User talk:Rick 2.0

Welcome!

Hi there. I appreciate your additions to the Oxford Theory page, but I was hoping you could provide more references. Right now, a lot of the additions look like Original Research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Your sourcing, so far, is pretty good, but I have put citation requests on the items which need references. Thanks, and welcome aboard! (For quite some time I have been one of the few anti-stratfordians to actively contribute to these pages.)Smatprt 05:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I only wish it was original. Most of the information comes from Ogburn, Diana Price's "Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography," and Joseph Sobran's "Alias Shakespeare." Please excuse any inadvertent errors on my part as I'm a newbie here. I'll add the references ASAP. My next project has to do with adding a section on the Sonnet's. However, I'm not 100 percent sure of wiki's policy regarding extensive quotations. The best summary of the Oxfordian position I have ever found was in Sobran's work, but while it seems a shame simply to paraphrase it, extensive quotes also seem out of place. What is the Wiki protocol on lengthy quotations? And how lengthy is lengthy? I’ve run across the discussion on block quotes, but I was hesitant to quote 4 or so paragraphs, even with citations. Rick 2.0 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnets

Good work on the Sonnet additions. Good catch on the PT heading. REgarding your question on lengthy quotations, I'm not sure if there is an actual policy, but keeping additons to a minimum is always the best idea. It leaves room for further additions and sections before the article gets too long. After 60kb articles are encouraged to be split. PT is too long right now and does not have that many proponents, much less some of the variations mentioned in the last additions. I'm not sure much of it will last in it's current form.Smatprt 04:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PT Theory

Thanks. I agree with your PT outlook. Anything more than 2 or 3 paragraphs simply makes this a listing about 2 theories, not one. I also don’t understand why the Notes section repeats all the references. I’d delete the second batch but I’m not sure if I’d be overstepping any boundaries.

Take Care

Hi there - I wanted to advise you about using "of course", and other such phrases. it does not convey an encyclopedic tone, but begins to sound like personal opinion. We have to be careful of appearing to POV, as well as avoiding original research. Also, watch out for making grand statements (fill up 3 pages, etc.) that can't possiblly be proven one way or the other. Finally - watch out for labling a position "ludicrous" - even though it may be. You'd simply never find something like that in an encyclopedia. Thanks for all the work - don't get me wrong - Ijust want us to be able to defend our edits properly, and in Wiki style. You might read the wiki articles on POV and OR. ThanksSmatprt 14:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't mind being edited and I realize that sometimes I can get carried away about something I think is important.

Check this out

You might want ot comment here [[1]]. Right now there are two angry stratfordians trying to delete (or alter) the authrohship line on the William Shakespeare page.Smatprt 11:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment is that you have more patience then me.

Watch out for minor arguments and POV words

Hi again - good work on your many additions. I've noticed the article is getting so large that we may be required to split it in two. Before we reach that point, be careful of adding material that fails to further the theory significantly. I'm not sure if we need a section on every play, for example, since some of the arguments are less than convincing. (Henry IV,1 robbery incident, which is so compelling, compared to, say, Merry Wives, which is less specific and more interpretive.) Also - I was warned once about using POV words like "interestingly", "surprisingly", etc.. Thanks, Smatprt 14:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I was thinking the "Merry Wives of Windsor" is the last section on plays I should add. When building a circumstantial case the more circumstances the better, but there is a point of diminishing returns, which I think has been reached. I hadn't realized "interstingly" was a problem. Thanks for the advise.

new section

The latest section is (in my opinion) one of Sobran's weakest arguments. For example, the sonnet does not even say that he "wants" his name buried, just that it will be. Weak arguments like this only make Oxfordians look like they are grasping at straws. There may be better arguments for what you are trying to say, but I still think it's one of those non-issues that proves very little, if anything. I would recommend deleting it. Also, Instead of continuing to copy sonnets inwhole or in part, why don't we just start linking to them - then people can read the whole sonnet and we won't take up space in this article with too many quotes, which is what I think we have now. Your thoughts?Smatprt (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

recent additions

Good work today! Nice 12th Night addition. Smatprt (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lear addition

I'm not convinced the Lear addition to the Oxford article is particularly helpful. The original sources go way back, making the Oxford connections seem rather a stretch. I think it's a weak connection, compared to say the Hamlet-Oxford-Pirate addition, or the Hal-Oxford-Gadshill Robbery addition. Splitting one's estate between 3 daughters is not really a unique situation, especially with the possible inheritances of his other offspring. I'm going to delete that section unless you strenuously object.

Nice clean-up of the article, by the way. It's great to see someone addressing layout, grammar etc.Smatprt (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, that is probably a relevant point, but I think this brings up my basic problem with many of th eplay listings - I read them and think "so what?" - ie: they don't make an impact because they are not rounded out enough. If, for example, you were able to expand the Lear entry and show how uncommon the inheritance situation was, quoting some relevant facts and, perhaps, some other scholars thoughts on the subject, then the listing might have some impact. Same with the Timon listing. It just lacks impact. I mean, there were probably hundreds of nobles who went thru the same kinds of situations as Oxford, being in favor - out of favor, friends coming and going, etc. So what? (Side note - I believe the Timon source wasn't even available in English, making it more likely that someone with Oxford's known ability with languages was the true writer, as opposed to Shaksper, who didn't have the university required education in foreign languages).[reply]

What makes the Oxford connection unique, and able to stand alone? (like in Hamlet or Henry IV as referenced above - those have real impact and makes the Oxford-Shakespeare connection quite clear) As many have said after I have recounted those connections - well, if Oxford didn't write them, then Shakespeare must have interviewed him in a bar, and then written his bar stories into the plays!Smatprt (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC) If Lear were an original story, then yes, maybe, it would be more impressive. What I apparently have not been clear about is my feeling that since Lear is an old story, whose "3 daughter inheritance" plot is ancient history - not new material - that is why it makes such a small impact on the argument. No one can say that the plot is based on Oxford's life because the main plot/characters already existed. This is unlike Hamlet, (old story that it is) but Hamlet's whole cast of characters, make-up of Polonius family, and numerous original plot devises, mirror Oxford's life. Same with Hal and Bertram. But with Lear, there isn't a lot of original material to make a unique case around. Smatprt (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxfordian theory

Thanks for your recent edits to Shakespeare-related articles, but some of them seem to be duplicating material already included. A quick glance at WP:OVERLINK may clarify. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent expansion of Tempest info

I'm a bit worried that the "Stratfordian Objections" section is now more Oxfordian than Stratfordian, which could generate legitimate claims of undue weight. If you are expanding the Oxfordian argument in that section, then it is necessary to also expand the Stratfordian side of the arguments. The Stritmatter/Kositsky research, for example, has been challenged by Alden T. Vaughan, in his 2008 paper "A Closer Look at the Evidence". I think you need to either expand the Stratfordian position, or reduce the extra Tempest stuff (for example) so that the section is more balanced.

I have similar concerns over the "Critical reception" section. Tempting though it might be, those two sections really need to be more about challenging the Oxfordian Theory than using it as an opportunity to provide an Oxfordian respond. We have to remember that the O Theory is only upheld by a small minority of scholars. A balanced article is not only the Wiki policy, but in the end, I think it will serve the Oxfordian cause better. Otherwise, the article can too easily be dismissed as so much propaganda. I hope this all makes sense!

It might be helpful to read this policy: wp:weight and keep in mind the following quote from that policy: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader." Thanks, Smatprt (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Deletions

A new editor is deleting mass amounts of material (all Oxfordian as it happens) from the Authorship page. Would you mind taking a look and reverting if need be? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User: Smatprt is disrespectfully misrepresenting my attempt to keep the Shakespeare authorship article balanced. It has too many Oxfordian citations and far from being disruptive I have suggested neutral citations. I get the feeling that he believes that he is the only one who is allowed to edit this article. I notice that because he is on the edge of the 3R rule he is trying to use someone else to revert it. WellStanley (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Opinion is requested

As an occasional editor of various Shakespeare authorship articles, your opinion is requested here [[2]]. Smatprt (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]