User talk:Alfa-16

Hi Alfa-16. Thanks for you addition to the Oxfordian theory article, but we need to have citations for the section you have added. Can you link to published sources for the statements about the vale of Evesham, for example. Paul B (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Extreme newbie, as you can probably tell. I have contributed before but only twice in 10 years. I can't do references yet, though I'm capable of working out how. Caroline Spurgeon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Spurgeon is the source but I don't have my copy to nail the reference. It's in the chapter on 'Shakespeare's Tastes and Interests' but that is all Look Inside will yield on Amazon.

I'm teed off that despite having their arguments trashed, after the Anonymous limelight, that Oxfordians are gaining ground by shouting longer and louder in the extended wake of the film.

I have also added a contention that the 'elite knowledge of court procedure' claimed by Oxfordians is a fiction. That will probably have to go too as, though provable in argument, it is my own.

I still think the whole page, as I maintain in the talk section, is anti-educational, fanciful and artfully designed to mislead and should be removed or at least more clearly labelled. There's no harm, in suppose in documenting a madcap contention and letting people make up their own minds,

However, I'm impressed by your work and content to leave you to it.

Good luck.

Mike

The Oxfordians are only gaining ground in their own imagination, and of course in the world of internet fora. The argument that WS was not very good on court procedure has been made before, I think. Certainly, the view that he did not "do" the upper classes correctly was expressed in his lifetime, or shortly thereafter. Actually, Anonymous was a total flop - not exactly the limelight the Oxfordians were expecting. They dreamed of a Da Vinci Code-style blockbuster with consequent public controversy, which did not even begin to materialise. The BBC's current Shakespeare Unlocked season barely alludes to it. You are right that the page is a mess, and is full of deeply misleading material. We've been meaning to address it for a while, but have not got round to it, beyond deleting some of the more egregious misrepresentations. I do hope you can help with cited material. Paul B (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's comforting at least. I don't think 'm cut out for Wikipedia though. The last time I tried I was asked by an editor to look over the Hamlet page which had achieved Featured Article status. It was pretty good but when I looked, the first sentence of the second paragraph had just been changed to 'Hamlet learns the secret of his father's murder in the first scene of the play and seeks revenge, which he achieves at the end of the play, three and a half hours later.' The process of getting this altered just to make it factually correct made me realise I don't have the stamina that all you Wikipedia editing stalwarts exhibit.

I don't actually think they're gaining ground either, but like creationists or the Da Vinci Brigade, they are awfully good at attracting attention to themselves. The forum that I contribute to which suffered from excessive quoting from this page was the Anonymous imdb forum. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1521197/board/nest/200175878 will tell all you ever need to know about the arguments.

Mike