Talk:Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship/Archive 4

Constructively created archive. (Isnotwen (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Bacon's motive
Interesting page but my question is as follows. Wouldn't dramatists, actors, theater owners be asking questions about the authorship if the Stratford guy didn't write the work? If they asked questions, wouldn't the Privy Council know about it? How then could Bacon conceal it from them to get promoted to high office (and he DID get promoted)? (Isnotwen (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Mainstream View
Replaced references to Anderson's Oxfordian book, which seems inappropriate in a Baconian article, with Michell's more neutral Who Wrote Shakespeare? I trust that no reasonable person would find an objection to this. (Isnotwen (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Questioning the reasonableness (in advance) of anyone who might object to your edits is not helpful. It smacks of intimidation. You might refrain from such antics if you want to build a consensus for your changes - especially when you make questionable edits such as deleting references. IMHO, a well-rounded article should have numerous viewpoints represented and, for my tastes, the article becomes stronger when there are controversial topics on which opposing scholars actually agree.Smatprt (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm only interested in improving the article not engaging in personal battles. Please see your Talk page about assuming good faith, NPOV edits, and allowing others to edit.Isnotwen (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Throwing user warning templates (of very dubious applicability, IMO, in this case) at editors you disagree with is very unlikely to achieve that goal. If you feel Anderson is insufficient as a reference, how about you add Michell instead of unilaterallyreplacing the source you don't like? Or if your view is that the source is somehow inappropriate of itself, then please point out by what standard (e.g. WP:V, WP:RS, etc.) it fails. Oh, and if you're seriously suggesting that the mainstream view (which is the very subject of that sentence) is not that the spelling is "Shakespeare" then I'd be happy to drown you in sources. Why don't we try to get the various concerns out in the open here on the talk page instead of engaging in revertery on the article; the latter is pretty much guaranteed to lead to poorer communications, not better. --Xover (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice you say "I'd be happy to drown you in sources" which, together with your tone, I find quite offensive. I would suggest that if you are inviting cooperation then bullying is the last thing that will achieve it. Please read the following Wiki guidelines on civility [] Isnotwen (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you found my phrasing offensive; that was certainly not my intent. Please accept my apologies. In the interest of avoiding giving similar offence in the future, could you perhaps explain what, in particular, it was about that phrasing and my "tone" which you found offensive? To explain my earlier statement, I merely meant that I could provide you with numerous sources, if needed, to illustrate that the mainstream spelling is "Shakespeare". In any case, I would be most interested to hear your thoughts on the other points I raised above. --Xover (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at your work around Wikipedia, you are obviously a valuable and intelligent contributor. In that light, I'm curious why you are unable to see that using an overtly Oxfordian reference in a Baconian article is ironic. I cite [] in replacing with Michell who surveys all authorship theories with impartiality. Please continue your good work here. :) Isnotwen (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words; and for explaining your point, which I think I now understand a little better. It appears to me that your concern is with the point of view taken in the Anderson book; since Anderson's position is in favour of the Oxfordian theory, you feel it is inappropriate to use this source at all in the article on the Baconian theory. Have I understood that correctly? My feeling on this is that, in principle, the point of view of the cited source—provided it's otherwise in compliance with WP:RS, WP:V, etc.—is not of primary relevance; the important point is whether the article text is written from a neutral point of view and whether the cited source supports that. I actually quite subscribe to (what I understand) Smatprt's position (to be): to support a fact in Baconian theory with a cite to a source supporting the Oxfordian theory lends extra credence to the fact cited. However I do understand that there can be a concern regarding the Baconian theory article lending credence to a source with an Oxfordian theory slant (almost the mirror image of the previous relationship). I think there is room for some genuine difference of opinion on this point, and I think both positions are valid; which you prefer is entirely dependent on which factor you weigh most heavily. My suggestion would be to include both citations for balance, and perhaps to supplement it with a mainstream source (Chambers or Schoenbaum, possibly Honan, spring to mind; I can try to dig up such a citation if you want). Certainly if one's opinion is that only one source should be cited here then a mainstream one—i.e. one that is neutral in the question of Bacon vs. Oxford—would be the least offensive to both points of view. Oh, and just for reference; the Oxfordian theory article includes references to Baconian theorysources, so I don't think it's necessary to assume anything other than good faith in whyOxfordian theory sources were added to the Baconian theory article (one may still disagree, of course). --Xover (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking back through the log and discussions, there was no consensus for including Oxfordian-biased books in this article. This has been done unilaterally and without consensus. I agree that it would be more appropriate to replace these with neutral references.ProsperoX (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. You need to look in the archives for the Good Article nomination. Bringing in a few Oxfordian authors and references was a recommendation from various article reviewers, who felt it made the overall article more neutral.Smatprt (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may throw my hat in, since the Oxford and Baconain theories are rivals, as I understand it, isn't this really an advertising of a strongly POV Oxford book in an inappropriate place (unless it's in the Baconain theory Criticisms section or Oxford article). Consider putting Baconain book references in the Oxford theory - that would have the same effect. My advice for resolution? Go for neither a Baconain nor an Oxford reference or even take out the section. Sycorax13 (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Barryispuzzled. Long time no see. :) "ProsperoX" and "Sycorax13", huh? Two pseudonyms from the same play. Very nice. Oh, and Isnotwen, too. You're also Barry! Yeah, your little line on your userpage about IQs kind of gives it away. Please just stop trolling and making sockpuppets to make a point. And please don't leave biased canvas messages on my talk page like you always used to. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. The facts: me and the wife were officially accused of being the same person some time ago. The reason we're still here is that we passed the investigation. Obviously then - we're not! I hope you're big enough to apologise. ProsperoX(talk) 11:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Riiigggghhhht. (see posting below, as you've been caught)Smatprt (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and how many others? Fairly obvious given that both ProsperoX and Sycorax13 both registered on the same day (duh). Tiresome and a waste of everyone's time to even respond to any of them.Smatprt (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ouch!!! This place is seriously aggressive, and undoubtedly paranoid as the replies to my messages show. Interactions here are fraught with danger because you can think you've resolved a dispute with someone then they attack you again. I've been on message boards where there's one resident group bully, sometimes he has another backing him. But THREE different names I've never encountered (and just my bad luck to stumble upon the third one while looking for support). In the last analysis, I have a right to edit here like everyone else and I shall continue to work to improve these articles through all this craziness. At least now I know who not to trust. Isnotwen (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not alone! I was also attacked when I first joined. The trick this mob uses is to accuse anyone who opposes their views of being a sockpuppet to try to undermine their credibility. Xover tried to get me banned when I opposed his edits in the Shakespeare article. And who do you think supported him there? The same people who are attacking you! But just take a look at how many times Xover supportsSmatprt and vice versa. They follow each other everywhere! Now look at the messages above. You put templates on Smatprt's talk page and above you'll seeXover taking it up with you "Throwing user templates ...".Smatprt deletes his templates here [] after advice from Xoverhere []. That's probably why he's so quick to accuse you of sockpuppetry, no one would suspect him then! Form your own conclusion but I'm not as nasty as Smatprt is, so I'll let someone else make an official complaint. ProsperoX (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Me and the wife???" Nice try, but here [] you, Prospero, say you are thewrong gender to be a Barry! And here [], your "wife", Sycorax, describes her/himself as a man!? Ooooops, busted again! (You might want to get your stories (and the sex of your puppets) straight, before you continue the lies.) And the sock puppetry accusations are amazing, coming from so obvious a sock. And in a posting labeled "hypocrite" no less. Well, at least THAT was correct.Smatprt (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Very cute, Barry. Please find someone else to play games with. Wrad (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like he doesn't need to! ProsperoX/Sycorax13/Barry or whatever his/her name is obviously has a sense of humor! Isnotwen (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Fred, I can see the funny side of you guys spending all your free time here, confidently making wrong deductions about new editors out of insufficient information, and actually supporting each other in these fantasies! You guys must have seriously empty lives! At first I felt attacked but now I'm enjoying reading about all your insecurities. It's clear that whoever comes on this page gets the same "You're Barry" treatment. I'm guessing this is where he used to live. If I cared that much, I could show you who I really am and direct you to my facebook page but such is your level of paranoia you'd probably think Barry made it up just for that purpose. Anyway, why ruin such an enjoyable fantasy! You also seem to be obsessed with IQ after reading about it on my page. It's clearly a big problem for you and after seeing my score you have certainly made yourself feel small. It's sad that you don't understand why IQ must not be taken too seriously. So, far from feeling bullied, this is actually great fun here! Thank you for entertaining me! Isnotwen (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, Fred, it's taken me a while but I think I get this now. When you say "find someone else to play games with" you actually mean you want me to play this game! That's why you keep coming back - not because you're refusing to play but because you want me to play. Aha! OK, I'll have to get Barry's costume right, though. What does he wear? I've got some tights and stockings in my locker (don't ask) - does that fit his character? What part of the world does he come from because I need to practice the accent before my next post? I'm particularly good at the American south (though I have to do it with a sock in my mouth) so if that fits, book the theater! Isnotwen (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's easy - it's YOU! Isnotwen (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)