Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 05:01, 14 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Shakespeare}}, {{WikiProject Skepticism}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Shakespeare Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 March 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

Strong Evidence Truth Will Out Satisfies Misplaced Pages Criteria as an RS

This is an incredibly carefully edited website with articles written by professional editors. I believe there is a print version as well, someone can verify that, but it's irrelevant. This page: https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/neville-sir-henry-i-1564-1615

Cites Truth Will Out 4-5 times as a source. Add that to the long list of reasons.Kfein (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't accept reliable sources by assertion, and this is not the place to make that determination. The proper place to ask whether a particular work is reliable is the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Fortunately, I have already tendered that question to garner the editorial consensus on using that book as a source, as you well know, having commented on the RfC.

On another note, there's no reason to clutter the talk page every time you have a thought. You have already made this comment at the RfC, so there's no need to repeat it here. It is also poor form to repost content from another editor that he or she has redacted, the way you did with my comment earlier today. There's a helpful list of handy tips at Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines for your perusal. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This is for discussing the specific issue of the book A Truth Will Out and its use in this article. It is not the proper place to discuss anything else.Kfein (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder: if you want to edit articles on Misplaced Pages you're going to have to conform to Misplaced Pages standards and guidelines, and sooner rather than later. I placed the SAQ template on your talk page when you first started trying to impose your personal preferences on the main SAQ page, which you promptly deleted. You're not the first person who has come to Misplaced Pages who has tried to change content contrary to the purpose of this project, and you won't be the last, but if you want to stick around and actually contribute to this encyclopedia you might want to examine how you're interacting with other editors. Otherwise you could find yourself along with all the other WP:SPAs who congratulate each other on having such high principles that they were banned from editing Misplaced Pages. That's all I'll say on this particular topic. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Once again, this is a completely inappropriate use of the Talk page to hurl false accusations against me. Kfein (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Should these aspects of the Henry Neville authorship theory be included in the article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should these aspects of the Neville authorship theory be included in the article:

James and Rubinstein also suggest that Shakespeare's plays portray many of Neville's ancestors, who played major roles in British history, in a particularly favourable light. REF: Keys 2005. REF:Alberge 2005.

James and Rubinstein write that since Neville was a director of the Virginia Company, he would have been able to read the confidential letter by William Strachey that describes the Bermuda Shipwreck of 1609, that is considered a source for The Tempest. REF: BBC News 2005. REF:Alberge 2005.

Kfein (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• No. Per WP:NPOV for fringe ideas: "we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." Since there are no secondary sources that give context for these particular fringe views, they should be omitted – the news sources available offer no analysis or interpretation as would be found in proper WP:SECONDARY sources and merely relay the fringe views of the proponents. The article already has a good exposition of the fringe proponents' arguments without going into undue detail. Alexbrn (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. Per WP:FRINGE, which actually relates to this specific article: "is is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations." To describe the idea "clearly and objectively" major aspects of the theory must be described. There is plenty of content in the article to contextualize the Fringe theory. It is not necessary to engage in point/counterpoint on every aspect of the theory, and in fact, it is discouraged by Misplaced Pages guidelines. The news sources describe the major aspects of the theory which must be included to describe it "clearly and objectively". Kfein (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. The Keys and Alberge articles appear to be mere churnalism not meeting the minimum standard of WP:RS.Bomagosh (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. Per Alexbrn and Bomagosh. "Churnalism" indeed. This from David Keys turned my stomach: "But the new suggestion is backed by a vast amount of startling evidence suggesting that Neville, a man never before associated with the mystery, wrote all the plays attributed to Shakespeare." Ugh. Carlstak (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. There are enough higher quality sources to write a decent article with proper context, there's no reason to pull in this low-tier stuff. - MrOllie (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Although this obviously doesn't belong in the main Shakespeare article, there is a place in this article for this information. The article should give a rounded view of the theory, even the more out there parts.HAL333 23:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. The BBC source mentioned above does not describe the long 'Bermuda Shipwreck' letter as confidential. Besides, how much detail would one actually need to set the Tempest in the "still vexed Bermoothes" . A little bit of hearsay that tempestous storms there had in the past caused shipwrecks, would be sufficient for both WS and the audience to establish an appropriate setting. The Tempest isn't primarily factual nor about historical/geographical/meterological/nautical matters, rather, it is fantastical and allegorical. The underlying argument here is as silly as thinking that a knowledge of Athens would be either necessary or helpful to the author of "The Dream". This is OR on my part of course, but nonetheless ....!Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: Since these ideas are reported in RS, we should mention them in the article. We don't have to personally agree with them, and we don't have to pretend that they are undisputed facts, but we do have to mention them. This article is about a controversial theory anyway, and the proposed material is also controversial, but no more than anything else. As long as the source of the information (BBC News) is solid, as is the case here, we should include it. Naomi.piquette (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

This is not a biography page, it's a fringe theory page. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Errr, guys! Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I was aware of that, but since Alexbrn put in his piece, I had to put the other side of the argument. Kfein (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

RfCs get outside input in addition to those already involved, as it says "All editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC". I have never seen any RfC where insiders were discouraged from comment, though I have seen a recent case where the "principals" in a contentious RfC were encouraged to wait a while before contributing, to get outside input first. Alexbrn (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You may want to advertise this in a few more places, like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Shakespeare, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject England, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject University of Oxford and Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Some guidance at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

We already know the opinions of the editors of this page on this topic, except for me. My answer is yes, it can be included along with the appropriate context, and I've already expressed my thoughts on what that is: a neutral statement of the claim, the reason why academics say it's shite, and that's about it, no going into point-counter-point about the details.

Oh, and the newspaper article is RS, as long as it's put into context. Tom Veal does a good job of doing that. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Veal on the Alberge article, that he describes as 'little more than a condensed version of the “media pack”.' That's churnalism, which should not be treated differently than the underlying press release. (second bullet here:Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#News_organizations). The other listed sources have the same problem.

I also agree with you on the appropriate form of the article: neutral summary of claim + context. But the neutral summary needs to cite and be based on WP:RS. The sources listed for the statements in question -- all from 2005, all apparently based on the media pack -- cannot support their inclusion in a WP article because they're no different than quoting the media pack. If Veal's site was considered a reliable source, it would be far superior to the churnalist articles, but the same problem exists since it's a self-published blog.

We may all agree that the omitted language accurately summarize part of the Nevillian theory. That is not the problem. It's that the only identified independent reliable sources for the claim are a rewrite of the publisher's gushing press pack and a personal blog post. Which (as I have stated before) is an indication that these are not WP:N. Bomagosh (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

If one actually reads the Alberge article, it is based mostly on interviews with Rubinstein, who would be a good source to find out the contents of his own book. Each of the above are sourced to two separate sources. Those sources are attempting to summarize the main aspects of the Neville theory. We are instructed WP:FRINGE to provide such an objective summary. The reviewers of the book (Kathman and MacDonald) are oppositional; they are only going to mention aspects of the theory they can argue against (no matter how poor their arguments or how factually inaccurate). They cannot argue against the bare fact that Henry Neville would have had access to the Strachey letter and the bare fact that it was a source for the Tempest. So they exclude it. It's a form of cherry-picking. We need to exercise editorial judgment if we are to be WP:NPOV. Kfein (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"If one actually reads the Alberge article, it is based mostly on interviews with Rubinstein . . ." Correct. So it's indistinguishable from the press pack in terms of reliability. So that, it seems to me, cannot be considered a reliable source. The alternatives provided are no better -- there's no indication that the writers actually read the book; they read the press pack and perhaps called Professor Bate for a quote for balance.

"The reviewers of the book (Kathman and MacDonald) are oppositional . . ." Also correct. All reliable reviews of the book were uniformly negative about every aspect of the work; none mentioned these claims. Though you argue we have to infer that these facts were omitted because they are unarguably true, I'd suggest that they were omitted because they were not notable. In other words, they are such insignificant details that they do not even need to be refuted. For the same reason, they do not need to be included in this article. There are no notable sources for these details, so they must be omitted. It is a form of cherry-picking: WP only allows reliable, notable information. Bomagosh (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"If one actually reads the Alberge article, it is based mostly on interviews with Rubinstein . . ." Can't tell if you're joking. The only thing attributed to Rubinstein is the last sentence, "Professor Rubinstein of University College Wales said: "The coincidences of Neville's dates and the chronology of the plays are so overwhelming, they are compelling in themselves – there are no awkward bits." The rest of the piece is lifted almost verbatim from the media kit. Either we're reading different articles or your confirmation bias kicked up another notch. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the article and once again engaging in WP:PA. Kfein (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting a goddamn thing, and if you think I'm making personal attacks stop whinging and take it to WP:ANI. Your incessant supercilious and condescending comments about how your every edit and comment is perfectly neutral, every source you want to include is undoubtedly RS, your reading of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are the only correct interpretations, how credentialed and respected scholars are wallowing in error, your constant POV pushing and bludgeoning and peevishly complaining about unfairly you're being treated here are really growing tiresome. File a case or STFU. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice.WP:♠ Bomagosh (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Carlstak (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you read "What is considered to be a personal attack?" in WP:PA? I wasn't able find where saying someone seems to have confirmation bias counts. Is questioning someone's belief in a fringe theory the equivalent of attacking their religion? Bomagosh (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Textual analysis

Surely textual analysis must have been done to compare Neville's and Shakespeare's writings? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC).

I added a line about that two weeks ago because I found a scholarly source that references Casson's work on subject. It certainly could be expanded. The books Neville owned and the annotations found at Audley End deserve substantial attention in this article as well -- along with a dozen other topics. Kfein (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• C-Class Shakespeare articles
• Low-importance Shakespeare articles
• WikiProject Shakespeare articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles