Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship/Archive 1

Name
This article's name seems to me a little awkward. Kpjas 16:07 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at Oxfordian theory? - Hephaestos 03:56 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Done. scc 04:02 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Merge
Read Shakespearean authorship - this article is almost entirely redundant with the relevant section of that one. Is there significantly more to say about this, rather than just merging and redirecting? - David Gerard 16:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to sympathize, but in answer to your question, I think there is indeed significantly more to say. I've updated the page to provide some references to Oxford's Elizabethan-era reputation as a concealed writer, a link to Professor Alan Nelson's archive of transcripts from de Vere's letters, and a few edits for clarity in other sections.  As I see it, this page is needed to supply greater detail than can reasonably be given on the Shakespearean authorship page.  The case for Oxford is a dynamic and rapidly growing one.  Details: http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/news.html

Criticisms
I've beefed up this section in line with the stuff I've done of the Baconian theory page - only I forgot to sign in first, so they look like anonymous edits in the history. I might do some more cross-fertilization between the two sections.Bedesboy 14:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Clue on Shakespeare's Grave?
Growing up as a kid, I had never heard that there was a controversy over the authorship of Shakespeare until an issue of "Games Magazine" that came out in the 1990s, which postulated that Shakespeare was Edward de Vere and even used a supposed "code" in the inscription on his grave to explain that the grave itself admits to the true authorship. It was something about a v-shaped pattern where it spelled something out, and had the initials "EDV" in it, and explained why there were some oddly arranged smaller letters in the inscription that supposedly didn't make sense the way they're on there, but can be explained by the code. I don't know if I actually believe the theory - but it was the first time I heard the Oxfordian arguement and it fascinated me, even if I didn't necessarily believe in it. I've tried googling and I really can't find any information on this article or its claims about the grave. Even if the code theory was proven to be laughable or false, I'd imagine it would still be worthy of mentioning that it was put forward once. The problem is the article came out in a puzzles magazine with limited distribution before the internet age really took off - hence I can't find a thing about it. If anyone knows something about this article, or has ever heard this "grave code" theory before, I'd love to read about it again. Not to "prove" the Oxfordian side, but just to list as another arguement. --63.167.255.231 20:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure, but perhaps your vague recollection refers to the purported anagram attached to "MENTE. VIDEBOR"? If so, there are the links  and  (among others) that discuss it.  Myasuda 01:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of name
Shld outright falsehoods be allowed, even if credited to a Supreme Court Justice? The opening discussion of "terminology" claims that "most references to the man from Stratford in legal documents usually spell the first syllable of his name with only four letters, Shak- or sometimes Shag- or Shax-, whereas the dramatist's name is consistently rendered with a long "a" as in "Shake".  But "Shax" in fact comes from a court record of plays performed for James' coronation.  It is not at all the only case in which an unambiguous reference to the author is spelled "Shak.. " or some variant of that. But the mistaken claim here is not more egregious than many others in the article.18:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)128.135.232.240


 * Yes (and your last point is articulately expressed by Kathman in the article linked to in footnote 2). I think this section needs rewiting, for clarity. I'll give it some thought. AndyJones 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oxenford
How is it confusing? It is confusing that Meres calls "Oxenford" "best for comedies" when we claim it is about Oxford. Shouldn't we introduce the fact that both "Oxford" and "Oxenford refer to the same person. Or should we delete the Meres reference to avoid confusion?  Jvbishop 15:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it muddies up a very clean opening paragraph. If you really think the info is imperative, I would suggest a footnote.Smatprt 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should have at least some mention. You are right that the opening paragraph is rather well written.  I shall think on how to best put it in.  Jvbishop 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * May I suggest either an expanded footnote, or more appropriately, to make the explanation where the first "oxenford" actually occurs on the page. Frankly, though, it seems like one of those many minor details that doesnt warrant further space usage.Smatprt 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

what next?- To Smatprt
One of the early paragraphs states that the Oxford case is "substantially based on striking parallels between the text of the plays and Oxford's life" but the section covering this is rather lacking. I think this is the section you need to expand on next. I like a lot of the edits you made yesterday though. Good work. Jvbishop 13:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will certainly look at that and see what I can add.
 * Also - I agree with others who feel the terminology section needs work. Right now, it's pretty much a mess. Can anyone simplify it - or combine it with the overview?  Frankly, I think the issue is a non-starter for Oxfordians and already repeats what is on the Shakespeare Authorship page. Is it really needed under Oxfordian Theory, since it isn't specific to Oxford?  Any suggestions - anyone?Smatprt 16:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Crinkley Review of Ogburn
I appreciate the contributions of whoever added the clarification that Crinkley stated that he was not persuaded by Ogburn's book. Unfortunately Crinkley died before he had the opportunity to take stock of the many developoments that have taken place since then, significantly in consequence of Ogburn's book, which did persuade numberless readers, many of whom went on to make their own signal contributions to the debate. In the interest of providing a thoroughly balanced view of Crinkley's review, I made the following modification:

Although Crinkley rejected Ogburn's thesis, believing that "The case made for Oxford in leaves one unconvinced: plausible but unproved, possible but improbable, less satisfactory than the unsatisfactory orthodoxy it challenges," he also concluded that "a particular achievement of...Ogburn is that he focused our attention so effectively on what we do not know about Shakespeare...[Problems that he identifies]cast a shadow over the traditional recieved theory of authorship."

I think the present wording now gives appropriate weight to the intellectual complexity of Crinkley's position as stated in the review. I hope others will agree. --BenJonson 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent deletions without discussion
I think the deletion of this material, along with it’s sarcastic POV remark, is an excellent example of the tactics certain editors often employ on this page. Instead of putting a reference request on the paragraph in question, as Andy has often done, or opened a discussion prior to deletion, as Tom or Wrad might have done, Paul simply deleted the material he did not like (or agree with), and then belittled the statement and, by extension, the contributing editor.

In order to address the issue, (after the fact), I offer the following argument:
 * To deny the existence of line-altering or improvisation in the Elizabethan Theatre shows a misunderstanding of the history, background and traditions of the theatre.
 * Primarily, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the role of the Fool (or Vice) in Elizabethan Theatre. According to David Scott Kastan in A Companion to Shakespeare, “The company always recruited a clown, who was capable of improvisation”, typically commenting on topical events that would get audience reactions.
 * In Shakespeare's Clown: Actor and Text in the Elizabethan Playhouse, by David Wiles (University of London) he states ”Just as a fool in a morris dance broke formation and danced where he pleased, so the Vice (Fool) swept aside the confines of a script” – again using social comment as the main device.
 * Countless editors have commented on Kemps departure from the Chamberlain’s Men in 1599 as being “asked to leave due to his chronic improvising” and that Shakespeare made reference to this in Hamlet: “And let those that play your clowns speak no more than is set down for them; for there be of them that will themselves laugh, to set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh too (3.2.40-5)
 * After Kemp, we got the great Armin. To quote some Fool-ish literature I found - “Armin's fool is a stage presence rather than a solo artist. His major skills were mime and mimicry; even his improvisational material had to be reworked and rehearsed. (To rework and rehearse something, one generally has to write in down in the promtbook or stage managers script.)
 * Armin published Nest of Ninnies, in which he categorized two kinds of fools: 1) naturals--mentally deranged or feeble-minded simpletons; and 2) artificials--quick-witted allowed fools. (To be quick witted on the Elizabethan stage referred to the ability to improv, and engage the audience in repartee, of which Armin was a master.
 * Improv was not exclusive to the Fool. Staying with Shakespeare, please remember Bottom, the great tragedian of Quince’s company in Midsummer - adding lines so as not to offend the ladies of the court, suggesting rewrites, wrangling to play parts by adding in more lines of his own devising…
 * In Wiles book he also explains the ongoing animosity between the writer and the traditional actor “whose art was rooted in improvisation.” Wiles even notes certain lines that have "the clumsiness of an improvisation”
 * And yes, Stratfordians in general (and many other authorship researchers) ignore these facts and insist on using topical allusions to date a play with “certainty”, which is simply impossible. We simply don’t know when any particular topical allusion was added, nor by whom.

In the future, can we discuss these deletions, or simply ask for a cite request, instead of being sarcastic and belittling?Smatprt 07:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no rule that every edit has to be agreed with you. Your comments about the Fool are so much page-filling irrelevance, since you have no evcidence that improvisations would appear in the script (indeed, how could they be?), and thus in the printed version. Nor are topical references restricted to thre role o the Fool by any means. If you are seriously suggesting that inserted topical references would be included in printed versions then you'd have to assert also that in many cases Shakespeareian verse would have to be created by the improviser to fit into the lines. More to the point, this is pure OR; there is no citation at all for this claim. It's also completely irrelevant to "Stratfordianism", it's a purely ad hoc Oxfordian get-out clause to explain post-1604 references that can't otherwise be explained away. It has no relevance to Baconianism, and indeed a "Stratfordian" might have to use exactly the same argument if a reliable post 1616 reference were identified. Paul B 08:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not ask that you check with me for agreement. I asked for the common courtesty (and recommended Wiki behaviour) of discussing potential deletions or at least posting a cite request.
 * I did not say that topical references were restricted to the Fool. You apparently failed to read the last few bullet points and are ignoring that the traditional actor's art was "rooted in improvisation" (Wiles) (not OR)
 * Topical references inserted into the printed versions? Have you ever heard of a proptbook or stage managers script? If the business became regular or was an important "cue", or in the case of Armin's contributions, which were reworked and rehearsed, then yes, it would have been written in one of the company's working scripts.
 * Iambic pentameter is hardly difficult to improv. Even today's actors are adept at it. An old theatre tradition in Shakespeare, when waiting for a late actor, is to say " Methinks I hear his footsteps even now" or "Methinks I hear the footsteps of the King" (said very loudly towards the offstage actor who has missed an entrance!).
 * Wiles comments in his book that "There will come a Christian by, Will be worth a Jewes Eye" sounds more like an improv than an original line. That line certainly made it into print. (not OR)
 * You complain that this is an Oxfordian argument. Well.... this is the Oxfordian Theory page!
 * And Yes - a Stratfordian (or any researcher) could use the same argument - that is exactly why using "topical allusions" to date the plays with "certainty" is so problematic!Smatprt 15:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

POV Edits by Smatprt
The reasons for undoing the POV reversions by Smarprt are:
 * (1) There is a utilitarian and NPOV reason for using the terms "Stratfordian" and "Oxfordian" in this article to distinguish between two different and distinct bodies of scholarship. There is no reason to assert that "Stratfordian" should be used while the accurate use of the term "Oxfordian" should be eliminated; in fact, it's a clearly POV-motivated desire to legitimize one body of scholarship and de-legitimize another.
 * First, no de-legitimazation was intended. Due to the fact that many authorship arguments are shared by different authorship adherents, it many cases it would be inaccurate to simply narrow each argument as only supported by "Oxfordians".  Further, in some paragraphs, once the term "Oxfordian" is used, to keep using it in the same sentence or paragraph is redundant. Finally, the reduction of labels is a response to another editor who suggested that using the term "Oxfordian" over and over again, was POV pushing and angering other editors. I am trying to find a balance to these conflicting suggestions.Smatprt 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (2) Whether you like it or not, there is contemporary documentary evidence ascribing the authorship of the plays to William Shakespeare. It is done so on the title page of the First Folio (as has now been explicitly cited). But one could also cite, to choose another random example, the title page of the first quarto of Midsummer Night's Dream, which identifies the play as "Written by William Shakespeare". This is simply not a point of contention. It is not even a point of contention in serious Oxfordian scholarship. Serious Oxfordian scholarship focuses on the question of why someone named Shakespeare was credited with writing the plays when, as they contend, he did not. Serious Oxfordians don't simply try to pretend that Shakespeare was never credited as the author.
 * The problem is, by William Shakespeare, you mean (and the reader is led to believe), that Shakespeare of Stratford is the man being refered to. But this is not the case. And this is one of the common arguments of almost all anti-Stratfordians - there are no documents or first hand accounts that tie the name "William Shakespeare" (the author) to "Shakespeare of Stratford". On these pages we must be extremely clear about who we are talking about in context of the authorship question: Shakespeare (the author) or Shakespeare of Stratford. Smatprt 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (3) I'm not sure what the reason for removing the reference to Shakespeare's date of death is. The various timelines for authorship, and how those compare to the personal timelines of the various purported authors, is in fact one of the key elements of Oxfordian studies.
 * I agree, and I believe in my last edit this information is intact.Smatprt 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (4) A discussion of the spelling of "Shake-speare" on the title page of the sonnets would not be out of place, but it's unnecessary to then use an inconsistent spelling of Shakespeare throughout that section of the article.
 * Many discussions HAVE taken place. No matter how you cut it, the name printed on the Title Page of the Sonnets is "SHAKE-SPEARE".  Deleting that fact, (and the deletion of the Title page graphic and hyphen discussion) is simply hiding the issue.Smatprt 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we can put this type of needless advocacy and biased POV to rest. Justin Bacon 21:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am happy to continue discussions over these issues and hope I have provided responses that, at least, give you a better understanding of these edits. However, you should also be aware that many of these issues have been discussed on other pages so you might want to check the archives at William Shakespeare and Shakespeare Authorship Question.Smatprt 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also - I originally restored or altered the material section by section, instead of simply reverting a series of edits with one click, as you have done. By doing so you also removed new material and references. Can you consider being a little more careful with you edits?Smatprt 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While I have no opinion on authorship theory, I couldn't agree more with Smatprt here on reverts. According to Revert, "Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously." It is "used primarily for fighting vandalism." It specifically says "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." I've been in a few cases where people reverted several of my edits at once, and it is very aggravating. Anyway, I wouldn't say I'm an expert on this subject by any means, but it would seem that the general theme on authorship pages has been reversion after reversion, rather than discussion and improvement. Wrad 00:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I see accusations of 3RR violations in edit summaries, but I've gone through them to see if there's anything reportable (I would have reported it and suggested a block, if so). Nobody seems to be even close to their third revert. Can we therefore please keep this discussion on the issues, and avoid unnecessary wikilawyering. AndyJones 07:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Inexplicable lacuna
I am surprised to not find any mention of De Vere's pederastic relationship with Orazio Cogno and possible affection for Southampton as supporting evidence for his identification with the pederastic author of the Sonnets. Haiduc 20:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sonnets Section
Well, I did the best I could. I don't think it's complete, but it's a start. If anyone thinks it needs some editing, go to it. In my opinion, it could use a few more citations and some expansion, which I'll try to get to as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

PT Theory
In my opinion, the PT theory section is somewhat long. After all, by definition, it's a different theory. I'd say two paragraphs and a link are adequate. Anything more than that just eats away at the space available for the Oxfordian Theory, and after all that's the name of the page. I also don't understand why the Notes secton lists every reference twice.

Section Order
I would suggest placing the "Notable Anti-Stratfordian" section above the "History of the Oxfordian Theory" section. That way, both Oxfordian sections would be adjacent and the Introduction, with its discussion of the meaning of Stratfordian, Anti-Stratfordian and Oxfordian, would naturally lead into the discussion of Anti-Stratfordians and then into a discussion of the Oxfordian Theory itself. Rick 2.0 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. Go ahead!Smatprt (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable Anti-Stratfordians
Do you think the "his" in the Mark Twain quote could be ambiguous to those unfamiliar with Twain's position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest the following: “All the rest of (Shakespeare's) vast history, as furnished by the biographers, is built up, course upon course, of guesses, inferences, theories, conjectures--an Eiffel Tower of artificialities rising sky-high from a very flat and very thin foundation of inconsequential facts." Rick 2.0 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good solution. I would support that. Smatprt 19:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Further Criticism
I believe the reason that phrase "the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries for his poetic and dramatic skill was distinctly modest" in the Further Criticism section lacks a citation is because it is a misunderstanding of the Stratfordian argument. Their basic argument is that his poetry itself is modest, not his contemporary acclaim. If I'm wrong then let's see a citation. In any case, the fact that an author who is alleged to have hidden his output under another's name lacks acclaim is hardly deciding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.187.116 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

POV bias
This article unrelentingly presents one side of a case. For example, "1604" (an early death for the Earl) should be a negative to the theory that the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays, but instead we're told it's a positive.→ R Young {yak ł talk } 10:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also the statement that many prominent early 20th century thinkers such as Sigmund Freud believed in the theory needs a source ASAP, also appears to be an example of argumentum ad verecundiam but those are generally allowed. I'm putting a reminder on my to-do list, no source by the weekend (1/20/2007) and it goes. Quadzilla99 15:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree it's a logical fallacy to use Freud's opinion as evidence of the truth of the underlying proposition. It is true and interesting that he held the opinion, though. I'll source this from Mitchell (because that's easy) in the next few minutes. People can feel free to improve the source. AndyJones 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On that score, we should also be obliged to agree that it is a logical fallacy to argue that the orthodox view of authorship is correct because it is endorsed by so many prominent authorities like Stephen Greenblatt or Marjorie Garber. You can't have it both ways.--BenJonson (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford as Poet and Playwright Section
What is the reference for this claim: "Stratfordians disagree with this interpretation of Peacham's work. They point out that the Peacham copied large parts of Puttenham's work but did not use the names of those writers who would not have been considered "gentlemen", a title that Peacham felt should not be applied to actors. They also argue that the list is only of poets and that Peacham does not list playwrights"?--BenJonson 01:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is more original research by David Kathman, or someone on his personal website. I have found a number of quotes being attributed to this website. As he is not a professional researcher, an Eliz Lit prof., or simply posting excerpts from actual published research works, I am either deleting the more outrageous material or asking for a suitable source for edits that are less controversial. If anyone wants to put anything back in, please come up with better sources.Smatprt 05:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what was posted by another editor (who is also a Wiki administrator) on the Shakespeare Authorship discussion page: "We can use the sources quoted by Kathman. However, websites such as his are not considered valid sources for WP, especially since there are a endless number of books and journal articles we can use instead of his." quoted by Smatprt 05:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough: I won't revert those changes but I will make two points:
 * Be careful not to confuse WP:RS with WP:OR. The problem with Kathman is WP:RS. Quoting Kathman is not WP:OR because Kathman (AFAWK) is not a wikipedia editor.
 * Nobody will thank you for labeling other users. I'll allow you to label me personally as "Stratfordian" because I self-identify in that way. However to use it of others, as you just did of Alabamaboy is uncivil, and I'd like you to be aware of the fact. As I've pointed out to you before, anyone disinterested is "Stratfordian" by your standards, and that does not stop such labeling being impolite. AndyJones 07:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I thought that alabamaboy had identified himself as stratfordian. While I am not looking to be "thanked" by any of the editors of these pages, I will certainly delete the reference (although the mainstream editors of these pages certainly do a lot of labeling themselves. I hope you are able to help them out as well.)Smatprt 13:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to labour the point (...here goes anyway...), but the change you've made above is fundamentally no different. You're still identifying another user by reference to his POV rather than respecting him for who he is. (Mainstream, stratfordian, stratfordian, mainstream: what's the difference?) I see a few people on other talk pages who have taken offence at this: I don't think it's just me being a pedant. AndyJones 16:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - as long as it works both ways. Similar comments such as "another Oxfordian" or "Oxfordian vandalism" or "taken over by Oxfordians" should also not be used, yes? Smatprt 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Belatedly, I will answer "yes." I'm also surprised that AndyJones, if we was engaged in a dialogue with you on this subject, would not chime in an agreement. --BenJonson (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Prince Tudor theory
There's nothing wrong with discussing the PT theory at length ON THE PT THEORY PAGE. But this is the Oxfordian Theory page. They are separate although related theories. I would strongly suggest that the PT theory section here be no more than 2 paragraphs or so with a link to a PT Theory article. Space is at a premium, so why force 2 separate items into the space allotted for one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved the last PT theory expansion to its own page. I used the link already set up in the PT section. Have at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good solution. Great work. Smatprt (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"shyster Lok"
The context in the article is pregnant with the impliation that Shylock is a contraction of "shyster Lok". This is pushing it a bit, isn't it? According to the OED, the first recorded use of "shyster" was in 1844 in the United States. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But Charlton Ogburn believed that "Shyster" may be an Americanism that preserved an old English usage. But we can take it out if people think that's best or add a sentence stating Ogburn's opinion. Rick 2.0 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with deleting the material. It is a bit of a reach and there are many stronger parallels mentioned thru-out the article. Besides, the article is so long that any more additions and we should probably break out some of the material into its own article.Smatprt (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wise move. This sort of stuff does your case no good at all :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually "my case" would be more of a group with Oxford as it's leader, but this is the next best thing, being the most popular and well founded "case" of the 20th and 21st centuries!Smatprt (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Length
I'd be interested in hearing the options if it becomes necessary to break the article in two. My suggestion would be Part I: The Theory, and Part II: The Criticism. But I'm open to other options. Also what are the limits? I've noticed that the "American Civil War" is at 84k. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

To take the criticism out of the article would be highly controversial and the resulting article would not live up to Wiki NPOV standards. The standard approach is to take a supporting section that is fairly long itself and which has the likelihood of getting longer over time, and turn it into its own article. See WP:SUMMARY

In this article, for example, the best section that would stand on its own (another requirement) as a seperate article would probably be the "parallels with the plays" section. Ultimately, all 37 (or 38) could conceivably be covered. Then then new article would be linked and summarized in the main article. In this case a 1 or 2 paragraph section could be developed that summarizes the current play write-ups, including the titles covered, each with their own link to the new article/play section. Sorry - I babbled. Does all that make sense?Smatprt (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Recommended length before splitting: up to 60k. See WP:LENGTH Smatprt (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I did notice that they spoke of "very long articles" over 400k, so we seem to have time to come to a decision. When do you suggest we split the article? Now or when it reaches some absolute size? There doesn't seem to be any technical limit (or they won't have mentioned 400k). I suppose we could also split off the "parallels with the sonnets" section in a similar manner. Rick 2.0 (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

400K was mentoned as so large it can cause problems for computors. Recommended limits are further down in the article:

Article size	What to do

> 100 KB	Almost certainly should be divided up

> 60 KB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

> 40 KB	May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)

< 30 KB	Length alone does not justify division Smatprt (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edward de Vere and the Oxford theory, what does it have to do with Elizabeth?
Some believe that Edward was Elizabeth's illegitament son. She was in her step-mother, Catherine Parr's home and was kicked out because of rumors of sexual immorality involving Catherine's husband. Soon afterward, Edward de Vere was born. Edward was a favorite in the Elizabethian court. He got a thousand pounds a years which is $700,000 nowdays. Some believe that Elizabeth paid him so much because she wanted him to keep quiet about writing Shakespeare's plays. Writing was a commoner thing. That is a small part of the Oxford Theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.190.176 (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Writing was a commoner thing."

What is that supposed to mean? All kinds of people wrote during the Elizabethan period, but since all of them at least had to be literate, and since the very concept of public schooling was just beginning to take hold in England and the vast majority of "commoners" had no access to it, it stands to reason that very many writers were not "commoners." Those prominent writers who did come from a working class background -- Christopher Marlowe is an outstanding example -- almost all are known to have attended school and most of them college. Shakespeare is nowhere to be found in the Elizabethan school system, beyond the sheer conjecture that he "must have" attended the Stratford grammar school.--BenJonson (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

latest section on H8
The latest section is (in my opinion) one of Sobran's weakest arguments. For example, the sonnet does not say that he "wants" his name buried, just that it "will" be. Weak arguments like this don't help. 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 in whole 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. Will do some trimming for now - if you feel strongly about restoring something, how about some additional sources? That would certainly help. Smatprt (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oxfords Men
My only question is why was Oxford, being the Earl of the Oxfords men, writing plays for a competeing theartre company, Lord Chamberlain's Men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.35.159 (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question. The evidence strongly points to Oxford's involvement with another company during the 1580's -- the Queen's Men -- whom his sometime Secretary John Lyly was at least on certain ocassions the paymaster. The time frame for Oxford's Men and the Queen's Men is more or less the same, so either Oxford was involved during the 1580s with two adult troops (in addition to at least one troop of boys), or Oxford's Men and the Queen's Men were really more or less the same group operating under two different names (for details see Ward's biography of Oxford, who handled this topic better than anyone else before or after him). In any case, the Queen's Men was dissolved (for all practical purposes -- ie they did not continue playing at court and their best men went elsewhere) shortly before the Lord Chamberlain's Men was reconstituted circa 1593 (I'm always a little vague on exactly when they got started).


 * The critical point is that the royal company was called the Lord Chamberlain's men until 1583; for the next decade, during which we have clear evidence for Oxford's involvement with it via Lyly, it was called the Queen's Men, after having been reconstituted under the supervision of Sir Francis Walsingham after Lord Chamberlain Sussex (a close elder friend of De Vere's) died. Then it was reconstituted, after the scandal of the Queen's Men's involvement in the Marprelate controversy, as the Lord Chamberlain's Men.


 * Given that we can see Oxford more clearly in the picture of court entertainment during the 1580s than during the 90s this seems to admit of two possible explanations. One is that the orthodox view of authorship and theatre history is correct; for some reason Oxford lost interest in the theatre (previously a consuming ambition in his life), and other people assumed his role patronizing and providing entertainments. The other is that he remained involved in the Lord Chamberlains Men (there is only one record of his men performaing anywhere after 1590, so it would appear that a troop under his name was for all practical purposes defunct by about the same time that the Queen's Men folded) but from behind the scenes,his involvement being purposefully obscured. That would not make him Shakespeare, but it would remove the objection to which you allude.


 * --BenJonson (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Friederich Nietzsche
I think we need a reference for Friederich Nietzsche. I'm not saying it's wrong, but he's not on the Shakespeare-Oxford Society Honor Roll of Skeptics page, nor is there any reference to Shakespeare on the Friederich Nietzsche page on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * According to his sister - who is very unreliable - he was possibly a Baconian. A Baconian website attempts to read Baconism into N's own published statements, but can't find anything definitive. . Nevertheless, it wouldn't be surprising given N's belief in the ideal of the philosopher-poet (i.e. himself) and his penchant for making provocative iconoclastic claims. Oxfordian theory didn't exist in N's lifetime, so if he is to be mentioned it should be on the general authorship page, not here. Paul B 06:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually - in two of his books he mentons the authorship problem and in both cases suggested Bacon as the author. The mentions can be found in Will to Power and Ecce Homo. Here, he is being listed as an "anti-stratfordian" - as long as he is labled as such, I see no problem with him being listed as an official doubter.Smatprt 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you don't understand the word "definitive". Perhaps also you are unaware that The Will to Power is a conflation edited by his sister. I read Ecce Homo years ago and am perfectly well aware of its contents, which are consistent with what I said. Paul B 00:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not say "definitive", I said "mentions" and "suggested". And you obviously have not even read the article and don't even know the context in which this reference is being used. But just keep picking at sores, Paul. Like a pimply teenager, it just makes you look uglier. But I suppose that just goes with your constant nastiness.Smatprt 05:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's sometimes difficult to believe these levels of obtuseness. I said definitive in the comment to which you replied. Do try to understand what you are reading before you reply. Picking at sores is what you do, since there was simply no point to your reply, which contained information I had already linked to. But you hadn't bothered to read it or to understand what was being said had you? I understand perfectly well the context. Paul B 11:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So perhaps he should be removed from the last paragraph of the "Further Criticism" section. I don't know who put him there, but I'd vote for him to be removed, unless there is more information. Rick 2.0 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've located a web site that quotes Nietzsche. Apparently, he was a Baconian, but this was prior to the publication of "Shakespeare Identified." I've linked to it directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work, Rick 2.0. There is no question that he was an anti-Stratfordian and, perhaps, by default, a Baconian. Like Whitman, who incidentally refused to endorse Bacon, he lived before the Oxfordian theory had any public profile and hence did not have the chance to weigh it in relation to the claims of the Baconians.--BenJonson (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

English way of discussing the oxfordian view
In England the oxfordian view is very controversial. When discussed, it does not lead to a discussion on content, but to a discussion as being 'ridiculous'. Even in universities a scientific approach is hardly possible. Identity and Shakespeare are so connected in England that oxfordians are mainly found outside of England. On the other hand the Oxfordians are not willing to talk to Stattfordians either. This means that there are two schools opposite each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.18.109.60 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by the statement that "Oxfordians are not willing to talk to Stratfordians." I have walked in both worlds for fifteen years. It may be true that some Oxfordians and other anti-Stratfordians are content to think of themselves as superior to orthodox academicians and will have nothing to do with Stratfordians. But I can assure you that these are as small a minority among the Oxfordians as are those in the orthodox camp who are willing to engage in rational and civil discussion on the issue. Most Oxfordians welcome discussion and debate. They understand that they have much to learn from those who have devoted their lives to studying Shakespeare and the Renaissance, even if they may be carrying assumptions that some of us regard as doubtful. The attitude of orthodox academicians, by contrast, not only in England but around the world, usuallyconstitutes a shameful example of a narrow minded majority enforcing its will on the minority by what amounts to little more than a form of intellectual apartheid. I have been continually shocked and dismayed to see how little that has changed in the past twenty years.--BenJonson (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And the point of this section is... what? (Interesting that the first accredited Authorship/Oxfordian degree program is in an English University!) Not to mention that Mark Rylance (Globe Theatre), Derek Jacobi, etc., are from that side of the pond. Smatprt (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Attribution
http://www.authorshipstudies.org/articles/oxford_shakespeare.cfm look at section on taming of shrew, its amost a word for word copy w/o attribution. whats that all about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.240.215.167 (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * it's "almost" word for word because this is a well known parallel in oxfordian studies. I've seen it (or almost the same wording) in numerous books and websites. Since it bothers anon above that it's not referenced to this one cite, I've gone ahead and added it. There can never be too many references! Smatprt (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination
Congratulations! Your article has now been nominated for GA status. Felsommerfeld (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to review this when time permits. My first impression is that it's very long and maybe a bit POV but it should be possible to make some positive changes that will help it to GA. Otherwise, I'll have to read it through before further comment. Bodleyman (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the nomination per WP:POINT. AndyJones (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And I've removed the second nomination due to disruptive sockpuppetry. See User talk:Barryispuzzled for the details. María ( habla  con migo ) 12:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we post a list of suggested reading?
Hey there, great article, quite detailed and thorough. My wish would be that there be a list of suggested reading for the newly (and not-so-newly) interested. There seem to be quite a few books on the Oxfordian authorship, both recent and less recent. I think it would be great to list them, as it's nice, and often more pleasant, to read a thorough biographical book written in comfortable casual prose, than it is to study facts online. I suggest the books be listed in a new section, titled one of the following for example: References (changing the current "references" title to "Footnotes" -- I've done this on almost every article I get involved with); Reading List; Further Reading; Suggested Reading; Recommended Reading; Books; Bibliography; Sample Reading [List]; Selected Reading List; or whatever you want to call it. Thanks in advance; and thanks in advance for bringing to popular light this important man's work. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * done. Smatprt (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly. Softlavender (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I just finished Mark Anderson's "Shakespeare" by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare (2006). Fantastic, exhaustive book! Thanks for recommending it in the Further Reading section; I didn't know where to start and that was the very best place -- so very thorough and detailed and an impressive work of ten years of scholarship and research. Softlavender (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Splitting of article
Splitting an article that has grown too big is a tough task, but it is one that should start being discussed in this case. There are something like 40 sections, yielding a ToC that for me fills almost two screen-heights. The marked-up text is something like 80 kb, which is at least a two-fold problem: There can be two basic approaches to oversize articles: reaching consensus among frequent editors as to how the article can be "cut as its joints", producing smaller articles that respect the subtopics natural boundaries, or if that shows no reasonable prospect of resolution, making a reasonable common sense division, and optimizing boundaries after the fact. It seems the article is overdue to get the discussion underway. --Jerzy•t 08:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It violates (by a factor of nearly 3) the utterly inflexible 32kB limit for articles that are guaranteed to be editable by all users.
 * 2) The size range generally regarded as a limit of readability as an encyclopedia article are several times smaller than 32 kB; keeping the ToC to a size where it can be used almost at a glanced, rather than requiring study to reach a suitable section is closely related to this.

Greetings. While I agree we should start this discussion, I would ask that you be more careful in quoting rules that are "utterly inflexible". Please note at WP:LENGTH the following:

A rule of thumb Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages: Readable prose size	What to do > 100 KB	Almost certainly should be divided

> 60 KB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

> 30 KB	May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)

< 30 KB	Length alone does not justify division

Also note that this does not include graphics, references, redirects, etc, but is limited to the "Readable prose" only. On this, does anyone know a simple way of measuring ONLY the readable prose? Smatprt (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Select the body text in the web browser window and copy and paste it into a text editor. My text editor happens to give me some document statistics directly, but you could also just save the text to a temporary file and then look at the file size (make sure you look at actual size and not size rounded to multiples of the filesystem block size). The current article is 61.384 characters (including punctuation and citation markers etc.), which, at one byte per character, means the article is just about at the 60KB mark.
 * The size suggests it's a good idea to look at whether it should be split, or possibly just trimmed a bit, but I certainly wouldn't consider this alone a throbbing red sign screaming that the article must be split. I'd recommend starting with looking for stuff to trim first (remember, it's an encyclopedia; the amount of detail should be limited!) and then asess whether splitting is still necessary and possible afterwards. --Xover (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry i confused you re "limit" (my word) vs. "rule" (which is inapplicable); perhaps i should have said "something like "exceed" rather than "violate". This is an absolutely inflexible technical limitation; the effect of exceeding 32K is, as i implied, that some editors cannot perform some appropriate edits on the article. --Jerzy•t 18:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps the current updated version of WP:LENGTH would be pertinent here. --Xover (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead section
I edited again bcz of the sore-thumb intentional Dab lk in the HatNote, and found some other hopefully small issues: --Jerzy•t 22:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The final dependent clause of the lead sent includes
 * ... attributed to ...
 * while that of the last sent of the lead 'graph has
 * ... to whom authorship is generally credited ...
 * but i think NPoV calls for "generally" in both places. I'd have done the edit but for the fear that the missing word was not just an oversight.
 * 1) "While mainstream scholars reject ..." has to be way too strong:
 * 2) We don't throw in tautologies, so that's not a restatement of "the mainstream of Shakespeare scholarship is distinguished by the exclusion of those who don't reject ..."
 * 3) While it's reasonable to expect "mainstream scholars" to mean "mainstream English literature scholars" or words to that effect, i don't find it reasonable to mean "academic Shakespeare specialists".
 * 4) Unless that kind of restriction is explicit, i just don't find such a blanket rejection conceivably verifiable, or remotely plausible: perhaps no one can take the cognitive dissonance of hiding anti-Stratfordian views while seeking tenure as a Shakespearist, but surely there are closet anti-Stratfordians in other literary specialties.
 * While i don't want to try to word it, isn't there somewhere a reliable source that says (without weasel words) something more plausible, along the lines of "mainstream literary scholars never publicly admit to doubting that ..."?
 * 1) Following the EB ref got me to (in relevant part)
 * The debate, however, remained lively in the late 20th century.
 * which is neutral or contrary to
 * ... popular interest in the debate continues to grow ...
 * so i've added a fact tag just for the one clause. I didn't pay for EB, but it appears they now only make it frustrating not to pay, rather than actually limiting you to a teaser. Even if i'm mistaken in thinking the 4 'graphs & other readings i saw are all of it, IMO another source -- a non-confusing one -- should be a high priority.

Version 0.7 nomination
This article has been nominated for Version 0.7 of the offline Wikipedia release but did not meet the standards for importance. It has been put on Release_Version_Nominations/Held_nominations for further review. Please see that page for details.

I've reluctantly decided to put this article on hold. I think it's a nice article in many ways, but it does seem to be heavily pro-Oxfordian. The other aspect is that it scores very poorly on all of our importance ratings. We could forgive the latter if the article were and FA, because it provides a nice twist on a really major article (Shakespeare), but on balance I think we should hold it for 0.7. Walkerma (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You said: "but it does seem to be heavily pro-Oxfordian." Not sure what you were expecting in an article called Oxfordian theory. Plus, the word THEORY is in the title itself, stating upfront the hypothetical nature of the article. Softlavender (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The evidence
Am I missing something here? The article states "The case for Oxford's authorship ... is based on abundant similarities between Oxford's biography and events in Shakespeare's plays". Surely, that's not evidence? It's true that some writers such as Dickens put themselves in their novels, for example, Pip in Great Expectations. But other writers just characterize people they know. From Twelfth Night, when Sir Toby Belch torments the puritanical Malvolio with unruly behavior, there's an argument that Sir Toby Belch represents Sir Thomas Posthumus Hoby who was embroiled in a similar incident involving puritans. This would not pass for evidence that Hoby wrote Twelfth Night. Regarding Measure for Measure, the "bed-trick" was a common device in plays and many people worked to save relatives from death. The article gives undue weight to this evidence by not mentioning the number of other plays that also used these tricks. The whole point of introducing Claudio's fornication was for the unpleasant Angelo to use an unjust law on him which punished it with death. The moral is forgiveness acted out by Duke Vincentio and to encourage overlooking cruel laws. The play makes no issue of changing murder to seduction. If you want this theory taken seriously then the evidence needs to be better. Can I suggest that someone runs through this article to tighten up on the arguments? I could do it but time is presently scarce. Torricelli01 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Close to GA
This article is pretty well cited and close to GA. I think it ought to be put up for GA status once everything is cited and minor issues are taken care of. I would perceive promotion to GA or FA as a victory of sorts for the Shakespeare project. Wrad (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll note that I have serious reservations about all the authorship related articles—reservations that are unrelated as such to my opinion about the authorship question itself—that would make me very hesitant to support any of them for FA; but even in that light a cursory scan of this article suggests it's at least close to GA level. If those of you who have worked on this article feel it's ready I'd say go for it, and I'll try to chip in where I can (which probably won't be much). On a related note, if anyone would like to discuss the possibility of a drive to improve the various authorship related articles to FA level I have, as mentioned, some thoughts there that I've been meaning to bring up at an auspicious time (but, you know, Real Soon Now™ is a moving target). --Xover (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, first things first. GA before FA. Putting it up for a peer review on the way to FA would draw in a lot of views from experienced editors and give us a good idea of where to go. Shakespearean authorship question is also pretty close to GA. Wrad (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oxford's motive
Sorry, but I don't get it. Why would anyone be committed to redating Shakespeare plays to prove the point that Oxford was still alive to write them? Surely, it should be the other way round. The scholarship shows that he was dead when many of them were conceived. Why isn't that good enough? Why would he want to be concealed when he's already mentioned in the Arte of English Poetry (1589) as the "best for comedy among us"? Why do the supposed allusions to Oxford in the plays imply that he wrote them? Why should they necessarily be autobiographical? What about allusions to other contemporary figures in the plays (e.g. Marlowe and the "great reckoning in a little room") - does that mean they wrote the play it appears in? Seems to me evidence is ignored that doesn't fit while only considering the bits that do fit - selective interpretation. (Isnotwen (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Sorry, but the "scholarship" shows no such thing. There has been no "necessary source" identified that is post-1604. Lots of assumptions, presumptions, maybes, possiblys - but no concrete proof one way or another. Why be concealed? Perhaps you might read Ogburn or Anderson, as they have laid out many reasons. Otherwise you might be accused of selective interpretation yourself.Smatprt (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That can easily be said of Oxford: "Lots of assumptions, presumptions, maybes, possiblys - but no concrete proof one way or another". At least Mr Shakespeare was in a company that acted the plays. There's no proof that Oxford went anywhere near one. Surely Anderson cannot be classed as a scholarly source! It's a very poor book full of tenuous connections and I think that only someone who's prejudiced in favor of Oxford would bother completing it. So Meres refers to Oxford and Shakespeare in the same list: that's hardly concealment on Oxford's part! Here are the million dollar questions: What would it take for an Oxfordian to reject Oxford as Shakespeare? What is the test against which, if Oxford failed, an Oxfordian would say "it's not him"? Or is it just a religion? (Isnotwen (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC))
 * I'm sorry but your statements betray a lack of information about Oxford. When you say there is "no proof Oxford went anywhere near one (an acting company), you are obviously unaware that Oxford was the patron of several adult acting companies, at least one children's company, held the lease on the Blackfriar's theatre, and personally interceded with Queen Elizabeth on behalf of an acting company that like to play at the"Bores Head". The reference on this, by the way, not Anderson, but Chambers! Furthermore, as a youth growing up in Castle Edingham, he would have grown up in a residence occupied regularly by the acting company patronized by his father, as well as the numerous touring groups that entertained at a number of well documented dinners and celebrations. Your statement that there is no "concrete proof" about Oxford being Shakespeare is stating the obvious. If there were, we wouldn't have much of an "authorship question" would we? I'm afraid, given your lack of neutrality on this issue, your million dollar questions are simply thinly veiled attacks on Oxfordians in general, instead of a well-reasoned response to the argument at hand. This really isn't helpful on these pages. Smatprt (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I simply meant by "no proof that Oxford went anywhere near one" that there is no direct connection of Oxford to any Shakespeare play. It might have been more appropriate to ask for clarification first. Thank you. (Please see your Talk page) Isnotwen (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

--- Not to mention that Lyly and Munday worked for Oxford. Not sure if they have a direct connection to a Shakespeare play. 69.64.235.42 (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Permission to abbreviate the repeated citations?
Since three or four of the books cited, in the same editions, are repeated numerous times, I'd like to abbreviate their subsequent listings so that what is cited is only the author's last name, the year of publication, and the page number(s). As such:

Anderson (2005), p. 132. Ogburn (1984), p. 52. Sobran (1997), p. 89.

Looney is more difficult since various editions have been used for citation; if we could get them all from the 1920 edition it would work for Looney as well (was the book expanded with more info in the later editions?).

Anyway, what this would accomplish is: (A) cut down a little bit on the byte-size of the article, and (B) force readers to look at the first iteration of the citation, which will be linked to its GoogleBooks/Amazon listing or equivalent so that the reader can verify the information (if I haven't linked it yet it, I'm going to) and will have the full title, author, publisher, and date.

What say you? It's easy for me to do and I'd like to do it if it's agreeable. Softlavender (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine with me.Smatprt (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Mersea theory
Why no mention of the Mersea theory? Granted, it's on the non-credible side, but it could explain some things, including later dates and certain later information in the plays, and the lack of will, funeral, and so forth. I haven't read too much on it but as I recall what I've read bears considering, and I think it possibly bears at least a mention, as controversial as it is, especially if the Prince Tudor theory is being covered in depth. Heck, even one or two sentences could cover it, with a citation for further reading. Softlavender (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty far-fetched, imho. I suppose a line within the Prince Tudor theory would be the only place it might fit, but I think it ranks up there with Bacon never dying but "ascending to a higher state". Or the moon landing being faked... Wow. (Also, have there been any serious reviews or substantiation of any part of it, or is it still a one-author theory? Smatprt (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, belongs in the PT article, not here. I don't know much about it except I ran across it once on the Internet and it stuck in my head. I wasn't even aware of who originated it but I see now it is Streitz, and no one has taken him up on that. There's no cause for such a theory anyway except to maintain that Oxford wrote the King James Bible, which I understand was in fact written by a team of 47 scholars assembled by James. Softlavender (talk)

What do you mean by the "Mersea theory"? Are you referring to the theory that Mersea Island, Essex, being the closest large island to the Earl of Oxford's residence at Castle Hedingham, was the real venue described as "Propsero's Island" in The Tempest (see "The Oxford Code" at www.freewebs.com/caliban5/)? Colcestrian (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Colcestrian: I find not the words Prospero or island on that website. I'm not sure how it is relevant to this discussion. 69.64.235.42 (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Softlavender above wrote on "The Mersea Theory". I'm just asking what is meant by that? Colcestrian (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgive me; I haven't been to this page in a while. See Prince Tudor theory. It's a highly deprecated fringe theory that's an offshoot of the already fringe PT theory. Softlavender (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Stratfordian objection
I poste the following, but someone deleted it: "The primary objection to Oxfordian theory is that there is no direct documentary evidence connecting Oxford to the plays and poems published under the name 'William Shakespeare,' nor any contemporary objection to the attribution of the plays and poems to the Stratford actor. The coincidences cited by Oxfordians are rejected as no more convincing that the coincidences that appear to the connect the writings to Bacon, to Marlowe or to the other authorial candidates."

The line that "there is no direct documentary evidence..." comes from an earlier paragraph in the article itself. The major objection to this theory is not the 1604 date. The major objection among mainstream scholars is that they don't think the Oxfordians have presented the minimal documentary evidence that would marit taking the theory seriously. That's why mainstream scholars regard Oxfordians as cranks rather than as serious scholars with a dissenting point of view. If the 1604 date were the major sticking point, you would see an engagement with the theory, because everyone knows dating the plays is very tricky.

I think my paragraph should be put back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.169.191 (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No. (1) You haven't sourced/referenced it. (2) The Stratfordian case and objections are presented in specific detail in the article in various sections. (3) Oxfordian scholarship cannot be considered 'minimal' at this point because it comprises dozens of volumes' worth of well-documented correspondences between the Shakespeare works and Oxford's known life, biography, works, and nature. Softlavender (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable Anti-Stratfordians
This might be more germane to the article if it only included notables who favoured Oxford. I'm not sure that mere notability should convey admittance to the Oxford page. To me, if the section might be more appropriate in the Shakespeare_authorship article. 69.64.235.42 (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it’s appropriate on both pages, being that the standard Stratfordian counter-argument in either location is to launch ad hominem attacks on the "looney" theory that Shakespeare of Stratford was not the author of the plays. Listing notable anti-Stratfordians, some of who did not have the chance to be Oxfordians, simply makes the point that this theory doesn't deserve off-hand contempt. Rick 2.0 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Rick on this. Smatprt (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Article length
While this has been discussed before, it's definielty time to split the article into separate articles, due to length concerns. As it stand now, it's well past the 60KB suggested limit as described at WP:SIZERULE. The obvious section to split out would be the "parallels with the plays" section, so I have created a new article at Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays and added a link from this article. I think this is a good thing as now we can expand the new article with a section on every play. Eva Turner Clark's book, Hidden Allusions in Shakespeare's Plays is an excellent source for much of this material, as she examines every play from a topical/Oxfordian point of view and much of her work has been expanded on by Ogburn and Anderson. Smatprt (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was undoubtedly a necessity. My concern is that in the main article as it currently stands, the plays and their parallels to Oxford's life seem rather minimal — an afterthought of very little consequence. Which does not match up with the extensive scholarship which has revealed extensive parallels between Oxford's life and every Shakespeare play (I don't think there's a single play that does not have Oxfordian parallels). I don't think the article should imply that the sonnets have the greater parallels. Therefore, is there any way to beef up the summary of play parallels as it now stands? I added one sentence, but I think a little more emphasis than that is due. Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, in case this comes up again, the apparent "size" of the article is misleading. A good 1/3 of the article is the Footnotes, the External Links, the Categories, and the Navbox. Even though the article as it now stands (post-split) is apparently 85 KB, the text of the article is actually less than 60 KB. So if someone in the future thinks the article has outgrown recommended sizes in WP:SIZERULE, please take the time to copy and paste the readable prose body-text of the article (not in its markup format) into a subpage on your userpage, and see what the actual size of the article is, sans Footnotes, ELs, and markup text. Softlavender (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A Majority of Mainstream Scholars
The second sentence of the article doesn't seem to me to make sense: "While a majority of mainstream scholars reject all alternative candidates for authorship..." If we've defined "mainstream scholars" as those scholars who are Stratfordians, then we are saying there is a minority of Stratforidans who don't believe in Stratfordianism. Don't all Stratfordians believe in Stratfordianism by definition? I'd suggest changing the sentence to "While a majority of scholars reject all alternative candidates.... or possibly "While most scholars reject all alternative candidates...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.79.148 (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The flaw in your reasoning is the fact that there are quite a few academics who have doubts about the Stratfordian authorship. We haven't defined "mainstream scholars" as "those scholars who are Stratfordians". We've merely stated that the standard view is often referred to as mainstream. Softlavender (talk)

1604
I changed the subheading "The 1604 problem" to "The 1604 issue", for neutrality. It's not a "problem" any more than 1616 (the date of Will Shaksper's death) is a "problem". Both men died long before the 1623 First Folio. So 1604 is simply a point of discussion/ debate /contention -- it's not a problem to Oxfordians (as it's been as adequately explained as anything else) but it's a focus of debate for Stratfordians. Another alternative word for the subheading could be "question". Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

New section
I'm going to suggest that the new section on The First Folio would be better integrated into another section, such as "The 1604 issue" or "Oxfordian responses." The reason being that its main point of evidence is not the First Folio, but the 1609 publication of the Sonnets. Also, since both men were dead well before 1623, the point is not proven either by the current-day scholar or the quoted preamble to the Folio or even the Bellot-Mountjoy suit whether either man ever retired or not. Nor does it preclude an author overseeing his work during retirement, wherever that might be. I think the final sentence of the section is therefore Original Research at worst (unless a quote or citation supports it), conjecture at best. Forgive me for pointing all this up, but I feel things need to be airtight (especially in this extremely long, rambling article), and also cited. Softlavender (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree - the premise (retirement) just isn't proven by the quotation. Addition should be removed. Also, as far as I am aware, Mr. Cossolotto is not a recognized scholar and The Oxfordian is not an independent publication, nor a peer-reviewed journal, so its use as a ref is questionable. Smatprt (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Prose removed from captions
A caption should describe the image, and draw attention to what makes it relevant. Don't put exposition and argumentation there. These should be valuable in the prose: There may be others, but not in the sub-sections of my edit. --Jerzy•t 03:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The hyphenated name appears on The Sonnets, A Lover's Complaint and on 15 plays published prior to the First Folio, where it was hyphenated on 2 of the 4 dedicatory poems. (From Sonnets-title-pg pic in Oxfordian theory.)
 * Both the hyphenated name and the Sonnet's dedication, specifically the words "ever-living poet", have fueled controversy within the authorship debate. (From Sonnets-ded'n-pg pic in Oxfordian theory.)


 * Respectfully disagree. I know of know rule that prevents detailed explanations in captions, especially when they are entirely relevant to the debate outlined by the article itself. Also, the above referenced edit simply deletes information from the article and failed to incorporate the deleted sentences into the article itself. If you want to change this, please discuss here first and build a consensus for the change. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume then you've never thought about how many additional words it takes to gild a lily that is worth a thousand words, nor looked at Captions nor Captions. And perhaps you'll set to work explaining why
 * the 4-line caption in the lead secn (a good caption, ruined by following it with a sentence,
 * the 15-line one in Oxfordian theory (4 full sentences)
 * the 7-line and 6-line ones i found and fixed in Oxfordian theory
 * should all be considered such exceptional cases, outside the applicability of well-consensused guidelines. No consensus local to a topic's talk page is needed before conforming it to guidelines; rather, you should be prepared, before reverting such a change, to present a case locally that won't be laughed at if copied to, in this case, Wikipedia talk:Captions.  As to damaging the article:
 * It's a very rare article that requires images to convey its information (think the color drawing in Diode_bridge). My guess was that the captions duplicated running prose, but if the accompanying article's information content was reduced by my edit, the problem is that information that belongs as part of the prose appeared only in captions (that inevitably obscure its relationship to the non-caption text, and invite the reader to guess about when it's a good time to interrupt their train of thot & the flow of the article to wade thru a caption and then try pick up where they left off).
 * Collaborative editing is not so much about satisfying those who happen to have previously worked on a given article, as about editors doing as much to advance an article as is in their judgment suitable for them, and counting on others to do more in their own good time; if no one has the time and interest for an hour, a week, or a year, then (to varying degrees), it's just a topic WP can't perfectly cover. At the risk of encouraging the impression that where i choose to leave off my work on this page is any of your business, i'll mention, to provide an example, that i came here somehow that had to do with my attention this evening to the garbled versions of "small Latine and lesse Greeke" -- almost certainly a hit on both "lesse" and some other word -- and after improving the aspects that quickly caught my eye, it was time to get on with finishing the task that i had let myself be distracted from. Even if i were wrong about the captions needing to be moved, it would still defy Linus's Law for me to have satisfied you: you seem to think i should not have improved the article, given my sense that someone else would do a more careful and perhaps even better informed job of reintegrating the prose where it belonged. I sure looks like i was right, but my point is that you should have limited your comments to whether i was right or wrong about the captions needing attention, and not implied that my good-faith (and effective) efforts to make sure the material didn't get lost were "damage" even if i was right. --Jerzy•t 07:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Greetings. I have taken your advice and, when restoring content on this controversial edit, left intact the non-controversial good edits. (Not to say that all your edits are not necessarily good, and certainly good-faith!). I was familiar with the caption recommendations and on reviewing them, I find that they are certainly not hard and fast rules and include such qualifiers as "may" do this and "may" do that. More to the point, I still believe that what you did was simply remove properly sourced material from the article and that, for me, is the supreme no-no. Also, you deleted the context as to WHY the image was being used. Instead why not do a bit of trimming? I did restore the material a moment ago, and then I trimmed both captions a bit.  More trimming might be workable, but I believe that providing proper context certainly outweighs the more flexible guideline on length. After all - to maintain the 3 line recommendation, all one needs do is make the picture bigger!?! A silly solution to be sure, but a viable one none the less. I think it better to keep the pictures the size they are and provide a caption that provides the necessary context. the alternative would be to attach more prose to a new section that sums up the 2 captions in question.  In that case, however, previous editors have reached a consensus that a separate section on the hyphen alone is probable overkill - thus the detailed caption. Smatprt (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also - you must admit, in spite of your own stated POV against the topic in general, that this is a pretty complicated topic that requires a greater level of detail than most! Cheers!Smatprt (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know what you are referring to, but if you are going to infer my PoV in that fashion, it is grossly irresponsible to do so without either quoting or linking to the supposed basis. You have only an unfounded fantasy about what my PoV on the topic is, and i'm inclined to think you have made a personal attack in claiming to have read my mind. --Jerzy•t 18:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh come on - now you are just being silly. Oh - wait - are you saying you are an anti-Stratfordian then? Why then, welcome to the cause! :) Smatprt (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the material is notable (and free of notable PoV problems), and the level of detail appears to me to be appropriate, indeed probably necessary. The issues i have raised about detail have to do with how to structure the info. --Jerzy•t 18:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone. I wasn't sure where to put this, but here it is. As I look at the article, there are multiple mentions of Joseph Sobran. Since he is, as far as I can ascertain, a Holocaust denier who has written unpleasant articles about Jewish people, gays, and, I believe, African Americans, I'd be happy to see references to him and his book, Alias Shakespeare, cut from the page. I don't wish us to promote him, and had no idea he was on the Oxford page until alerted by a Stratfordian. I don't think he is any way helpful to us, as his views on other matters make him a definite liability, and I'd like to see us get rid of him here. Thanks. Mizelmouse (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "I don't think he is any way helpful to us, as his views on other matters make him a definite liability"
 * That is phrased in such a way that it looks like a giveaway. One should not admit on wikipedia that one is editing to promote a cause or a group ( "us") viewpoint, as it conflicts with WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Nishidani. When I wrote "us", I was referring to the Wikipedia community, which we're all a part of. I should have been more clear, but I haven't used wiki for a while. Thanks for pointing out the confusion. Mizelmouse (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Interest/popular interest
Niederkorn is already a poor source, but I won't object to that. It's the NYTs, several years ago, before academics started to protest at his singular misrepresentation of the facts. But of several thousand universities, if only one or two has a course, and only a handful of qualified scholars retain an interest in the possible truth of these shopworn theories, it is inappropriate to suggest that academic interest is increasing, unless you have a reputable academic source that states this. Perhaps there is one, from the usual suspects. Use it.Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "While a large majority of scholars reject all alternative candidates for authorship, there is increased popular interest in various authorship theories."


 * That sentence is sourced to Niederkorn who (a) says vast majority (2) he doesn't say, as the context on our page insinuates, that there is 'increased (academic) interest' in various authorship theories. It is well-known that radio, the net, and television excite and sustain a rise in popular interest. That is documented. Academia looks at the question only because a rising number of scholars encounter young people in their classes who believe this stuff, and therefore they address it more frequently to relieve them of their delusion. That doesn't signify there ia increased academic interest in the theories. Only probably, a marginal rise, in academic concerns to maintain standards against the tide of popular opinion.Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've redrafted the lead. Notes can follow. There is absolutely no evidence de Vere was a 'concealed poet' according to his contemporaries. That is a construction placed on some comments, drawn from Baconian theory.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why I reverted you
Your edit summary was incorrect, and you did not deign to address the points raised on the talk page, where I explained what I was doing, nor to justify your blanket revert. What did you, therefore, was POV blanket expunging of a series of edits under the pretext you were removing POV, while simply restoring your own preferred, poorly sourced version, which is full of WP:OR.


 * The use of the Shakespeare fellowship website for Niederkorn’s article, which was published in the NYTs, and for which a direct NYTs link was available, which I provided, is improper. The NYT is RS, the Shakespearefellowship.org is not. By restoring the SF website source, you look like you are using sourcing to draw readers to that site, which is unreliable.
 * The NYTs gives as the publication date 2002. The Shakespearefellowship reposting gives the date as 2001, perhaps they are right, and the original newspaper source is wrong, but until you prove this, you cannot restore a text which appears to have the date wrong.
 * ‘The acclaim of Oxford’s contemporaries’ is puffing. There is flattery in a few stray remarks, but ‘acclaim of Oxford’s contemporaries’ suggests a widespread Elizabethan appreciation of his genius. Which, however, is not sourced. It is WP:OR as is much of the text
 * ‘concealed poet’. There is no contemporary source for the notion that Oxford had a reputation as a concealed poet, a term taken from Baconian sources and misapplied.
 * Nelson says he did not have an ‘extensive education’. Where are his ‘academic achievements’? Where are his ‘cultural achievements’. There is no sourcing for this and until you provide it, it remains an egregious WP:OR violation.
 * You restore the text. For an Oxfordian discussion of this see the wiki references in the entry on Francis Meres.. I checked. There is no such entry.
 * Don't be so coy. Tom had just removed the Meres section and you know it. I restored it and will make it part of the mediation.Smatprt (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You removed a large part of text added to ‘Further objections’, which is point by point impeccably sourced to ranking work on de Vere by leading scholars. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am blanket reverting you because you are a POV warrior. I restored the bibliography. Your notes above I do not agree with and will not even answer. Its not for you to say what is RS,or to accuse me of using references to draw people to a cite - which is a ridiculous (and paranoid) assertion. You call things flattery, but that is OR and your interpretation. We have contemporary statements, period. They can be used, period. Nelson is a muckraker (Tom's term) and is not a neutral biographer in any way - and you know it. Beyond these responses, I am not going to engage with you, as you have basically turned into a vandal in my eyes. I've had it. Period. I think its time to go to ArbCom. What you and Tom are doing either has to be officially sanctioned or stopped. Sorry, but it's gone too far. Smatprt (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger
On the 16 March a consensus was formed to merge this article to Shakespeare authorship question why has this not been done? I will blank the article and turn it into a redirect, anyone wishing to move content can do so from the article history mark nutley (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, that is not what I call a "merger". It you want you merge the articles then by all means do so, but don't just blank one and airily leave it to others to do the real work of merging the content.  Groomtech (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It already had been in a sandbox, see target article mark (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? You've deleted 12,617 words and claim the content has been merged into another article, where a total of 355 words have been written on it (including the link "Main article: Oxfordian theory") backstage by two editors who's sole purpose in life seems to be to ridicule the authorship question. Even if you agree with them that authorship doubt is a fringe job akin to holocaust denial, wp:fringe theories guides us that "sufficiently notable" theories warrant a dedicated article. The number of books, high profile supporters, dissertations, papers, websites, and even a forthcoming (probably silly) movie should make the Oxfordian theory fit that bill.  Afasmit (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate you pointing out anything in the SAQ article that violates WP:NPOV. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No it`s not a joke, this was set to merge over 7 months ago and nothing has been done. If the articles editors will not follow the consensus in mergeing the only option is to redirect. The people in this dispute have had enough time to get this done and also had the chance to work on the article i just moved into the target one, what exactly is your issue here? It is easy enough for people to get what they want from the edit history right mark (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say that this article as it is written is terribly written and organised and its references and POV violate almost every Wikipedia policy. If it is to be merged into the SAQ article, it would have to be rewritten. I think we need to step back and determine a course of action, possibly involving rewriting the stand-alone SAQ candidate articles to bring them up to Wikipedia standards, maybe through competing sandboxes much the same way we did the main SAQ article. In fact, that method might be a good way for Wikipedia to solve some of its most contentious problems regarding controversial articles. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2 This one which i moved to the main SAQ article is really well done. And i believe it also covers aspects of this article whic hwas the point of the excercise. 15:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And this article has still not been merged? Why not? mark (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced article
The article dedicates very little printing space to the italian aspect, probably the only aspect which matters! The author publishing under "W. S." signage knew about and wrote about some extremely obscure inland waterways in Northern Italy, whose boating use and even their very existance faded during modernity.

Only in recent years did scholars realize that "shakespearean" plays are actually correct with regards to renaissance era geography and hydrology. (Venetians did major canal and river alteration jobs even before the industrial age, so the landscape changed much every century).

This proves W. S. of Stratford is not the actual author of the bard's italian-themed plays, since the commoner man has never left Blighty and thus couldn't gain info about any such obscure detail.

On the other hand, only Oxenford has the right "italics" to be a viable authorship candidate. His travels and long stay in the Venetian Republic and neighbouring allies of Venice are very well documented and scandalous enough to argue that R&J is more like a "self-censored" autobiography, rather than fiction. He actually fled Italy after being accused of killing two polish noblemen in Verona, as well as violating choirboys (!) in Venice and openly patronizing professional adult whores.

All in all, the traditional Blighty-orinted way of bardian auhorship study is so stalled, so hopeless, the article better concentrate on the promising areas and that means study of OE's italian connections. Yet, this Wikipeadia article treats that part in a cursory manner! 87.97.98.167 (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, because it amounts to nothing, and his plays are not "actually correct with regards to renaissance era geography and hydrology." Paul B (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Antagonistic viewpoint outdated, yet over-represented in the article!
This article currently emphasizes the antagonistic aspect of authorship question: Startfordian versus Oxfordian, in an almost gladiatoric opposition. However, current research trend is towards co-operatism, sometimes labelled the "Sancho" viewpoint, as Shakes-peare is often paralleled with Cervantes.

Article should emphasize that in case Earle Oxenford wrote the plays and sonnets, he must have greatly appreciated Shaksper of Stratford-upon-Avon as an aide, if he trusted all his literary creations on that commoner!

It is quite plausible they even had co-operation, with Shaksper, no matter how much semi-illiterate, using his acting experience to provide more down-to-earth stage conversations, as well as practical feedback on adopting dramatic and comedic themes onto a large stage, which is patroned by masses of commoneers. I.e. producing a fist-fight in a grave pit minutes apart from Hamlet monologizing is not something an aristocrat would do, but at least it keeps unrefined viewers awake for such a whole long play.

The similarities among the personalities of Shaksper and Oxenford are also investigated in modern alternative research, since Oxford was a very criminal-leaning figure and the recorded stories about Shaksper of Stratford are not innocent either (recurring tax fraud attempts and illegal hunting were both gallow-bound charges in that era). Two such misfits seem to fit together very well! This is what breaks the mold right now, not the crushing of poor Shaksper underfoot! 87.97.101.198 (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)