Talk:Oxfordian Theory – Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays

Love's Labours Lost

As per request by Nishidani below, I have added a second new section to this article, this one dealing with Love's Labour's Lost. (The first was on Venus and Adonis). One of the interesting things about this play, which I documented in my description, is that Oxfordian and traditional scholars agree on many aspects of its topicality. It also one of the plays about which the most has been written from an Oxfordian perspective, including Dr. Felicia Hardison Londre's 1997 Garland volume of critical essays, which includes both Oxfordian and Stratfordian essays on the play. I encourage those who don't know who Dr. Londre is to google her and find out. There are a few problems with the entry, most notably the difficulty finding appropriate links for the historical personages to whom the play apparently alludes, who although well known in France are still obscure to those of us in the English speaking world. I appreciate any assistance others might have in resolving this matter. I trust that this new addition to the page constitutes an illustration of why the page should not be merged. There is much more where this comes from, but the hour is late and I have many miles to go and emails to answer before I may lay my head to rest -- so this is all for now. Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate my comment not being crossed out. Thanks. --BenJonson (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Since Tom Reedy has reverted the page to remove the above entry, I take the liberty of providing it here on the assumption that I am still allowed to discuss wikipedia pages even if I have been banned from editing them. I think it is important that discussants in this conversation be allowed to see what I wrote without having to thread through all the history. I have agreed not to make any further contributions to Wikipedia on areas of my professional specialization of twenty years study until I have been unbanned. I wish to thank Mr. Reedy for the consistency of his contributions to the future of Wikipedia. Regrettably, the footnotes no longer work. So you will have to verify them for yourself. Thank you for reading and thinking. --BenJonson (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The language of the ban seems clear enough. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

::Because of its highly intellectual character, seemingly detailed knowledge of the Court of Navarre, and geopolitical framework involving "Russians," this play has always been among those that have seemed most discordant from the point of view of the traditional theory of Shakespearean authorship. These problems have been compounded by the fact that a general agreement exists among most if not all scholars that the play is inspired by actual historical events that transpired in Navarre in 1578, at which time the purported author was only 14 years of age. Detailed study of the play from its Oxfordian point of view dates from Eva Turner Clark's 1933 study, which sought to identify a number of characters in the play with various historical prototypes, among them Henry, King of Navarre (Ferdinand, King of Navarre), Marechal di Biron (Biron), Longueville, Governor of Picardie(Longaville), and Duc du Maine (Dumain). This similarity of names has seemed to close to be coincidental, and Clarke's identifications have been followed by numerous other Oxfordian scholars, among them Ogburn and Ogburn (1952). That the events of the play generally allude real events of 1578 -- specifically the visit of Catherine de Medicis and her daughter Marguerite de Valois, wife of King Henry of Navarre to Nerac, ostensibly for the purpose of effecting a reconciliation between Henry and Merguerite, but in fact to negotiate with the King about the disposition of Acquitaine -- is a moment of rare agreement between Oxfordian and many orthodox scholars, among them Campbell and Quinn. In recent decades the play has attracted increasing tension from such Oxfordian scholars as Oxfordian theater historian Felica Hardison Londré, editor of Love's Labour's Lost: Critical Essays, contains essays by both orthodox and Oxfordian scholars.

Once again, Tom, permit me to congratulate you. Keep up the great work. --131.118.144.253 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Recreated article

An earlier version of this article was deleted due to NPOV issues. Noting this comment from the closer, "There is a substantial agreement that the topic is notable, and there is no prejudice to the creation of an appropriately neutral article", I have recreated the article and have attempted to address the NPOV issues.

Specifically, I have added the following mainstream disclaimers that were missing from the original article:

• First graph of lead: "while the great majority of mainstream scholars reject all alternative candidates for authorship, popular interest in various authorship theories continues."
• Third graph of lead: "Most mainstream Shakespeare academics pay little or no attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories, noting that both the Folio and the Stratford monument bear witness to a correlation between the theatrical author and the provincial Shakespeare; that scarcity of biographical data was normal for his milieu; and that deducing a writer's identity from his works may constitute a biographical fallacy. Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view."
• Second section of "overview": "Mainstream view" (Main article: William Shakespeare) "Some mainstream scholars, including Jonathan Bate, assert that the idea that Shakespeare revealed himself in his work is a romantic notion of the 18th and 19th centuries and anachronistic to Elizabethan and Jacobean writers. When William Wordsworth wrote that ‘Shakespeare unlocked his heart’ in the sonnets, Robert Browning replied, ‘If so, the less Shakespeare he!’

• Second section of "overview" (graph 2):"Although little biographical information exists about Shakespeare compared to later authors, mainstream scholars assert that more is known about him than about most other playwrights and actors of the period. This lack of information is unsurprising, they say, given that in Elizabethan/Jacobean England the lives of commoners were not as well documented as those of the gentry and nobility, and that many—indeed the overwhelming majority—of Renaissance documents that existed have not survived until the present day. Supporters of the mainstream view dispute all contentions in favour of Oxford. Aside from their main argument against the theory — the issue of Oxford's early death — they assert the connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural. Terence Schoone-Jongen, writing in Shakespeare's companies: William Shakespeare's Early Career and the Acting Companies, 1577-1594, asserts that biographical interpretations of literature are invalid for attributing authorship."

I hope this addresses the NPOV issues that were raised and welcome any additional improvements. Smatprt (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

'Most mainstream Shakespeare academics'

'Most mainstream Shakespeare academics' seem to believe the greatest writer in the English language would:

• not leave a single document--play, poem, letter--in his own hand;
• not educate his daughters to the point where they could read and write;
• have difficulty signing his own name;
• not reflect the facts of his own life in any poem or play;
• mention no literary works in his will.

If so, why should we listen to them? Artaxerxes (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Oxfordian parallels article

I have copied this discussion from my talk page. Smatprt (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you have arbitrarily restored the redirected page, Oxfordian Theory – Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays. You must have not been lurking whendiscussion took place. The consensus of the discussion was to delete the page, but it was redirected in order to mine any useable material. Even with your opinion to keep it, the consensus would be unchanged, so I am reverting your restoration. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing arbitrary about restoring the page. The formerly deleted article, was commented on by the closer: "There is a substantial agreement that the topic is notable, and there is no prejudice to the creation of an appropriately neutral article". I enquired from the closer about the process. As you know I added language to make it more neutral. I posted the changes on the talk page, as directed by the closer, and asked for comment. With those changes in place, and the request for comments and further improvements listed on the talk page, I have followed all the rules in in relisting the improved article. There was no deletion process followed and, contrary to your assertion, there is no consensus. 4-2, or now 4-3, does not a consensus make. Regardless, the afd process was not followed, and there was no discussion on the actual articles talk page. Please note: you can't have a deletion discussion on an article talk page and then decide your own consensus.Smatprt (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who was Hannas?

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

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

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

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

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

For the record, this kind of "rant" is typical of the contributions that Nishidani has made over the several years he's been involved in editing these pages. Somehow, this kind of statement: Request that we waste another year running down hares sprung from the prodigiously philoprogenitive Oxfordian breeding kennels, Mr Wales? has been tolerated, even coddled, by admins. Those who questioned whether this is consistent with Wikipedia standards of discourse have been browbeaten by "policy" and often summarily hung in kangaroo courts jerry-rigged by Nishidani & co. Now that the founder of Wikipedia is being subjected to similar abusive posturing, I wonder if we are due for a change?It would seem long overdue Now I will go edit the page in question, as per Nishidani's request.--BenJonson (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To restate precisely what I added to the article to address NPOV concerns, here is the list again:

Specifically, I have added the following mainstream disclaimers that were missing from the original article:

• First graph of lead: "while the great majority of mainstream scholars reject all alternative candidates for authorship, popular interest in various authorship theories continues."
• Third graph of lead: "Most mainstream Shakespeare academics pay little or no attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories, noting that both the Folio and the Stratford monument bear witness to a correlation between the theatrical author and the provincial Shakespeare; that scarcity of biographical data was normal for his milieu; and that deducing a writer's identity from his works may constitute a biographical fallacy. Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view."
• Second section of "overview": "Mainstream view" (Main article: William Shakespeare) "Some mainstream scholars, including Jonathan Bate, assert that the idea that Shakespeare revealed himself in his work is a romantic notion of the 18th and 19th centuries and anachronistic to Elizabethan and Jacobean writers. When William Wordsworth wrote that ‘Shakespeare unlocked his heart’ in the sonnets, Robert Browning replied, ‘If so, the less Shakespeare he!’

• Second section of "overview" (graph 2):"Although little biographical information exists about Shakespeare compared to later authors, mainstream scholars assert that more is known about him than about most other playwrights and actors of the period. This lack of information is unsurprising, they say, given that in Elizabethan/Jacobean England the lives of commoners were not as well documented as those of the gentry and nobility, and that many—indeed the overwhelming majority—of Renaissance documents that existed have not survived until the present day. Supporters of the mainstream view dispute all contentions in favour of Oxford. Aside from their main argument against the theory — the issue of Oxford's early death — they assert the connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural. Terence Schoone-Jongen, writing in Shakespeare's companies: William Shakespeare's Early Career and the Acting Companies, 1577-1594, asserts that biographical interpretations of literature are invalid for attributing authorship."

I hope this addresses the NPOV issues that were raised and welcome any additional improvements. Smatprt (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Smatprt (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I note that the only administrator (Jimbo) commented on the supposed deletion discussion, and they said: '"'I don't see how the article is inherently POV in favor of the Oxfordian theory - indeed, it seems to quite strongly reject it." So what, again, is the problem? Smatprt (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Aw heck, lets just restate Jimbo's whole comment:

<Reposting of post deleted by Bishonen | talk 09:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC).>

• Aw heck, Smatprt, what was that? I have deleted your full copypaste of Jimbo's fairly elaborate original post, which can be inspected higher up in this section. Please don't encumber this talkpage like that. If you think anybody is failing to notice Jimbo's support for you, then provide a diff to his post above, in the normal manner. I'm sure you're aware that on this page, the Founder is just an editor like the rest of us. Very properly, he has made no attempt to speak in a Founder voice, either; nor indeed to speak as an admin. (I don't understand your comment about Jimbo being "the only administrator" to comment here; what's that got to do with anything? Admins have no special weight in a content discussion.) Do you remember how Nina used aggravate people by copypasting instead of giving diffs? Personally, I never blamed her for it; I believe she simply couldn't figure out how to do diffs. But you don't have that problem. Bishonen | talk 09:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC).

Do you have to mimic me? I think editors who do that are so rude. Its a form of bullying, or at least insulting. Must you? (Btw - I don't think Jimbo is supporting "me" - I think he is supporting the open flow of information). And last time I checked, administrators are looked to as knowing the rules a bit better than most. Just like senior editors are. That's all I meant. And from what I've seen, people quote each other all the time in deletion exchanges. Didn't know there was a rule against it. Smatprt (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because...13 months ago, in Sept of 2010, I posted this statement below on the article talk page, asking for comments and improvements. Since that time, several editors have worked to improve it. A year later, this question has come up, probably because of the timing of the recent motion picture Anonymous and a resulting deletion spree that has occurred across several articles.

Amended statement: An earlier version of this article was deleted due to NPOV issues. Noting this comment from the closer, "There is a substantial agreement that the topic is notable, and there is no prejudice to the creation of an appropriately neutral article". After contacting the closer for instructions, I recreated the article addressing the NPOV issues.

Specifically, I have added the following mainstream disclaimers that were missing from the original article:

• First graph of lead: "while the great majority of mainstream scholars reject all alternative candidates for authorship, popular interest in various authorship theories continues."
• Third graph of lead: "Most mainstream Shakespeare academics pay little or no attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories, noting that both the Folio and the Stratford monument bear witness to a correlation between the theatrical author and the provincial Shakespeare; that scarcity of biographical data was normal for his milieu; and that deducing a writer's identity from his works may constitute a biographical fallacy. Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view."
• Second section of "overview": "Mainstream view" (Main article: William Shakespeare) "Some mainstream scholars, including Jonathan Bate, assert that the idea that Shakespeare revealed himself in his work is a romantic notion of the 18th and 19th centuries and anachronistic to Elizabethan and Jacobean writers. When William Wordsworth wrote that ‘Shakespeare unlocked his heart’ in the sonnets, Robert Browning replied, ‘If so, the less Shakespeare he!’
• Second section of "overview" (graph 2):"Although little biographical information exists about Shakespeare compared to later authors, mainstream scholars assert that more is known about him than about most other playwrights and actors of the period. This lack of information is unsurprising, they say, given that in Elizabethan/Jacobean England the lives of commoners were not as well documented as those of the gentry and nobility, and that many—indeed the overwhelming majority—of Renaissance documents that existed have not survived until the present day. Supporters of the mainstream view dispute all contentions in favour of Oxford. Aside from their main argument against the theory — the issue of Oxford's early death — they assert the connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural. Terence Schoone-Jongen, writing in Shakespeare's companies: William Shakespeare's Early Career and the Acting Companies, 1577-1594, asserts that biographical interpretations of literature are invalid for attributing authorship."

I hope this addresses the NPOV issues that were raised and welcome any additional improvements. Smatprt (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Only one administrator has chimed in on this discussion, noting:

<Copypaste deleted again. Bishonen | talk 09:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC).>

I fully and sincerely agree with all 3 points. --Smatprt (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it. Another copypaste of the same Jimbo post? Deleted again. Please see my post above. Bishonen | talk 09:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC).

FWIW, I saw this and tagged it as a csd-repost, because I noticed you edit warring on Template:Shakespeare authorship question, which I'd edited recently. I've never heard of the movie. Alarbus (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have declined the db-repost speedy nomination, because it is claimed above that additions have been made to address the NPOV issues raised at the AfD. If contested, it should go back to AfD. JohnCD (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been argued in edit summaries and the talk of the main article that this should be redirected and the history retained for mining purposes. Given that two others have redirected it recently, I've done so a third time. This should stick until there is a consensus otherwise. If anyone wants to have a full deletion discussion... fine. Alarbus (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of harmony, I've reverted your redirect. Let's follow a calmer and more consensus-building rather than confrontational approach, so that perhaps some of the acrimony around this topic can be resolved. I'll start a poll now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You're restoring a redirect you don't support? (below) I've looked further and see that Smatprt was banned from this topic for a year, which just 'expired' a few days ago. On the very day, they unredirected this page. Alarbus (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Poll regarding redirect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Having looked through this discussion - Although the "poll" is fairly evently split, I see a strong consensus to redirect in this instance, with a view to merging information into the main Oxfordian Theory article. Once we discount the "WP:IDON'TLIKEIT" opinions - those that support this view explain that this article is something of a WP:POVFORK, it loses much neutrality required by Wikipedia's standards. Again, discounting the "WP:ILIKEIT" opinions, the primary objection appears to be that the target article is too long already. Looking at both articles, there is duplication, and once that and information which has been given undue weight has been removed it should be much closer to the guidelines on size. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

---

It has been proposed that this page be merged with Oxfordian Theory and that in order to facilitate this process, this page be redirected there and the history kept here for mining purposes. Unfortunately the debate has been riddled with insults and acrimony, even towards me, which isn't really wonderful for Wikipedia.

Please state your views below, succinctly, and let's give this, say, 7 days. 'Support' means support redirecting with a view towards merging. 'Oppose' means that this page should be kept and improved.

Views

1. Support - I think the important points from this article will fit over there such that a separate article may not be necessary. However, reserve the right to change my view (of course) if the other page begins to be both well-sourced and unwieldy. There is no call for keeping information out of Wikipedia based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But a merger seems reasonable at this time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

   comment Jimbo, first, let me say I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates your contribution to the discussion here, even if I disagree with your particular recommendation in this case. Unfortunately I find myself obliged to respectfully disagree and suggest that those who are pushing for this merger are doing so largely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To me the chief deficiency of this page is that it leaves out so much that is highly relevant to the topic under discussion.Thank you for your consideration. --BenJonson (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Support - as per my comments above. The page is nothing but a POV fork; the so-called NPOV disclaimers are cursory at best, where respected, established Shakespeare experts "assert" generalities against the details of what Oxfordians "point out", and although I have provided some critical correctives for a few of the so-called "parallels", the article for the most part uncritically accepts and reports the conclusions of shoddy and misleading scholarship that the mainstream Shakespeare establishment has not responded to. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose - The article was a legitimate split, several years ago from Oxfordian Theory for the very reason described by Jimbo - it became too large and unwieldy. In fact, the Oxfordian Theory page is getting larger as we speak. The Stratfordian editors there have announced intentions to add quite a bit more in terms of rebuttal. So I'd say keep the split or we'll just be looking to split the article again. Smatprt (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

   Addition to above Oppose: The related policies and guidelines were followed in the evolvement of this article:

   • Article was split based on WP:LENGTH and WP:SIZERULE
   • Based on WP:SUM, this summary was left at the main article [[1]];
   • In order to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, the lead was written to implicitly state the mainstream academic view on the subject, and this section [[2]] was included in order to further avoid any POV fork issues. Mainstream shakespearean scholars, Jonathan Bate, Anthony G. Petti and Terence Schoone-Jongen [3] are quoted or referenced in criticizing the Oxfordian View. Finally, in furtherance of NPOV goals, the links to 4 mainstream websites which are severely critical of the Oxfordian Theory are also included in the article.
   • Finally, in terms of WP:NOTABLE, this specific issue (Parallels) is mentioned prominently in RS sources including those by mainstream Shakespearean scholars James Shapiro and Jonathan Bate and by RS mainstream news sources including the New York Times, Atlantic Monthly and Harpers, to name but a few.Smatprt (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

   comment - This whole merge argument is a familiar ploy by the same set of editors who have repeatedly advocated the articles deletion. Agree to merge, then refuse to add material due to lack of "consensus". Don't fall for it. Smatprt (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

   You're disruptive. You stuck a bullet into a numbered list, which breaks it for the next poster. I've fixed it. Alarbus (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   You are incorrect. Jimbo formatted the list after I voted,[4] so you are really accusing Jimbo of being disruptive. Probably not what you intended. Regardless, you have accused me falsely and shown extreme bad faith.

   Fine; User:Jimbo Wales broke it. Alarbus (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

4. I believe the redirect should be restored and anything useful allowed to be incorporated into the other articles. Smatprt's topic-ban should likely be extended, too, as no good will come of their participation. Alarbus (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   comment - you obviously have some personal ax to grind. Until this week, we've never interacted. I'm not sure what you are so angry about. I do note that you, Alarbus, registered 4 days ago and since that time you have tried to OWN the authorship template and you attempted a speedy deletion of this page. When it was denied, you redirected it anyway. I will say, that having only been on Wikipedia for 4 days, you sure are a quick learner. Amazing in fact. Smatprt (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   I don't know you from Adam. I noticed this because you edit-warred on a template I'd edited. I said so, above. And I don't know anything about your kooky theories other than that's what they are. Wikipedias been around for years, so I don't see why it should be unfamiliar to anyone on the internet. Alarbus (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   Please be careful about making unfounded accusations. One revert does not an "edit war" make. Smatprt (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

5. Support This article and the main article (Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship) clearly cover the same topic, and this article serves only as a list of undue opinions where everyone who ever found a parallel can state their case. The main article is the place to point out that lots of people support the Oxfordian theory, and why (while maintaining WP:DUE). Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   comment You may be using some special definition of the phrase "clearly cover the same topic." It is simply not the case that the Oxfordian theory can be equated with "Parallels with Shakespeare." There's a significant quality of evidence that is not about biographical parallels between Oxford's life and the works, however large a category such parallels may constitute (and this article in its present form does not even come close to covering all the relevant material).--BenJonson (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Oxfordian theory is 99 KB, already in excess of the recommended 65 KB maximum of WP:SIZERULE and WP:SPLIT. This article is 50 KB. To combine the two would create an article of 150 KB, too large by any measure, and such an article would end up being re-split per the WP guidelines cited. Further reasons to avoid a 150 KB and growing article are: The topic becomes far too overwhelming for readers at that length; an outsized article loads far too slowly especially for mobile users; editor discussions and consensuses are quite difficult to organize and reach on an article of that length and scope; editing (especially adding or correcting citations, which must be done at full-article view to check the accuracy of one's edit) is extremely unwieldly, if not downright problematical, at that length, especially if the article is contentious or busy. Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
7. OPPOSE. For the same reasons as Softlavender.Mizelmouse (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   Sure, but only due material need be merged. We can see if that would be unwieldy later. Meanwhile, this is a WP:POVFORK. Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

   The "due material", excerpted from the parent article, is 35 KB and growing. The parent article is still 99 KB and growing, already 50% larger than the largest recommended article size per WP:SIZERULE and WP:SPLIT. Replacing the "due material" would make it 135 KB and growing, more than double the maximum recommended size, and too large by any measure, and such an article would end up being re-split per the WP guidelines cited. This article is a necessary content fork due to size alone, not a POV fork. This was discussed on the Talk page of the parent article as the article became much too large to remain unsplit. Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

8. OPPOSE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size seems to be the relevant guideline for this issue. Controlling size can mean controlling access and readership. This particular subject matter in Wikipedia is getting a reputation for doctrinal manipulation. Leave as is for the moment. Zweigenbaum (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
9. OPPOSE. Size, as stated above. Valuable information would end up cut, or size would be used as attack against validity of Oxford Theory article.Jdkag (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
10. OPPOSE. There's no need to merge the articles. This would present readers looking for an overview with too much information. Those wanting more information will continue searching; those wanting a concise presentation of the issue will be satisfied with what's currently there. It's not broke, so let's not fix it.ironhand43 (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
11. OPPOSE. All the pages about the authorship question are far too long. More pages directed to specific points with equal time for statement and response would be much better than attempting to get everything on one page. This is a very complicated issue. If it were simple it would have been resolved long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Methinx (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

    Comment: Ah, here we go again. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

12. SUPPORT. With the proviso that I would switch my vote to oppose were I to see any sign of active commitment, both to wikipedia, and to these two pages, in the editing records of those who oppose the merge. Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

    Comment: Glad to oblige so reasonable a challenge. I've been absent primarily because of a history of abuse and obfuscation in which I have no interest. Before that time, my track record speaks for itself.I added a much-needed section on Venus and Adonis Of the two citations I provided, only one is available online. Wikipedians may review it here: http://shake-speares-bible.com/pdf/venus.pdf. I'd be happy to work more on this page to improve it.--BenJonson (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

    OPPOSE. For the reasons already stated. I agree with Methinx that more pages directed to specific points with more balance are appropriate. A merger here would be a step backwards.--BenJonson (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

13. OPPOSE - As attention spans grow shorter--things must be cut down to 140 characters for much of the online world now--and these articles attract the movie crowd--possibly dealing with information saturation as it is--bit-size articles are preferred. Perhaps participation will be encouraged this way, too. Thanks for bringing this to a vote!! Artaxerxes (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
14. Support as this is a POV-fork. Also, isn't it strange that various accounts that didn't notice the initial redirect have suddenly reactivated to vote here. I strongly suspect that there has been some solicitation of votes going on here.--Peter cohen (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

    You think that's strange? You're kidding, right? Tom Reedy (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

15. OPPOSE - per Softlavender and Smatprt. Moaiivow (talk) • 03:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
16. Support redirect or flat-out delete. Wikipedia's purpose with regard to fringe theories like Oxfordianism is to document them, not to promote them, meaning that tenets which haven't been covered by independent sources aren't important to us. I'd also like to point out the number of Oxfordian sockpuppets and other single-purpose accounts in this conversation, including but not limited to Ironhand43, Moaiivow, and Methinx. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
17. Support a merge with an enormous amount of pruning. This strikes me as a POV fork, and the task of weeding out the OR and the synthesis is formidable. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
18. OPPOSE. They are really separate topics, although intimately related. Not everyone who reads the parent entry will want to go into all the details of the Shakespeare parallels or they may want to do that only after understanding the basic theory. This is exactly the type of situation where one would want separate but linked entries.--DeVereGuy (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
19. Support per Jimbo Wales, Tom Reedy, Alarbus, Johnuniq, Nishidani, Peter cohen, Roscelese and Drmies. --GuillaumeTell 17:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
20. Oppose To me, both articles should be developed to their fullest before merging. If there is some stability on which sources are considered "academic," these developments might occur more quickly, and the time would arrive to reconsider a merge. Fotoguzzi (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
21. Oppose For the reasons already stated AND this: Merging is an attempt at censorship by a small set of (admittedly passionate) editors. IMO, censorship on a grand scale has been at work on this entire article set for the past 9 months. It is time for an intelligent compromise here...not unilateral control by a small set of editors with their own POV. On a side note, I welcome the investigation noted below by Mr. Wales...and I PRAY TO GOD he also looks in detail at the comments of all current editors with regards to WP:CIVIL and WP:BULLY--Rogala (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

    Censorship, you say? A strong accusation indeed, but even worse, "on a grand scale"?

    Wikipedia has plenty of articles about the Shakespeare authorship question, including List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, Baconian theory, Derbyite theory of Shakespeare authorship, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, and articles on Is Shakespeare Dead? and the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt. There are even detailed articles about anti-Stratfordian supporters, such as Joseph C. Hart, Delia Bacon, Orville Ward Owen, James Wilde, 1st Baron Penzance, George Greenwood, Abel Lefranc, J. Thomas Looney, Alden Brooks, Charlton Greenwood Ogburn, Calvin Hoffman, Charlton Ogburn, Mark Anderson, Roland Emmerich, John Orloff, Bertram Fields. The Oxfordians have other articles particular to their belief, including the De Vere Society, and the Shakespeare Fellowship, the Prince Tudor theory, and even the List of Oxfordian theory supporters, all of them with plenty of links, both internal and external. I'm sure I've missed some.

    I challenge anyone to find another encyclopedia that covers anti-Stratfordism and Oxfordism to the extent that Wikipedia does. The problem with this page is that it has no justification according to WP policy; it does not meet the standard of notability; it is merely a POV fork to gain more exposure for Oxfordians. This kind of misuse is a problem with an encyclopedia that anybody can edit: fringe movements use every avenue at their disposal to gain attention and recruit adherents, including salting other articles with mentions and links of their theories, which is the reason for policies and guidelines such as WP:ONEWAY. The first rallying cry when they're stopped from doing anything they want is always "censorship"; the second is a comparison of themselves to Galileo. I daresay very few people concerned with this subject have ever met with any real censorship, and your labeling this as such gives both Wikipedia and censorship a bad name. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

    Tom, I feel the following quote by Harry Blackmum is relevant - "By placing discretion in the hands of an official to grant or deny a license, such a statute creates a threat of censorship that, by its very existence, chills free speech." IMO, it is the POV of the "officials" currently controlling the editing process which has CHILLED free speech here. One has no need to compromise, when it is only one's own cohort that makes all the decisions. I think the lined out (censored) comments in this very discussion amply demonstrate the merits of my position.--Rogala (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

    OK, now it's your cue to quote Galileo. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

    Since my action in striking out BenJonson's comments was alluded to, I feel that I can and should respond. BenJonson was topic-banned from Shakespeare articles because of his poor behavior in the topic area. A strikethrough is absolutely the least harsh response to his openly flouting this ban. If a user does not behave according to community standards, his participation in said community is restricted. It doesn't magically become censorship just because the sanctioned person agrees with your fringe theory. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

    Wikipedia is not about free speech. It is about spreading knowledge. It uses a paradigm of knowledge that is weighted towards material that is generated by authors working in prestigious institutions writing about their area of expertise and that is published through academically respectable channels using recognised peer review criteria. This model of knowledge also takes account of what is the consensus among such authors. If something that purports to be knowledge is widely deprecated by such sources and is instead produced largely by people without academic credentials or by those writing outside their academically acknowledged area of expertise then it does not count as the sort of knowledge that Wikipedia wants to advance in its own editorial voice. If there is enough material published in reliable sources that states that it is non-knowledge, then Wikipedia may dedicate space to explaining why this material is non-knowledge. If it is ignored by reliable sources, then Wikipedia will not discuss it. You may call this censorship if you want, but you won't get such content to stick. --Peter cohen (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

22. Support Do we really need a separate article going through every one of the plays from an Oxfordian POV - how is that not a POV fork? A few of the most important ones should be merged into the Oxfordian Theory article, and that should be it. Kaiguy (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

    The issue of POV fork is addressed with a policy argument here [5]. Specifically, bullet three, which states: "In order to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, the lead was written to implicitly state the mainstream academic view on the subject, and this section [[6]] was included in order to further avoid any POV fork issues. Mainstream shakespearean scholars, Jonathan Bate, Anthony G. Petti and Terence Schoone-Jongen[7] are quoted or referenced in criticizing the Oxfordian View. Finally, in furtherance of NPOV goals, the links to 4 mainstream websites which are severely critical of the Oxfordian Theory are also included in the article."

23. Support Per others above. It is too overlapping. If we can't write one, succinct, well sourced article on this (not-mainstream) theory, we aren't doing our job very well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

This sockpuppet debate is counter-productive. How about if at the end of this poll, I'll do a sockpuppet investigation on everyone here, personally? So let's not fight about it right now. Please stick to the discussion topic instead of each other.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment: Have you actually started (and concluded) a Sockpuppet investigation, or is this just another unsupported accusation? Also, are you not concerned that four days after you notified editors of your redirect, a new user account (user:Alarbus) was created that not only duplicated your reversion and edit summary [8], but also took control of the Shakespeare Authorship template [9]? Smatprt (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC) It's not unreasonable to suggest that someone whose only contribution to Wikipedia is a talk-page comment - formatted, incidentally, in the same way as a bunch of similar talk-page comments from similarly single-purpose accounts - is a sockpuppet of one user or another. I'm not familiar with Alarbus, but "he reverted me! how dare he!" is not very strong evidence of wrongdoing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Please read the comments. I did not say he reverted you. I will note, however, that you both reverted Jimbo, and you both reverted me. I also note that for a brand new editor, Alarbus seems to know ALOT about editing, even using the same G4 argument that you did. I can only describe the apparent learning curve as... amazing.Smatprt (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC) That's exactly my point - he reverted you and you're claiming this as evidence that he's a sockpuppet, as if everyone else agrees with you. I don't know if he's a sock or not, but that's not a very strong foundation on which to build a case. On a related editing-misbehavior note, aren't you topic-banned? What are you doing here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC) And my point is that you both made identical reversions, not of just me, but of Jimbo. Going after me is not a surprise, but the fact that you both reverted Jimbo, in identical fashion, and both used the G4 argument (a pretty obscure rule) leads to obvious questions. In regards to your latest accusation, you need to research that yourself. Smatprt (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Gosh, it's totally inconceivable that someone would look at the comments that other users made previously and use that knowledge of policy to shape their own edits (or borrow the code, when one wants to achieve the same result...fancy that!). I can see how that might have caused problems for you in the past. (CSD is also...not as obscure as you might think.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, I saw your edit summary, and reiterated it. No, I didn't revert Wales, he reverted me. Alarbus (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC) My apologies then. I confused Jimbo with the other administrator you chose to ignore. Your G4 speedy deletion attempt was denied by Administrator JohnCD, so you just deleted it by "redirecting" it anyway [[10]]. To close this chapter, Alarbus, as you are a brand new editor who has an amazing knowledge of intricate wiki formatting, can you tell us if you have another WP account or have had one in the past?Smatprt (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Your attacks are appalling. No; MediaWiki is free and widely used. There must be thousands of sites using it, including some of mine. I'm uninvolved in this kooky authorship dispute. Shakespeare wrote his stuff. Deal with it. Alarbus (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Its not only formatting that raises eyebrows, but your knowledge of wikipedia specific terminology and rules. So I restate - can you tell us if you have another WP account or have had one in the past? Given your insults and attacks towards me, I feel I have the right to ask. Smatprt (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC) What part of 'No' did you not understand? Troll. Alarbus (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have requested additional comments at the wikiproject and at SAQ. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll also mention now that if the redirect poll results in the article being kept, in spite of the large number of single-purpose Oxfordian accounts whom the closing admin should note, this is going to AfD, in the hopes of sampling a wider range of the community rather than a bunch of hacks who only come out when someone suggests making Wikipedia less of a promotional page for de Vere. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather than doing that, might it be first worth posting at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard that this poll is going on?--Peter cohen (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Is an opinion poll the same as a consensus? I thought a consensus was reached among actual editors; not just voter accounts. I thought the reason for Jimbo's poll (beside to stop an edit war that would again lead to major disruption) was more to stimulate discussion and determine the actual consensus, not to make a decision based on a straight majority vote. Perhaps I misapprehend.

In any case, going from one place to another (or threatening to) until the right (and by that I mean of course the side I favor) decision is endorsed seems to be against the spirit, if not the policies, of Wikipedia, or at least would be seen that way by the side that loses.

I have no doubt that policy will eventually overcome advocacy, but I am disappointed that evidently the lessons of the arbitration didn't sink in, whether due to actual or willful misunderstanding, because once the sanctions are unholstered I don't think anybody is going to like the results (which is why I'm puzzled as to why there is so much transparent gaming going on by Oxfordian editors). My sincere hope is that all editors can agree to follow WP policy on these issues; some of them are quite accomplished and talented and are an overall positive for Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would be forum-shopping - surely taking an issue to the larger community is the next logical step if a small incestuous discussion doesn't go anywhere. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"bunch of hacks"...wow...that's pretty brazen. I really AM looking forward to an investigation with regards to WP:CIVILITY. For the record, I believe that the "lessons of the arbitration" were meant to apply to all editors...those banned, and those who were (at least temporarily) allowed to remain. It seems to me that some people fail to grasp that.--Rogala (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Get used to it. Unfortunately, bullying and personal attacks seem to be allowed against certain editors. See [11] and [12]. Smatprt (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I actually quit editing Wikipedia entirely for the past 7 months becuase I just got tired of (what I perceived to be) a slow erosion of the standards of WP:CIVILITY. Had it not been for Mr. Wales comments on this topic, I would have likely stayed away forever. It's nice to know that someone is watching these things.--Rogala (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Smatprt, it is depressing that you seem to be returning to the exact same behavior that you exhibited before your topic ban, especially that of never missing a chance to dredge up ancient history if you think you can find some advantage by doing so. It is instructive (at least to others) that none of your complaints of so-called incivility have resulted in any admin action worse than a warning, while you have been topic banned for a year and blocked several times for edit warring and other offenses, all related to your aggressive Oxfordian POV-pushing. In the last case you linked to (I fixed your link so it would go to the correct section), I think the comments of Ncmvocalist sums up all that needs to be said. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Poll results

SUPPORT

New, recently activated or re-activated accounts in bold

1. Jimbo Wales
2. Tom Reedy
3. Johnuniq
4. Nishidani
5. Drmies
6. GuillaumeTell
7. Roseclese
8. Peter cohen
9. Kaiguy
10. Alarbus
11. Alanscottwalker

OPPOSE

1. Smatprt
2. Softlavender
3. Zweigenbaum
4. Jdkag
5. Fotoguzzi
6. Artaxerxes
7. Mizelmouse
8. Rogala
9. Ironhand43
10. Methinx
11. Maoiivow
12. DeVereGuy

Tom Reedy (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if Kaiguy fits the reactivated model. He was a steady if rather abstemious hand throughout the year it took to do the SAQ article, and during arbitration. I found him unideological, full of useful technical knowledge. That's y impression. I haven't checked out the record, etc.Nishidani (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: This list is just another way to bring up the supposed sock-puppet issue that we all have been asked to avoid. Bolding the names of certain editors, and then applying a label to them is insulting and a form of personal attack. I was unaware that "re-actvated" accounts were even a legitimate category of editors. With no investigation and no context (why did they take a break from editing?) this list smacks of bullying, guilt by association, and an attempt to mislead the closer.Smatprt (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  My point is to draw attention to possible—and in this case, judging from the evidence presented at the arbitration, probable—vote stacking by accounts with few or no edits or reactivated dormant accounts. The Wikipedia community consists of active editors, not people who register or log in only to log-roll for their favorite fringe theory, and I think that is a legitimate issue given the history of this topic. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  And indeed it appears that is what is happening. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

  And here also by a topic-banned editor. I really don't understand why anyone would think that flouting of Wikipedia policies and standards would advance their cause or the goodwill of other editors, but unfortunately that has been the case since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Tom, I have been a registered editor for 2+ years and an editor and user since Nupedia. Frankly (and at the risk of being bluntly honest) I left Wikipedia for 7 months solely because of ad hominems by a few specific editors. I returned only a few days ago after I saw the comments of Mr. Wales, as I was highly encouraged to see that someone in a position of honor was watching (and commenting upon) the state of civility which now exists in this particular topic. I honestly see this post by you as more of the same....basically a rather heavy handed attempt at accusation against myself and other editors who happen to disagree with you on one particular issue. As usual, I am going to ignore it, and just hope that it is noted for future reference by the "powers that be".--Rogala (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  You classified yourself as a reactivated account solely for the purpose of participating in this poll involving yourself in this topic based on reading the discussion about deleting this page. (I'm puzzled over why you consider honesty a risk.) As to your actual article editing, I can't recall interacting with you on any golfing or automobile pages. Most of your SAQ edits involve arguing on talk and dispute resolution pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that Wikipedians who take a break (for whatever personal reason) are then classified as WP:reactivated, and therefore, not welcome here? Really?? I thought returning editors were always welcome, WP:AGF and all.Smatprt (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Since this poll is still not closed, I'll add this so you will know next time. "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. Their comments may be tagged with a note pointing out that they have made few or no other edits outside of the discussion." So to answer your question, no, returning editors are not always welcome.

And I'll add this from the same place: "Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors." Tom Reedy (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, you are badly misquoting Rogala, who didn't say they returned to Wikipedia to "participate in this poll", but to participate in general (which they have done on several articles). Would it be possible to stop attacking every editor who disagrees with you?Smatprt (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

For someone who chronically complains that your remarks are misinterpreted, you seem overly eager to put words in the mouths of other editors if it serves your purposes of accusing them of bad faith, another habit of yours. And you should learn the difference between a quotation and a reasonable inference. Quotations are usually accompanied by marks like these: " on each end. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom, may I politely point out that your "reasonable inference" is in error, as you yourself should know since a) we had been dialoguing on a totally different page not related in any way to this poll, and b) I didn't even know of the existence of this straw poll until November 11th when I offered my opinion. If you read what I actually wrote (as opposed to your “reasonable inference”), you can see I never mentioned a poll at all, only the remarks by Mr. Wales in response to what he described, I do believe, as "bullying behavior". Therefore, please retract your statement about me immediately via strikethrough, and no one will be able to accuse you of anything except properly acknowledging your error. BTW, you write that "most" of my SAQ edits...etc. You are wrong as, ironically, I have never actually made any edits to the SAQ page itself. I have suggested one or two on the discussion page and offered support for another, but, being very cognizant of the past history OF, current atmosphere SURROUNDING and the arbitration decision CONCERNING this article, I have been seeking compromise rather than choosing to be WP:BRD out of an "abundance of caution" and simple respect for the work done by the current set of editors. You might as well retract that erroneous statement too, if you please.--Rogala (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom, here is another suggestion on how you can correct your error. You wrote above, regarding me: "You classified yourself as a reactivated account solely for the purpose of participating in this poll". I did not and your saying I did is a complete falsehood. Please change it to: "You classified yourself as a user who returned to Wikipedia (after a 7 month hiatus) after reading Mr. Wales comments regarding "bullying behavior" by one of the principal editors of the current SAQ page". That would be accurate and would require no attempt at "reasonable inference" by yourself. Please make the change or retract your entire statement via strikethrough...your call.--Rogala (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You can only be referring to this comment, which was part of the discussion about—wait for it—"Proposed merge from Oxfordian Theory—Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays". That was on the same day he contributed to a discussion on the same page about starting an AfD for this page, which led to actions that instigated this poll.

So technically, you're correct in that you didn't reactivate your account to merely vote on the poll, and I have adjusted my comment to suit, but your claims that you were ignorant of the issue or of the poll itself are contradicted by the evidence of your own post.

I can only wonder at your stated claim to " have been seeking compromise rather than choosing to be WP:BRD out of an 'abundance of caution' and simple respect for the work done by the current set of editors" when such attempts have, IMO, served only to contribute to the "current atmosphere SURROUNDING" and smack of WP:GAME (particularly abuse of process) and WP:CRUSH, especially when by your own admission you are not a productive editor in this area.

And FYI, "SAQ edits" refers to edits pertaining to the SAQ, not to the page itself. I did not say you had edited the page; I wrote "Most of your SAQ edits involve arguing on talk and dispute resolution pages" with a link to your editing history. You're correct that you have made no edits to that page, but you have made a few edits to other pages involving the SAQ here and here. I am happy to learn that you have finally edited some other pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The lady doth protest too much, methinks.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I've been lurking for a while, but haven't made any edits in a long time. I have no problem with ignoring my vote on those grounds - I haven't really been a terribly active editor for the last while (grad school will do that to you.) Kaiguy (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so how long is 7 days and who makes the call?

I'm assuming Jimbo or someone deputized by him. 47KB later, I'm sure all the views have been "succinctly" expressed, Tom Reedy (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly there is not a consensus for changing the status quo on this article. Obviously there is a segment of the Wiki community that finds this article useful, though its existence offends Stratfordians.Jdkag (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just too bad that part of that "segment of the Wiki community that finds this article useful" are reserve editors who only participate in the community when called upon to vote. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's 9 to 6 in terms of committed, unemailed, unroped in wikipedians who consistently work articles (and even that is being lenient to some of the 6 nay voters). I don't much care either way. But I think it important to note that, technically, this ability to revive dead voters for the occasion so consistently makes a nonsense of the whole procedure for determining if pages are useful to wikipedia, or not. Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In any case, polling is not a substitute for discussion nor is it a consensus, and when the Oxfordian theory page gets in good enough shape, whatever useful information is in this article can be merged there. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom, like pretty much everybody else here, you seem to assume that Jimbo can function as both regular editor and head honcho on this page. That's not so. Any admin experienced editor who has not been openly favouring one side here (which frankly lets Jimbo out) can close and summarise the poll. And anybody at all can take the page back to AfD, as being a recreation of a page that AfD has already once determined should be deleted.[13] A recreation with only the difference of a dash instead of a colon in the title and a few faint and formal disclaimers in the text.. In my opinion, the recreation should have been speedied per G4, but since the speedy was contested, it's appropriate to take it back to AfD. In any case, please don't take Jimbo's "I don't think this article should be merged nor deleted" above to be the voice of a deus ex machina which you must all instantly obey. On a talkpage, Jimbo's posts merely represent the opinion of one editor, y'know. Bishonen | talk 16:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

I have requested a close here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If this hasn't been closed by tomorrow, I'll do it. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.