Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:35, 5 November 2011

Recreated article

An earlier version of this article was deleted due to NPOV issues. Noting this comment from the closer, "There is a substantial agreement that the topic is notable, and there is no prejudice to the creation of an appropriately neutral article", I have recreated the article and have attempted to address the NPOV issues.

Specifically, I have added the following mainstream disclaimers that were missing from the original article:

• First graph of lead: "while the great majority of mainstream scholars reject all alternative candidates for authorship, popular interest in various authorship theories continues."
• Third graph of lead: "Most mainstream Shakespeare academics pay little or no attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories, noting that both the Folio and the Stratford monument bear witness to a correlation between the theatrical author and the provincial Shakespeare; that scarcity of biographical data was normal for his milieu; and that deducing a writer's identity from his works may constitute a biographical fallacy. Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view."
• Second section of "overview": "Mainstream view" (Main article: William Shakespeare) "Some mainstream scholars, including Jonathan Bate, assert that the idea that Shakespeare revealed himself in his work is a romantic notion of the 18th and 19th centuries and anachronistic to Elizabethan and Jacobean writers. When William Wordsworth wrote that ‘Shakespeare unlocked his heart’ in the sonnets, Robert Browning replied, ‘If so, the less Shakespeare he!’

• Second section of "overview" (graph 2):"Although little biographical information exists about Shakespeare compared to later authors, mainstream scholars assert that more is known about him than about most other playwrights and actors of the period. This lack of information is unsurprising, they say, given that in Elizabethan/Jacobean England the lives of commoners were not as well documented as those of the gentry and nobility, and that many—indeed the overwhelming majority—of Renaissance documents that existed have not survived until the present day. Supporters of the mainstream view dispute all contentions in favour of Oxford. Aside from their main argument against the theory — the issue of Oxford's early death — they assert the connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural. Terence Schoone-Jongen, writing in Shakespeare's companies: William Shakespeare's Early Career and the Acting Companies, 1577-1594, asserts that biographical interpretations of literature are invalid for attributing authorship."

I hope this addresses the NPOV issues that were raised and welcome any additional improvements. Smatprt (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

'Most mainstream Shakespeare academics'

'Most mainstream Shakespeare academics' seem to believe the greatest writer in the English language would:

• not leave a single document--play, poem, letter--in his own hand;
• not educate his daughters to the point where they could read and write;
• have difficulty signing his own name;
• not reflect the facts of his own life in any poem or play;
• mention no literary works in his will.

If so, why should we listen to them? Artaxerxes (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Oxfordian parallels article

I have copied this discussion from my talk page. Smatprt (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you have arbitrarily restored the redirected page, Oxfordian Theory – Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays. You must have not been lurking whendiscussion took place. The consensus of the discussion was to delete the page, but it was redirected in order to mine any useable material. Even with your opinion to keep it, the consensus would be unchanged, so I am reverting your restoration. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing arbitrary about restoring the page. The formerly deleted article, was commented on by the closer: "There is a substantial agreement that the topic is notable, and there is no prejudice to the creation of an appropriately neutral article". I enquired from the closer about the process. As you know I added language to make it more neutral. I posted the changes on the talk page, as directed by the closer, and asked for comment. With those changes in place, and the request for comments and further improvements listed on the talk page, I have followed all the rules in in relisting the improved article. There was no deletion process followed and, contrary to your assertion, there is no consensus. 4-2, or now 4-3, does not a consensus make. Regardless, the afd process was not followed, and there was no discussion on the actual articles talk page. Please note: you can't have a deletion discussion on an article talk page and then decide your own consensus.Smatprt (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Oxfordian Theory – Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays

Said article is a big old POV fork being used to promote the Oxfordian theory. It definitely shouldn't be its own article, but is there anything that's salvageable for this article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅contribs) 03:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree - it should be merged. Paul B (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be merged. It wascreated to reinsert a page that had been deleted because of Inherent violation of WP:NPOV: extreme undue weight given to a fringe theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge. It's been so lazily edited that even an obvious link to a major figure was neglected. Poorly written, badly organized, repetitive, and atrociously sourced. I've done a bit of rewriting to flense the blubber, but the whale is still stranded on a forlorn shore, humongous and rather on the nose.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, it was deleted before? How was it not G4'd? Anyway, given what seems to be agreement that there should be no article, the question is what, if anything, should be merged. –Roscelese (talk ⋅contribs) 17:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be merged nor deleted. To address some of the points raised above, in some detail, with a view to gaining more knowledge of the questions at hand: 1. I don't see how the article is inherently POV in favor of the Oxfordian theory - indeed, it seems to quite strongly reject it. 2. Like most people, I don't really know anything about this question, although I have heard about it since I was a child. If I want to form my own well-educated judgment about it, I will need to have access to a lot of information. This remains true even if the theory is an extreme fringe theory - in order for me to be able to defend my mind against the theory, I need to be able to understand it - and understanding it, if it is false, will not lead me to believe that it is true. 3. As far as I can see, the article has a lot of information and lots of footnotes. It doesn't seem to be "atrociously sourced" but if it is, then the correct answer to that is to improve the sourcing, not to simply delete it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is not really a list of parallels; it is a list of imaginative cherry-picked details that Oxfordians use to support the idea that the plays are chunks of thinly-disguised biography written by Oxford because there is no evidence whatsoever that Oxford wrote Shakespeare. Most of the "parallels" require exaggerated or flat-out wrong perspectives of Oxford's biography (a classic exercise in confirmation bias), and similar such lists have been shown to be just as valid for other alternative candidates of the nobility, including King James and the 6th Earl of Derby; the only real difference is that Oxford is the most popular candidate at the moment.

The "lot of information" consists of Oxfordian talking points, and it's a bit like having a separate article detailing all the arguments ofMoon landing conspiracy theories that gives only one side, in addition to the main article. While there is an article about theExamination of Apollo Moon photographs, each individual point is convincingly and scientifically rebutted, far from the token "While mainstream scholars assert that is invalid ..." type of NPOV "disclaimer" to try to slide under the WP:UNDUEbar that peppers the "parallels" page.

In short, the article is meant to be a promotional source page for potential Oxfordian recruits. In order to inject some semblance of balance to the article, a list should be included of all the characters and events that don't match Oxford's life as reconstructed in the Oxfordian imagination, as well as a list of the many points of congruity with William Shakespeare's life that appear in the works. While I suppose that is possible, had we but world enough and time, it hardly seems to me the proper use of an encyclopedia to furnish a sanctioned battleground for fringe theorists.

The article's sources cannot be improved, because the sources claiming the "parallels" are all questionableaccording to Misplaced Pages standards, nor are the independent or reliable. I've often thought that WP needs to make some provisions so that fringe sources could be used in articles about fringe theories, but that has not yet happened. The fact that they have been and are still used in most anti-Stratfordian articles testifies to the lack of labor and time of WP editors, not to the reliability of the sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a very good summary of the problem. I would also like to reiterate that if it has previously been deleted per a deletion discussion, as is the case, and is currently in a similar form to that deleted, which seems likely, anyone would be at liberty to G4 speedy-delete it, so the question is "delete or merge," not "keep or merge." –Roscelese (talk ⋅contribs) 23:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of useful play-by-play material in the Parallels article - it would be very long if it was merged in here as-is. I do think some of the Parallels article material is rather repetitive and not always accurate or well-sourced though. I could point to a number of errors in it from a quick reading - it needs some work! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Request that we waste another year running down hares sprung from the prodigiously philoprogenitive Oxfordian breeding kennels, Mr Wales?

The Oxfordians are masters in wrapping up everyone's time in an ever-expanding universe of furphies, shabby, quixotic, pseudo-scholastic 'ideas' which feed off the very scholarship that systematically dismantles their every 'talking point'. Since they regard scholarship as a systematic establishmentarian game of covering up 'the truth', nothing one says serves any other purpose than to ratchet up further controversy, since they misinterpret any rebuttal, and generate further mother-lodes of nonsense on the basis of their inability to read, or refusal to understand normal cognitive methods of evidence evaluation. I'll deal with just one issue. You state:-

'If I want to form my own well-educated judgment about it, I will need to have access to a lot of information.'

If you want information, you won't get it from this article.

The Shakespeare Authorship Question took a whole year of intense editing in order to make a neat distinction for the reader between (a) what disinformed people, true-believers and unlettered fundamentalists say or assert or fantasize and (b) what the best Elizabethan-period scholarship says, with regard to the fringe theory.

At least for myself, as one of several editors of the FA article, the operative idea in cleaning up the other mess, was to make a distinction between 'noise' and 'information' in a communicative system. The noise came from poor sources, the information came from the best RS on Elizabethan and, specifically, Shakespearean scholarship. Operationally it was difficult to edit because, as in the game theory of von Neumann:

one team (was) deliberately trying to get ther message across, and another team .. (was) resort(ing) to any strategy to jam the message.' Norbert Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings, (1950) 1968 p.168.

What you call the 'information' amassed on this page is 'noise': the jerryrigged compilation of 'takes' that add up to the subliminal message 'you, reader, have been had by the academic establishment,' and here at least you can 'decide for yourself' on where 'the truth lies.' In making this elementary confusion between information and disinformation (the insider's dope) you fail to catch what is going on here.

Take 'concealed writer'. We have a whole section on it. But this is not an 'Oxfordian' position, and whoever edited that covered up the theft. It was, like 95% of the pabulum, hijacked from the earlier Baconian theory a century ago, and relies on a single line in one letter, dated 1603, a year before Oxford's death, of Francis Bacon in which he requests of Sir John Davies, who was to meet the king, to put in a good word on his behalf to his majesty: 'desiring you to be good to concealed poets, I continue, yours very assured, Fr. Bacon.'.

No Baconian scholar of standing has ever taken this to mean that (a) Bacon was a poet of great standing as opposed to an occasional versifer, like everyone of his day (b) or that 'concealed' here means 'suppressed'. (c) There is no evidence that De Vere, by extension, was also a 'concealed poet'. The phrase is borrowed from Baconian theory, via Charles Wisner Barrell several decades ago, a Shakespearean amateur who notoriously got everything he touched wrong and is suspected of faking evidence, and artfully confused with the common practice of 'pseudonymous/anonymous' publication, which is another kettle of fish altogether. The blob of information, given in the original, and then, in paraphrase from George Puttenham's own 'anonymous' 1589 treatise about nobles writing only for court entertainment. In Oxfordian lore, Puttenham's passage is conflated with an earlier remark he made:'I know very 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,' where Oxford is not mentioned, nor poetry, nor plays, in order to give the impression the second passage is to be interpreted in terms of the first. The one passage talks of publications by nobles who are 'learned' (treatises, like Puttenham's own), the other of court compositions (for leisurely delectation). Typically, whoever wrote what we have, was too lazy to connect even the dots in the Oxfordian thesis, and left out the key passage in Puttenham's treatise which allows them to read what is quoted as proof Oxford was a 'suppressed/concealed' poet.

How is this sourced (my 'atrocious sourcing' to which, at a glance you take exception)

We have a primary source, an Elizabethan book published before the usual dates for the beginning of Shakespeare's career as a writer. This is glossed by a paraphrase written by the recently deceased Andrew Hannas, an epidemiologist, whom we are told was also a trained classical scholar with a knowledge of Latin. (Oxford Society Website).

One pauses: if one is a trained classical scholar', adding as if it were extra information 'with a knowledge of Latin' is rather like saying in an obituary: 'Einstein was a physicist, with a knowledge of mathematics.' This is the sort of quarter-baked comment one has to deal with in reading these tertiary reports of second-hand glosses on half-baked vanity publications written by journalists and assorted odd-bods who have never troubled themselves to take a degree in the subjects they descant on.

Who was Hannas?

'It was Andy who uncovered that the founding father of Anglo-Saxon studies, Laurence Nowell (not a church official by the same name that previous scholars had mistakenly identified) was Edward de Vere’s tutor in 1563. And noting that in 1563 this same Laurence Nowell signed his name to the Beowulf manuscript, Andy went on to uncover Beowulf’s influence on Hamlet. Phenomenal!'source, the self-tutored Elizabethan expert cum Boston journalistMark Anderson.

Fact. That Laurence Nowell, de Vere's tutor, and antiquarian Anglo-Saxon scholar, was a distinct person from Laurence Nowellthe Dean of Lichfield, was discovered by Retha Warnicke (1974), and further sorted out by Thomas Hahn (1983) and Carl Berkhout (1985). (Source Raymond J. S. Grant Laurence Nowell, William Lambarde, and the laws of the Anglo-Saxons, Rodopi 1996 p.12)

The 'sourcing' you approve of, all breaks down, in at least 60 instances, to something like this. Those who know the subject can see this at a glance. Those curious about the subject will have no idea that this is all Potemkin village stuff, rigged out to give a good impression of palpably incompetent editing.

In short, on this minor point, the sourcing is either primary, or unreliable, as the casual example from an epidemiologist shows, not a reliable source for the construal of Elizabethan treatises. A whole section suppresses a mass of scholarship, which we could supply of course, to contextualize the misrepresentations flourished on the page. An innuendo is seeded, then another. Your position is: 'Hey, don't delete. Fix it' which in plain man's terms says: 'If sloppy editors create and sustain disinformative pages, committed editors should take time off their lives, reading, and wikiwork, to gently engage them, page after page, for several months so that the nonsense is appropriately contextualized according to the scholarship which the incompetent original editors refuse to read or acknowledge or harvest. You would have been more neutral had you simply asked the Oxfordians to adhere to a rigorous reading of policy, get their own act together and, when editing, prove their bona fides by doing the work asked of them, rather than messily pushing a fringe theory and then getting others, who have serious interests, to clean up after them. Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a rant. I'm entirely unpersuaded by it. I'm sorry you seem to be angry at someone, but that's really quite a bit beside the point. We need to have a good, complete, robust set of articles on this topic. If you, despite your clear passion for the subject, don't want to take time off from your life to write it, that's totally fine with me. Just don't stop others from doing it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr Wales. We write articles, and to do so, work comprehensively to review what the best literature says of anything. You're unpersuaded because, obviously, you know as little about the topic as the people who wrote this page. I think it was Bertrand Russell who informed my youth that scholarship without passion was vacuous. It happens to be what drives knowledge, you can find its theoretical justification in Plato, and a modern defense of it in George Steiner. If this is all beyond you, and you prefer the version of grievance given in emails to the passionate exposition of the academic state of the art, then fine. But keep cheap cracks about 'rants', which is lazy man's language for WP:TLDR, i.e. impatience with anything but sound-bites or snippety ad-libbing, out of the conversation. As to the last line, I suggest you withhold using your influence to defend the rights of bad and banned editors from turning the joy of actually writing articles to the best quality standards your protocols urge on us, into a farce of sterile negotiation and influence-peddling.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with some of Nishidani's points (especially about the extent to which conspiracy theorists often raise bogus points requiring elaborate knock-downs, only to then resurface them), but I think you (Nishidani) are not being particularly fair to that article, which does go to some lengths to try to provide balanced information and different interpretations, regardless of what one thinks about them. And by the way it makes no mention of Bacon or the "Concealed Poet" line (which I also happen to agree with you and general scholarship on). The issue as always here is how to give coverage of alternate theories without depriving the casual reader of scepticism, scholarship and views about the popular theories - if they are popular enough to have for example a large published literature - as this one does - they are popular enough to cover in WP in that sceptical, informed fashion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you were as gratified as I was to learn that the names Francisco and Horatio were Italian forms of the names of Oxford's cousins, Horace and Francis. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Poor Marcellus and Bernardo left out in the (bitter) cold... if this article is kept, I should take a look at it and remove the worst of the nonsense. Laertes a rival at court, indeed, and that fabrication about the Italian cities, among other things. –Roscelese(talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, in any one section I've looked at, it would require several hours work just to fix things. Half of the sources are unreliable. The page is full of contentious points without a reference. On a rough calculation I could run up a list, if I had two days, of at least 200 things requiring attention. If you can point to me any instances of where the article 'goes to some lengths to provide balanced information and different interpretations' that would help. The fact that the article has nothing on where the 'concealed poet' meme was taken from is just an instance of how it manages to not provide the order of information Mr Wales might find interesting. It is systematic in not saying the most interesting things RS say of everything from the putative mute swan to computerized analyses of de Vere's poetic style. The guys over there have been told about this, they wobble and worry, and keep mum, hoping that the hard yakka of actually balancing the article will be done by someone, since they'd prefer to read their newsletters, and stick to POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"We need to have a good, complete, robust set of articles on this topic." This quote will never die. It will be resurrected again and again in Misplaced Pages disputes and quoted extensively in the anti-Stratfordian press. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see Jimbo added to theHonor Roll of Skeptics shortly, given that they've impressed Charles Dickens, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Leslie Howard into their ranks based on comments much less supportive of anti-Stratfordism than that, because they don't play by the same rules you and I do; they're advocates, not scholars. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It's funnier than that. Mr Wales, in writing, 'Just don't stop others from doing it' (i.e., writing 'a good, complete, robust set of articles on this topic) has fingered us, the FA authors, as disruptive hindrances to wikipedia, which now has officially welcomed the the whole Oxfordian team, the permabanned or sanctioned et alii, back to write a complete . .set of articles, more than those invented so far!, and we're put on notice to get out of their way! Wow! Congratulations Roger, SM, Nina. . . Vindication at last! I was called 'angry'. Actually I delight in farces, and it will be a night of smiles in this village, as I laugh myself to sleep.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, you don't do yourself any good by misrepresenting what I have said and making such outrageous and insulting claims. I did not call anyone a "disruptive hindrance", nor did I "officially welcome" anyone. Your behavior here is clearly out of order. It is precisely the sort of bullying behavior that I have traditionally seen associated with the very sort of people you claim to oppose. You will be wise to examine things in a new light.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hummm, I do wish Nishidani could avoid the temptation to put people's backs up quite so effectively! Of course there should be a "complete set of articles" on this subject as on any subject - whether it be mainstream, fringe, batshit-crazy or truth-universally-acknowledged. We have in fact created many such articles. Despite being a "Stratfordian" I have created or greatly expanded articles on Derbyite theory, onPrince Tudor theory and on many other related topics. The problem with Oxfordian Theory – Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays is that it is inherently and irretrievably biassed and it gives waaaaay to much weight to overwhelmingly weak or outright fake scholarship. It's inevitably a POV fork. At the fringe theories board there are arguments about deleting and merging articles all the time. Also, we don't typically have endless spin-offs of fringe topics going into detail about arguments for particular theories. We have articles on Atlantis and Root races, describing various theories - from the sensible to the absurd - but not Arguments for the rule of Atlantis by the Toltecs and the Aryans. The "Parallels with" article is essentially the equivalent of such an "arguments for" article (with a few token disclaimers). In fact the phase of Atlantean rule by the Toltecs and Aryans is dealt with in context in the Root race article (Root_race#The_civilization_of_Atlantis), where these important historical theories can be seen in context and without undue weight. In this case too the content is better dealt with in a context in which it can be evaluated. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

'Hummm, I do wish Nishidani could avoid the temptation to put people's backs up quite so effectively! Of course there shouldbe a "complete set of articles".'

Well, I'll reveal the big mystery. When I saw the 'complete ..set' phrase, I thought of the axiom of choice, where any collection of sets can theoretically generate any number of further sets, with no end to it. Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This. We're trying to write an encyclopedia article on the Oxfordian theory, not a book promoting the Oxfordian theory. Those "parallels" which have been picked up in secondary sources can perhaps be merged; the rest can and should be scrapped, because that's not what Misplaced Pages is for. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but this is just the usual Misplaced Pages problem - sadly, expert views or the collaboration of people who have spent a great deal of time studying the material and believe that it is unarguable that the Stratford Man is indeed also the Author are treated "truthily" as of "equal weight" to the views of numerous well-argued and far-less-well-argued "views", some of them decidedly over on the nutty end of things. The same thing can be observed through numerous iterations and sagas at the Apollo Moon Landings "didn't happen" Conspiracy pages - some are almost like gathering points for the absurd. They would never be allowed in a "serious" encyclopedia but in the maelstrom of WP, it's all fair, so long as it's truthily "sourced" and well "written up". This is clearly the world Jimbo envisaged. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it's just incredibly frustrating. I suppose if you care about it (and probably we all have to care a bit about what WP says on any given subject and the material in it - it looks convincing and the deal with Google makes it found!) you have to be prepared to spend some time at least inserting enough scepticism into it or material that shows people some factual contradiction to the sillier theories. But we all have our own views. I don't find every aspect of Oxfordianism to be completely barking. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, those who embrace with a passion the fringe view and multiply articles on wikipedia, never work them towards a minimal level of quality. They just keep plunking loads of 'stuff' in, without regard to order, without a care in the world for presentation, uniformity of citational mode. For years ungrammatical sentences, mispellings, broken links hang about, while the constant fringe editor tinkers and dabs and, above all, challenges anyone who tries to bring the article into a semblance of NPOV. Several have been here for yonks. They dither and dabble, mostly copying and pasting junk from arbitrary but strategic google searches, without ever weighing critically the value or utility of what they net in other than judging 'it serves the cause'. I wouldn't care in the least were another dozen articles ('The history of Oxfordian theory'; 'The de Verean Society'; etc.) created, as long as there was at long last a sign of editorial competence, which there never has been (Nina Green, true (and to her credit), ran through the 17th Earl of Oxford article from top to bottom, but only after we'd fixed much of the outstanding mess. But it was impossible to work with her. The only collaboration consisted in each taking a turn to review the article entirely, in brief intense bouts of editing). It's not a matter of what I or Tom or Paul or whoever privately thinks, or raising the bizarre innuendo, as Mr Wales reads things, that people like myself are trying to block work on articles. I, like several others, am endeavouring to make atrocious articles at least readable, well-sourced, and critically informed, something that was objected to in the strongest terms by fringe editors who just like ladling in goops of undigested opinions from laundresses, cardiologists, epidemiologists, journos who write about the New York Theatre or the Boston Sox or Rolling Stone, distant relatives of the Earl, people in business administration, lawyers, theatrical directors. I don't mind Mr Wales' fascination with what these oddbods might say, but I think he'd do well to recall that the politics of The New York Banner will never build what the Howard Roarks of this world can create. Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, people who strongly hold views based on poor research, counterfactual arguments and myths are not particularly likely to be keen on intensive rational discussion and analysis of those, if they have become something they care passionately about. I've often found that it's the fear of it being revealed that one has been systematically conned and tricked that makes a large percentage of people continue to cling to extreme theories, even if they are lamentably obviously false. If you've thought one way for a long time because you took some books on trust and then later find they were all bunk, you feel annoyed with yourself and quite possibly very defensive. The same phenomenon occurs in the Moon Landings conspiracy; the fact that international space agencies are now sending back vivid images of the landing sites from lunar orbiters still does not convince some. WP is, sadly, frequently not a place where rational discussion prevails. The same can be seen in Nazi-era articles, where a determined group of neo-Nazi editors routinely attempt to sanitise, alter and rewrite perceptions of key people, themes and incidents.Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Right. I strongly suspect Loss aversion (AKA sunk cost dilemma) to be one of the major motivations for Oxfordians. When you've invested years and even your entire career in some cases into something as ridiculous as Oxfordism, then your arguments become more and more bizarre because they primarily function as defense mechanisms and not the result of scholarly or logical thought. I know some very intelligent anti-Stratfordians who actually prefer to not defend their beliefs because of the cognitive dissonance necessary and the concomitant stress.

In any case, regardless of personal preferences, WP is an encyclopedia, and its content should meet certain standards, which that article does not. The community has rejected it once already; it existence is the result of an effort to get around that decision. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The consensus I'm seeing is to merge anything that can be compressed into something worthwhile and to delete the rest. On hold out, whoever it is from, does not stop the consensus.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

But what is usable? The article is accurate in that it reports the actual arguments, but inaccurate in that those arguments are based on distortions and flat-out fantasy (the Horatio/Francisco name "translations" is a good example). Listing the points and then debunking them creates one of those back-and-forth fringe argument articles that WP discourages, because that's not what an encyclopedia article should be. Some of the "parallel" arguments are already in this article; does it really need to be comprehensive, since most of the points are strained and bogus? But reporting only the strongest ones gives an inaccurate impression of the Oxfordian arguments and lends more credibility than it has, since Oxfordians appear to actually believe even their most ridiculous assertions. I say only those arguments that have been responded to in reliable sources should be included in this article, which also gives a biased view because academics and experts have only responded to them because they are wrong, creating a selection bias. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am moving my reply to Roscelese from above; otherwise this section will become yet another unreadable mish-mash.

Yes, the page was deleted, but it was then merged into this article, and then recreated with a slightly different title. Here's the history, as I outlined it in the SAQ arbitration:

1. 7/16/2009 Smatprt creates an Oxfordian article (using an unreliable promotional source).

2. On 3/24/2010, article Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare’s plays deleted as a result of afd: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays because of "Inherent violation of WP:NPOV: extreme undue weight given to a fringe theory."

3. That day Smatprt merges the article back into the Oxfordian article "as per talk at merge discussion". Huh??? An AfD is a "merge discussion"?

4. On 6/18/2010 he moves the material to a sandbox.

5. On 9/9/2010, after being laundered through the sandbox, he then forks it into a new article, Oxfordian Theory - Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays, replaces the colon with a dash, adds two grafs of "NPOV" disclaimer and 17 external Oxfordian links.

6. He then again deletes the material from the main articleand links the two. Voilà! Misplaced Pages hosts virtually the exact same article! So much for WP process.

I have no idea what G4 means, but in Oxfordania, nothing ever really goes away; the arguments are recycled endlessly, even after having been thoroughly discredited. The reappearance of the page is just SOP for Oxfordians. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a list of the specific differences between the deleted article and the present one. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• I redirected the sub-article here. Given that there was a consensus to delete it in the past and no consensus has emerged to keep it, there is no question but that it should not be its own article; anyone who feels like selectively merging can do so, since a redirect preserves the edit history. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

To restate precisely what I added to the article to address NPOV concerns, here is the list again:

Specifically, I have added the following mainstream disclaimers that were missing from the original article:

• First graph of lead: "while the great majority of mainstream scholars reject all alternative candidates for authorship, popular interest in various authorship theories continues."
• Third graph of lead: "Most mainstream Shakespeare academics pay little or no attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories, noting that both the Folio and the Stratford monument bear witness to a correlation between the theatrical author and the provincial Shakespeare; that scarcity of biographical data was normal for his milieu; and that deducing a writer's identity from his works may constitute a biographical fallacy. Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view."
• Second section of "overview": "Mainstream view" (Main article: William Shakespeare) "Some mainstream scholars, including Jonathan Bate, assert that the idea that Shakespeare revealed himself in his work is a romantic notion of the 18th and 19th centuries and anachronistic to Elizabethan and Jacobean writers. When William Wordsworth wrote that ‘Shakespeare unlocked his heart’ in the sonnets, Robert Browning replied, ‘If so, the less Shakespeare he!’

• Second section of "overview" (graph 2):"Although little biographical information exists about Shakespeare compared to later authors, mainstream scholars assert that more is known about him than about most other playwrights and actors of the period. This lack of information is unsurprising, they say, given that in Elizabethan/Jacobean England the lives of commoners were not as well documented as those of the gentry and nobility, and that many—indeed the overwhelming majority—of Renaissance documents that existed have not survived until the present day. Supporters of the mainstream view dispute all contentions in favour of Oxford. Aside from their main argument against the theory — the issue of Oxford's early death — they assert the connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural. Terence Schoone-Jongen, writing in Shakespeare's companies: William Shakespeare's Early Career and the Acting Companies, 1577-1594, asserts that biographical interpretations of literature are invalid for attributing authorship."

I hope this addresses the NPOV issues that were raised and welcome any additional improvements. Smatprt (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Smatprt (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I note that the only administrator (Jimbo) commented on the supposed deletion discussion, and they said: '"'I don't see how the article is inherently POV in favor of the Oxfordian theory - indeed, it seems to quite strongly reject it." So what, again, is the problem? Smatprt (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Aw heck, lets just restate Jimbo's whole comment:

<Reposting of post deleted by Bishonen | talk 09:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC).>

• Aw heck, Smatprt, what was that? I have deleted your full copypaste of Jimbo's fairly elaborate original post, which can be inspected higher up in this section. Please don't encumber this talkpage like that. If you think anybody is failing to notice Jimbo's support for you, then provide a diff to his post above, in the normal manner. I'm sure you're aware that on this page, the Founder is just an editor like the rest of us. Very properly, he has made no attempt to speak in a Founder voice, either; nor indeed to speak as an admin. (I don't understand your comment about Jimbo being "the only administrator" to comment here; what's that got to do with anything? Admins have no special weight in a content discussion.) Do you remember how Nina used aggravate people by copypasting instead of giving diffs? Personally, I never blamed her for it; I believe she simply couldn't figure out how to do diffs. But you don't have that problem. Bishonen | talk 09:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC).

Do you have to mimic me? I think editors who do that are so rude. Its a form of bullying, or at least insulting. Must you? (Btw - I don't think Jimbo is supporting "me" - I think he is supporting the open flow of information). And last time I checked, administrators are looked to as knowing the rules a bit better than most. Just like senior editors are. That's all I meant. And from what I've seen, people quote each other all the time in deletion exchanges. Didn't know there was a rule against it. Smatprt (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because...13 months ago, in Sept of 2010, I posted this statement below on the article talk page, asking for comments and improvements. Since that time, several editors have worked to improve it. A year later, this question has come up, probably because of the timing of the recent motion picture Anonymous and a resulting deletion spree that has occurred across several articles.

Amended statement: An earlier version of this article was deleted due to NPOV issues. Noting this comment from the closer, "There is a substantial agreement that the topic is notable, and there is no prejudice to the creation of an appropriately neutral article". After contacting the closer for instructions, I recreated the article addressing the NPOV issues.

Specifically, I have added the following mainstream disclaimers that were missing from the original article:

• First graph of lead: "while the great majority of mainstream scholars reject all alternative candidates for authorship, popular interest in various authorship theories continues."
• Third graph of lead: "Most mainstream Shakespeare academics pay little or no attention to the topic and dismiss anti-Stratfordian theories, noting that both the Folio and the Stratford monument bear witness to a correlation between the theatrical author and the provincial Shakespeare; that scarcity of biographical data was normal for his milieu; and that deducing a writer's identity from his works may constitute a biographical fallacy. Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records are also cited to support the mainstream view."
• Second section of "overview": "Mainstream view" (Main article: William Shakespeare) "Some mainstream scholars, including Jonathan Bate, assert that the idea that Shakespeare revealed himself in his work is a romantic notion of the 18th and 19th centuries and anachronistic to Elizabethan and Jacobean writers. When William Wordsworth wrote that ‘Shakespeare unlocked his heart’ in the sonnets, Robert Browning replied, ‘If so, the less Shakespeare he!’
• Second section of "overview" (graph 2):"Although little biographical information exists about Shakespeare compared to later authors, mainstream scholars assert that more is known about him than about most other playwrights and actors of the period. This lack of information is unsurprising, they say, given that in Elizabethan/Jacobean England the lives of commoners were not as well documented as those of the gentry and nobility, and that many—indeed the overwhelming majority—of Renaissance documents that existed have not survived until the present day. Supporters of the mainstream view dispute all contentions in favour of Oxford. Aside from their main argument against the theory — the issue of Oxford's early death — they assert the connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural. Terence Schoone-Jongen, writing in Shakespeare's companies: William Shakespeare's Early Career and the Acting Companies, 1577-1594, asserts that biographical interpretations of literature are invalid for attributing authorship."

I hope this addresses the NPOV issues that were raised and welcome any additional improvements. Smatprt (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Only one administrator has chimed in on this discussion, noting:

<Copypaste deleted again. Bishonen | talk 09:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC).>

I fully and sincerely agree with all 3 points. --Smatprt (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it. Another copypaste of the same Jimbo post? Deleted again. Please see my post above. Bishonen | talk 09:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC).

FWIW, I saw this and tagged it as a csd-repost, because I noticed you edit warring on Template:Shakespeare authorship question, which I'd edited recently. I've never heard of the movie. Alarbus (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have declined the db-repost speedy nomination, because it is claimed above that additions have been made to address the NPOV issues raised at the AfD. If contested, it should go back to AfD. JohnCD (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been argued in edit summaries and the talk of the main article that this should be redirected and the history retained for mining purposes. Given that two others have redirected it recently, I've done so a third time. This should stick until there is a consensus otherwise. If anyone wants to have a full deletion discussion... fine. Alarbus (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of harmony, I've reverted your redirect. Let's follow a calmer and more consensus-building rather than confrontational approach, so that perhaps some of the acrimony around this topic can be resolved. I'll start a poll now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Poll regarding redirect

It has been proposed that this page be merged with Oxfordian Theory and that in order to facilitate this process, this page be redirected there and the history kept here for mining purposes. Unfortunately the debate has been riddled with insults and acrimony, even towards me, which isn't really wonderful for Misplaced Pages.

Please state your views below, succintly, and let's give this, say, 7 days. 'Support' means support redirecting with a view towards merging. 'Oppose' means that this page should be kept and improved.

1. Support - I think the important points from this article will fit over there such that a separate article may not be necessary. However, reserve the right to change my view (of course) if the other page begins to be both well-sourced and unwieldy. There is no call for keeping information out of Misplaced Pages based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But a merger seems reasonable at this time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Support - as per my comments above. The page is nothing but a POV fork; the so-called NPOV disclaimers are cursory at best, where respected, established Shakespeare experts "assert" generalities against the details of what Oxfordians "point out", and although I have provided some critical correctives for a few of the so-called "parallels", the article for the most part uncritically accepts and reports the conclusions of shoddy and misleading scholarship that the mainstream Shakespeare establishment has not responded to. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose - The article was a legitimate split, several years ago from Oxfordian Theory for the very reason described by Jimbo - it became too large and unwieldy. In fact, the Oxfordian Theory page is getting larger as we speak. The Stratfordian editors there have announced intentions to add quite a bit more in terms of rebuttal. So I'd say keep the split or we'll just be looking to split the article again. Smatprt (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• comment - This whole merge argument is a familiar ploy by the same set of editors who have repeatedly advocated the articles deletion. Agree to merge, then refuse to add material due to lack of "consensus". Don't fall for it. Smatprt (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)