| Revision as of 22:32, 11 July 2007 editAdambiswanger1 (talk | contribs)8,296 edits →The Life and Times of []← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:01, 23 December 2024 edit undoGråbergs Gråa Sång (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers57,451 edits →Upstart Crow as an "example": ReplyTag: Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=no}} |
|
{{Wikiproject Shakespeare|class=b|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
{{Round in circles}} |
|
{{todo}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history|action1=PR |
|
{{Archive box|auto=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=02:08, 19 February 2010 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1 |
|
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|
|action1oldid=344933400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=PR |
|
|
|action2date=14:07, 5 January 2011 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Shakespeare authorship question/archive2 |
|
|
|action2result=reviewed |
|
|
|action2oldid=406052516 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAC |
|
==Standard for Shakespeare Authorship article== |
|
|
|
|action3date=23:54, 3 April 2011 |
|
If this article is confined to only citing "academic sources" there would be no article. It is, by its very nature, a controversy. Contributors to the controversy are not usually in academic institutions but this does nor mean they are too stupid to assemble a cogent argument. Neither does it mean their standards of investigation are necessarily lower than those in academia. Usually, Misplaced Pages does not attempt to evaluate arguments, it being sufficient that they originated from a scholarly source. That will not work here. These controversial arguments must be evaluated and, of course, they must rely on cited evidence (which is different from citing academic opinion). The best one can hope for is a balance of conflicting views, and space must be allowed to state the arguments of all sides. The danger is that a supporter of one of these controversial viewpoints might attempt to force a particular point of view (bias the article). In this case, I recommend issuing a warning and possibly a ban because this behaviour destroys the efforts of the group to balance the article. One might even consider freezing the article for a week or two to prevent further attack. (] 13:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1 |
|
:If you are creating the counter-argument yourself then it is "OR" and not acceptable. Thems the rules. Who or what exactly are you proposing to "ban"? ] 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3result=promoted |
|
::Agree with Paul's question, please explain. Anyway, this article has to adhere to the ] rule, the same as everything else. This isn't some abstruse piece of wikilawyering: ] is at the absolute core of what Misplaced Pages aspires to be. Much of Barry's argument falls at that hurdle. If this were a topic that we could not evaluate from reliable sources then it would have to be deleted. Fortunately, we can do so: although the article falls sadly short of that ideal in its current state. ] 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3oldid=422220858 |
|
:"If you are creating the counter-argument yourself then it is "OR" and not acceptable." Paul, I don't understand this statement. Andy, can you name a single book in support of the Oxfordian, Baconian or Marlovian theories that has been published by one of the University Presses. These are the publishers with the most rigorous standards and which demand academic peer review. These are the publishers that constitute reliable (academic) sources. (They also happen to all be Stratfordians.) If not, why haven't the sections on these theories in the article been deleted? If not, why do we have this article? Taking the argument further, why do we have articles explaining the tenets of spiritualism, witchcraft, and UFO theorists when none of these ideas has academic status? Rules are fine but they were not delivered to us in stone by Moses, sometimes they need adjusting. (] 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
::No, I cannot name any such books because so far as I am aware there aren't any. Anti-Stratfordianism is not considered credible by academia, and that is because anti-Stratfordianism is not credible. And ] is not negotiable. I will remove mercilessly any and all edits made to this (or any other) page based on the premise that it "needs adjusting". And I won't be alone. ] 12:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Not only do you sound like you believe you ARE Misplaced Pages but you also appear to believe you have a hotline to God about what truth is! (] 16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
:"OR" stands for ], as you should know by now. ] 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Don't be patronising. At least show some basic human respect. (] 16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
:::Don't be absurd. Basic human respect is something of which you seem to know nothing. However the answer was straightforward. ] 14:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
Well...Barry has certainly returned to these pages with quite a flourish! Did anyone call "en garde"? I think Barry does, however, raise an important issue. What are RS and V and who settles the grey areas? To quote a few WP policy pages: |
|
|
|
|maindate=April 23, 2011 |
|
*(from WP:V) "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; '''magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."''' |
|
|
|
|maindate2=April 23, 2017 |
|
*(from WP:V) "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable '''when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications'''. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." |
|
|
|
}} |
|
*(from WP:RS - and one of my favorites. It certainly applies here) - "This page is considered a content guideline on Misplaced Pages. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. '''However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception'''." |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|1= |
|
So what I learn from these policies is that while academic journals from University Presses are the BEST sources, they are not the ONLY sources allowed on WP. Magazines, books from respected publisheing houses and mainstream newspapers are completely fair game. I think it greatly depends on the topic. On the WS page, due to its status and universal importance only the best sources were "allowed" by the editors. And in every case, an academic source was avaivable - even the Authorship Question is heavily covered by academia - it just took a little searching. Heck, even Wells/Kathman cover the issue and candidates pretty darn well, in spite of a few whopping errors by Kathman. Also, the authorship casebook ''Shakespeare and His Rivals'' covers each claimant very well. These sources don't have to support a candidate in order to give a fair reading of each claim, which they do pretty well - especially Shakespeare and His Rivals. Hey Barry - even the Group Theory with Oxford, Bacon, Shaksper & others is covered. Naturally, if academic sources can be found for any particular statement, than that source certianly trumps any other source. But, where no in-depth academic source is avaialble to reference a particular statement, then "books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers" are certainly allowed as RS. And for the most part, personal websites and blogs are simply not appropriate unless they conform to the self-published material rules above. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Shakespeare|importance=Top}} |
|
:I believe this a reasonably understanding of the policies stated above. I would love to hear comments from the regular editors of these pages. ] 00:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=top}} |
|
::To Smatprt. You're wasting your time. There is no prospect of you hanging your own aggressive behaviour on me. When I was here months ago you were trying to skew this article towards Oxford and I see that you've now progressed to skewing the main Shakespeare article too. You've been asked not to by others but you've simply ignored these requests. Clearly, you are the one who is at war with everyone else here. You evidently have no interest in working with others and seem obsessed with fashioning these articles towards promoting Oxford. I have experienced your aggression first hand. I added a perfectly acceptable referenced addition about Bacon to the header in the interests of balance. However, you changed the name incorrectly from "Michell" to "Mitchell" and the date incorrectly from "2000" (which is on my copy) to "1996". Then, presumably because it didn't suit your cause, you removed my reference altogether and rewrote the header to favour your candidate. You appear not to have the slightest concern as to whether or not the reader obtains a balanced view. Sadly, I don't see anyone in authority on these forums who is attempting to restrain your cancerous destruction. People just quote rules at each other without any attempt at enforcing them. I think you should identify yourself instead of hiding behind a pseudonym and your sockpuppet Ben Jonson so that we can all see who you really are. I, personally, would like to see you banned from this forum. (] 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=mid}} |
|
:Just found this on my talk page written by Smatprt from April. "Thought you might like to know that the Strats are quickly building a concensus to cut down the section on authorship on the main William Shakespeare page. These cuts include the summary on Bacon (as well as Oxford and Marlowe). The discussion is at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:William_Shakespeare#Consensus_on_authorship_section While we are on opposite sides (officially) of a three sided question, I have always thought that Bacon and Oxford were more connected than most will even consider.Smatprt 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)". I thought editors were not supposed to covertly elicit support from others. (] 23:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Literature|importance=top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Online source|year=2011 |
|
|
|section=August 2011 |
|
|
|title=Misplaced Pages's Shakespeare 'Problem' |
|
|
|org=] |
|
|
|date=August 2011 |
|
|
|url=http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/wikipedias-shakespeare-problem |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|year2=2011 |
|
::Forgive me for trying to keep you informed. FYI - I have never heard of such a rule and if it exists, then just about every editor of the William Shakespeare page is also guilty. Regarding my edits to your material - I am doing my best ot keep to academic sources (where possible). When they differ from your Bacon Theorists, there is really no question as to which source can be used. Your insistance on inserting material written by non-experts or taken from personal websites show you have no comprehension of WP:RS or WP:V. REgarding your accusation that I am a sock puppet for BenJonson, I suggest you do your research. I am no academian like BenJonson, who obviously has been editing alot longer and is way more knowledgible than I am. Thanks for the compliment, though. (Your insistance that I identify myslef is truly strange. Are you planning on attacking me personally?) Seriously, I have given so many clues as to my identity, I am surprised the PuzzleMaster appears to be stumped! ] 04:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|section2=October 2011 |
|
|
|title2='Anonymous': New Hollywood Film Shows William Shakespeare as Someone Else |
|
|
|org2=] |
|
|
|date2=October 2011 |
|
|
|url2=http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/anonymous-hollywood-film-shows-william-shakespeare/story?id=14725443 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|year3=2010 |
|
==Article Balance== |
|
|
|
|title3=''Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?'' by James Shapiro |
|
Edited article for balance. I think this article should not be a platform for an obsessive to propagate Oxfordian views and I happily offer my services to maintain the balance with inexhaustible patience. (] 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|org3=] |
|
:The whole article's crazy if you ask me. It needs cutting by half at least. (] 00:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|date3=2010 |
|
(==Who is this guy?== |
|
|
|
|url3=http://books.google.com/books?id=W8KtHtT3jNYC&pg=PA216&dq=wikipedia+shakespeare+authorship+question&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f5BcUdPdGLS6yAHayYHoCg&ved=0CEsQ6wEwAw#v=onepage&q=wikipedia%20shakespeare%20authorship%20question&f=false |
|
I made two edits here and this guy changes it all in hours! Is this a fascist regime or do we have democracy? (] 09:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|wikilink3=] |
|
*This is a wiki. Anyone can (and will!) mess around with your edits in any way they think fit. Some of those changes will be good and some will be annoyingly bad. It's neither fascism nor democracy (see ], which discusses the issue). Do you want to discuss your changes here? ] 12:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**Hangemhigh - I explained why I restored your cuts on the subject bars - something you failed to do. Deletion of properly referenced material, without any discussion, it the same as vandalism. Especially deleting entire sections. Why not try rewriting or editing a section instead of simply hitting delete?] 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''An attack on Smatprt's behaviour, not on Smatprt.''' To Hangemhigh. Let me give you some advice. Don't get involved in an edit war. If Smatprt can revert your edits (and those of three other editors) in just four hours the elevator obviously doesn't go to the top floor. The difference between the contributions of most editors here and Smatprt's is that Smatprt feels he controls this article and only his version is permissible. This involves the obligatory insertion of propaganda (see ]) to the effect that Oxford is the most popular candidate. He does this under the pretence of conducting himself in a 'proper' manner, quoting which Wiki guidelines he is following, and the fact that Oxford is mentioned (albeit negatively) in a host of scholarly books. He is oblivious to the amount of bias he is creating but then Smatprt has no difficulty deluding himself. The scale of denial he needs to muster to believe in Oxford is enormous (to you and me but not to him) involving the repudiation of all scholarly dating of plays after 1604 (with any topical allusions thereafter inserted by actors) and the fact that there is not a single piece of hard evidence connecting Oxford with a Shakespeare play (at least Bacon is connected to The Comedy of Errors through the Gesta Grayorum). Rest assured that those who read this article will not be so easily deluded. The general public can recognise an evangelist when they see one. As for you and me, despite the work of many editors, we will have to resign ourselves to the fact that this article will remain poor and leave Smatprt in his own private world of goodies and baddies where Oxford emerges as the hero to save the day. For me, it's sad he uses this article to act out his personal issues, one of which is obviously the demand to be heard, when hiring a therapist could save us and him a whole lot of grief. (] 12:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
:Reverted article to get rid of anti-Stratfordian POV. (] 14:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
::And in doing so, you edited out "Although all alternative candidates are rejected in most academic circles, popular interest in the subject has continued into the 21st century", making the article even more POV. I have restored. To repeat - mass deletion of propely referenced material is highly controversial and should be discussed first at talk.] 15:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Frankly, my dear anti-Stratfordian, I don't give a damn. (] 22:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
:::::Nice. Very professional.] 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, academians react to Oxford negatively - JUST LIKE ALL THE CANDIDATES! But the fact remains that the academic community has labled Oxford as "the leading candidate", "the most popular candidate", "the leading theory", etc., cannot be disputed. And can we be honest - if I was supportive of Bacon, instead of Oxford, Barry would not be making this ruckus.] 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I don't think that the "academic community" has labelled him any such thing. It's a fact that he's currently the most ''popular'', but the phrase 'leading candidate' implies that the academic community has given his supporters some sort of approval. ] 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I would generally agree with that, Paul. "Popular" is the word that is used by academics far more than "leading", although "leading" is used as well.] 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:"Hangemhigh", "Tolerancebelowzero" - where are you guys suddenly appearing from and is the reappearence of Tom Reedy under his own name related? Is there a code somewhere? ] 23:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes - interesting that all 3 were created as "new users" on July 8th & 9th. Sockpuppets?] 00:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Sockpuppet, huh? You sure know how to make enemies here. (] 11:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
::::If not, then I apologize. Seeing 3 new editors appear on the same page on the same day led me to assume something I should not have.] 14:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Ok, so Stephen Moorer. You altered my edit which corrected the reversion to alphabetical order of the candidates. Anyway, my real question is about your comment "the candidate order is not alpha - it details the top candidates based on current knolwdge and research". Which Wiki guideline says that candidates must be in order of popularity and not alpha order? Or is this something you have unilaterally decided? (] 08:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
::::No wiki guideline dictates any order in a case like this. No unilateral decision - much discussion and a consensus built by another editor - Singing Badger, I believe. FYI - the candidates were never alpha - just haphazardly added over the years. BTW - if alpha, why would Marlowe be before DeVere? More to the point - the history of alternative candidate section ended with DeVere acknowledged as the most popular current candidate, then went on to his bio. In terms of flow, this makes for better readability.] 14:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::So '''O'''xford suddenly loses his title and becomes '''D'''eVere (and that rather than SOS's preferred spelling "de '''V'''ere" too) so he can go up the alphabet list. Do you have to be so unrelentingly one sided? ] 14:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Paul, if it's the title, it would be '''E'''arl of Oxford. Is it DeVere or De Vere? Oxford or Earl of Oxford? But this alpha debate is silly. If the consensus wants this alpha, so be it, but that discussion has never appeared on this page, as you know.] 15:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Of course it wouldn't be E for "Earl". That's not how encyclopedias and directories arrange names. Misplaced Pages is unusual in that you'd look for Frank Zappa by typing F first rather than Z, but that's because it's not a book. ] 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|year4=2013 |
|
==Sockpuppetry== |
|
|
|
|title4=''Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy'' Paul Edmundson, Stanley Wells, eds. |
|
Why are unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry so rife on this page? Will people please read ], and then either hold their tongues, or present some actual evidence, if they want to allege that I am Alabamaboy or that Smatprt is BenJonson or that a newbie is TomReedy or that the Earl of Oxford is Shakespeare. ] 07:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|org4=] |
|
:My mission. To rid the world of conspiracy theories. (] 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|date4=2013 |
|
==Reversion to consensus== |
|
|
|
|url4=https://books.google.com/books?id=DdjhN1wO6tYC |
|
The reversion I'm defending was agreed upon over 9 months ago. Smatprt or Stephen Moorer has simply made it POV Earl of Oxford (re. Paul B.'s discussion above, the original alpha candidate order was altered by Moorer without discussion). |
|
|
|
|wikilink4=] |
|
: Actually, there was considerable discussion and consensus brokered by Singing Badger about 6 months ago. Barry participated in those discussions as well as many other editors. Check the archive. ] 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|year5=2019 |
|
He has also been warned by the administrator Alabamaboy about his behaviour on his user page as follows. On 21 June: "Smatprt, please don't start an edit war on the article over that authorship section. A large number of us have worked really hard on the article and doing an edit war at this point would doom the FAC. Please do not make any more edits to that section. Also, Awadewit and qp10qp have said the authorship section won't be a deal breaker, so please don't start that discussion again on the FAC page. Most everyone has signed onto a compromise I brokered to leave the final decision on whether that section should or should not be in the article until after the FAC is finished. I am also e-mailing you something, so please check your in-box." and on 23 June "Again, please don't simply revert edits back and forth on the article. First discuss any controversial changes on the article's talk page." Moorer who is trying to boss everyone else about what goes in this article must not succeed. (] 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|title5=Shakespeare Wrote Insightfully About Women. That Doesn’t Mean He Was One. by James Shapiro |
|
:Unfortunately, you are refering to a discussion from another page so you are mixing apples and oranges. Alabamaboy brokered a compromise on the William Shakespeare page - not this one. FYI - Alabamaboy has since left that page because of what he percieved as higher standards being set for that page than others during the FA process. I defended the article against editors who wanted to remove the section IN WHOLE - what alabamaboy described as an attempt to "whitewash" the authorship issue. I supported his consensus and his request that I not edit war (made because several editors continued to dicker with the paragraph in question) was honored.] 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|org5=] |
|
|
|date5=2019 |
|
|
|url5=https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/06/shakespeare-was-not-woman/590794/ |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 32 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Graph:PageViews}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Theories"? == |
|
:Following a suggestion by ] (Archive 4, 27 April) I've moved the Raleigh argument to the Baconian Theory article. ] also argues that the 1604 section belongs in the Oxfordian Theory article and I agree. It's primarily a defence of Oxford and only indirectly an anti-Stratfordian argument (just as Raleigh's execution is primarily an argument for Bacon). I think in structuring the article we should consider the ''reader'' and put aside our own personal wishes. I don't care which candidate appears first in the article. Let ] have Oxford first if it means a lot to him. However, I think that however much we believe our own candidate did it, the ''balance'' of the article should be paramount. I hope ] can manage to stop being so defensive about Oxford. There's a whole article on him for Christ's sake! I can't believe that you want to monopolise the main article as well! Sadly, in the anarchic Misplaced Pages where the rules have no executive force behind them, unless people have self-awareness and can compromise then it just comes down to a battle of wills. I'd like to see everyone win here but as I said, it demands a minimum level of self-awareness as to the fairness of what one is asking for. (] 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
::In general, I agree with your statement. I do not agree about the 1604 issue for the following reason - it is one of the strongest anti-stratfordian arguments in the article. What, after all, could be a stronger issue? If Shakespeare was dead by 1604, then the Stratford lad is out. I am sorry that the issue is problematic for the Bacon candidacy (at least a sole-Bacon candidacy), but anti-baconism is not the intent - anti-stratfordianism is. With the 1609 "ever-living poet" reference, as well as the unexplained stoppage of regular Shakespeare publication in 1604, plus the questions raised by the Heminge/Ostler case, where a witness testified that Shakespeare was deceased - they all add up to a legitimate question. It is most damaging to the Stratfordian theory. That is why I believe it should stay. The fact that it was deleted without any discussion (like the hypen issue) is a greater cause of concern.] 05:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A theory is a hypothesis that is supported by evidence. Are these hypotheses supported by enough evidence to be called theories? ] (]) 05:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
I restored the material in question and am happy to discuss potential major edits. I find it disturbing that during these recent edits, numerous edits were made without even an explanation in the comment bar, or a cryptic "Is this needed" or somesuch. Instead of good editing or attempts at re-writes, entire sections were simply cut. Moreover, the cuts were properly referenced material, citations for which were requested by previous editors and provided. There were also some curious edits - substituting a line about Oxford with one about Marlowe for instance; eliminating a line in the geography section that shows that Shakespeare was merely follwing his source when he makes the Bohemia coastline reference; and surprisingly, eliiminating the purely Stratfordian statement that most acadmics dismiss all the theories! The common thread in each of these cuts is that the sentences in question dare to mention the name "Oxford". It seems that even a properly cited reference to Oxford's name must be cut at all costs, even if that means cutting valuable information. Is this really what you guys want? If that is the case, then I imagine that we will have a hard time reaching consensus.] 05:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Grassynoel's hypotheses (that "a theory is a hypothesis", and that such a theory/hypothesis is "supported by evidence") assume a particular definition of "theory" — one that requires evidence. There are other definitions that may be a better fit for this article. For example, according to the Misplaced Pages article ] "A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon." And according to the article ] "A theory is a rational type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking." Also, since Grassynoel's hypothesis ("A theory is a hypothesis that is supported by evidence.") doesn’t mention "enough evidence", it can't be tested against Grassynoel's question: "is there enough?" If Grassynoels’s hypothesis were "A theory is a hypothesis that is supported by ''enough'' evidence" — then "enough" would need to be defined. ] (]) 15:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
Barry - this is what you wrote on Dec 18, 2006: "Having left this article for some time and only recently read it again I think it now has a fair representation of all views. I read objections to arguments for which further evidence exists to develop the original thesis (e.g. Rayleigh's execution in Macbeth, the play also appears to refer to Rayleigh's trial) but in respect of the length of the article, I am loath to include it. So, well done to those who have worked on this page. (Puzzle Master 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
::A hypothesis must also be supported by evidence Although its proposition may not, or cannot provide definitive proof, the possibility of the existence of such a proof ought not to be capable of being rendered impossible with counter-evidence. Such counter evidence should be tangible or demonstrable in a non-hypothetical manner, not by thought experiments. It may not be a collection of suppositions, inferences and guesswork. None of the Shakespeare authorship candidates have any tangible evidence supporting them and without such evidence cannot escape being branded "fringe". ] (]) 13:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
And here is the article on that date: . Hyphen para, 1604, etc., - all in. You called it a "fair representation of all views". The only difference now is that the lead para has been slashed down to one of the smallest and most underdeveloped lead paragraphs I've ever seen. Aside from that, and given your earlier statement, I truly fail to understand why you raised all these issues in the first place. What happened?] 05:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Not only is the Shakespeare truther cult not supported by enough evidence to call their nonsense a legitimate theory, it is, in fact, not supported by ANY evidence whatsoever. Neither material nor circumstantial. It's an argument founded solely on baseless speculation and ahistorical presumption. ] (]) 17:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Wait. How are you going to show that the writer was dead by 1604? The words "ever-living" in the Sonnets can be taken both ways. Surely, it's more likely to mean alive than dead. In fact, it actually says "living"! Also, I don’t follow the logic that if the author stopped writing in 1604 then this would eliminate Shakspere from being the author. You claim "there would be no reason for him to give up a lucrative career at the height of his (alleged) fame". Why not? Nobody knows why Shakspere might retire. The Workes of Ben Jonson (1616) inform us that he stopped appearing in Jonson's plays after Sejanus in 1603 so he evidently had a reason for that. There is also “in 1604, Shake-speare fell silent.” He did? There are at least 10 plays dated by scholars to be after 1604. No doubt you reject all this as biased research. This brings me to the problem I have with you. It’s the extreme lengths you’re willing to go to in order to establish your thesis. It’s a complete loss of perspective. It’s selectively speculative, illogical, and contains no evidence (apart from references which share your outlook). Here's some evidence. In The Tempest we have Stephano and Trinculo. In 1609, there was a court rumour that the King's first cousin Arabella Stuart was intending to marry Stephano Janiculo, a man of dubious character who was masquerading as the Prince of Moldavia (see Riggs, David, Ben Jonson, A Life, Harvard University Press: 1989, p.156). Ben Jonson used this topical allusion in Act 5, Scene 3 of Epicoene (1610): "... the Prince of Moldavia, and his mistris, mistris Epicoene". So it was a big talking point. Of course, the two characters Stephano and Trinculo (which appear to be drawn from Stephano Janiculo's name) also have dubious intent in The Tempest in plotting to kill Prospero. So there is evidence that the author Shakespeare was inserting topical allusions and was still alive in 1609. This also supports the idea that it was the topical Strachey letter that sourced The Tempest. So I still don’t care for this 1604/1609 section and still maintain that it’s an Oxfordian argument. If it was kept in, Oxford would receive a much higher profile than any other alternative candidate. What I’d really appreciate though is for you to sit down quietly, have a long hard think about what you’re doing, then recognise as most editors do here (and they're not out to get you) that what you’re really trying to do in this article is sell the Oxfordian cause. I don't think it's malicious. In fact, I don't think you have any control over it. To me, your lack of self-awareness is a symptom of a low level of mental health (hence my suggestion of therapy which I sincerely hope you take up). (] 10:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
:::You might be wasting your time trying to discuss this rationally with Stephen Moorer. Most other people here myself included have already come to that conclusion. (] 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Reconsideration of Recent Edits == |
|
Barry - you must have missed this - this is what you wrote on Dec 18, 2006: "Having left this article for some time and only recently read it again I think it now has a fair representation of all views. I read objections to arguments for which further evidence exists to develop the original thesis (e.g. Rayleigh's execution in Macbeth, the play also appears to refer to Rayleigh's trial) but in respect of the length of the article, I am loath to include it. '''So, well done to those who have worked on this page'''. So what happened to you? And why the personal attack?] 14:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have restored another recent edit by ], after discussion on our talk pages. Moving further discussion here, in case others have comments on these, whether in agreement or disagreement. I will likely make one or more changes later. --] (]) 02:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
Oh - and the Stephano Janiculo connection is interpretation, not evidence. And the Strachey myth has been thoroughly discounted by modern researchers (at least you called it "the idea" and not "proof". In any case, are you saying that your interpretations are the only ones that count? Lack of true evidence be damned?] 14:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Your reverts of the recent changes were correct. For example, changing "interpretations of literature are unreliable" to "interpretation of literature are unreliable" (omitting "s" but keeping "are") is wrong. Further, it is not ''one'' interpretation but multiple, so the plural is correct. Likewise, inserting "a" to make "but a highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters" is wrong when the whole sentence is read. It is not easy to find grammatical errors in a featured article. ] (]) 02:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I know that you are trying to smear my name by leaving comments against me on the talk pages of administrators. Thanks for the extra incentive to oppose your ridiculous ownership of this article. May I cordially invite you to examine my own list of contributions which I haven't quite finished. In case you're wondering, they're all administrators. (] 16:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
::Thanks for your perspective, Johnuniq. There are a few cases where I think ]'s changes do hold up. Otherwise, yes, this is a very seasoned and well-overseen piece of writing, and, after all these years of scrutiny by thousands of pairs of eyes, it would be odd that so much of a grammatical nature should still need changing. --] (]) 12:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::"Guys, That one re-organization edit and the hyphenation edit have been reverted and re-reverted way over ]. Please discuss it here and reach a consensus first before changing. I would also suggest breaking down huge edits into a series of smaller ones. ] 21:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ''Upstart Crow'' as an "example" == |
|
==The Life and Times of ]== |
|
|
|
|
|
Our Wiki editor ] is indeed an educated man. As he cheerfully informs us “I hold a master's degree in Anthropology and a PhD in Comparative Literature” (19 Feb 2005, The Fake Signature, Archive 1). One had better take note of his contributions then! There is no doubt he is a commited Oxfordian too. In one debate he tells his correspondent “you may wish to consult the information here: http://www.shakespearefellowship.org" (15 April 2007, More on article balance, Archive 3), a site which on closer inspection reveals that “If you're looking for news about Shakespeare, the Shakespeare authorship question or Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, this is your gateway to internet resources”. Nothing wrong with having a point of view. He is also acquainted with that devoted Oxfordian ] in this forum. Indeed, on 27 April 2007 we have two enthusiastic Oxfordians sharing the same analysis on the use of the word “scholarly”. First there is Ben’s contribution: “Some of the debate is scholarly and some is not. Indeed, the very definition of scholarly is brought into question by the controversy, for there is nothing scholarly at all about the reflexive manner in which some orthodoxists respond to it” (time 16:04, 27 April 2007, Copy edit to lead reverted, Archive 2). One hour later, ] appears: “have deleted the word ‘scholarly’ from lead, based on above discussion. Certainly the word "scholarly" has become such a buzz word on this page and in recent talk that it itself has become controversial." (time 17:06, 27 April 2007, Copy edit to lead reverted, Archive 2). What could be more appropriate at Misplaced Pages than two editors working together? ] tells us that they even achieved a counter-consensus together “In re-reading this talk page I find that Ben Jonson, Allowed Fool and myself all oppose your ‘consensus’” (13 October 2006, Consensus falls apart, Archive 1). As for ] he is happy to reveal when he became an Oxfordian which was “in 1989 through the excellent Frontline Documentary, The Shakespeare Mystery, which despite strong behind the scenes attempt at censorship by Stratfordian academics, was seen by several million viewers” (13 October 2006, Sonnets graphic, Archive 1). For those who missed this broadcast, it explores whether or not Edward de Vere was also the author Shakespeare. As for ], it was revealed earlier in this forum that his real name is Stephen Moorer who set up the Pacific Repertory Theatre in California . ] does not dispute this, even replying to posts that address him as Stephen Moorer. The more perceptive will realise that the first two letters ‘sm’ of ] are Stephen Moorer’s initials, the ‘at’ gives us his location and ‘prt’ represent the Pacific Repertory Theatre. The revelation could be regarded as regrettably intrusive were it not for an article that appeared in Metroactive, an on-line newspaper serving the Silicon Valley. In it, beneath a portrait of Edward de Vere, we also learn when and where ] or Stephen Moorer first became interested in the Oxfordian theory: “In 1989, I saw a documentary on the Earl of Oxford. I was immediately fascinated and intrigued. It hit a lot of personal buttons with me.” Would this have been the same documentary that also converted ] in 1989? Of course, I only convey this good natured similitude for the benefit of those who enjoy a good conspiracy theory! (] 21:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
That seems a little misleading to me, as what UC does is to satirise Mark Rylance as a 'just asking questions' Shaks-spar skeptic. But our text isn't entirely clear what it's being cited as an example ''of''. Nor have I seen the original source. ] (]) 16:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Intriguing, but few of us at Misplaced Pages are without biases and I don't discredit them for being Oxfordian- it just means they are interested in, passionate, and informed about this subject. If they simply wish to help the encyclopedia by fine-tuning the Oxfordian viewpoint, then that is fine. But, as I'm sure you would agree, bias only becomes a problem when contributors fail to have a respect for neutrality. For example, even as a devout skeptic I still manage to have a neutral debate with ] enthusiasts at that article. A bias or a vested interest in something does not relegate an editor to diminished credibility. So, why discredit their contributions when their goal may well be the same as yours, to help the encyclopedia? ] 22:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Late answer, but it was a recurring plot-point, see for example . ] (]) 23:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Redirection? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Should Anti-Stratfordians redirect here? It doesn’t say that it does. ] (]) 18:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It looks like it currently does redirect here. ] (]) 20:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Should our text mention that a syndicate was behind the alleged authorship of the Nancy Drew stories by Carolyn Deane? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Raising a question from a person banned from editing Misplaced Pages text. ] (]) 22:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Not the text in ''this'' article. ] (]) 23:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
A theory is a hypothesis that is supported by evidence. Are these hypotheses supported by enough evidence to be called theories? Grassynoel (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
That seems a little misleading to me, as what UC does is to satirise Mark Rylance as a 'just asking questions' Shaks-spar skeptic. But our text isn't entirely clear what it's being cited as an example of. Nor have I seen the original source. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
