User talk:Shake-speare-de-Vere

Welcome!
  Hello, Shake-speare-de-Vere!  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Getting Started

Tutorial Learn everything you need to know to get started. Introduction to contributing • Editing

• Referencing

• Images

• Tables

• Policies and guidelines

• Talk pages

• Navigating

• Manual of Style

The Teahouse Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips 
 * Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
 * It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
 * If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
 * Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
 * When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
 * If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
 * Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller  talk 06:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you recently removed content from Pseudohistory without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 06:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * What do you mean that I did not adequately explain why? The removed material is an insult to Oxfordians who actually have facts to back up there case, whereas Stratfordian use logical fallacies and speculation to protect their academic reputations and ego. The entire canon is filled with biographical references to de Vere's life. Shaksper (the Stratford man) couldn't even write his name the same way twice. There is not evidence that he even went to school. Only those who subscribe to the most superficial reading of the canon could possibly believe someone with less than the best education possible at the time could have written any of this. 165.140.184.94 (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don’t edit logged out. We depend on reliably published sources, see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, not the opinions or knowledge of editors. If you do post to the talk page please don’t repost your comment, article talk pages aren’t forums, you need to depend on our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller  talk 18:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, Doug. I was logged in when I made the edit. Since the original post was nothing more than an opinion backed by two books, here are my two books that prove de Vere wrote the canon: the mysterious William Shakespeare--The Myth & the Reality, Charlton Ogburn, Dodd, Mead & Company; New York, 1984, and "Shakespeare" by Another Name, Mark Anderson, Gotham Books, New York, 2005. Among other things, I am a theatre reviewer and have reviewed 125 Shakespearean productions. Every play and poem can be explicated to include biographical material from de Vere's life. This cannot be done with any one else. Further, de Vere's contemporaries knew he wrote the canon, but could not reveal this based on the protocol of nobility not publishing personal writings for their subjects, per Baldisare Castiglione's "The Courtier." It should also be noted that the first usages of "Shake-speare" were hyphenated, as pen names were in those days. Finally, here are some quotes from de Vere's contemporaries:
 * • In 1578, Gabriel Harvey (Holofernes in LLL), a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, praises the Earl of Oxford (in Latin) with the words “Thine eyes flash fire, thy countenance shakes a spear.”
 * • In 1589, George Puttenham writes (The Art of English Poesie), “… I know many notable gentlemen in the Court that have written commendably, and suppressed it again, or else suffered it to be published without their own names to it: as if it were a discredit for a gentleman, to seem learned.”
 * • Puttenham continues, “Noblemen and Gentlemen of Her Majesty’s own servants, who have written excellently well as it would appear if their doings could be found out and made public with the rest, of which number is first that noble gentleman Edward Earl of Oxford.”
 * • Further, this book specifically addresses poets with pen names and puts de Vere at the top of the list
 * • Thomas Nashe (1592) says “Pierce Penniless” (the bankrupt “speare”) is the author of Venus and Adonis. (Nashe is Moth in LLL).
 * • 1592, Thomas Nashe’s acquaintance, “Will Monox” (Will, mon [my] ox): “… has thou never heard of him and his great dagger?” The Lord Great Chamberlain of England (de Vere) bears the sword of state.” First association of de Vere with Will.
 * • In 1593 (age 43), de Vere ceased publishing under his own name, the same year that the name William Shake-speare first appears (Venus and Adonis) (Satchell, pp. 71-72.). Thereafter, the hyphen begins to appear in publications of the plays (1598) and poems. Before 1598, all plays published anonymously.
 * • Jacobian dramatist/poet George Chapman suggests in a 1595 poem (“A Coronet for His Mistress’s Philosophy”) that another man wears the feathers of the playwright.
 * • 1598, Francis Meres writes in Palladis Tamia, “the best for Comedy among us be Edward Earl of Oxford.” 165.140.184.94 (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I’m really not interested in the subject. Doug Weller  talk 21:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And you are still logged out, look at your sig. Doug Weller  talk 21:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * • 1592, Thomas Nashe’s acquaintance, “Will Monox” (Will, mon [my] ox): “… has thou never heard of him and his great dagger?” The Lord Great Chamberlain of England (de Vere) bears the sword of state.” First association of de Vere with Will.
 * • In 1593 (age 43), de Vere ceased publishing under his own name, the same year that the name William Shake-speare first appears (Venus and Adonis) (Satchell, pp. 71-72.). Thereafter, the hyphen begins to appear in publications of the plays (1598) and poems. Before 1598, all plays published anonymously.
 * • Jacobian dramatist/poet George Chapman suggests in a 1595 poem (“A Coronet for His Mistress’s Philosophy”) that another man wears the feathers of the playwright.
 * • 1598, Francis Meres writes in Palladis Tamia, “the best for Comedy among us be Edward Earl of Oxford.” 165.140.184.94 (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I’m really not interested in the subject. Doug Weller  talk 21:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And you are still logged out, look at your sig. Doug Weller  talk 21:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * • 1598, Francis Meres writes in Palladis Tamia, “the best for Comedy among us be Edward Earl of Oxford.” 165.140.184.94 (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I’m really not interested in the subject. Doug Weller  talk 21:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And you are still logged out, look at your sig. Doug Weller  talk 21:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Doug Weller talk 18:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * As I said, I was logged in when I made the edit. That aside, if you're not interested in the subject, then what are you doing deciding which edits are valid? Positing that a borderline illiterate and unscrupulous grain dealer and usurer from Stratford wrote the works of works of Shake-speare, with no proof is Pseudohistory. This page seems like a catch-all for the practice of logical fallacies, sophistry, and censorship. Shake-speare-de-Vere (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant don't edit this page logged out. I'm interested in pseudohistory. And I didn't restore the material you removed, User:Discospinster did. Don't blame me, I just warned you.  Doug Weller  talk 07:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Doug. My apologies. It appeared that you were telling me why the original was restored. As I said, the Stratfordian position is Pseudohistory. The original plays were performed at court long before the public stage and were originally published anonymously. The first use of the pen name was on the first edition of the Sonnets, where it is hyphenated, as it was for a short time. Some time later, David Garrick began the Stratford myth in order to make money performing the plays. In any case, I will try again. Shake-speare-de-Vere (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

One more point
As the text you are disputing is a summary of the main article at Shakespeare authorship question, you need to start by getting that change as the summary has to match the main article. I suggest you start with the talk page. Doug Weller talk 07:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And this edit was entirely inappropriate, more of an essay. See WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. A fairly typical error made by new users. Doug Weller  talk 07:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm done with this. What a great example of how pseudohistory is promulgated by absurd rules. Shake-speare-de-Vere (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)