Talk:Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship/Archive 1

message: The page is presently being built so it is not yet in a state ready for evaluation. (Puzzle Master 14:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

message: This comment is about QBrute's use of The Shakespeare Puzzle by Barry Clarke. QBrute has been using this book to make his arguements about changes to this article and others. While QBrute is free to seek consensus on these changes, The Shakespeare Puzzle is not considered a reliable source based on  Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, specifically the self-published sources section. In short, this book was self published by the author at Lulu.com and as a result "has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking (and) no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." The only exception to this rule is for "a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise" but since Clarke's field of expertise is puzzles, this exception doesn't count.
As said before, QBrute is free to seek consensus on these changes. Any use of this book, though, should not be permitted. In addition, QBrute, I don't think you are the devil. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Shakespeare Puzzle not reliable 

message: Unfortunately, it also appears User:Barryispuzzled has been using sock puppets in this discussion and Shakespearean authorship. In short, the evidence suggests that QBrute and other anonymous editors here are also User:Barryispuzzled, who is Barryispuzzled admits on his user page, Barry Clarke, author of The Shakespeare Puzzle. The use of sock puppets to try and influence discussions and edits around articles is not permitted. User:Barryispuzzled is free to try and seek consensus on these proposed changes but he can not promote his own book in so doing. In addition, he should stop using sock puppets to seek these changes.
I should add, though, that overall I really like this article and think it is a welcome addition to Wikipedia. Just don't use it for self promotion. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of your citations are to verifiable sources so it's not really a huge deal. The only concern is that you may be presenting a skewed version of Baconian theory. For example, you write "Contrary to the popular view, codes and ciphers play no prominent role in the most recent Baconian theories". Does 'the most recent theories' refer to your book? Many Baconians are still in thrall to codes and anagrams as far as I can tell, and ignoring that side of Baconianism is potentially misleading. Also, are the theories presented on this page common Baconian arguments, or are they your own discoveries? It's not clear. You should really cite from a wider variety of Baconians to present a fairer view of the theories. BTW, the difference between you and Kathman is that he is an expert on Elizabethan theatre history who has published in major journals in the field, whereas you are not. The Singing Badger 17:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So why don't you add the cipher material from the Shakespeare Authorship article? (Puzzle Master 21:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I also have my hands tied with this article because I cannot cite my book or that of Cockburn since no matter how deep the research and carefully argued they are, both are privately published. (Puzzle Master 21:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and most of this article is repeating common Baconian arguments ... I'm tempted to let someone else fill in the Counter Arguments section because I'd be curious to see what they come up with.(Puzzle Master 21:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, I agree, this is great work. But it would also be good to explain who originated these ideas: for example, who was the first Baconian to notice the Gray's Inn connections - how old is this theory? The Singing Badger 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of sockpuppets 

message: There is no point attacking this article because one way or another it will all be changed back again. Puzzle Master 21:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you meant by this comment. However, I agree with AndyJones about removing the link to your book. The link is self-promotional and not allowed per Wikipedia policies. Otherwise, the article is looking good. Best,--Alabamaboy 21:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite. I *think* I was 86.136.163.135, but I've just changed ISPs, so I'm not sure. I daresay a sockpuppet will appear and set me straight :-) Bedesboy 22:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this is a meaningful warning anyway. Surely ANON is as entitled to edit this page as Puzzle Master or any of the rest of us. AndyJones 12:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (To AndyJones) I guess the problem I have with your contributions here is that I don't see any article or arguments you've created so when I see you deleting references to my name everywhere (and this is something you choose to do - no one is paying you to do it) I'm thinking "this guy can't create anything of his own, he just wants to cut what others' produce, hiding under the veil of Wiki guidelines". Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you do create things here, but I haven't seen anything. There are too many destructive influences in this world and I celebrate the creators because they are few and far between. To be fair to you, you did award me a Barnstar, but I would appreciate a more vocal support from you in these Talk sections in defence of the positive work I'm trying to doing here, which (despite your belief) has more to do with the promotion of ideas than promoting myself. Puzzle Master 18:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning to (User:86.136.163.135) 

message: Divided Parallels into three sections and added an example in new Published Work part.  Puzzle Master 21:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verbal parallels 

message: Bacon's letter to Lord Burghley reads as follows:
It may please your good L. I am sory the joynt maske from the four Inns of Court faileth wherein I conceyve thear is no other ground of that event but impossibility. Neverthelesse bycause it falleth out that at this tyme Graies Inn is well furnyshed of galant young gentlemen, your L. may be pleased to know that rather than this occasion shall passe without some demonstration of affection from the Inns of Court, thear are a dozen gentlemen of Graies Inn that out of the honour which they bear to your L. and my L. Chamberlayne, to whom at theyr last maske they were so much bounden, will be ready to furnish a maske wyshing it were in their powers to performe it according to their mynds And so for the present I humbly take my leave resting
Your Ls very hmbly
and much bounden
fr. Bacon
(Bacon to Lord Burleigh, folio 13, Burghley Papers, MS Lansdowne 107, British Library, in Bacon’s handwriting) 
If you want to examine the document for yourself, here it is [] (I have a one year worldwide copyright.) 
Puzzle Master 22:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just meant that something stable is needed because not all Wikipedia users have access to the British library. :) The Singing Badger 23:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We're talking about theatre here. Remember that the Inns of Court players wre amateurs; we've all seen amateur acting. Remember also that the plays we know the Inns of Court players to have performed (Gorboduc, Jocasta, Supposes and various masques) are stentorian in style, requiring the actors only to learn their speeches and then declaim them. The Comedy of Errors and Twelfth Night are written for professionals: they are fast-paced comedies that require actors skilled in comic timing and physical comedy while simultaneously being emotional and heartfelt. Sure, it would have been cheaper to hire the Inns of Court players - but it would have been more fun to get the professionals in to do it properly and provide reliable entertainment. The Singing Badger 14:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bacon's letter to Burghley 

message: The notion that Bacon was the son of Elizabeth I has been mentioned earlier in the section so it adds nothing to the discussion of the historical development of this idea. The rest appears to be using the article to promote a book which anyway is derivative of Peter Dawkins's work (which has already been mentioned in the historical section). (Puzzle Master 17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ross Jackson deletion