Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Brief Chronicles Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom, it's still a threat, and inappropriate because Wikipedia policy states that (1) Wikipedia is not a democracy and (2) Wikipedia does not operate by consensus. Wikipedia policy states that all editors are equal, and (I obviously have to repeat it again) that answers on the Wikipedia notice board do not constitute Wikipedia policy. You have no right to remove a citation merely because you and a few others 'deem' certain things to be so. That directly contravenes Wikipedia policy.NinaGreen (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Burghley not Oxford's guardian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oxford's Great Garden Property

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

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

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

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

Oxford's poems

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

Thanks for the tip. I didn't know that.NinaGreen (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

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

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

There is in fact a conduct issue here, though hardly one that is ripe for arbitration, and that is the repetitiveness of NinaGreen's posting. Nina, you seem to be trying to wear down opposition by saying the same thing over and over. That's not a legitimate talkpage debating style; it's tendentious editing, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. By way of example, I did a search on the word "arbitration" (which as I said has no business here even once), and, from the section "Verifiability and Meaningful Peer Review"[2] alone, garnered this collection:

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

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

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

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

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

Bishonen, you wrote:

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

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

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

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

You also wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The statement you referred me to reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation of Articles in Online DNB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Section

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

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

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

Main Edit Finished?

There are probably some bits and pieces to be added, as well as things to be tidied up, but the main edit is finished. Comments and suggestions on any aspect are most welcome.NinaGreen (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina I've pretty much got my hands full revising the SAQ according to the comments I got from the peer review request, so any input from me will have to wait. I imagine the article will stay close to the way it is now until Nishidani gets back in February. By that time I should have the SAQ article up to FA status (if it is ever to achieve it), and then I'll be able to chime in. Thanks for all you've done; it's good to have someone work on it who has a deep background. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I'm not certain whom I'm addressing, 71.191.5.232, but you've contributed two recent edits:

This is based on the great similarities between De Vere's life and the events and ideas in the plays attributed to "Williams Shakespeare." Edward de Vere's educational background, his experience in, and knowledge of, court life, and his personal circumstances closely coincide with the qualities of a writer who could have written the "Shakespearean" works. While a majority of scholars adhere to the traditional view of Will Shakper of Stratford as the author, many other scholars reject this claim and support the De Verean view. Almost no one supports any other claimant to the works of Shakespeare. Edward de Vere is the "most popular alternative candidate" simply because the common-sense evidence is overwhelming that he was the author.

and

All of the cities Edward de Vere visited in Italy, including Venice, appear in the play the "Merchant of Venice", strong evidence that De Vere was the author of this play.

The Edward de Vere article is currently written from a neutral point of view. It chronicles the events in Oxford's life, citing sources for those events which are accepted by Wikipedia editors as reliable, but not drawing any conclusions for or against the authorship hypothesis from the events. Your two edits are a departure from those procedures, and I wonder if you would consider discussing them on this page.NinaGreen (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If Edward de Vere "is presently the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works," would someone please tell me how they decided this? Did they take a poll? Has there been scientific study? How long has he been the most popular alternative? One year? five years? 60 years? Who was the most popular alternative before De Vere? Why is De Vere currently the most popular alternative? Have people gotten bored with the other alternatives? These are questions that come to mind after reading that statement. And surely they are worthy questions. If all the cities that De Vere visited in Italy showed up in "The Merchant of Venice" it wouldn't be a violation of the "neutal point of view" rule to point out that coincidences like this give credence to the view that he wrote the play in question. While such a view may well be a "fringe" and may well be nonsense, why would it violate any rules to point this out in the context of the authorship dispute?

Was the character of Polonius modeled off of Lord Burgley in the play Hamlet? Many scholars seem to think so. William Shakespeare of Stratord didn't know Burgley, but Edward de Vere did.

Remarkable evidence here. Was the character of Julius Caesar modeled off of Julius Caesar in the play Julius Caesar? Many scholars seem to think so. William Shakespeare of Stratford didn't know Caesar, but Cicero did. Ergo, Cicero wrote Julius Caesar. john k (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This statement makes absolutely no sense at all.

What, you don't think Cicero wrote Julius Caesar? john k (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely. He would have given himself a bigger part. My money's on Mark Antony. Paul B (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The people who believe the traditional story about William Shakespeare are not interested in "neutral points of view". They are interested in destroying any effort on this page or others on Wikipedia to link Edward de Vere to the plays ostensibly written by William Shakespeare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.122.48 (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

All ythe points you make are about what should be in the Oxfordian theory article, not this one. Wikipedia's rules require that this article should present a mainstream biography. That's why we have a separate article. Paul B (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

A "mainstream biography" is perfectly capable of being wrong. If we're only able to write about what the majority thinks, then we're never going to make any progress. You don't take a poll to see if something's right. You examine the evidence and the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.126.69 (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of wikipedia is to report on the consensus of mainstream scholarship, not to try to determine ourselves what the real truth is. john k (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this question. That is when the entire group agrees. There is a large minority viewpoint on this issue, which is why that minority viewpoint can be rightly discussed in the course of the article.

There is clear consensus among accredited scholars. The Merchant of Venice is based on a short story. It's not a travelogue of Venice. It's just set there. Plays by many other Elizabethan writers were set in Italian towns. It was something of a cliche. To say that you have to travel to a town to set a play there is silly. To say that the fact that someone travelled to a town is evidence that they wrote a play set there is even sillier. Do you think the author of The Tempest must have visited a magical island? Polonius may or may not be modelled on Burghley. We have no idea, really. But Shakespeare of Stratford would almost certainly have encountered him, so there's no reason why he couldn't base a character on him. Paul B (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Merchant of Venice" is just one example of many. And EVERY city in the play was one visited by De Vere. I can't list the multitude of similarities between De Vere's life and the plays, but when you add them all up, the evidence is clear. You're dismissive of the verified parallels between De Vere's life and the plays but then you assert without any evidence that "Shakespeare of Stratford almost certainly encountered [Burghley]". Really? How do you know this? De Vere definitely knew Burghley, who was his father-in-law. We have not an iota of evidence Will Shaksper knew Burghley. I don't believe that the only people who can count in determining the authorship question are people with Ph.Ds in Shakespearean literature, or similar folks, if those are the accredited scholars you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.116.105 (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent edit, 96.231.116.105. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, so don't put it back. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 15:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

An encyclopedia should be concerned with the truth. Just because the traditional, orthodox view of the authorship question has been around longer is no reason to blindly accept it. My appeal is to all thinking, open-minded people. If we compare the evidence, direct and circumstantial, pertaining to who wrote these plays, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of Edward de Vere. For Will Shaksper of Stratford, we have virtually nothing. The arguments for his case are full of "must haves" and "would haves". It's an insult to reason and intelligence to continue to accept this ridiculous fairy of Will Shaksper as the author of these plays. No one knew him. No records existed of him for 20 years. No real proof he was ever an actor. His death was barely noticed. But the historical documents are replete with references to many lesser known authors. Edward de Vere was "Shakespeare". He wrote these great plays. You can't order me to keep the truth out of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.114.15 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The goal of the Stratfordians is to censor and bury any view opposed to their view. But two films will soon be coming out. One is a documentary on the subject and another is a drama, probably at least somewhat fictionalized, claiming that Elizabeth I was de Vere's mother. Nevertheless, both of these films will create legions of skeptics who will no longer believe the lies put forth by the Stratfordians. The floodgates will open and de Vere will be more readily accepted as the true author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.114.15 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dream on. Hollywood films are fiction. Just like Oxfordianism. Paul B (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit by 71.191.15.32 which claimed -

"Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (12 April 1550 – 24 June 1604) was an Elizabethan courtier, playwright, lyric poet, sportsman and patron of the arts, and author of the works traditionally attributed to "William Shakespeare," a pseudonym used by de Vere or others as a convenient way of disguising his identity. Research in recent decades by scholars and journalists have uncovered the truth of the authorship question, though a hefty majority of establishment scholars and commentators prefer the traditional story. However, Will Shaksper of Stratford was an illiterate grain dealer. No one during his lifetime identified him as a writer, and there is no documentation for large periods of his life."

Those people who think that de Vere was Shakespeare should work on the article Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship which is currently disorganized and makes a poor case, and leave this page as a straight factual biography. Poujeaux (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The "facts" are always easy to discern. Plenty is stated about William Shakespeare in the official article on him in Wikipedia that can hardly be termed factual. There is no hard evidence he ever attended grammar school. The circumstantial evidence we have combined with the paucity of hard indicates is considerably in favor of Edward de Vere as the author of these plays. The case for the traditional is essentially nonexistent. Eventually, the public and most scholars will come around to this. Years from now, people will look back at this debate and chuckle? How could we belief such rubbish for so long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.6.122 (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In the "authorship" section at the end I removed mention of "Shakespeare specialists" because the term lacks any accepted definition. It is nothing but somebody's made-up phrase. That sentence is also argumentative on the so-called "authorship question," which is inappropriate in a bio article. There is a different article for that. None of the bio articles should try to argue authorship within themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.58.209 (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If you really believe that, you should remove all mention of it. 'Shakespeare specialists' has a fairly clear meaning. Paul B (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If you really believe that, you can go ahead and define that term right now. So, go ahead and do it. Define "Shakespeare specialist" here and now. State here and now, for everyone to see, what "Shakespeare specialist" means.

You can't, of course.

And you, yourself, wrote just above, on this page, that "There is a separate page" for the authorship question, so why are you trying to argue it here, from either side? It is not appropriate here, to argue authorship. You, yourself, already wrote that on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.58.209 (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be briefly mentioned here, to link to the main page. A Shakespeare specialist is an academic who has published extensively in reliable sources on Shakespeare and is identified by academic colleagues as an expert in the area. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The material doesn't make an awful lot of sense and is very unclear in meaning - do we have a source? --Errant ^(chat!) 13:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit too condensed, I think. I'm probably too close to the material to be confused! What do you find confusing? Paul B (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what it is trying to say, but it is a little vague and disconnected. As is the sentence before, I'll try a reword. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to "dumb it down" a bit for clarity - see what you think --Errant ^(chat!) 14:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Edward de Vere article is not written "from a neutral point of view." It is written from the point of view that he almost certainly was not the author of the Shakespearean canon. If you would not give equal weight to Intelligent Design Theory in discussing evolution, I can't see why you would treat the traditional story of Will Shakeper of Stratford as the God-given truth. Were we to discover the plays for the first time in 2011, if we had to determine who the author was for the first time, the evidence points to Oxford, not Shaksper. Oxford owned property in Stratford, which easily explains the dedication in the first folio. To borrow a line some famous prosecutors, there is a "mountain of evidence" that Oxford was "Shakespeare." What we have on Shaksper's side is 400 years of tradition--that's it. So stop pretending this article is written from a "neutral point of view." It's a whitewash. It's rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.0.40 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Oxford did not own property in Stratford (he did own a house in Bilton, which he sold decades before the Swan of Avon reference). Even if he did, it would not explain anything. Why refer to the earl of Oxford by reference to an obscure town he didn't even live in? Were we to discover the plays for the first time in 2011 it is vastly unlikely that scholars would attribute them to an artistocrat who died in 1604, for all sorts of rather obvious reasons. Your analogy to Intelligent design is of course the utter reverse of the truth. Please check Wikipedia's rules. We follow what scholars say, not what anonymous individuals feel. There is simply no point in continuing to make these comments and additions to the article. You will be ignored and reverted. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Paul B (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's undoubtedly frustrating for you that you can't censor my comments in the discussion section. While you can censor the main article section, but not this section, it's not at all surprising that you see "no point in [me] continuing to make these comments..." There's clearly no point in your bothering to read them. Let others read them and take make their own judgments. If your interpretation of the authorship question is correct, you shouldn't fear a free and open discussion of the issue, even if it is here. An article with a neutral point of view on this matter would discuss why so many people believe Edward de Vere was the true author. It would not crush and bury those views. Not all scholars accept the orthodox view, as you know--not even all Ph.D.-accredited scholars in the field. The First Folio of "Shakespeare's" plays was produced and published by Edward de Vere's daughter, Susan; her husband, Philip Herbert; and Philip's brother William. This is an odd coincidence if Edward de Vere did not write these plays. He did own a manor house on Bilton Hall, on the River Avon, where he often rested. The reference to the "Sweet Song of Avon" was in 1623. Edward de Vere supposedly died in 1604. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.7.51 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't "fear" a free and open discussion, but that is not what talk pages are for. They are for suggestions regarding that article. I already said he owned a house in Bilton which he sold decades before the Swan of Avon reference. Even before that it was rented out. He never lived there. Don't you even read the replies? And what's this "supposedly died" business? Is this a new twist? Oxford was holed up with Marlowe, living on in secret? The plays were published by Shakespeare of Stratford's fellow actors, under the patronage of the pair of Herberts. There is no evidence whatever that Susan de Vere had anything to do with it at all. That's how things worked then. You got aristocrats to support your ventures. That they were related to Oxford is no big surprise. The aristocracy married within itself. They were related to a whole bunch of toffs. It's an odd coincidence that Shakespeare's fellow actors prepared the publication if he did not write the plays. Oxfordian views have a whole article to themselves, so they are certainly not buried or crushed. Paul B (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The sale of Bilton apparently occurred in 1592, just 12 years before Oxford died, and it was one of the last ancestral properties he disposed of. There is a reference to this country seat in one of his (Oxford's, not Shaksper's) sonnets. He didn't live there, but he spent plenty of time there. As to his death, there is some question as to the date of Oxford's death. This in an important area of research in Oxfordian studies. As for the publication of the plays by the Herberts, that they were related to Oxford is no surprise indeed if they were related to him. This is perfectly logical. Yes, these talk pages are for suggestions regarding this article, and my suggestion is that article pay more attention to the overwhelmingly evidence that Oxford was the real author of this works, that no person with the name "William Shakespeare" wrote these pages, and that Will Shaksper did not write these plays. The latter never spelled or pronounced the name attached to the plays as it now. The usual spelling was "William Shake-speare", hyphenated to indicate the fact that it was a pseudonym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.11.88 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No more commentary please. Wikipedia is not a forum and this talk page is not the place for background discussions, or to make vague suggestions. Rather than "pay more attention", we need to discuss specific wording in the article that is inappropriate (with an explanation), or to discuss specific wording to add (with an explanation). In all cases, explanations must rely on reliable secondary sources, not campaign websites. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I was puzzled by the statement "As to his death, there is some question as to the date..." Oxford was a member of the House of Lords and a significant landowner. He died intestate, which set off the process of his widow obtaining letters of administration and so forth. He was buried, and a parish register survives which records the burial. His son succeeded him in his peerages. Is there any serious challenge to the date of his death? Moonraker2 (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No serious challenge academically, but in the de Verean world three hypotheses coexist. (a) One that accepts the date, and develops a theory of secret custodianship of the manuscripts for the later plays which were gradually released for performance (b) another which argues there is no evidence the 'posthumous' plays are to be dated as Shakespearean scholarship dates them, to a period from 1604-1611 (c) that, like Marlowe, the report of his death is faked, and he survived until at least 1609, where the dedication to the Sonnets (ever-(living poet)=(de) Vere), is taken to suggest he may have been alive at that date. The anonymous IP correspondent is alluding to this last variation, expounded en passant, by Hank Whittemore and Alex McNeil. None of this speculative fantasy has, of course, anything to do with the facts of de Vere's life which we are recounting on this biographical page. Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I was unaware of this new twist, especially since so many Oxfordians love to argue that "ever living" really means dead! There is, I suppose, a fourth hypothesis - that late plays are not by Oxford-Shakespeare, or that incomplete "Shakespearean material" left behind by Oxford was completed by others such as Fletcher and Wilkins. Looney certainly proclaimed that The Tempest was not by Oxford. I am at a loss to understand why our apoplectic IP does not discuss this on the Oxfordian theory page, where it would be relevant. Paul B (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, quite probable, and you're right to remind us of Looney's take on the Tempest, and its possible inflections. Well, the relevant page has been indicated, and I think any editor should feel authorized to just shift that kind of contribution there if the problem recurs. By the way, the Bilton =Swan of Avon nonsense was disposed of by the late lamented Irv Matus in his Shakespeare: In Fact, around p.200 (haven't got the book at my elbow at the moment)Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Proponents of the orthodox view cannot lose the argument if they are the ones who decide what "reliable secondary sources" are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.7.79 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Admin note

The anonymous revert-warrior 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 related IPs in the history of this page) is topic-banned under the rules of WP:ARBSAQ from all edits related to the SAQ and Edward de Vere, for persistent revert-warring. Any edits that are recognisably his, either on the article or talk page, may be reverted on sight, without regard to the 3RR or other restrictions. It is recommended that talk page postings from him should also not be responded to but removed immediately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, Fut, I don't know if you noticed that HJ Mitchell just semi'd the article for 3 months, pursuant to this ANI thread. So we're rid of the warrior from the article for a while. Not from this talkpage, though. It's up to editors to keep the talk useable for discussions of actual improvements to the article (as opposed to being filled with those classic whines about "censorship"). Note also that other IP's, non-topic-banned ones, can request constructive edits on this page, and any respectable editor (doesn't have to be an admin) can add them to the article, after discussion if appropriate. Bishonen | talk 12:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC).

What evidence do we have that Edward de Vere was the real author here, and what evidence do we have that Guilemus Shaksper was the real author. Well, we have little hard evidence either way, but we have mountains of evidence that Edward de Vere wrote these plays. The web is humming with activity about the upcoming movie "Anonymous". People who are interested in this question and who want good info that is not censored should look elsewhere. The Wikipedia articles on Edward de Vere and the Shakespearean Authorship question are constantly censored in the name of NPOVs, which are nothing of the sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.115.239 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Since we may assume that the 71.191... editor and the 96.231... editor are one and the same person, and since 71.191... has signed (or has Sineboted) one below, all these comments are subject to the above sanction. Once more, I am perfectly willing to discuss the arguments on my talk page, but it appears that the editor had no intention of following Wikipedia policy. I therefore assume his principal aim is to leave a visible record on the De Vere page. However, I have copied his last comment to my talk page and responded there. Paul B (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

They do seem to be based in the same city, use the same ISP and spout the same rubbish. So, yes. They are the same person. So ollapsing the threads and not feeding the trolls seems the way to go.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

No actionable request, see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:ARBSAQ#Discretionary_sanctions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I made a correction to the article about Oxfordian Theory that should be replicated here. I noticed that the reference to Oxford being the most "popular" actually used the term "strongest". Might someone make the same change here. The reference is Encyclopedia Britannica, after all. "Popular" sounds like some kind of contest. Also, I note that the section here on the authorship is woefully inadequate. If the man is notable for being the strongest/most popular/etc. candidate, then the final section needs a little filling out to justify that notability. I would suggest summarizing the Oxfordian Theory article for this section. Would that not be the proper approach? Even summarizing the first 3 paragraphs of the Oxfordian article would be better than what is there now. - Anton321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton321 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC) WP:SUMMARY explains that the topic should only be dealt with briefly here. Does that help? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC) The Oxfordian article has 3 sources. not one. (a) the Britannica article actually has it that Oxford (he) became, in the 20th century, the strongest candidate proposed (next to William Shakespeare himself) for the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays.' As you can see, he is not the 'strongest' contender there. And 'became in the 20th century' is an historic past tense. We are now in the 21st century. Throughout the last century, de Vere replaced the 19th century strongest candidate, Bacon. (b) Michael Satchell,'Hunting for good Will:Will the real Shakespeare please stand up?,' is not RS, and says neither 'popular' nor 'strongest' . (c)The third source, dated to 1962, McMichael & Glenn's Shakespeare and his Rivals: A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy, has it that 'the most popular anti-Stratfordian theory of the twentieth century is that "Shakespeare" was written by Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.' Additionally, since by the almost unanimous consensus of academic sources, on de Vere and on the authorship question, there is no merit in these fringe claims, to write 'strongest' would be to mislead the readership. None of the contenders have 'strong claims' , This is a biography of de Vere. And should stick to the known facts about de Vere's real life. The fantastic speculations that lately surround his repute in popular opinions are a rather quixotic footnote to his story, and have been given the space wiki policy accords to them in biographical articles.Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Anton, you won't have any luck with the editors of this page. They will crush any effort to present a balanced claim of the authorship question and the overwhelming evidence that supports de Vere's claim. There is not an "almost unanimous consensus of academic sources" on the issue, and even so, there is no reason to ignore other researchers. The evidence supporting the conventional view of Shakspere of Stratford as the author is flimy and unconvincing. Most academics, however, refuse to consider, any other alternative. You can present a mountain of evidence in support of evolution but creationists and other religious people will refuse to accept it. It doesn't matter. In short, the view that Edward de Vere wrote these plays is not a "fringe theory," as many prominent researchers, public intellectuals, and celebrities have embraced this view. Don't try to reason with Nishani or any of the other censors on here. It's pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.4.36 (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC) I'm afraid there is an absolutely overwheming consensus. If there were not, you would be able to find better evidence than you have. Of course your creation/evolution argument is topsy turvy. It is the Oxfordian position that is the fringe "creationist" one. Paul B (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I'm afraid you're wrong. And if that is the best you can do, that is pretty sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.119.116 (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Look, if you want to discuss the 'arguments' for Oxford you can do so on my talk page. Just repeating assertions with no evidence whatever is pretty pointless. Serious Shakespeare scholars generally treat this stuff as an embarrassment. Paul B (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC) No evidence whatever? There is a vast literature on Oxford---in journals, in books--by serious scholars who are not certified Ph.Ds in the field and don't have to be. Hank Whittemore has written a 900 tome that persuasively demonstrates Edward de Vere was not only the author but fathered a son with Elizabeth I. Mark Anderson has written a critically acclaimed book entitled, "Shakespeare by Another Name", which the editors on here will not allow to be listed in the references. The only scholars allowed to edit this site are the ones approved by the Stratford mafia--those who hold the ridiculous orthodox view that continues to be taught in schools. There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that de Vere was the author of these plays, and the growing acceptance and discussion of this view is something that should be reflected in the content of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.14.4 (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Read the SAQ page on what constitutes 'evidence' in historical studies. 'A vast literature' by a fringe group of conspiracy theorists, who almost never take the trouble to get an academic qualifications in the field, does not constitute acceptable evidence. Elizabethan scholars and Shakespeare specialist cannot overcome the Oxfordian argument with sheer logic or common sense. Were historians of literature to take this seriously, they would be sucked into a struggle against a kind of religion – a set of traditional beliefs so deeply held that it may well have developed its own DNA. The Oxfordian gene. Nishidani (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Hank Whittemore has no qualifications whatever and his book was published by a now-defunct fringe press. Even most Oxfordians think it is utter nonsense. Anderson's book has not been "critically aclaimed" by anyone except Oxfordians. It is chock full of absurdities. By the way, Whittemore is just one in a long line of these guys, dating back to Alfred Dodd in The Personal Poems of Francis Bacon, in which he persuasively demonstrates from the sonnets that Francis Bacon was not only the author but the son of Elizabeth I, up to Robert Nield in Breaking the Shakespeare Codes in which he persuasively demonstrates that William Hastings was not only the author but was the son of Elizabeth I. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC) The religion here is the religion of Stratfordianism. What hard evidence do we have supporting the orthodox view. Almost none. The dedication page is to a "William Shakespeare" but that is no how the "Shakespeare" of Stratford spelled his name. This man may have gone to Stratford Grammar School but there is no hard evidence he did. No one remarked upon his death. But plenty of people knew de Vere. They were references to his intelligence and literary ability. There is conclusive proof of his education and his experiences in travel and court tha bear similarities to his plays. With the Stratford man we have none of this. It's all a ridiculous fantasy embraced by people like those who would deny evolution, despite monumental evidence supporting. The people who suppress a fair discussion of this issue are beginning to look very silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.15.127 (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC) "The religion here is the religion of Stratfordianism" isn't a sensible contribution to the debate: you are just going around in circles now. If you have something useful to add you will find that the editors at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question have a wide knowledge of the issue and are very responsive. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC) The was a witty, and accurate, comment on my part. Many of the editors at the Shakespeare authorship question page are the same ones who haunt this page. They edited the page to minimize the possibility that someone else wrote the plays, with scant attention to the "most popular" candidate, Edward de Vere. The page is a whitewash and a sham. Stratforidans such as James Shapiro and Alan Nelson, who wrote a hatchet job on Edward de Vere, are cited favorably. Even on that page, you will not see works by any number of authors who have written favorably of Edward de Vere. And just for the record, Alan Nelson is literature professor, not a historian. So the bottom line is that you will not get a useful discussion of this issue, or a fair presentation of it, on Wikipedia. For those interested in the subject, look elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.118.146 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC) It was actually quite witless. Editors who congratulate themselves on their wit are desperate cases indeed. So far you have trotted out a lot of well worn arguments that mean nothing. Marlowe didn't spell his own name "Marlowe" either, and in fact there are numerous variants of spelling of Shakespeare even in publications. There was no such thing as standard spelling. This is basic level stuff of which you appear to be entirely ignorant. If by "written favorably of Edward de Vere" you mean not his actual life but his claims to Shakespeare authorship, you will find that almost nothing by specialists in the period is written at all which is favourable to that view. Nelson and Shapiro are specialists in the period. Paul B (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC) The spelling issue is a phony one. While there were numerous spellings, the variations were quite rare. The vast majority were consistent, for the Stratford man and for the pseudonym. Shapiro's book is just another whitewash. He ignores everything about de Vere that could link him to the plays. It's a work of fantasy. Here is a link that should be of interest to objective people. http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic782699.files/oxford.earl.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.2.75 (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC) "The spelling issue is a phony one". It sure is. Variations are not rare at all, but very common in both print and manuscript. The whole anti-Strat spelling argument is nonsense and has been repeatedly demonstrated to be so by many authors. The vast majority were not consistent, as you can easily see from the statistical evidence provided by Kathman and others. Indeed most of the very legal documents that Shakespeare signed as "Shakspere" or other variants spell his name "Shakespeare". How could they be different people if he was able to sign up for a mortgage using a slightly different spelling to the one in the document itself? Clearly the person named and the person signing must be the same person. Shapiro's book is not an attempt to look at the details of Oxfordian arguments, which you can find discussed by Gibson, Kathman, McCrea, Matus etc. They amount to little or nothing more than trying fit the plots of the plays to the story of his life, as if the works were some pointless coded autobiography. That's not how scholars look at the plots of plays in historical context. Your document is full of misrepresentations; this is unsurprising as it is the work of Oxfordian Don Ostrowski, a person with no expertise whatever in the Elizabethan era. Paul B (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Aside from the fact that the abundant documents in his own hand left by de Vere reveal him as an atrocious spelling, sometimes showing 11 variations on the one word. Ostrowski's document is crammed with errors, and, as Paul says, he has no expertise (the lack of it is glaring). I think this thread is pointless, unless the editor can direct us to something (a) we've missed (b) with a new angle (c) written by a competent Shakespearean scholar (d)under an imprint conforming to the highest standards of RS maintained by this page. What we have here is just gossip from the suburbs. Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC) He won't do that of course, but I have already offered to debate the matter on my talk page if he wants to. I know that WP:talk precludes general discussions such as this, but I hate to leave these statements unanswered. Paul B (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC) You may have various opinions about assorted authors. However, those are personal opinions. Wikipedia policy is quite explicit that the peer-reviewed academic writings of specialists who summarise the start of the art sit at the top of the WP:Reliable source pyramid. Writings by non-academics published by presses with negligible history within the relevant academic discipline are a long way down the pyramid. You may favour the latter over the former but you ain't going to get your views into the article until such time as a large number of peer-reviewed academics start agreeing with you. No amount of waffle by judges, actors, dodgy psychologists etc who lack academic expertise within a relevant discipline will counterbalance the high quality sources as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. Persistent efforts to go against policy are likely to be regarded as disruptive by admins and will be handled accordingly.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Deal with it accordingly, then. Many specialists in the field flatly refuse to consider alterative authorship theories. Alan Nelson's book is not a high quality source. The other thing we have supported the theory that the grain dealer from Stratford wrote these plays is a name similar to his on the dedication page to some of his plays. Based on this flimsy connection, scores of "specialists" in the field have unwaveringly supported the Straford line. How can we put these specialists at the top of some pyramid? Is there any room for reason here? Finally, I'd like to know what the implication of your threat is in the final line of your rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.114.155 (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC) How silly these editors look, banning people who try to discuss the authorship controversy in a reasonable way. First they lock the main page, so no changes that they do not agree with are banned. Then they ban those same people from discussing the issue on the Talk Page. They say that only information from "reliable secondary sources" can be use but they decide what is reliable. It is censorship plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.128.66 (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

General review

As promised in November, I've come back to give a thorough review of the page. In general, there is far too much original quotation in extenso which only redoubles on what the narrative says. Most of the quotations belong to the genre of writings to secure courtly patronage, and are characterised by hyperbole and flattery, and are never regarded by historians as testaments to facts other than the dynamics of bidding for favour or influence or patronage. I have removed the garbled (too much detail, much of its lacking the requested sourcing) and post it here.

The fines assessed against Oxford in the Court of Wards included £2000 for his wardship and marriage, £1257 18s 3/4d for his livery, and £48 19s 9-1/4d for mean rates, a total of £3306 17s 10d. To guarantee payment, Oxford entered into bonds to the Court of Wards totalling £11,000. Oxford's own bonds to the Court of Wards were in turn guaranteed by bonds to the Court of Wards in the amount of £5000 apiece entered into by two guarantors, John, Lord Darcy of Chiche, and Sir William Waldegrave. In return for these guarantees, Oxford had entered into two statutes of £6000 apiece to Darcy and Waldegrave. Having sued his livery, Oxford was entitled to yearly revenues from his lands and the office of Lord Great Chamberlain of approximately £2200, although he was not entitled to the income from the estates comprising his mother's jointure until after her death in 1568 nor to the income from certain estates set aside to pay his father's debts until 1583.

Perhaps a section dedicated to his finances would be better. In any case, too much detail is to be avoided. Thoughts?Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dedications

Since he had over 20 book dedications, clearly one cannot punctuate a brief narrative of his life by continual interruptions, month by month or year by year, noting these dedications. I have collected some of them here. Perhaps, if needed, they can be compiled in chronological order in a late section.

In early 1572 Oxford wrote a Latin epistle to Bartholomew Clerke’s De Curiali, a translation into Latin of Baldassare Castiglione’s Il Cortegiano, and in the same year Thomas Twyne dedicated his Breviary of Britain to Oxford, noting that 'your Honour taketh singular delight' in 'books of geography, histories and other good learning.In 1573 Oxford wrote a commendatory letter and verses for his friend Thomas Bedingfield's Cardanus’ Comfort, a translation from the Latin of De Consolatione by the Italian mathematician and physician Girolamo Cardano.In 1574 Oxford's surgeon, George Baker, dedicated to him a work containing two translations, The Composition or Making of . . . Oleum Magistrale, and The Third Book of Galen.Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 17 October 2011

quite right to exclude the oxford-wrote-shakespeare bores but you might like to include the detailed account of the Earl of Oxford in Sicily which only Edward Chaney seems to have noticed and which he argues could relate, via Robert Greene's Pandosto, to Shakespeare's Winter's Tale; see E. Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour, 2nd ed. (Routledge, 2000), pp. 10-12. Wendy hardacre (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that this is a rather disingenuous request, but let's see. Chaney says that "Oxford was accusing Burghley's daughter of cuckolding him during his absence abroad" and that this slander "may, via Robert Greene's Pandosto, have inspired The Winter's Tale." This is pretty tenuous. Cheney is not an expert on the period, he's actually a professor of art, - the book is a sweeping history covering several centuries. The direct connection is, supposedly, to Pandosto. So it all seems very weak and tenuous. Paul B (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

to add to 'foreign travel' section

According to Edward Webbe's Rare and Wonderfull Things, published in 1590, Oxford travelled further afield than generally thought. 'One thing', he writes, 'did greatly comfort me which I saw long since in Sicilia, in the cite of Palermo, a thing worthie of memorie, where the right honourable the Earle of Oxenford a famous man fo Chivalrie, at what time he travailed into forraine countries, being then personally present, made there a challenge against al maner of persons whatsoever, & at all manner of weapons, as Turniments, Barriors with Horse and armour, to fight and combat with any whatsoever, in the defence of his Prince and countrey...so that al Italy over, he is acknowledged ever since for the same, the onely Chivallier and Noble man of England...'. If Oxford indeed travelled to Sicily and this was known among the literati,together with knowledge of his suspicions about his daughter's paternity, this may have been in Robert Greene's mind when he published Pandosto in 1588. Greene's popular novella concerning a falsely accused queen obliged to abandon her daughter, who is then brought up by shepherds in Sicily, in turn inspired his younger collaborator and rival, that 'upstart crow' William Shakespeare, to write the Winter's Tale, which is also partly set in Sicily. Edward Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour: Anglo-Italian Cultural Relations since the Renaissance, 2nd ed. (Routledge, 2000) pp. 10-12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendy hardacre (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As above - the link is very very tenuous. Basically - Oxford thought his wife was having an affair and Pandosto thinks his wife was having an affair. There the similarity pretty much ends. It's hardly an unusual plot-idea to start with, and it's hardly an unusual situation in real life. The source is not specialist. We would need other sources pointing to this link to make it worthwhile mentioning I think. Oh, and the promotion of this connection is, oddly, a feature of the website of one "Nina Green" I see. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's in Nelson of course p.131, who doubts the veracity of the tale. Odd in anycase that, so far, no one has come up with any evidence from Italian sources for the extraordinary esteem and fear the sword-happy nobles of that land had for the redoubtable de Vere. Perhaps the kibitzers could supply us with chapter and verse of a long series of French, German and Italian sources acclaiming the astonishing impact his passage made? Nishidani (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if he had been in Sicily, this has no connection to his wife's affair, and the swashbuckling adventures, real or imaginary, are wholly unelated to the affair - real or imaginary. Pandosto's wife's imaginary affair does not take place while he is travelling abroad. Paul B (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

For a minute there, eraser in hand, I was going to correct a perceived mispelling of 'ravelling a broad'Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting

I think one should compare this, esp. the later sections, to most Elizabethan biographies. There is no distinction between important and trivial incident, seminal moments and minor facts, no narrative value, and no attempt to group anything thematically. Indeed chronological sequence has trumped thematic grouping, so his amorous and theatrical interests interleave his failed speculations, and there is far too much useless citation of boring primary sources. It goes well down to about 1570 and thereafter is unreadably tedious in its rapid juxtaposition of excessive detail and sketchy marginalia . ?Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This definitely needs a rewrite to compress the article down, removing minor irrelevant events, and folding things into each other. At the moment this article contains 12356 words. This compares to 2590 for the Earl of Essex, who is a far more important figure in the context of the Elizabethan period, 6830 for William Shakespeare, and 8828 for Elizabeth herself! And this doesn't even include all the extra stuff about Oxford that Wikipedia has under the Authorship Speculation articles. For these reasons I think this article needs to be cut down to about half its present size, the many quotes need to be cut down to the most relevant parts or deleted when they are unnecessary - the article on Elizabeth only has one quote that exceeds 6 lines, and generally the quotes are just 2 or 4 lines. 94.170.118.163 (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fairly convincing evidence for the structural anomaly. This should be done with care, though. Nina Green put a lot of work into it (a copy will perdure in the history). Certainly almost all of the original quotes can go. The rest of the text requires synthesis under thematic headings to replace Nina's chronological account, which is factually precise, but lacks all narrative thrust. To make that change without distorting anything is no easy task.Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 17 October 2011

It's been provisorily answered. A blob of that dimension, in an article already spoiled by far too much Elizabethan text no one will read, to gloss points made in the narrative, is unacceptable. The point is extremely minor. At the most, 'de Vere may have visited Sicily'. (Nelson p.131). Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

should be added to foreign travel section:

According to Edward Webbe's Rare and Wonderfull Things, published in 1590, Oxford travelled further afield than generally thought. 'One thing', he writes, 'did greatly comfort me which I saw long since in Sicilia, in the cite of Palermo, a thing worthie of memorie, where the right honourable the Earle of Oxenford a famous man fo Chivalrie, at what time he travailed into forraine countries, being then personally present, made there a challenge against al maner of persons whatsoever, & at all manner of weapons, as Turniments, Barriors with Horse and armour, to fight and combat with any whatsoever, in the defence of his Prince and countrey...so that al Italy over, he is acknowledged ever since for the same, the onely Chivallier and Noble man of England...'. If Oxford indeed travelled to Sicily and this was known among the literati,together with knowledge of his suspicions about his daughter's paternity, this may have been in Robert Greene's mind when he published Pandosto in 1588. Greene's popular novella concerning a falsely accused queen obliged to abandon her daughter, who is then brought up by shepherds in Sicily, in turn inspired his younger collaborator and rival, that 'upstart crow' William Shakespeare, to write the Winter's Tale, which is also partly set in Sicily. Cite to Edward Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour: Anglo-Italian Cultural Relations since the Renaissance, 2nd ed. (Routledge, 2000) pp. 10-12. Wendy hardacre ((talk) 18:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Some recent edits have attempted to insert text into the lead of this article to state that Oxford was the author of the works attributed to Shakespeare, and that Shakespeare was an illiterate merchant. A comment was just made on this page, and I have moved it to here, and will respond below. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What we now have on this page is full-blown censorship. First, the people who run the page semi-protect it to keep out anonymous comments. Then they block people who make comments with real user names. You can't get a word in here at all about the true background of Edward de Vere. When you present evidence that Edward de Vere was "Shakespeare", it's deleted. When you bring to light the considerable controversy about the question, that is deleted. When you mention prominent researchers and public figures who support de Vere's claim, that is deleted. It's utterly disgraceful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.8.227 (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia normally allows anyone to edit any article. Imagine how articles would look if everyone on the Internet came along and added stuff they "knew". That's why there has to be a proper reference to support assertions. See WP:V and WP:IRS. There are many great websites with lots of interesting information on a wide range of topics, but lots of those sites push unorthodox views: did man land on the moon? did a plane crash into the Pentagon? who killed JFK? Wikipedia does not attempt to "balance" an article by giving each opposing view "equal time". Instead, the principles outlined at WP:FRINGE are applied. In the case of whether Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works, editors are following the normal procedures: the views of mainstream academics are given priority, and reliable sources must verify each assertion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That man did not land on the moon and that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon are fringe views. But that Edward de Vere was the real Shakespeare is not a "fringe view."

It is fringe in exactly the same sense for exactly the same reasons. It's a conspiracy theory which is not discussed in academia. Paul B (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not a conspiracy theory. John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia are not conspiracy theorists. Sigmund Freud, Orson Welles, and Derek Jacobi are not conspiracy theorists. Academics are supposed to be open-minded, but on this issue, they are not. If most will not even discuss the issue, how can it be properly examined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.11.42 (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Freud, etc. are not notable for being conspiracy theorists, anyway, but then neither are they notable as authorities on the works of Shakespeare (or the works attributed to Shakespeare, if you prefer). It is certainly a conspiracy theory, however, because Shakespearean scholars would have had to conspire to fabricate historical documents and Shakespeare and his associates would have had to conspire in collusion with de Vere. TheScotch (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

These are the words of Justice Stevens himself: "I would submit that, if their thesis is sound, that one has to assume that the conspiracy--I would not hesitate to call it a "conspiracy," because there is nothing necessarily invidious about the desire to keep the true authorship a secret--it had to have been participated in by the men I have mentioned earlier, Heminge and Condell and Digges and Ben Jonson, for sure. I also think it had to have been the result--because the questions of motives are so difficult to answer--it had to have been the result of a command from the monarch." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/debates/americanudebate.html Crassiodorus (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THIS ARTICLE

It says, " ... is currently the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works." According to what authorities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.153.158 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The authorities are cited in the Oxfordian theory article, but, yes, they should also be cited here. While I think this should be in the lede. I don't think it is appropriate in the very top like this. And "popular" is not a term that implies any degree of academic credibility, as shiould be made clear if this is to be so prominent. Paul B (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

See what you think of my edit. The way it read ("was an Elizabethan courtier, playwright, lyric poet, sportsman and patron of the arts") it appeared that writing plays and poems was his primary occupation. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked some refs and changed the lede accordingly. A lot of the Ward refs are from his "Interludes" that he interleaved between his chapters because his publisher refused to put his speculations in the main biographical text. I cut the Blackfriars mention because it is not notable enough to be in the lede IMO. Someday this article should be taken to at least "good" status, but I don't have the time right now. It is very episodic and not very coherent. For example, there are only three mentions of his £1000 subsidy from the queen and little detail of the reason for it. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

My edits have been reverted by Smatprt. Apparently he missed the talk page comments I made directly after I made the edits. The Ward ref is bogus; the lede read like his profession was a playwright, and the rest of the edits are explained in both the edit summary and the talk page. There is nothing that controversial about them, and BRD means you participate in the discussion, not just revert and tell the editor to explain. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. Here is my response:

• If you question the Ward reference then just add a fact tag instead of instantly deleting material.
• Oxford's notability as a courtier, poet, playwright, sportsman, and patron of the arts is well established and hardly controversial. If you desire more refs, then just ask for them. I don't see how you can pick two out of the list as being indicative of an "occupation".
• The Blackfriars lease is a major example of his patronage. Obtaining the lease and then gifting it to Lyly can hardly be described otherwise. Again, if you want a specific ref then say so.

I hope this answers your questions. Smatprt (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Smatprt: I am quite busy for the next two weeks but i will look over your edits and get back to you. However, as to the statement that Oxford produced entertainments at court, I have been unable to find any support for that outside of the usual suspects, i.e. Anderson, Ogburn, et al. I did not "question" the Ward ref; not only does Ward not say it, it is from a section of the book that Ward himself states is speculative (see Ward page x), and therefore cannot be used to support a supposedly factual statement. The Nelson ref says nothing whatsoever about the statement. If you don't have a copy of Ward, I can send you a copy of those pages.

You misunderstand my comment about "occupation" and I did not question the notability of Oxford's literary activities; I reordered them in another sentence because saying Oxford was primarily a playwright or poet is misleading: being the 17th Earl of Oxford is his primary claim to notability. We have no surviving plays of his; his extant poetry is mediocre, and he was not heralded as a great literary giant in his day nor in any other. In fact, his primary biographer writes that "Though lack of service would make Oxford virtually irrelevant to historians of the Elizabethan reign, he remains an object of curiosity for cultural and literary historians. He was a leader of fashion, a court poet of modest ability, and a patron of writers and performers. Additionally, he lived a life so privately scandalous and so richly documented that his biography opens a window onto secret passages of Elizabethan life and manners. Oxford has also been touted, for the past eighty years, as the author of the poems and plays of William Shakespeare" (Nelson 1). Tom Reedy (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If Oxford's Men played at court and that supposedly means that Oxford produced the entertainment, does that mean that when the King's Men played at court that King James produced the entertainment? No, it does not, and to interpret the first as saying or implying the second is OR. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the deletion of Ward and Johnson (as well as Ogburn and Anderson) as biographers of Oxford and the assertion that Nelson is his "primary biographer" is WP:OR. The same goes with making Nelson the bottom line on any of his numerous assertions and characterizations. You have not made the case for any of these dictates.

In regards as to who produced or financed (and answered for) the court appearances of Oxford's various companies, well - that would be Oxford. His patronage was well known and documented. I think you may be creating an unintended meaning here. Or are you wanting to quibble over the various definitions of "produce". Smatprt (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot understand your first sentence above or its relevance to what I wrote. Please reword it.

Evidently you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between a patron and his playing company of the time. A patron was not a producer or even a co-producer. In the EM age, patrons of acting companies gave the troupes the coloring of legitimacy; the patrons did not collaborate with the actors and playwrights. They were on call to furnish entertainment to the patron, but they were not financially supported by the patron except to the extent that he paid them when they performed directly for them. The Chamberlain's Men did not collaborate with the Lord Chamberlain, the King's Men did not collaborate with the King, and AFAIK there is no documentation that any patron other than Derby wrote for their playing company, and there certainly is no documentation that Oxford did so. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Smatprt, your edits are verging on being tendentious. This is the lede, not the detail. If a minor event in Oxford's life is notable enough to be included in the lede, it is notable enough to explain that we don't know what he did. Also your restoration of a 19th century source that is mistaken does not conform to Wikipedia policy. Please adjust your edits accordingly. I don't want to get into an edit war about this and my best guess is that you don't want to either. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also recommend that you do an equal amount of discussion and editing. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Smatprt, you are not listening, nor are you participating in the BRD process (the last letter stands for "discuss"). Ward does not say that Oxford produced court entertainment on those two pages you cite, and the section is self-admittedly speculation, as I have said several times (and even offered to send you a copy of those pages; apparently you are quoting a source which you don't have). Neither does your other source state that Oxford produced court entertainments, BECAUSE HE DID NOT DO SO! Producing court entertainments was the job of the Master of the Revels, not the Lord Great Chamberlain.

As to Oxford's service in the Armada, he performed no such service, nor is there any record of him outfitting a ship at his own expense to repel the invaders. Quoting an outdated and incorrect source and then backing it up with another source quoting the original source is not acceptable for scholarship or Wikipedia articles. Please do not continue to restore these statements or these sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't quite follow this debate properly, as I do not have access to Ward at the moment, so I don't know exactly what he says. Of course Ward is an acceptable source, but he's not the best and he is old and obsolete in many matters. We should always prefer up to date sources as long as they fulfil other criteria of reliability. Normally, we would not be sourcing Elizabethan history from books published in 1928. But really, quoting Samuel Johnson as a reliable source on Elizabethan history is frankly absurd! As for the Hunter and Bevington source Campaspe; Sappho and Phao, I have looked at the relevant pages. The p. xix says that Oxford "gave him [Lyly] the opportunity to produce plays." So it's Lyly doing the producing. The other page is also about Lyly and says "Lord Oxford's servants" were paid for the performance of a play - that is the company he patronised put on a play, not that he produced one. These citations simply do not say what they are claimed to say. This, as Ruskin would say, approaches the aspect of willful imposture. I really am sick of this kind of weasly misrepresentation. We should not use sources to support what we want them to say rather than what they do say. Nor should we look for sources, reaching back to the 18th century if we must, to support what we want to believe. Paul B (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have added some material to the lede and deleted a paragraph about the 16th Earl and put it on his page. This sentence that was a part of the transferred material: "The Earl was known as a sportsman, and among his son's earliest accomplishments were mastery of riding, shooting and hawking." is supported by Ward, pages 9–10. However, Ward does not state that information as a fact, but writes, "With such a father we may be sure that riding, shooting, and hawking were among the earliest accomplishments learned by the young Lord Bulbeck." I'll look for another source for that information and put it back in if I find it.

Also Oxford's temperament and impetuous behavior and its consequences are given short shrift in this article, despite it being among the very first elements of his life mentioned by all modern biographers. This article is not meant to be a foundation for the Oxfordian theory page, and it should follow the scholastic consensus as far as weight. As it stands it is a disorganized listing of facts, with no organizing principle except to mention his literary and patronage accomplishments at every opportunity. I suggest we begin with culling all the mentions of patronage and putting them in one section instead of having them sprinkled throughout in chronological order. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ward reference

I am going through and checking the B. M. Ward references to remove his speculation. War is problematical because half of his book is speculation (in the sections called "Interludes", see pp. ix-x) and he also inserts them through out the text. For example, Ward gives no evidence for his statement that "Oxford never spoke of his step-father thereafter except contemptuously", and in fact Nelson interprets the bequest of a horse as evidence that they were on good terms. (In any case the fact is too trivial to include in this article.) Since Ward's hagiography was written to give a veneer of academic support to the Oxfordian theory and is outdated anyway, I'm culling his cites as I go through the article (which will take a while) and replacing them with other references. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Unclosed reference tags

Article has numerous unclosed reference tags. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Family background

In the article, a historian should depict the family background of Edward de Vere in more detail. He was the 17th Earl of Oxford, after all, so the line of his ancestry was really very impressive. And his family name de Vere - of course of Norman or even other French origin. These details are not very well known to me, and possibly are interesting for all readers. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Oxford's background and family is covered in the encyclopedia, and it would not be useful to cram all this information into one article. See Category:Earls of Oxford, Category:De Vere family, and the article Earl of Oxford. Feel free to add any reliably-sourced material that meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines to any article, including these. Before you do so, I suggest you make yourself familiar with those policies and procedures. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Screwed up refs

I cannot determine what the problem is with the refs in this article. Beginning at ref 86, the refs don't link to anything, and clicking backward from the cite section the refs go to unpredictable places. Can anybody help find the problem? Thanks. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind; I found it. Giving up and asking for help seems to be a part of the process for me. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Dedications and literary mentions

They are haphazardly sprinkled through the article in chronological order. I am cutting them and storing them here for a dedicated section to be created later. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The next year 1577, John Brooke dedicated an English translation of Guy de Brès' The Staff of Christian Faith to Oxford.

where Gabriel Harvey dedicated his Gratulationes Valdinenses to the Queen. The work consists of four ‘books’, the first addressed to the Queen, the second to Leicester, the third to Lord Burghley, and the fourth to Oxford, Sir Christopher Hatton, and Leicester's nephew Philip Sidney, with whom he would famously quarrel. Harvey's dedication to Oxford is a double-edged criticism, praising his English and Latin verse and prose, yet advising him to 'put away your feeble pen, your bloodless books, your impractical writings'.

During this time, several works were dedicated to Oxford, Geoffrey Gates' Defense of Military Profession and Anthony Munday's Mirror of Mutability in 1579, and John Hester's A Short Discourse . . . of Leonardo Fioravanti, Bolognese, upon Surgery, John Lyly's Euphues and his England, and Anthony Munday's Zelauto in 1580. In the dedication to Zelauto, Munday also mentioned having delivered the now lost Galien of France to Oxford for his 'courteous and gentle perusing'. Both Lyly and Munday were in Oxford's service at the time. In addition, in his A Light Bundle of Lively Discourses Called Churchyard's Charge, and A Pleasant Labyrinth Called Churchyard's Chance, Thomas Churchyard promised to dedicate future works to the Earl. By now he had taken over the Earl of Warwick's playing company, which may have included the famous comedian, Richard Tarleton.

In this troubled period Thomas Watson dedicated his Hekatompathia or Passionate Century of Love to Oxford, noting that the Earl had taken a personal interest in the work.

During this time Anthony Munday dedicated his Primaleon; The First Book to Oxford.

In 1597 Oxford's servant, Henry Lok, published his Ecclesiastes containing a sonnet to Oxford. In his Palladis Tamia, published in 1598, Francis Meres referred to Oxford as one of "the best for Comedy amongst vs".

In 1599 John Farmer dedicated a second book to Oxford, The First Set of English Madrigals, alluding in the dedication to Oxford's own proficiency as a musician. In the same year, George Baker dedicated a second book to Oxford, his Practice of the New and Old Physic, a translation of a work by Conrad Gesner.

I think one should make a synthetic statement listing the number of dedications (to show de Vere's ranking in the Elizabethan brownnosing-for-favours/patronage stakes), with a couple of mentions, the most distinguished. The article is way too long, and though Oxfordians think this stuff is a supplement to proofs of his literary distinction, hence credentials as an author of Shakespeare, it really doesn't belong in extenso on this page, but to the Oxfordian page.Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to compile the dedications independently and see which biographer is correct. May said he had 33; Nelson says 28. May also said they were disproportionately literary; Nelson says they were disproportionately translations. May was a not-so-closet Oxfordian at the time he wrote that in 1980, but he was disabused of the idea the more he studied Oxford, hence the dissonance in what he wrote early (which is when he wrote all the extravagant "nobody ever saw anything like it" praise, which he tempered later) and late. Another problem is that so many wrong things have been published about Oxford in reliable sources that one has to make some editorial decisions about who one to follow. (Gurr's statement that Oxford patronised a playing company until he died is one good example; Oxford's Men merged with another troupe in 1602, two years before Oxford kicked it.) Tom Reedy (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Saint Philip Howard, 20th Earl of Arundel

Text: "On 14 April 1589 Oxford was among the peers who found Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, the eldest son and heir of Oxford's cousin, Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, guilty of treason.[91] Arundel eventually fled to Spain and put himself in the service of King Philip II of Spain." The latter statement might not be correct, see Saint Philip Howard, 20th Earl of Arundel. Or is the destiny of the Saint not correctly depicted in the article on him? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. This may derive from confusion between Oxford's one-time friend Charles Arundel (associate of Charles Paget) and Philip, Earl of Arundel. Nelson notes that some sources mix up the two Arundels. Paul B (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)