpersuaded because, obviously, you know as little about the topic as the people who wrote this page. I think it was Bertrand Russell who informed my youth that scholarship without passion was vacuous. It happens to be what drives knowledge, you can find its theoretical justification in Plato, and a modern defense of it in George Steiner. If this is all beyond you, and you prefer the version of grievance given in emails to the passionate exposition of the academic state of the art, then fine. But keep cheap cracks about 'rants', which is lazy man's language for WP:TLDR, i.e. impatience with anything but sound-bites or snippety ad-libbing, out of the conversation. As to the last line, I suggest you withhold using your influence to defend the rights of bad and banned editors from turning the joy of actually writing articles to the best quality standards your protocols urge on us, into a farce of sterile negotiation and influence-peddling.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with some of Nishidani's points (especially about the extent to which conspiracy theorists often raise bogus points requiring elaborate knock-downs, only to then resurface them), but I think you (Nishidani) are not being particularly fair to that article, which does go to some lengths to try to provide balanced information and different interpretations, regardless of what one thinks about them. And by the way it makes no mention of Bacon or the "Concealed Poet" line (which I also happen to agree with you and general scholarship on). The issue as always here is how to give coverage of alternate theories without depriving the casual reader of scepticism, scholarship and views about the popular theories - if they are popular enough to have for example a large published literature - as this one does - they are popular enough to cover in WP in that sceptical, informed fashion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you were as gratified as I was to learn that the names Francisco and Horatio were Italian forms of the names of Oxford's cousins, Horace and Francis. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Poor Marcellus and Bernardo left out in the (bitter) cold... if this article is kept, I should take a look at it and remove the worst of the nonsense. Laertes a rival at court, indeed, and that fabrication about the Italian cities, among other things. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, in any one section I've looked at, it would require several hours work just to fix things. Half of the sources are unreliable. The page is full of contentious points without a reference. On a rough calculation I could run up a list, if I had two days, of at least 200 things requiring attention. If you can point to me any instances of where the article 'goes to some lengths to provide balanced information and different interpretations' that would help. The fact that the article has nothing on where the 'concealed poet' meme was taken from is just an instance of how it manages to not provide the order of information Mr Wales might find interesting. It is systematic in not saying the most interesting things RS say of everything from the putative mute swan to computerized analyses of de Vere's poetic style. The guys over there have been told about this, they wobble and worry, and keep mum, hoping that the hard yakka of actually balancing the article will be done by someone, since they'd prefer to read their newsletters, and stick to POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"We need to have a good, complete, robust set of articles on this topic." This quote will never die. It will be resurrected again and again in Wikipedia disputes and quoted extensively in the anti-Stratfordian press. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see Jimbo added to the Honor Roll of Skeptics shortly, given that they've impressed Charles Dickens, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Leslie Howard into their ranks based on comments much less supportive of anti-Stratfordism than that, because they don't play by the same rules you and I do; they're advocates, not scholars. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It's funnier than that. Mr Wales, in writing, 'Just don't stop others from doing it' (i.e., writing 'a good, complete, robust set of articles on this topic) has fingered us, the FA authors, as disruptive hindrances to wikipedia, which now has officially welcomed the the whole Oxfordian team, the permabanned or sanctioned et alii, back to write a complete . .set of articles, more than those invented so far!, and we're put on notice to get out of their way! Wow! Congratulations Roger, SM, Nina. . . Vindication at last! I was called 'angry'. Actually I delight in farces, and it will be a night of smiles in this village, as I laugh myself to sleep.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, you don't do yourself any good by misrepresenting what I have said and making such outrageous and insulting claims. I did not call anyone a "disruptive hindrance", nor did I "officially welcome" anyone. Your behavior here is clearly out of order. It is precisely the sort of bullying behavior that I have traditionally seen associated with the very sort of people you claim to oppose. You will be wise to examine things in a new light.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hummm, I do wish Nishidani could avoid the temptation to put people's backs up quite so effectively! Of course there should be a "complete set of articles" on this subject as on any subject - whether it be mainstream, fringe, batshit-crazy or truth-universally-acknowledged. We have in fact created many such articles. Despite being a "Stratfordian" I have created or greatly expanded articles on Derbyite theory, on Prince Tudor theory and on many other related topics. The problem with Oxfordian Theory – Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays is that it is inherently and irretrievably biassed and it gives waaaaay to much weight to overwhelmingly weak or outright fake scholarship. It's inevitably a POV fork. At the fringe theories board there are arguments about deleting and merging articles all the time. Also, we don't typically have endless spin-offs of fringe topics going into detail about arguments for particular theories. We have articles on Atlantis and Root races, describing various theories - from the sensible to the absurd - but not Arguments for the rule of Atlantis by the Toltecs and the Aryans. The "Parallels with" article is essentially the equivalent of such an "arguments for" article (with a few token disclaimers). In fact the phase of Atlantean rule by the Toltecs and Aryans is dealt with in context in the Root race article (Root_race#The_civilization_of_Atlantis), where these important historical theories can be seen in context and without undue weight. In this case too the content is better dealt with in a context in which it can be evaluated. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

'Hummm, I do wish Nishidani could avoid the temptation to put people's backs up quite so effectively! Of course there should be a "complete set of articles".'

Well, I'll reveal the big mystery. When I saw the 'complete ..set' phrase, I thought of the axiom of choice, where any collection of sets can theoretically generate any number of further sets, with no end to it. Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This. We're trying to write an encyclopedia article on the Oxfordian theory, not a book promoting the Oxfordian theory. Those "parallels" which have been picked up in secondary sources can perhaps be merged; the rest can and should be scrapped, because that's not what Wikipedia is for. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but this is just the usual Wikipedia problem - sadly, expert views or the collaboration of people who have spent a great deal of time studying the material and believe that it is unarguable that the Stratford Man is indeed also the Author are treated "truthily" as of "equal weight" to the views of numerous well-argued and far-less-well-argued "views", some of them decidedly over on the nutty end of things. The same thing can be observed through numerous iterations and sagas at the Apollo Moon Landings "didn't happen" Conspiracy pages - some are almost like gathering points for the absurd. They would never be allowed in a "serious" encyclopedia but in the maelstrom of WP, it's all fair, so long as it's truthily "sourced" and well "written up". This is clearly the world Jimbo envisaged. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it's just incredibly frustrating. I suppose if you care about it (and probably we all have to care a bit about what WP says on any given subject and the material in it - it looks convincing and the deal with Google makes it found!) you have to be prepared to spend some time at least inserting enough scepticism into it or material that shows people some factual contradiction to the sillier theories. But we all have our own views. I don't find every aspect of Oxfordianism to be completely barking. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, those who embrace with a passion the fringe view and multiply articles on wikipedia, never work them towards a minimal level of quality. They just keep plunking loads of 'stuff' in, without regard to order, without a care in the world for presentation, uniformity of citational mode. For years ungrammatical sentences, mispellings, broken links hang about, while the constant fringe editor tinkers and dabs and, above all, challenges anyone who tries to bring the article into a semblance of NPOV. Several have been here for yonks. They dither and dabble, mostly copying and pasting junk from arbitrary but strategic google searches, without ever weighing critically the value or utility of what they net in other than judging 'it serves the cause'. I wouldn't care in the least were another dozen articles ('The history of Oxfordian theory'; 'The de Verean Society'; etc.) created, as long as there was at long last a sign of editorial competence, which there never has been (Nina Green, true (and to her credit), ran through the 17th Earl of Oxford article from top to bottom, but only after we'd fixed much of the outstanding mess. But it was impossible to work with her. The only collaboration consisted in each taking a turn to review the article entirely, in brief intense bouts of editing). It's not a matter of what I or Tom or Paul or whoever privately thinks, or raising the bizarre innuendo, as Mr Wales reads things, that people like myself are trying to block work on articles. I, like several others, am endeavouring to make atrocious articles at least readable, well-sourced, and critically informed, something that was objected to in the strongest terms by fringe editors who just like ladling in goops of undigested opinions from laundresses, cardiologists, epidemiologists, journos who write about the New York Theatre or the Boston Sox or Rolling Stone, distant relatives of the Earl, people in business administration, lawyers, theatrical directors. I don't mind Mr Wales' fascination with what these oddbods might say, but I think he'd do well to recall that the politics of The New York Banner will never build what the Howard Roarks of this world can create. Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, people who strongly hold views based on poor research, counterfactual arguments and myths are not particularly likely to be keen on intensive rational discussion and analysis of those, if they have become something they care passionately about. I've often found that it's the fear of it being revealed that one has been systematically conned and tricked that makes a large percentage of people continue to cling to extreme theories, even if they are lamentably obviously false. If you've thought one way for a long time because you took some books on trust and then later find they were all bunk, you feel annoyed with yourself and quite possibly very defensive. The same phenomenon occurs in the Moon Landings conspiracy; the fact that international space agencies are now sending back vivid images of the landing sites from lunar orbiters still does not convince some. WP is, sadly, frequently not a place where rational discussion prevails. The same can be seen in Nazi-era articles, where a determined group of neo-Nazi editors routinely attempt to sanitise, alter and rewrite perceptions of key people, themes and incidents. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Right. I strongly suspect Loss aversion (AKA sunk cost dilemma) to be one of the major motivations for Oxfordians. When you've invested years and even your entire career in some cases into something as ridiculous as Oxfordism, then your arguments become more and more bizarre because they primarily function as defense mechanisms and not the result of scholarly or logical thought. I know some very intelligent anti-Stratfordians who actually prefer to not defend their beliefs because of the cognitive dissonance necessary and the concomitant stress.

In any case, regardless of personal preferences, WP is an encyclopedia, and its content should meet certain standards, which that article does not. The community has rejected it once already; it existence is the result of an effort to get around that decision. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The consensus I'm seeing is to merge anything that can be compressed into something worthwhile and to delete the rest. On hold out, whoever it is from, does not stop the consensus.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

But what is usable? The article is accurate in that it reports the actual arguments, but inaccurate in that those arguments are based on distortions and flat-out fantasy (the Horatio/Francisco name "translations" is a good example). Listing the points and then debunking them creates one of those back-and-forth fringe argument articles that WP discourages, because that's not what an encyclopedia article should be. Some of the "parallel" arguments are already in this article; does it really need to be comprehensive, since most of the points are strained and bogus? But reporting only the strongest ones gives an inaccurate impression of the Oxfordian arguments and lends more credibility than it has, since Oxfordians appear to actually believe even their most ridiculous assertions. I say only those arguments that have been responded to in reliable sources should be included in this article, which also gives a biased view because academics and experts have only responded to them because they are wrong, creating a selection bias. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am moving my reply to Roscelese from above; otherwise this section will become yet another unreadable mish-mash.

Yes, the page was deleted, but it was then merged into this article, and then recreated with a slightly different title. Here's the history, as I outlined it in the SAQ arbitration:

1. 7/16/2009 Smatprt creates an Oxfordian article (using an unreliable promotional source).

2. On 3/24/2010, article Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare’s plays deleted as a result of afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays because of "Inherent violation of WP:NPOV: extreme undue weight given to a fringe theory."

3. That day Smatprt merges the article back into the Oxfordian article "as per talk at merge discussion". Huh??? An AfD is a "merge discussion"?

4. On 6/18/2010 he moves the material to a sandbox.

5. On 9/9/2010, after being laundered through the sandbox, he then forks it into a new article, Oxfordian Theory - Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays, replaces the colon with a dash, adds two grafs of "NPOV" disclaimer and 17 external Oxfordian links.

6. He then again deletes the material from the main article and links the two. Voilà! Wikipedia hosts virtually the exact same article! So much for WP process.

I have no idea what G4 means, but in Oxfordania, nothing ever really goes away; the arguments are recycled endlessly, even after having been thoroughly discredited. The reappearance of the page is just SOP for Oxfordians. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a list of the specific differences between the deleted article and the present one. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• I redirected the sub-article here. Given that there was a consensus to delete it in the past and no consensus has emerged to keep it, there is no question but that it should not be its own article; anyone who feels like selectively merging can do so, since a redirect preserves the edit history. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-strat material should be excised

The material peculiar to the anti-Stratfordian arguments should be excised. The section "Notable silences" and "Ogburn on the signatures" are two such examples. Those arguments should be in the main SAQ article if they are not already (I believe they are), and the anti-Stratfordian stance should be assumed instead of taking space in this article, which should cover pro-Oxfordian arguments only, IMO. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither the endlessly repeated (and preposterous) "man clutching a sack" argument nor the signature argument originated with Ogburn, nor do they have anything especially to do with Oxfordianism (or is it Oxfordism?). However, I think we could have a paragraph or two outlining the history of A-S theories, including the main arguments, just as Looney does. Paul B (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Why? Why have an entire article about the SAQ and not take advantage of it with a sentence and a link? Being able to link to other articles is one of the unique advantages of an online encyclopedia. I suggest something like, "Shakespeare's authorship had been questioned since the mid-19th century, but Oxford wasn't put forth as a candidate until blah blah .... Looney used many of the same arguments previous theories had employed to disqualify Shakespeare as the true author." Tom Reedy (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose an experiment an excising everything that is already fully covered on the 17th Earl of Oxford or the Shakespeare Authorship Question page. If no one does, I'll flense it of repetitions.Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply to both - we obviously need this article to be intelligable and coherent, so we have to outline arguments, but I admit I hadn't thought of my own Derbyite theory article, in which I devote no space whatever to outlining generic anti-Strat arguments. Obviously facts about EDV's life have to be included if they are relevant to arguments made on his behalf. Paul B (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well while we're at it that initial "disclaimer" for "convenience", For the purposes of this article the term "Shakespeare" is used to mean the poet .... frames the argument with a POV assumption exactly like the "Shaksper" strategy, and should be deleted. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD?

I'm wondering whether, despite the views of Our Great Leader, there might be some merit in putting Oxfordian Theory – Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays up at WP:AfD rather than trying to merge it. Then the shortage of WP:RS and the numerous tenuous/tendentious uncited claims could be brought out into the open. Just a thought. Or maybe it would be a hornets' nest? --GuillaumeTell 21:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I would support that.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The Oxfordian theory's essential thrust is all on the SAQ page, and that is why this page should be deleted, with the parallel stuff reincorporated back to Oxfordian Theory – Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays, which should be retained. Nearly everything Oxfordians write in terms of theory is pathetically silly, but I admit to a personal fascination with, curiosity over analogies and coincidences, and I see no harm in the many analogies they draw between the plays and Oxford, they certainly contain a lot which Mr Wales would be curious about, though he should be warned that similar lists of striking analogies exist for many other candidates. The aesthetic theory underlying this is that the greatest writer of all time (Oxford) was so drastically devoid of imagination that he could never invent a scene, but had to write something he saw, heard at court, or that happened to him. The Oxfordians fail to see the irony.Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's already been AfDed. I suppose if doing it again is necessary we might as well get started.

Nishidani, are you saying the parallels page should be kept and the main Oxfordian theory article deleted? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the last word of the post is the most important.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Tom. Oxfordian theory has been comprehensively covered on the SAQ page. There is no 'theory' left to speak of. There are a large body of ostensible analogies, and I think that worth conserving.Nishidani (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If you mean this section of the SAQ page, I'm afraid I have to disagree that the coverage is comprehensive. When I read that, just now, I got the impression from it that the Oxfordian theory may well be a plausible theory, one that could be considered a live option by reasonable people. If that isn't true, and from your ongoing raging against the theory, I gather that it isn't true, then we need not only this article but also the parallels article to explain why.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford section at SAQ may be read as suggesting the theory is plausible, but that is because of a desire to avoid bad writing by ladling on rubbish! asides after every assertion. I support the principle that a notable fringe theory should be described in a manner that the argument presented by its proponents can be grasped, without excessive editorial comment. Of course the fringe theory needs to be debunked with clear counter arguments based on reliable sources, and that has been done (e.g. the lead of this article includes "almost unanimously dismissed or ignored by Shakespearean scholars as a fringe theory"). Tom Reedy and Nishidani are the principal authors of the SAQ featured article (with several other valuable contributors), and the above raging probably arises from the frustration of dealing with the many fringe POV pushers who obstructed that work. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford theory is absolutely not considered plausible by Shakespeare scholars, or indeed by historians who have researched the life of Oxford himself. Its popularity is in part simply that of all conspiracy theories - an easy way to appear to be superior to so-called experts, but it also satisfies a particular emotional need for some people, who want to fit the plays to the passions and dramas of the author's life. It's clear that some readers simply need to feel that the plays describe some hidden drama in the soul of the author. Most of Oxfordianism is about inventing these links to make the plays autobiographical, so any character that might be considered to resemble a friend or relative of Oxford in some way is deemed to be so. It's a topsy-turvy method of argument - you just look for similarities and you find them. But there is no agreement about them. One Oxfordian says a character is based on x, and another says it's y. The whole thing is arbitrary. The other method is to find coded messages in writings of the time. Many of these have nothing whatever to do with Shakespeare or depend on the outright misrepresentation of the evidence. Marston's Scourge of Villanie is mentioned on this page, a poem that nowhere refers to either Shakespeare or Oxford, but to someone called Mutius (a name meaning "mute"), whose silent name "one letter bounds", which could mean anything, or refer to any number of people in an age when there was no consistency in spelling. In any case, nowhere is any link made to Shakespeare, and its pretty clear from a later reference in the poem that Mutius is a doctor (there's a joke about him killing more people with his medicines than Edward III did in his wars). The flattering reference to Oxford in Bussy d'Ambois also says nothing about Shakespeare, and the passage from Barksted is intentionally misrepresented to yield a meaning quite the opposite of the intended one. This twisting of evidence happens all the time. And half these arguments were just copied from the Baconians, including the Mutius line which originally "obviously" pointed to Bacon. Paul B (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Shakespeare" is for everyone, not just scholars and self-appointed experts. Jimbo asked whether the Oxfordian theory could be considered a plausible theory, a live option, by reasonable people. The answer is that millions of reasonable people do indeed consider it more than a plausible theory, more than a live option. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What a load of baloney. You have no evidence that "millions" of people think any such thing. You just made that up. As for the assertion that "Shakespeare is for everyone", that's meaningless. That's like saying "physics is for everyone". It is, or course, but that does not mean that all opinions about Quantum Mechanics are somehow equally valid. Maybe "millions" of people think its plausible to invent Star Trek transporters, but that does not make their views relevant to how we source articles. Millions of people may think anything plausible if they are not experts. That includes you and me. If someone tells me a plausible seeming story about the early history of China I might be inclined to accept it, because I know b-all about the early history of China. Paul B (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well actually if you assume that each signer of the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt represents another thousand believers, then there are millions who consider the SAQ a plausible theory—2,116,000 of them, to be exact, and I'm sure the majority of them are Oxfordians. They have been collecting signatures since April 2007, so if the average U.S. death rate is applied something like 40 of the signers have died in the intervening years. How reasonable those people are, I cannot judge, but I can say that they are vastly outnumbered by those who believe in alien abduction or creation science. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

How foolish of me. With inexorable mathematical logic like that, I'm surprised you have become a convert to the cause. Or are you a deep sleeper agent, ready to be activated when the time is ripe? Paul B (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well of course I could be wrong, and each signature could represent twice that number, in which case there would be 4 million anti-Strats on the face of the planet. With numbers like that, I don't see how we can call it a fringe movement much longer. That is, after all, six hundredths of one percent of the population, and probably almost one tenth of one percent of the adult population. But really and truly I think my 1:1000 assumption is very generous. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Note to Mr Wales.

I'm afraid I have to disagree that the coverage is comprehensive.

• A little background. There is a massive volume of books and articles running into several thousand, 99% not RS, from fringe theorists on this topic, published over a century and a half.
• Most of them dealt with other candidates, particularly Bacon.
• The Oxfordians cannibalize(d) most of these forgotten books, and recycle the material under the name of Oxfordian theory.
• Virtually the whole SAQ article, originally, was written and monopolized by true Oxfordian believers, esp. Smatprt, and was written from an Oxfordian POV. I.e., it approached the whole topic, with its 75 candidates, with an eye attuned to what interests the Oxfordian camp and what the Oxfordian cénacle writes about or thinks interesting.
• So, while we have given four distinct sections to each of the major candidates, the rest of the article essentially draws on arguments from Baconists recycled and appropriated by Oxfordians. What you see in the overview is essentially what Oxfordians say.
• Technically, in historical terms, I think a good argument could be made that the article violates WP:NPOV because its general approach is conditioned by contemporary Oxfordian debates, and the pressure exercised on these pages by their representatives (there is only one Marlovian, and the last time a Baconian turned up, he was a bit of a mischievous sod, mostly here to mess up the Oxfordians)
• Complete neutrality would consist of an article written in historical terms, showing how each particular thesis (the Ape metaphor, Terence, Swan of Avon, frontman, etc.etc) arose, and from which candidate's literature. The frontman thesis is associated with Alden Brooks, whose page Tom, Paul and I took pains to write, but was hijacked without much variation and is recycled as 'Oxfordian'.
• Unfortunately, this cannot be done (or it could be done by several of us familiar with the tradition) because to do it would violate WP:OR. The Baconian theory was comprehensively destroyed in 1913, but scholars mostly ignore it, preferring not to kick a dead horse. The same goes for many other candidate theories. They are essentially exercises, by amateur 'theorists' without any background in tertiary scholarship in resolving cruxes that aren't therem by a rather infantile process of mystery-mongering suspicion over texts that they are incapable of construing even grammatically.
• What you are suggesting, Mr Wales, is that we write out all of the several hundred details of the fringe Oxfordian thesis from what fringe publications argue, and then provide the scholarly perspective on each of these talking points.
• But since scholarship doesn't talk about these several hundred issues, because they ignore them as absurd, or amateurish chitchat by incompetents, there are almost no RS that could be adduced to balance an article based on a complete survey of fringe opinion.
• We have accepted the rules, and applied them rigorously, even making our own work here particularly arduous. Your curiosity wants to know more, but unless you can get the wiki rule book on WP:Fringe, WP:RS, WP:OR rewritten, what you suggest is impracticable on wikipedia. When I showed you that the Oxfordian assertion about Laurence Nowell was simply wrong, you dismissed it as a 'rant.' What you should have said was, 'that is WP:OR', which I had to do because no Elizabethan scholar would waste his time to demonstrate that the Oxfordian assertion was sheer nonsense.
• That you find the Oxfordian case 'plausible' is a compliment to the team of over a dozen wikipedians, but particularly Tom Reedy, whose draftsmanship struggled to be so even-handed in the face of fierce and intractable opposition from Oxfordians, that it actually achieves an impression in readers of making a case plausibly for something which Oxfordians themselves consistently fail to explain reasonably and rationally. Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Structure

While we may want to a avoid a "he said, she said" appearence of argument throughout, the general rule is that criticism should be incorporated into the text, not left as a separate section or sections, so I think we should try to give the mainstream views within the sections where possible. I cut out the puttenham summary by our epidemiologist because, frankly, I couldn't make head nor tail of it, or work out how it was relevant to the issue at all. We need a representative of the standard view that he is actually saying the opposite of what Oxfordians contend - that Oxford was not concealed, but already made public. Paul B (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Here you go. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I know. I footnoted it already. I wondered if there were other sources as well. Paul B (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll add Nelson now.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Extreme POV and prejudicial constructions

"Scholars are wary of taking contemporary praise of court poets at face value. Though no plays survives under his name, Oxford was fulsomely lauded as a dramatist and court poet of considerable merit. Oxford's biographer, Alan Nelson, reflects a common academic view in remarking that '(c)ontemporary observers such as Harvey, Webbe, Puttenham and Meres clearly exaggerated Oxford's talent in deference to his rank'."

I know I'm gonna ruffle some feathers here, but I think we all need to take a refresher at fringe theory article school. There is no way that the placement of this statement (and others) can be construed as WP:NPOV. The lede states that Oxfordians reject the apparent historical record contrary to the scholarly consensus, and this section then turns around and rejects their acceptance of the historical record. And I for one want to know who said Nelson's view was common among academics. Nelson? Stratfordians are not immune to mistakes and have also been self-serving by distorting and re-interpreting the record when it was convenient (all in the noble service of fighting the evil anti-Strats, of course), and we need to avoid using those types of rebuttals if we want this article to reflect Wikipedia's highest standards.

Articles about fringe theories such as Oxfordism "should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas". I don't think anyone can describe the example quoted above as objective. We should be grinding no one's axe for them; we instead should be "clearly and objectively" describing the topic.

The guidelines also say that the article should "avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose." I think if we take a page from the SAQ article and present the material in clearly-labeled sections such as "Main arguments of the Oxfordian theory" with the various subheadings and "Case against the Oxfordian theory" (instead of "Stratfordian objections" which title in itself is POV) with the same subheadings would be more in line with policy. The article also needs to be cut down radically; no rule states that every Oxfordian argument must be detailed or rebutted.

The essay "WP:Be neutral in form" touches on some points that might be helpful also. I realise this would be a lot more work, but we have all the time in the world, so even if we only edit one sentence a day Wikipedia standards must be foremost. The most helpful thing we can do right now is to avoid making the work more difficult in the future by inserting obvious policy violations. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I plead guilty Tom. I've read so often that praise of nobles in book prefaces was an instrument for securing patronage and support that I glossed it thus. But you're the NPOV boss, and it's your field. Apart from hauling me before some wiki tribunal for indictment for lousy editorializing, you're welcome to rewrite. I don't mind my feathers being ruffled, if the ruffler is a wedge-tailed eagle snapping off my spadger's pinion! I' also waiting for a wrap over the knuckles for using 'fulsome' catachrestically, more or less as Colin Powell used it, to name one solecistic miscreant guilty of semantic distortions.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything especially problematic about the sentence you quote, apart from the fact that the criticism precedes the argument criticised. McCrea says the same thing, and I am sure it will be easy to find other scholars who point out that praise of the literary genius of aristocrats and monarchs is about as reliable as the plaudits heaped during his life on the scholarship of Stalin. In any case, even if Oxford were a great poet - as Marlowe is - that would not be any reason to think him Shakespeare. Yes, the title "Stratfordian objections" is wrong, if only because many of them are also Baconian and Marlovian objections! I think the history section provides a resonable overview of the main claims. The Puttenham stuff has to be there because it has become so important in Oxfordianism, though I don't know who initiated it. I do think we need to give detailed refutations of some specific arguments - as I did of the claims about Barksted, but as always, it's very difficult to decide what are important and what unimporant arguments. There is a case for putting all the significant arguments about the "1604 issue" in one section, which I think should include the anti-Oxfordian objections. Paul B (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly still a great deal that needs to be removed. I've just noticed the following statement proffered as a criticism of the theory: "Mainstream scholarship notes that Oxford lacked a university education:[77] that he was a poor scholar of Latin...[78]." Umm, isn't that actually a standard anti-Strat claim? "Under-educated Will of Stratford could not have written these plays with his small Latin...etc." Since "mainstream scholars" say Will didn't go to Uni and only had a schoolboy grasp of Latin this is a self-defeating argument! Paul B (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What Tom has done is construe, within his grammatical rights, 'Nelson's view' as referring to Puttenham and co., and not to the lead sentence:'Scholars are wary of taking contemporary praise of court poets at face value.' Had I written 'Nelson's view on literary praise of court patrons', the sense intended (this page does not engage my closest attentions) it would have been clearer. As to the commonplace nature of this in Elizabethan scholarship.

• 'the rhetorical cultivation prescribed in courtesy literature by means of which the socially ambitious gain patronage and influence.' Constance Caroline Relihan, Framing Elizabethan fictions: contemporary approaches to early modern narrative prose, Kent State University Press, 1996 p.91

• 'Essex’s reputation in this regard (sonnets) also won praise from musicians who sought his patronage. John Mundy, for example, described the early in 1594 as the tenth Muse, while Thomas Watson lauded him as a potential Apollo.’ (May in his 1980 article mentions this) Paul E. J. Hammer,The polarisation of Elizabethan politics: the political career of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, 1585-1597. Cambridge University Press, 1999 p.318

• 'Spenser’s pension, apparently an explicit case of case patronage for a literary work, certainly rewarded the royal praise and patriotic cultural work’ (of the Fairie Queen) Richard Anthony McCabe (ed.) The Oxford handbook of Edmund Spenser, Oxford University Press, 2010 p.112

• ‘Commentators on patronage poems since have often delighted in stripping back the layers of this denial (of material gain in praise) in order to reveal distorted and flattering representations of patrons by self-interested clients such as Donne.’ Alison V. Scott,Selfish gifts: the politics of exchange and English courtly literature, 1580-1628, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 2006 p.175 Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, Puttenham wasn't seeking patronage, nor was the praise in a dedication or preface.

My thought is that Puttenham, the dedications, the "concealed writer" nonsense, etc. should all be in one section with the tile "Oxford's literary reputation" or something similar. I see nothing wrong in including criticism of the contemporary praise of Oxford's works, but Nelson himself on the page cited (Monstrous Adversary 387) gives a far more balanced criticism of Oxford's literary worth than the sentence I quoted. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The sentence I wrote does not refer to the quality of Oxford's poetry, where I follow Nelson, May and others. It served to contextualize the literalist Oxfordian misreading of praise as proof of Oxford's creative eminence, which they prefer not to circumscribe by what we know of the conventions of the period as a commonplace device to secure preferment. Oxford, I have read, figured first because his rank was foremost, not because he was by common repute the best courtly poet.

No. Puttenham was seeking patronage, as the conclusion of his great book confesses in allowing that his purpose itself was to secure the Queen's patronage. The judgements therefore of her court poets play a part in his quest for preferment. See Heinrich F. Plett, Rhetoric and Renaissance culture,Walter de Gruyter, 2004, who, noting Puttenham's avowed motives (which entitles his contemporary readers to contextualize his evaluations), provides the wholly apposite citation from George Gascoyne who, in publishing his verse, admitted he wrote to 'the ende that thereby the vertuous might be incouraged to employ my penne in some exercise which might tende both to my preferment, and to the profite of my Countrey' (p.189)

Actually I agree on all of what you say regarding the reorganization of the page. I even appreciate your challenge to that phrasing. But it was inept, as hurried edits are, rather than an extreme-POV put-down of Oxford, as you seem to have read it. Puttenham was imitated by Meres, both ranked Oxford high, did so in the context of patronage conventions and due obeisance to the court's ranking codes, and these are misread by Oxfordians, who take them at face value. In writing what I wrote I thought I was reflecting precisely Nelson's position. I smoke some pretty weird stuff, Tom, but I thought you'd sworn of James' noxious weed!Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there are three main components of the Oxfordian argument (rather than generic Anti-Strat stuff).

• There is the 1604 issue. Oxfordians ever since Looney have thought that this is a "plus point". Everyone else thinks the opposite. Both views should be in one section. That includes discussing passages such as the Thorpe dedication to WH, Barksted and any other passages that have been adduced to claim "Shakespeare" was dead after 1604 but before 1616.
• There is the "hidden hint" stuff - various writers supposed to be dropping hints about Oxford and Shakespeare.
• The "parallels" stuff - Oxford's life represented in Hamlet; his lameness and his age referred to in the sonnets etc.

There might be a fourth section, based on the one that is currently called "Biographical evidence" is partly also about alleged parallels between the life and the plays, but also includes some material that would be difficult to fit into that section. Roger le Strit's arguments about the Bible could go in there too. At the moment we have the odd situation that they are criticised but never explained ("there is no significant statistical correlation between the annotations in the Geneva Bible and biblical references in Shakespeare"). Of course this should involve giving more background and detail on mainstream scholarship. For example, the sonnets section as it stands virtually takes it for granted that Southampton is the fair youth. There is only one reference (very recently added) to an alternative candidate and no reference at all to the recent scholarship which argues that the sonnets do not necessarily address a single male object and a single female object. Nor is there any reference to the stylistic evidence that the sonnets were written over many years, some reflecting the language of the late plays. Paul B (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, man, I look at the article as it stands and it seems hopelessly disorganized and confused. I wonder if we can come up with some kind of organizational scheme? We've got the main elements, I think: lede, history, Oxfordian case, academic response. How about using a sandbox as we did with the SAQ article? Anybody have suggestions or ideas?

P.S. My main problem right now is time because I'm dealing with a lot of RL matters. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Grand Tourer Homologated

The amount of "italianation" found in almost half of the "bardian canon" is said to a supporting fact towards oxenfordian authorship, considering the Earl's well-documented youthful Grand Tour across the boot-shaped peninsula. Stratfordians object and argue that W. S. of Stratford-upon-Avon could have written Romeo and Juliet and Shylock and Othello purely based on adriatic hearsay of sailors paid with drinks.

However, considering that bardian plays, including the italianate ones, quickly became famous and W. Shaksper of Stratford is known to have been a rich man in his later years, is it humanly plausible to think the aging Shaksper, no longer having a need to work for food, never took the chance to make the Grand Tour and visit Italy, to see in real life the very stage where he laid his scene so often and lament in retrospect on the faithfullness of what beauty he created on paper?

Even though the aging W. S. of Stratford was still a commoner, he had a coat of arms and a lot of money and knew influential people and a shipborne journey from London to Venice was a rather trivial 2 week business even in that age. If the stratfordian realtor and whatnot never made the pilgrimage to Italy, then we can surely say he wasn't the bard. That and it looks like most official-aligned stratfordian biographies attest W. S. of Stratford-upon-Avon never set foot outside Blighty.

In contrast, there is strong anecdotal trace in Italy, trace of the aging Earle Oxenford's SECOND, undocumented trip to Venezia and his months of staying there. This shows who the real bardian author was, the person who had feelings for his own works (and the famously willing ladyfolk of Venice, who eventually inherited his house there). 84.21.2.137 (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes an the blind Homer travelled the Mediterranean, as hundreds of popular books argue, because the Odyssey conveys details about places from Sicily to Italy to the Thracian and Egyptian coasts. And he had been to Troy because the Iliad's excavations, it is argued, correspond to his narrative, even though they were buried under rubble several centuries before he was born. And of course Apollonius of Rhodes had been to the southeastern coasts of the Black Sea, and, why not, Dante had been to Hell, his description is so marvellously close to what we're told to expect, and Lopsang Rampa had been to Lhasa to get his third eye, and Coleridge had been to Xanadu, and Hōlderlin just must have travelled all over Greece and western Turkey - those scenic descriptions in Hyperion are spot on. And de Vere must have been to the West Indies because, well, you know, Caliban, the Tempest, etc. Shlock on, shlock, de Vere and co., I'm sure the Blakean allusion will not be lost on you there.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Blake was clearly a Baconian, as his coded references to the learned pig prove beyond doubt. You throw de Vere against the wind... Paul B (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Methodology section

I started a new section about the methodology of Oxfordian argument. I think that could be an organizing principle to make sense out of this hodge-podge mess of an article, i.e. the sections organized by method of argument: Biographical, cryptic allusions in literary works, etc. Right now things just spill over. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's sort-of what I was suggesting above. I also think that we need a lot more mainstream material about the sonnets in particular, and also that non-Oxfordian anti-Strats would contest certain arguments, or say they apply better to their man (or woman). Paul B (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I did quite a bit of rearranging to suggest a more logical approach, but the writing is so bad it could easily be edited down to half its length without losing any of the arguments. Hopefully later this week I'll have some time to work on it. The refs need to be standardised also; maybe somebody will pitch in on that someday. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Critical arguments

Oxfordians complain that Strats don't really explain their case and so consequently don't fairly criticise it. One point I think that needs to be included is what I call the "Italian detail theory", which explains the geographical mistakes Shakespeare made as actually a product of the superior education and first-hand knowledge of Oxford that he gained from his travels. (Mainly posting this here to remind myself.) Tom Reedy (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh you mean, only Oxford would have known there really was a seacoast in Bohemia, and only he would have realised that you travel between Italian towns by sea to avoid bandits. Yes, that needs to be put in context. Paul B (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the ones that are for the most part in Shakespeare's sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Who's responsible for this obviously Stratfordian interpretation of Oxfordian Theory?

The following passage needs to be cited to, or removed if no citation/quotation is provided: " . . . although Marston calls the passage an example of "hotchpodge giberdige" written by bad poets, and nowhere does Marston mention Oxford explicitly as a poet, bad or otherwise." I feel a full of quote of Marston asserting this is needed.

The sentence "Mainstream scholar Scott McCrea argues . . ." Should be changed to "Stratfordian scholar Scott McCrea argues . . ." All references to "Mainstream scholars" in this article should be changed to say "Stratfordian scholars" to reflect the fact there is a highly contentious debate on this issue.

The sentence "Oxford's biographer, Alan Nelson, remarks that "(c)ontemporary observers such as Harvey, Webbe, Puttenham and Meres clearly exaggerated Oxford's talent in deference to his rank." - should note that Nelson is a Stratfordian. In fact, a number of interpolations like this one, placed in the main part of the article by obviously Stratfordian editors in order to make the Oxfordian case seem less persuasive than it actually is, should be placed in the Case Against Oxfordianism section.

What would be the purpose of changing the name of the Polonius character from Corambis in the quarto edition if not to suppress the clear link the character's name has to Burghley's motto? The article should reflect that the "mainstream" explanation for the Corambis name begs the question why change it in the first place if it merely refers to old cabbage, and is not a cunning pun on the motto of a powerful official?

Lastly, i have issues with this passage: "Contemporary writers exaggerated de Vere's poetic accomplishments in deference to his rank, and the testimony of Meres that de Vere was 'best for comedy' is followed by a further comment naming Shakespeare, which shows Meres knew that Oxford and Shakespeare were not the same man." I don't have a copy of Ogburn in front of me, but I remember pretty clearly that he explains this by quoting a list of prominent authors, from the 19th or 20th centuries, by a writer that wasn't aware that one author used a pen name for some of his works, and his real name for others. Why not include a cite/quote from this page in Ogburn's book when discussing this argument? As the Meres list is one of the favorite pieces of evidence in the Stratfordian argument, i should think that a reasonable explanation as provided by Ogburn is essential. Especially when considering this article freely cites to any and all Stratfordian work that seeks to undermine a strong Oxfordian piece of evidence. JohnDavidStutts (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)JohnDavidStutts

Forget about it. If you are here to say that the ironclad consensus of serious academically qualified experts is to be reduced to a POV on a par with that of a fringe perspective developed by, mostly, amateurs with no professional grounding in historical scholarship or textual criticism (Stratfordians(anti-Stratfordians), you'd best do that on any of the infinite number of internet blogs. This has all been comprehensively discussed and decided on in the archives, which you are welcome to peruse at your leisure. Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The page needs a lot of work, but any edits must conform to Wikipedia's policies--all of them, including the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, and all normal editorial processes. The page is also under sanctions of the Arbitration Committee, which has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the above standards. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality issues with moved section

I am moving this recently inserted section here to discuss:

"Methodology of Oxfordian argument"

"In lieu of historical documentary evidence or any link between Shakespeare of Stratford and Oxford, Oxfordians discard the methods used by historians and use other types of arguments to make their case, the most common being supposed parallels between Oxford's life and Shakespeare's works. Another is finding cryptic allusions to Oxford's supposed play writing in other literary works of the era that to them suggest that his authorship was obvious to those "in the know". Scholars have described their methods as subjective and devoid of any evidential value, saying they use a "double standard", "consistently distort and misrepresent the historical record", "neglect to provide necessary context" and calling some of their arguments "outright fabrication"."

I don't see how starting an article with a paragraph that basically calls one side of the debate liars is in any way neutral. The entire graph seems to have been inserted to influence the reader towards an editorial voice that should not even be there.

I also rolled back the deletion of the entire 1604 section which was deleted with the summary "Elided a lot of stuff already covered amply on the SAQ page" which is clearly backwards to WP policy (as well as completely inaccurate). The Oxfordian overview is at SAQ, but the expanded details obviously belong here, in the expanded article. The SAQ section is merely a summary, as policy clearly dictates. Besides, there are dozens of diffs where the main editors repeatedly insisted that "detail" such as the entire 1604 argument, belong only here in this article. Perhaps this was all cut by mistake?Smatprt (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The organization of the page conformed to the organization of the lede almost point-by-point. The material on Oxford's Italian travels belongs in biographical evidence, not a general "other" category; likewise the 1604 argument. If you look at this version, you can see that although the bottom half of the page was still in bad shape, the page was beginning to have a coherent shape and follow a logical argument; your edits have undone that. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition, you evidently failed to notice that the reference style has been changed and re-inserted the anything-goes style of citation. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Important WP:FRINGE guidelines for this page

I am going to be restoring some of the material that Smatprt deleted. This page has been unsatisfactory for quite some time, but IMO it had been improved, albeit imperfectly, and I don't think restoring the old material will improve it any. Here are several key points that I think are important to keep in mind when editing the page:

1. The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. To me this indicates that the academic consensus must be present when describing Oxfordian arguments, and more so than a cursory, "Although traditional scholars reject all Oxfordian claims, (insert specific argument here.)"

2. The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. This speaks for itself: the academic consensus cannot be walled off to a few token sentences.

3. Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. So all those detailed Oxfordian arguments cannot stand alone; they must be accompanied with the academic consensus. This is clear cut.

4. Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose. Unless I'm missing something, the lede is no exception to this. Describing the ideas includes inserting summary statements about the acceptance of those ideas by the academic Shakespearean community, and stating the objective academic consensus is not calling "one side of the debate liars", nor is it a violation of WP:NPOV.

Finally, this page, and well as any page broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question, is still (and as far as I know will always be) under discretionary sanctions by the Arbitration Committee. Editors of the page must conform to expected standards of behavior and the normal editorial process, which includes talk page participation before making any controversial edits. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom, your version stated "Scholars have described their methods as subjective and devoid of any evidential value, saying they use a "double standard", "consistently distort and misrepresent the historical record", "neglect to provide necessary context" and calling some of their arguments "outright fabrication". Now Tom, the last time I checked, "outright fabrication" means lying. And that is not NPOV. I will respond to the rest of the above this weekend. I am actually happy to be having this discussion and look forward to hashing it out with you. Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly the wilful misinterpretation of WP:NPOV that I referred to on your talk page. Having been through an arbcom case which endorsed your long topic ban and which used as some of its concluding principles the correct interpretation of NPOV, then your continued misinterpretation has to be taken as tendentious editing.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've redirected the other page to here, which is how I found this thread. Alarbus (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Outright fabrication is indeed lying. There is no rule against accusing someone of lying if indeed a reliable source puts that point of view. You may be shocked to discover that sometimes people do in fact lie. We cannot hide that in cases where it is proved. Even in cases where it is not, but reliable sources make the accusation, we should include those, properly attributed. Of course we must abide by WP:BLP, where that applies, but the claim as it stood was not being made about any specific living individual. I have to say that my experience of Oxfordian literature is that outright mendacity is commonplace - perhaps one could call it "pious fraud". It's not true of the early writers - Looney was patently sincere - but becomes more common from the 1940s onwards. Of course my impression cannot go in the article, but I am not the only one who has taken this view, and some of those who have expressed it are indeed proper sources. Paul B (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Enlighten Me

Tom Reedy, could you please enlighten me why my Revision as of 22:57, 10 November 2011[2] was reverted by you as an "inappropriate edit"? Thanks. Knitwitted (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The edit was one in a series from 22:14, 10 November 2011 to 22:57, 10 November 2011 that qualify as disruptive edits to make a point concerning an ongoing discussion, which was made even more evident by your response to the cheerleading from a topic-banned editor, which he continues to do days after he assured admins he would stop. See WP:GAME. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I read it. It repeated material that was in the previous sentence, so it created repetition. Its only original element cited an article that is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. Paul B (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I took out the previous sentence because it was incorporated in the new, expanded paragraph. Brief Chronicles is a RS as it is indexed in both MLA International Bibliography and World Shakespeare Bibliography... both RS. Knitwitted (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No, being "indexed" does make something a reliable source. Paul B (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul, Brief Chronicles meets all the criteria of WP:RS does it not ? Why are you trying to disqualify it as one ?--Rogala (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please review all the qualifications of WP:RS, not just one element, as well as all the discussions concerning it (I trust you know how to use the various board search functions). Being indexed is a qualification for it being notable enough to have its own WP article. (I must add that as far as I'm concerned it is RS when used to document Oxfordian claims for this particular page, but not when it's accompanied by any editorial content or OR conclusions, as was done in this case.) Tom Reedy (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Tom, for your explanation. I've rewritten the paragraph in question to exclude the editorial commentary. Knitwitted (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A few points: don't introduce the BC article as a "possible solution", just explain what they say. As a general rule anything cited in a WP article should have been reviewed or responded to in the appropriate venues, and since as far as I know this one hasn't been, it qualifies more as advocacy than as a legitimate cite of information. And don't link "Oxfordians" to the Edward de Vere article. The reader expects a link to explain what a term means or to explain a reference. A biography doesn't explain the word, which is sufficiently explained in the article (it is, after all, in the title). Tom Reedy (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tom. I'm a bit confused by what "appropriate venues" means. Brief Chronicles is a peer-reviewed journal and is indexed in both MLA and WSB (Aren't these both RS? And if so, wouldn't any and all journals they deem to be noteworthy also be RS?) Could you give some examples of what "appropriate venues" would be acceptable? Thank you for calling my attention to the bad wiki-link. (Fixed) And thanks for your "possible solution" suggestion. (Fixed) Knitwitted (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If by "peer-reviewed" you mean "reviewed by other Oxfordians", then you are correct. However, meaningful peer review usually a blind reading by uninterested scholars working in the field, usually professional, tenured academics. Reliable sources used by WP should have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which this one does not. By "appropriate venues", I mean responses in related academic publications or books written by authors knowledgeable in the subject, such as a book review in SQ, citation in another published paper, or a direct response in a peer-reviewed journal. Read WP:RS and WP:NPOV and WP:V, in their entirety.

Being indexed is not guarantee of reliability or of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; as far as WP is concerned, being indexed is merely a criterion for it having its own WP article. And no, mention in one RS does not convey RS status by consanguinity. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Brief Chronicle's editorial board and peer review process. Knitwitted (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we all know who they are. Paul B (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No it does not. This has been extensively diescussed. Paul B (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization of article

IMO this article is poorly organized and the sections aren't sequenced logically to make a coherent argument. I propose reorganizing the existing material using the SAQ page as a model. That is, lede, overview, the Oxfordian case (the longest, with subsections for the various biographical, literary, and autobiographical parallels in the plays and poems), case against the Oxfordian case, variations of Oxfordism, history of the Oxfordian movement. I know the history needs to be covered but having it lead the article seems disproportionate to me. When readers (~1,000/day) come here they want to know what it's about, not the history.

Also the citation apparatus is hodge-podge at best, and a lot of the cites don't have page numbers or other useful finding aids. I would like to see that changed into one, high-quality system, such as one of the Harvard templates. But IMO that could wait until the article was reorganized. The reorganization will reveal the bald spots that should be filled in and the duplicated material, and following that with rewriting the cites could be a good opportunity to copy-edit the prose. Who knows that the article might not become one of Wikipedia's finest and be awarded FA status? At the very least it needs improvement up to "Good" quality. Thoughts? Accusations? Insults? Tom Reedy (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Um . .well, glad to oblige altruistically, so speaking on behalf of the Anonymouse moral majority out here, get fucked! (crossed my fingers, irony is at an all time low in these places).Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nishidani. To tell the truth, the more I look at it the less I want to tackle it. It's the most undigested, ill-written article I believe I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and nobody seems interested in doing anything except keep adding more wretched prose and clumsy arguments. I did a little swapping around, but until someone else expresses an interest I think I'll just let it be for now. If this what they want, more power to them. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Tell you what, N. I'm not too keen on getting into endless edit wars and losing my serenity over something as trivial as an authorship page—I at least learned that from our last experience. If you (or anybody else) wants to, they can join me at the sandbox we used for the SAQ draft and we can work out something a bit more like an encyclopedia page instead of a promotional tract. I'll limit my edits here to rewriting the "Case against" section and maintaining balance as per my comments above. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Roland Emmerich

I have a reasonable near-certainty that the director Roland Emmerich both printed and designed properly this page before writes the script of his film Anonymus. Wikipedia may request copyright. ;-) --Sergioadamo (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

All WP articles are freely licensed for use by anyone. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Chronology merge not warranted

The result of the discussion of the Oxfordian chronology page was to delete, not merge and delete. IOW, it did not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia, failing the verifiability and POV policies, as well as the notability policy. See WP:DELETE, and especially Alternatives to deletion. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your making things up again. The closers comments mention none of the things you say. I've added content, and it is sourced.Smatprt (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)