Talk:Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Henry Neville's Ancestors in Shakespeare's Plays

As I have explained, the question of Henry Neville's ancestors in Shakespeare's plays is a historical question that has been tackled completely outside of the Shakespeare Authorship Question. In this book by Cambridge University Press there is a whole chapter on "The Nevilles": https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/literature/renaissance-and-early-modern-literature/shakespeare-and-nobility?format=HB&isbn=9780521872911

I am not suggesting we do WP:OR, even though this is a gold standard WP:RS on the subject, since it does not deal with the authorship question. But the fact that this specific topic relating to Neville aligns with mainstream scholarship on the subject increases its relative importance and argues for its inclusion in the article. Once again, this is the sentence that was deleted, even though it was double-sourced:

James and Rubinstein also suggest that Shakespeare's plays portray many of Neville's ancestors, who played major roles in British history, in a particularly favourable light. REF: Keys 2005. REF:Alberge 2005.

Kfein (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Any secondary sources to analyse the Neville fans' fringe ideas in this regard? If not, silence would probably be best as we don't want to air nonsenses on Wikipedia that have garnered no attention from proper scholars. Alexbrn (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Once again, to quote WP:FRINGE:

avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations.

It is an incorrect understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines that each and every aspect of the Neville theory must be commented upon by a non-proponent in order to be included in the article. Such comments should not be given undue weight, but the proposal is for one short sentence. Kfein (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I won't quote policy again, because you obviously have a severe case of WP:IDHT and will only try to WP:WIKILAWYER cherry-picked bits of the WP:PAGs that suit your desired outcome, in a way which incidentally mirrors Nevillian "research". And no, we don't do point/counterpoint, and the way to avoid that is to simply reflect good secondary sources, where they exist. Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

My desired outcome is the article following the Wikipedia guidelines and the article should "first describe the idea clearly and objectively". Ignoring aspects of the theory which are referenced in good secondary sources because there are no critical secondary sources is not WP:NPOV. It is actually the opposite of WP:NPOV and is a form of cherry-picking. "Mirroring Nevillian 'research'" is what this article is supposed to do, based on independent secondary sources, it is an article on the Neville theory. That is our job to describe it and put it in context. Kfein (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to try and overturn consensus but I suggest first reading WP:1AM to maybe get a WP:CLUE about why NPOV isn't what you seem to think it is ... Alexbrn (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this issue. That is why this page is locked by an administrator.Kfein (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The page was locked because of an editing dispute. That does not mean there isn't consensus. So far as I can determine you are the only editor who wants to include extra Nevillian talking points without some sensible context. You've got some persuading to do. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I want to include core aspects of the theory that are referenced in multiple independent sources -- because that is what we are tasked to do by Wikipedia guidelines. I have no interest in persuading anyone of anything ever. Kfein (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It is an incorrect understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines that each and every aspect of the Neville theory must be commented upon by a non-proponent in order to be included in the article.

It is an incorrect understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines that each and every aspect of the Neville theory must be included in the article. According to WP fringe policy—all of it—these articles should just be a statement of what they are, that the academics say it's shite, and that's about it, no going into details about their arguments. Most of the various SAQ pages blatantly violate policy. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who you are referencing, but I never, ever suggested that "each and every aspect of the Neville theory must be included in the article". Kfein (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Errors in Macdonald P. Jackson's Article

It is important to keep in mind that the sources that are being used as RS in this article are filled with false information. Take this for instance:

In 1605 William Shakespeare composed his great tragic masterpiece, King Lear, and collaborated with Thomas Middleton on Timon of Athens. In the same year the courtier, diplomat, and MP for the Borough of Lewes, Sir Henry Neville, served on thirty-eight parliamentary committees. No vocational guidance officer could have better matched talent to trade. But Brenda James and William D. Rubinstein claim that Neville was the true author of Shakespeare's plays. They expect to "stun the literary world."

Henry Neville was not an MP for Lewes in 1605. His cousin was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewes_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

He had not been a diplomat since 1601. He was living in Berkshire and was an MP For Berkshire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

He wasn't even really a courtier at the time in any real sense; he was a country gentleman living at Billingbear. In addition, parliament was prorogued, apparently, for almost all of 1605.

https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/neville-sir-henry-i-1564-1615

In the event, however, Cecil found no use for him, and consequently he remained idle at Billingbear for much of 1605. Neville may have missed the re-opening of Parliament in November 1605.

And here is more information:

https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/survey/parliament-1604-1610

Following a prorogation lasting sixteen months, Parliament reassembled in November 1605. On the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot, however, proceedings were swiftly adjourned. On resuming the session in January 1606, the Commons called for firmer action to be taken against Catholics.

For those interested in facts and evidence, it is worth keeping this in mind as we deal with these extremely biased sources filled with factual errors. Kfein (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It is stunning that this is still in the article:

MacDonald P. Jackson wrote that "it would take a book to explain all that is wrong" with The Truth Will Out. In Jackson's view while it is tempting just to dismiss the book, it offers an opportunity instead to "think straight, get the facts right, and reach sensible conclusions".[6]

Even though he has so many facts wrong. Kfein (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I have shortened Jackson's quote since to do otherwise would expose him to charges of hypocrisy since he himself was completely unable to provide factual information in his review.Kfein (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Your criticisms are risible and in no way disqualify Mac Jackson's review as a valid RS.

Henry Neville was not an MP for Lewes in 1605.

The error is not Jackson's, but Mark Greengrass, who wrote the ODNB Henry Neville page that Jackson consulted: "In the first Jacobean parliament of 1604 he was elected MP for the borough of Lewes and his name was 'muttered' as speaker." In any case, that doesn't disqualify Jackson's review in the slightest; he is a well-known Shakespeare scholar with a reputation Rubinstein can only envy.

He had not been a diplomat since 1601.

Srsly? Jackson describing Neville as a "diplomat" does not mean he was engaging in diplomacy at any particular point, much less 1605, just that he is mainly known to history as a (very reluctant) diplomat.

He wasn't even really a courtier at the time in any real sense.

The very first sentence of Neville's entry in the ODNB is "Neville, Sir Henry (1561/2–1615), diplomat and courtier, was the son of Sir Henry Neville (d. 1593) of Billingbear, Berkshire, and his second wife, Elizabeth (d. 1573), daughter of Sir John Gresham."

In the event, however, Cecil found no use for him, and consequently he remained idle at Billingbear for much of 1605. Neville may have missed the re-opening of Parliament in November 1605.

According to the ODNB, "In 1605 he served on thirty-eight committees, especially those dealing with the problems of the Catholic minority and the vexed question of supplying the king's needs."

Your criticisms are nothing but petty nit-picking that have nothing whatsoever to so with Jackson's qualifications to pass judgment on your fringe theory, and it's a boringly predictable complaint made by POV pushers. We've seen lots of them; you're not the first.Tom Reedy (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

RSN AfC results

There is strong consensus that the four listed books by Brenda James, William Rubinstein, John Casson, Mark Bradbeer, James Leyland, and James Goding should not be used in the Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship article as reliable sources for the claims within the books. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Everyone should note this bit, which is actually the important point:

As with any questionable source, a limited amount of appropriately attributed content from the books may be used under WP:ABOUTSELF to explain what the theory is. The amount of weight assigned to uncontroversial claims regarding these books should be proportional to the amount of coverage these books have received in independent reliable sources.Kfein (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

And with most of the fringe talking points, the correction proportion is zero. What we have at the moment is ample for an encyclopedia article. Remember, we are meant to provide a summary of accepted knowledge regarding this "theory", not an exposition of it. As a counter to WP:PROFRINGE POV-pushing, remember the guidance: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

We are specifically instructed in the Wikipedia guidelines to provide an exposition of it, based on independent secondary sources. Kfein (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If there are proper WP:SECONDARY sources then that would be great - in particular they need to have some "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" to be such a source. Uncritical puff-pieces in Newspapers don't count. Alexbrn (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Articles in newspapers like The Times count. There is no requirement that a WP:RS be critical of the content.Kfein (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yet again I point you at policy and quote it, and you completely ignore what it says. A newspaper article could be a secondary source but ones that just act as neutral conduits for relaying views lack the "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" which, for Wikipedia, characterize secondary sources. Also "critical" does not necessarily mean "adversely critical". We have some good secondary sources and we are using them. More would be good, but we're not going to be giving fringey Nevillian views a "free hit". Alexbrn (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

All of the newspaper and other articles we reference on the page meet those criteria. None are acting as "neutral conduits". They are all proper journalism on the topic. Kfein (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your argument, I have read them. The newspaper articles you are so keen to use have no "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" that we could use (Apart from Vickers' evaluation). Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

They have all of those things. You have just invented a standard where objective reporters are supposed to write biased articles. And if they are not biased, then they do not meet your criteria. Bias does not exclude something from being WP:RS but it is not a requirement for WP:RS. Kfein (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The Keys article is particularly problematic. There is no balance, it states inaccurate claims of the fringe theory as fact ("The political content and geographical location of the plays are a perfect reflection of the known travels of Neville, a highly educated diplomat and politician who lived from 1562 to 1615 and came from Berkshire." Does anyone believe that they are a "perfect reflection?"). It is an example of a "neutral conduit;" Keys seems to have typed up the press release for the book without any active reporting. What's important to grasp is that WP:RS is not met merely by an article being published in a periodical (like The Independent) that typically or frequently publishes reliable material. There is a need for judgment by the editor. What makes the source reliable, actually, is evidence that the article was the subject of active inquiry. Bomagosh (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You need to actually read WP:ABOUTSELF before going further, especially exceptions 1 and 5. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

That is not relevant in the slightest to the question at hand. The issue is if someone like David Kathman or MacDonald Jackson misrepresent the contents of James and Rubinstein's book, can we check the book to see what James/Rubinstein actually say, or do we need to only use their representation of what James/Rubinstein say. This is a separate issue from whether we include their commentary on what James/Rubinstein say. But do we need to have the actual content of James/Rubinstein filtered through him. The answer is no, we can refer to the original source in this circumstance. I know these are subtle distinctions, and I am doing my best to explain them in simple terms with concrete examples. Kfein (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see this for the types of egregious errors I am talking about Talk:Nevillean_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship#Errors_in_Macdonald_P._Jackson's_Article.

You're arguing that the source is not reliable. If Jackson's article is filled with egregious errors, it should not be used as a source for this article. Bomagosh (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

He is a famous professor of Shakespeare studies and it was published in a reputable journal. It is hard to argue that it is not WP:RS. It's not like the Kells book where Kells is not an expert on the subject and it wasn't published by an academic press. My point is that these articles need to be checked for accuracy because they are written as polemics. We can't perpetuate errors. My other point is that the newspaper articles are actually fact-checked and more accurate since they are not trying to push an agenda. Kfein (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It IS hard to argue that it's not a reliable source - but that's what you're doing. If an article "is filled with egregious errors," it's not reliable, no matter who wrote it or where it's published. As an editor you can decide that the article is not a reliable source, and not use it, and argue that it should not be used. But you cannot cure the egregious errors by introducing non-reliable sources into a WP article that, through your own independent research, you've determined are correct. If you do not have reliable sources for a point, it should not be in a WP article. It's clear that you do not have a consensus supporting your shoehorning this information into the article. Bomagosh (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

My further point is that when Tom Reedy says that "the academics say it's sh***," he is referencing academics who appear to have no interest in getting the facts correct and no apparent judgment on these matters. They are still academics though! And by your standard, all of the sources in Shakespeare Authorship Question would need to be removed because they are so full of errors and misrepresentations. Kfein (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

MacDonald Jackson made no errors in his critique of James and Rubinstein, and any historical errors (if there are any, I'm certainly not going to take a POV-pusher's word for it) can be assigned to the noted English historian Mark Greengrass, who wrote the ODNB article that Mac consulted.

And just en passant, the Kells book is perfectly usable. If you don't think so, take it to WP:RSN. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

newspaper articles are actually fact-checked and more accurate since they are not trying to push an agenda. lol! "fact-checked"! Tom Reedy (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

So if a scholar makes egregious errors it is not their fault, it is the fault of the encyclopedia they copied from? And David Kathman doesn't appear to know what the Northumberland Manuscript is and he invents this crazy theory that Katherine Neville owned it? Anyone who has studied these subjects can't take these people seriously. But that's not our concern here. Kfein (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Guess what? Scholarship doesn't claim inerrancy, and never has a book been written without errors. A few quibbles about Henry Neville's parliamentary career doesn't invalidate Jackson's credentials to criticize a fringe theory that has no evidence whatsoever that literary scholars and historians accept. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If the fringe theory is so weak, why do people need to make up fake facts to attack it? Seems like actual facts would do better. Katherine Neville! btw, when did Southampton reach the age of majority? Kfein (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

And David Kathman doesn't appear to know what the Northumberland Manuscript is and he invents this crazy theory that Katherine Neville owned it?

Good god! Is that whay you think he says? Have someone read the review and explain it to you what he is saying. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately, it's on JSTOR for all time, so anyone can read it for themselves. And fortunately, photos of the manuscript with complete transcription are available on archive.org https://archive.org/details/cu31924013117480/page/n19. That's been available for over 100 years... The way Wikipedia operates, we are essentially pretending we are living in 2005. We are not living in 2005. This whole thing is a farce, but at least we are creating a historical record of what's going on. That has some value, I think. Kfein (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The view was settled in 2005: that the theory is, as Tom Reedy colourfully put it, shite. The academic community has evidently found no reason to revise its view and the only thing that has continued is some pathological pseudoscholarship of no interest to Wikipedia. Apparently the number of scholars working on this "theory" is: zero. If what is published in mainstream sources changes, get back to us. Until then Wikipedia must treat this topic like it treats any other fringe topic. Alexbrn (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Going back to wiki principals:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

this is clearly a viewpoint in the third category; this is intended to be "some ancillary article." Much of this article in its current form is cobbled together from reflections of negative comments made in reliable sources, and Kfein claims many of these are erroneous. To me that argues for substantially scaling back this article to a bare bones summary of salient features, and a brief summary of the short history of this theory. Any more than that is giving it undue weight. 199.159.126.16 (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If the standard we are to use for Shakespeare scholarship is we cannot uses sources with errors in them, then we would need to delete all the pages on Wikipedia about Shakespeare. The Shakespeare Authorship Question article cites Shapiro's Contested Will dozens of times. That book has more egregious errors than MacDonald Jackson or David Kathman. The other WP:RS in that article are even worse. The problem is the whole field is a mess. People need to read WP:FRINGE to find out what we are supposed to do instead of making up their own criteria and postulating them as Wikipedia standards. Kfein (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It really is very funny that people who aren't deeply involved in these issues simply trust these "scholars" and their judgments, when actually the arguments they offer don't mean even the most basic scholarly standards. Really quite a sad situation and puts Wikipedia in a Catch-22. See this for a particularly egregious example of James Shapiro doing junk scholarship that wouldn't pass muster in a high school research paper: Talk:Spelling_of_Shakespeare's_name#James_Shapiro's_Theory_About_Typesetting_-_Proposed_Deletion This constant talk about these great scholars and their great opinions... they don't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever. Kfein (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, there's a good reason why we don't follow the people who ARE deeply involved in "these issues." Tom Reedy (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to you as someone deeply involved in these issues. Kfein (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:PA "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Bomagosh (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for standing up for me Bomagosh.Kfein (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional sentences for deletion

Based on the negative consensus concerning the Alberge article as a source and the RSN AfC results, I propose removing the following sentences:

"The theory proposes that many aspects of Neville's biography may be seen as relevant, most fundamentally that Neville's dates (1562–1615) are similar to Shakespeare's (1564–1616)." and "As motive for the conspiracy, the Nevilleans argue that a man with Neville's status would not want to have been known as a playwright."

Both sentences are supported by Casson, John, Rubinstein, William D. & Ewald, David (2010); the first is also supported by Alberge. These sources are not reliable; a claim that is only supported by such sources is not a notable part of the theory, even if the theory itself is notable. Bomagosh (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

They'll eventually go, but not because of their sources. They're non sequiturs and almost incoherent. I suppose in that way they follow the theory itself. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

There are no legitimate concerns about the Alberge article being a source. The RSN AfC results do not apply to the source used which is of much higher quality and undeniably WP:RS, since it was edited by a professor and expert in the topic and published by good publisher, includes content by a famous Shakespeare professor, etc. I have explained this previously. We have an academic source the Hammond article makes the same point about Neville's dates we can add that in too to support it or quote him directly. Kfein (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I have explained this previously. Yes, you have. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It is appropriate to use Fringe sources to talk about the fringe theory if independent WP:RS mention that aspect of the theory. That was explained in the RSN AfC results and is Wikipedia policy. The book in question is an unquestionable WP:RS and so is the best source possible to use to represent the position of the fringe theory. That is why that reference was added (not by me) to the article. I have offered another independent WP:RS that deals with the same issue. We can find others probably if we look. Kfein (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the reference; the insipidness and near-incoherence of the prose is the issue. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Sir Henry Neville, Alias William Shakespeare

Should we mention Casson's 2015 book a well? It's not self-published, but I can't find any good coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think the article needs a coherent description of the theory more than anything else. I've been busy with other things lately and haven't had the time to hammer anything out. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)