Talk:Mary Sidney

message: I was directed to this article by someone who asked the same question of me in real life as User:N5bz did above. It seemed to me that if two people had the same reaction to an article there might be a problem, so I read over the first paragraph. It was just too confusing and the irrelevant details and long sentences and repeated use (three (3) times in one little paragraph) of the mother's maiden name and the use of her first name obfuscated what the paragraph was attempting to say: that Mary's mother, not Mary herself, nursed Elizabeth. I pruned it down (Mary Sidney's grandfather's troubles are well-described in his article, no need to list them here) and made only one reference to Mary's mother's maiden name (calling her "Lady Sidney" otherwise, which clears up matters). --NellieBly (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Simplifying

message: This article desperately needs citations and seems to have become a dumping ground for fringe theorists. I have removed the most egregious of the material in the hope of attracting some good editors who usually flee from a potential battleground such as this. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement 

message: The fringe belief that Mary Sidney wrote the works of Shakespeare does not belong in this article. It is not sufficiently notable for its own article and not even notable enough to be mentioned in any other article except the SAQ.  The book that sets forth this theory was published by a computer book publisher and is not a reliable source for scholarly works. It was essentially self-published by a writer of computer books, who wrote the book and designed the book on her computer, and invented the imprint Wilton Circle Press to publish this one book. In addition, the Newsweek article that mentions the theory is an example of junk food news and not an extensive reference of [Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Identifying_fringe_theories the type required] to be sufficient for mention.
By your logic, the SAQ should have a section in each of the articles about the 65 authorship candidates. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see newest refs to Washington Post and Washington Times. Hardly junk food news. Have no fear about all 65 candidates. Great majority are not notable candidates. Those that are (like Sidney) are easily referenced. Smatprt (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: None of them are notable, including Mary Sidney, since it's a fringe theory and it is not a significant viewpoint that merits inclusion. I have edited a compromise that doesn't violate WP:DUE as much as your edit, because I don't want to spend the next two weeks at the discussion boards, although I can't guarantee other editors won't object to it. My attitude is that this is not worth fighting about at this time and can be taken up later. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAQ in the Mary Sidney article 

message: Tom,
I see that you've removed the Mary Sidney authorship question from this entry, as well as from the main authorship entry. I have copied the relevant text below. I suggest we move this to Wiki Dispute Resolution. Would you be interested in mediation?
	 
A theory that Mary Sidney wrote at least some of the poetry and plays attributed to William Shakespeare has been revived by Robin P. Williams, in her book, Sweet Swan of Avon: Did a Woman write Shakespeare?The Case for Mary Sidney, The Washington Post, July 9, 2006The Washington Times (Washington, DC), Josh Rutledge, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, June 21, 2006.http://www.newsweek.com/id/54134Robin P. Williams - Sweet Swan of Avon: did a woman write Shakespeare? Wilton Press, 2006.  According to Williams, Mary Sidney had the scholarship, ability, motive, means and opportunity to write the plays. In 2006, Canadian librarian Fred Faulkes published the first volume of The Tiger Heart Chronicles – a "narrative reconstruction of everything touching on Shakespearean history" in which he also put forward the Sidney claim.Tiger's Heart in Woman's Hide: Volume 1, Victoria: Trafford.  
Supporters of Sidney as a Shakespeare candidate point to a number of events that tie her to the Shakespeare legacy.  For example, Sidney's sons sponsored the printing of Shakespeare's First Folio after her death, seven years after Shakespeare died, and the folio contained material that had never appeared before. Ben Jonson's glowing eulogy to Shakespeare, included in the Folio, is directed to the "Sweet Swan of Avon," an epitaph also fitting of Sidney, who wore a gown embroidered with swans, a symbol of the Sidney family, and whose home was in the area of the Avon River and its tributaries.Jdkag (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request For Mediation 

message: Apparently this comes from a diary entry (around 1865) by William Johnson Cory, the teacher at Eton who wrote the poem "Heraclitus." He claimed to have been told about this letter when visiting Wilton, but was never actually shown it. When Sir Edmund Kerchever Chambers investigated, he was informed said letter was sent to the British Museum or the Public Record Office. But it can't be found there? Has anyone ever actually seen the letter? Is Cory the only source for its existence? One source is The Repertory of Shakespeare's Company, 1594-1613. See also: "We have the man Shakespeare: Edward de Vere and the lost letter of Wilton" in Shakespeare Matters Vol.2 no.3 Spring 2003. Artaxerxes (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the man Shakespeare"