This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bon courage (talk | contribs) at 13:26, 23 December 2019 (→Unexplained removal of content: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:26, 23 December 2019 by Bon courage (talk | contribs) (→Unexplained removal of content: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 28 March 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Sources that help establish notability and should be incorporated for neutrality
- Hope, Warren; Holston, Kim (2009). The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Authorship Theories (2nd. ed.). McFarland. pp. 128-129.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)
- Edmondson, Paul; Wells, Stanley (2013). Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy. Cambridge UP. pp. 54-60.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)
- Carnegie, David; Taylor, Gary (2012). The Quest for Cardenio: Shakespeare, Fletcher, Cervantes, and the Lost Play. Oxford UP. pp. 67-69.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)
Two of these I found accidentally while trying to find anything else by the publisher of The Truth Will Out, so I'm curious as to why they haven't appeared yet. @RalphWinwood: how did you not find these? Or if you did, why did you not incorporate them? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Proposal for deletion of sentence
Though this is properly sourced, it is false; there is no actual documentary evidence to support this assertion: As a boy, Neville was educated within the household of Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley.
I propose deleting it unless someone knows of an independent documentary source that suggests that this is correct. Perhaps someone can give me guidance in how to properly resolve an issue such as this.
Kfein (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I deleted the two references. It should be added back only if an independent source can be found that refers to primary documentary evidence supporting this assertion. Kfein (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Proposal for modifying initial paragraphs
I do not think we need to go into detail on the code evidence in the introductory paragraph. It is enough to mention the initial discovery. Then the code evidence can be combined into its own separate section of the article. This will make it read better and allow the article to put more details to the forefront. Kfein (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I moved it to the code section.Kfein (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Clarifying who is meant by "Shakespeare"
This small amendent was originally made on 22nd Oct as part of a larger edit, which was reverted by Kfein on 23rd. I should have done it as a separate edit, because there is a good reason for amending the wording. In the SAQ “Shakespeare” is used as the name of the author but is non-specific as a reference to a living person, since his identity is what is in dispute. My amendment clarifies which living person is meant. Terpsichore47 (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree the article should be as unambiguous as possible. Thank you for this edit! Kfein (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Extending quote and citing source for its implications
My revisions/additions to this passage made on 22 Oct were undone by Kfein on the grounds that it was “unsourced original research”. However, the existing version could be subject to the same action, since unsourced original research is exactly what it was before I touched it. If any use has been made of Jonson’s Epigram 109 in extant sources for the purposes of arguing Neville’s authorship, those sources were not cited. In my new revision, I’ve done three things. First, I’ve found and cited a source. Second, in the unrevised text of the article the idea that Epigram 109 refers to Neville’s poetic muse, not Jonson’s, is merely covert. But the source’s claim is explicit, and I’ve worded my revision to make that clear. Finally, I’ve extended the quotation from the epigram. The first line is only a fragment of a complete statement covering three lines. Quoting all three puts readers in a better position to decide for themselves whose poetic muse is being referred to.Terpsichore47 (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! Kfein (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- What do you think about adding in a link to the whole epigram? https://books.google.com/books?id=2J1TAAAAcAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&pg=PA71#v=onepage&q&f=false This source has some background info as well. Kfein (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Proposal for adding a section on the Northumberland Manuscript Flyleaf
I propose adding a section on the Northumberland Manuscript Flyleaf. I know it is mentioned in The Truth Will Out. And this source from John Casson is relevant: http://www.bl.uk/eblj/2018articles/pdf/ebljarticle112018.pdf
And this book is relevant: https://archive.org/details/cu31924013117480/
Does anyone know any other good reference sources about the document in general or its connection to Henry Neville? Kfein (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
This seems relevant: https://lostplays.folger.edu/Asmund_and_CorneliaKfein (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Proposal for adding information on the dedication of A King and No King
This source has a lot of information on Henry Neville's connection with 'A King and No King' Lesser, Zachary. “Mixed Government and Mixed Marriage in ‘A King and No King’: Sir Henry Neville Reads Beaumont and Fletcher.” ELH, vol. 69, no. 4, 2002, pp. 947–977. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/30032051.
The dedication can be seen here and is in the public domain: https://archive.org/details/kingnokingacteda00beau_1/page/n7
I suggest we upload the image and include it in the article with information taken from Lesser's article. Casson and Rubinstein also reference this, is it referenced in other books about Neville?
Kfein (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Found a new RS about Neville books at Audley End
The sidebar of this: https://exhibitions.lib.cam.ac.uk/hoby/
Has:
Hoby’s books came to be at Audley End because of his connection with the Neville family, who owned a house in Berkshire called Billingbear. Hoby’s family seat was also in Berkshire, at Bisham Abbey, a property which he inherited on the death of his half-brother, Sir Philip Hoby, in 1558. At some point, Hoby’s books were moved the short distance from Bisham Abbey to Billingbear, and then, once its owner, Richard Aldworth Neville (1750–1825), second Lord Braybrooke, had inherited Audley End in 1802, they were taken across to Essex.
Kfein (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Discussion of sources for this page
I have posted a question about the sources used for this article at the Misplaced Pages reliable sources noticeboard. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- Stuart Kells recent book Shakespeare's Library: Unlocking the Greatest Mystery in Literature has a great deal on the Nevillean theory that would be a good source to start with to update the article.Kfein (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a good source that passes WP:RS. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Noticed this at WP:RS/N. There is way too much fringe sourcing here and so I'm placing a POV tag until the article can be rebuilt with decent sources. Alexbrn (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Additional Possible Sources
- https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/mar/05/shakespeare-himself-may-have-annotated-hamlet-book-claims-researcher
- Stuart Kells - Shakespeare's Library: Unlocking the Greatest Mystery in Literature
- https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244018823465
- Birmingham Post: Book claims to have found the Bard's lost works March 18, 2009
- The Western Mail: Did he or didn't he? That is the question October 6, 2009 | Western Mail (Cardiff, Wales) Author: Tony Woolway
- Yorkshire Post: 'Earliest Shakespeare plays' claim by author March 18, 2009 | Yorkshire Post (England)
This is apparently not a RS: Bard blood between the Princes April 28, 2014 | Courier Mail, The/Sunday Mail, The/QWeekend Magazine (Brisbane, Australia) Author: DAILY MAIL | Page: 14 Kfein (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Unexplained removal of content
@RalphWinwood: you are removing well-sourced content with no edit summary. What's going on? Alexbrn (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: No Alex. YOU are removing well-sourced content. This page was published in 2016. Some editors with a Stratfordian bias tried to have it removed but an adjudication resolved to retain it. It will be clear to anyone who investigates your edits (removing verifiable facts) that you are trying to impose your own bias on this article. Please undo them.RalphWinwood (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages must have a "Stratfordian bias" as it mirrors respectable mainstream scholarship. This is what we call neutral. I shall raise a query at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)