User talk:GordonSleuth

Prince Tudor References
I see you are adding references to the Prince Tudor Theory article. Thanks for the work! One thing - can you use the proper Wikipedia referencing format? There is an example at the end of the article to follow if you do not know how. It's pretty easy. Basically, you need to add your references within the prose of the article itself, citing the most controversial claims to the books where they are drawn. If you need help, see WP:REF Thanks! Smatprt (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Could you please see the proper referencing formats here WP:REF? I keep having to correct your work.  I think I have fixed all the refs in the Prince Tudor article. Now I will go into the Shakespeare Authorship article and do the same. Also, please be aware that the general Authorship article is not an Oxfordian article. Being an Oxfordian as well, I understand where you are coming from, but in order to survive legitimate scrutiny here on Wikipedia, we have to strive to keep things neutral.  Also remember that we are in the minority and represent a minority viewpoint. Any attempt to skew that viewpoint will only result in deletions of material by mainstream editors who (sadly, I admit) do represent the majority. Thanks.Smatprt (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Smatprt. I'm new at this, although I have written many articles and papers with footnotes and references, usually in MLA style.  The style for Wikipedia also involves computer programing language, with which I have had very little experience, but I'll follow your models and try to improve. Please bear with me as I learn. I also appreciate the tip about bias, because one of the things I was trying to do in the "authorship" article was to keep it neutral. As it is, the overwhelming number of references are from Stratfordians, and the slanting of the language and sometimes the sentence structure are prejudicial toward the Stratfordian viewpoint.  I can understand that bias in an article about "Shakespeare" (which would have to follow pretty traditional conventions).  But the "authorship" entry should permit a level playing field, not treating assumptions as facts  (for example, the passage saying "doubters find it hard to believe that a 16th century commoner ...etc., etc.," feeds into the false perception that the doubters are snobs.)  It isn't fair to characterize the doubters as being blind to the genius of Shakespeare or lacking in the imagination it takes to appreciate him.  So let us doubters explain our own beliefs and thinking processes. BTW, I understand fully that the "authorship" page is not limited to the Oxfordian viewpoint, but it should at least be acknowledged.  On the other hand, the "Prince Tudor" entry is a sub-theory of Oxfordianism. Best regards,GordonSleuth (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Gordon.Sleuth


 * Thanks for the reply. When I started editing, I had plenty to learn here as well.  Fortunately, the coding is pretty easy and you can learn a lot simply by copying similar tasks and then filling in the appropriate information (like you recently did with the referencing formats). Over the years, amidst battling with the mainstream editors here, I learned and had to accept that the mainstream view is the majority view and it must be acknowledged as such. The Authorship debate, and all the various side articles, is considered a fringe theory (see: WP:fringe ). As such, "equal weight" or a "level playing field" is not given to fringe theories (much as you and I would like it to!). So when you say there is a bias toward Stratford, that is actually the way it (unfortunately) needs to be. Think of it this way - if equal weight were given to Holocaust deniers, all hell would break lose!  I know that is an extreme and unfair comparison, but you get the idea.


 * To respond to your point about Oxfordian representation, the Authorship article has a full section on Oxford that acknowledges him as the most prevalent/popular/well supported candidate. So rest assured that he is indeed acknowledged and given top billing where appropriate. In addition, the 1704 section (which I had to fight to get inserted), links to the Oxfordian article as well. Beyond that, specific information on Oxford and the Oxfordian theory, really needs to be inserted in that specific Oxfordian theory article, as opposed to the general Authorship article. I hope all this makes sense and you have a chance to peruse the other authorship articles, as well as some of the Wiki policy articles I have mentioned. Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also - you might be being a little over-sensitive. I find no perception that doubters are blind to the genius of Shakespeare or lacking in appreciation. Likewise, I too am sensitive about the "snob" accusations, but the fact remains that doubters to question how a commoner with very little (if any) education, had the ability to write the plays. We know it's not snobbery and that is the important thing. And that accusation has not made its way into the article, so I don't see any big deal. Smatprt (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)