Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 4

message: I'm stumped. Trying to improve this article but can't.  It states Ben Jonson complains about Shakespeare and his writing, but which one?  (I've no doubt who is who, but does the writer know what he/she is writing?)  If the Stratford man is illiterate, how can he write anything for Jonson to comment on? Mandel 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generic claims of that kind without specification or substantiation should not be allowed on the page, whether they seem to support orthodox or unorthodox conclusions. The claim should require not only a citation (what document of Jonson's is being referred to), but a direct quotation. "Complains" is simply nonsense. Ben Jonson did say, "I loved the man--this side idolatry," and that deserves to be quoted (no, I don't know the source without checking), for it goes to the point at issue of Jonson's state of mind.
*Your problem arises from the fact that there have been a great many anti-Stratfordians with a great many different anti-Stratfordian theories. There's therefore not one anti-Stratfordian orthodoxy, as it were, to compare with the accepted position. The anti-Stratfordians who use Ben Jonson's criticisms of Shakespeare's writing as telling evidence are different anti-Stratfordians, and making a fundamentally different case, from those who think Shakespeare wasn't literate at all (who presumably believe Jonson was commenting on the true writer). I think you'll find the page easier to edit if you don't seek for coherence, but handle each argument separately. AndyJones 07:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baffled?

message: The 1604 "question" rightly belongs to the Oxfordian theory, not here. I'm doing this because Oxfordians postulate the 1604 "problem", but it need not necessarily be accepted by Marlowians or Baconians, and hence that is not an anti-Stratfordian orthodox position.  Hence, I'm axing it, in a bid to make this less like contradictory patchwork.  The Raleigh case goes to Baconian theory. Mandel 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pls note. This article is for the case against the Stratford man, not case for any one specific candidates.  In-fighting amongst non-Stratfordians would make their supposedly unified case even more fragmentary than it now is. Mandel 13:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not taking sides yet on the question of moving "The 1604 Problem" to Oxfordian Theory. However, I do strongly disagree with your general conclusion here. This page isn't just about the case against Shakespeare. It is meant to be an overview of the authorship issue as a whole. And if the case is, in your view, fragmentary, then this page should reflect that. AndyJones 13:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally the cases against W.S. and not skewed in favor of one opponent, I mean.  There are perplexing arguments throughout here which leaps from candidate to candidate.  Argument A is A and if Argument B doesn't support Argument A, they should not be lumped together and it certainly doesn't mean C is incorrect. Note if every Anti-Stratford argument is included, including clearly fallacious ones, we would need at least a few megabytes. The 1604 problem is very detailedly expoused in Oxfordian Theory. Mandel 14:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is meant to be an overview of the authorship issue as a whole. Isn't this the case against Shakespeare at large?  While it summarizes proposed candidates, it doesn't take sides, not in favor of, say, Bacon over Oxford, does it? Mandel 14:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We have a size limit for articles, and we cannot afford to make circular arguments.  The 1604 problem is an Oxfordian position, not Baconian or Marlowian. This page is heavily skewed in favor of Oxford over Bacon and Marlowe, and as such is not NPOV.Mandel 15:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the Oxfordian position is more widely held than the  Baconian or Marlovian, it is not a violation of NPOV to discuss it at more length than the others.  (At the same time, the basic premises of the Stratfordian position, as being more widely held yet, ought to be discussed at some length, as well - this article should not be simply about anti-Stratfordian arguments). john k 01:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As can be seen above, your arguments are very POV. When Charton Ogburn adds it, it is vital, when AL Rowse adds it, it becomes "unnecessary". Mandel 15:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is 74 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. This article has no scope to expand.  If you want this article to grow fruitfully, the two section - hardly summmaries - must go.  They are already in Wikipedia; why'd would you want to read something just to repeat itself over and over elsewhere? Mandel 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not maybe.  Most of Sh's source books were on sale by a local printer he knew.  Whether he read it is open to speculation. Mandel 15:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "the treasurer’s accounts show that “Wil. Kempe,” “Wil. Shakespeare” and “Rich. Burbage” received payment for two comedies played at court on 26 and 28 December, 1594." Mandel 15:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you saying Oxford became an actor with the Chamberlain's Men?  Make up your mind. Mandel 16:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving 1604 Section

message: I think we should delete that hilarous "ann hate" pun because I see it as pointless to the debate. Is it there as a response to some anti-strat statement I am not seeing? Do we really want to start listing all the puns that various scholars see in the plays and poems. We could have Bacon and Vere puns all over the place - even leading to another article! :) 
Paul B - Please don't tell me what I know.  You say without doubt that I have been told about this paragraph's info and this source before.  You have me confused with someone else. Maybe BenJonson.  If I am wrong than please show me where. Smatprt 23:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: here's where you were told . Your opinions about the views of a distinguished professor are of no interest. The passage is of obvious relevance. Your POV deletionism is outrageous. Paul B 23:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't be so dishonest. The revert was to your previous edit here and referred to it as anyone can tell. . You used similar tactics over the Hammersley portrait.  Paul B 06:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The comment on the edit summary was not written by me, if you bother to even look. Paul B 07:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needless Puns

message: No doubt I have thoroughly annoyed some contributors to this page with my frequent insistence of the importance of viewing this topic historically. I thought I would stop preaching and do a bit of editing, so I have revised the history section with these concerns in mind:
1) I added a sentence or two about Sir George Greenwood. It is impossible to do justice to the history of the authorship question without mentioning this prolific writer and controversialist, a liberal MP who regularly contributed to the London Times and wrote twelve books on authorship, many of which directly engaged Sir Sidney Lee or J.M. Robertson in debates that were very public and are well documented in the newspapers and journals of the time;
2) I added reference to the Shakespeare fellowship, the organization founded by Looney, Greenwood, and supporters in 1922.
3) I edited the timeline indicating that Oxford had become the favored 20c candidate in the 1980s. This is misleading. Without wishing to diminish the importance of Ogburn's 1984 book, which indeed has had considerable impact, Oxford he was already identified as the leading alternative to the orthodox view by 1975 in Encyclopedia Britannica. Sorry I don't have the reference immediately to hand, but I will find and provide it.
4) I then edited the paragraph for coherence which involved a some tightening of sentences and rearrangments of the development of the paragraph necessitated by these three changes to the content.
These were the only changes I made. Thank you to everyone for reviewing and either approving or recommending edits to these changes.
best wishes to all.--BenJonson 05:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: Hello, All.
I wonder what other editors think of the following issue, and which Wikipedia article is the best place in which to mention it.
In the mid 1990s in England, I saw a documentary about the debates over the authorship of Shakespeare's works, including the interesting features of the portrait in the First Folio's frontispiece. It seemed that the best conclusion to draw about the portrait from the information in the documentary was as follows:
• The Shakespeare portrait is highly similar to a certain painted portrait of Queen Elizabeth I.
• A standard 'template' of the Queen's face had been distributed throughout the kingdom to be used by those who, for whatever reason, needed/wanted to create likenesses of her. This template is highly similar to both the engraving of Shakespeare and the Elizabeth portrait whose similarity to the Shakespeare engraving is noted.
• The creator of the portrait almost certainly used the Elizabeth template as the basis of a human face, which he then modified in dress, hair, and moustache.
• The 'mask' line corresponds to a line in the Elizabeth template.
I don't spend much time at Wikipedia these days, and am avoiding the temptation to check my watchlist and be drawn too deeply into things. But, if anyone has a constructive response, it would be nice to know of through a message at my Talk page.
Thanks.
President Lethe 19:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a load of utter drivel devised by Lillian Schwarz. It's nonsense to say that there was a "template" of Elizabeth - there were several portraits and copies of the better known ones over the years, all slightly diffed from one another of course because they were created by hand. I think it's discussed somewhere on the Kathman site. One reason it's not discussed here is that it does not in any way advance the Oxfordian cause. We can create a page on the engraving, of course. At the moment any discussion should go on the Martin Droeshout page. Paul B 15:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "We have difficulty in entirely proving that some other, already existing portrait of a real or imaginary, famous or unknown, male or female, human being was in no way used at any stage of the production of the Droeshout portrait." It would be virtually imposible to prove that for any portrait, so I don't really understand what you are trying to imply. Further discussion should be on the Martin Droushout page. Paul B 09:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Folio frontispiece 

message: It seems as though this article is not neautral it barely bothers to explain the views preferring to debunk them. I am especcially worried about phrases like "percieved ambiguities" The article also continously reminds you that it is "outside of the mainstream" Also iut could be alot shorter66.176.172.119 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: The argument about whether or not Bacon had the time for substantial literary projects is settled by Lord Campbell. In the Lives of the Lord Chancellors, The Life of Bacon, Vol. 2, Chapter 1 (1845) he reports that Bacon had "abundant leisure". (Puzzle Master 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bacon's Leisure Time 

message: If this article is confined to only citing "academic sources" there would be no article. It is, by its very nature, a controversy. Contributors to the controversy are not usually in academic institutions but this does nor mean they are too stupid to assemble a cogent argument. Neither does it mean their standards of investigation are necessarily lower than those in academia. Usually, Wikipedia does not attempt to evaluate arguments, it being sufficient that they originated from a scholarly source. That will not work here. These controversial arguments must be evaluated and, of course, they must rely on cited evidence (which is different from citing academic opinion). The best one can hope for is a balance of conflicting views, and space must be allowed to state the arguments of all sides. The danger is that a supporter of one of these controversial viewpoints might attempt to force a particular point of view (bias the article). In this case, I recommend issuing a warning and possibly a ban because this behaviour destroys the efforts of the group to balance the article. One might even consider freezing the article for a week or two to prevent further attack. (Puzzle Master 13:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are creating the counter-argument yourself then it is "OR" and not acceptable. Thems the rules. Who or what exactly are you proposing to "ban"? Paul B 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Paul's question, please explain. Anyway, this article has to adhere to the WP:RS rule, the same as everything else. This isn't some abstruse piece of wikilawyering: WP:V is at the absolute core of what Wikipedia aspires to be. Much of Barry's argument falls at that hurdle. If this were a topic that we could not evaluate from reliable sources then it would have to be deleted. Fortunately, we can do so: although the article falls sadly short of that ideal in its current state. AndyJones 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "If you are creating the counter-argument yourself then it is "OR" and not acceptable." Paul, I don't understand this statement. Andy, can you name a single book in support of the Oxfordian, Baconian or Marlovian theories that has been published by one of the University Presses. These are the publishers with the most rigorous standards and which demand academic peer review. These are the publishers that constitute reliable (academic) sources. (They also happen to all be Stratfordians.) If not, why haven't the sections on these theories in the article been deleted? If not, why do we have this article? Taking the argument further, why do we have articles explaining the tenets of spiritualism, witchcraft, and UFO theorists when none of these ideas has academic status? Rules are fine but they were not delivered to us in stone by Moses, sometimes they need adjusting. (Puzzle Master 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I cannot name any such books because so far as I am aware there aren't any. Anti-Stratfordianism is not considered credible by academia, and that is because anti-Stratfordianism is not credible. And WP:V is not negotiable. I will remove mercilessly any and all edits made to this (or any other) page based on the premise that it "needs adjusting". And I won't be alone. AndyJones 12:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only do you sound like you believe you ARE Wikipedia but you also appear to believe you have a hotline to God about what truth is! (Puzzle Master 16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "OR" stands for Original Research, as you should know by now. Paul B 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be patronising. At least show some basic human respect. (Puzzle Master 16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be absurd. Basic human respect is something of which you seem to know nothing. However the answer was straightforward. Paul B 14:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe this a reasonably understanding of the policies stated above.  I would love to hear comments from the regular editors of these pages. Smatprt 00:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To Smatprt. You're wasting your time. There is no prospect of you hanging your own aggressive behaviour on me. When I was here months ago you were trying to skew this article towards Oxford and I see that you've now progressed to skewing the main Shakespeare article too. You've been asked not to by others but you've simply ignored these requests. Clearly, you are the one who is at war with everyone else here. You evidently have no interest in working with others and seem obsessed with fashioning these articles towards promoting Oxford. I have experienced your aggression first hand. I added a perfectly acceptable referenced addition about Bacon to the header in the interests of balance. However, you changed the name incorrectly from "Michell" to "Mitchell" and the date incorrectly from "2000" (which is on my copy) to "1996". Then, presumably because it didn't suit your cause, you removed my reference altogether and rewrote the header to favour your candidate. You appear not to have the slightest concern as to whether or not the reader obtains a balanced view. Sadly, I don't see anyone in authority on these forums who is attempting to restrain your cancerous destruction. People just quote rules at each other without any attempt at enforcing them. I think you should identify yourself instead of hiding behind a pseudonym and your sockpuppet Ben Jonson so that we can all see who you really are. I, personally, would like to see you banned from this forum. (Puzzle Master 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just found this on my talk page written by Smatprt from April. "Thought you might like to know that the Strats are quickly building a concensus to cut down the section on authorship on the main William Shakespeare page. These cuts include the summary on Bacon (as well as Oxford and Marlowe). The discussion is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Shakespeare#Consensus_on_authorship_section While we are on opposite sides (officially) of a three sided question, I have always thought that Bacon and Oxford were more connected than most will even consider.Smatprt 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me for trying to keep you informed.  FYI - I have never heard of such a rule and if it exists, then just about every editor of the William Shakespeare page is also guilty.  Regarding my edits to your material - I am doing my best ot keep to academic sources (where possible).  When they differ from your Bacon Theorists, there is really no question as to which source can be used.  Your insistance on inserting material written by non-experts or taken from personal websites show you have no comprehension of WP:RS or WP:V.  REgarding your accusation that I am a sock puppet for BenJonson, I suggest you do your research.  I am no academian like BenJonson, who obviously has been editing alot longer and is way more knowledgible than I am.  Thanks for the compliment, though. (Your insistance that I identify myslef is truly strange. Are you planning on attacking me personally?) Seriously, I have given so many clues as to my identity, I am surprised the PuzzleMaster appears to be stumped! Smatprt 04:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard for Shakespeare Authorship article

message: Edited article for balance. I think this article should not be a platform for an obsessive to propagate Oxfordian views and I happily offer my services to maintain the balance with inexhaustible patience. (Puzzle Master 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article's crazy if you ask me. It needs cutting by half at least. (Hangemhigh 00:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Balance

message: I made two edits here and this guy changes it all in hours! Is this a fascist regime or do we have democracy? (Hangemhigh 09:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An attack on Smatprt's behaviour, not on Smatprt. To Hangemhigh. Let me give you some advice. Don't get involved in an edit war. If Smatprt can revert your edits (and those of three other editors) in just four hours the elevator obviously doesn't go to the top floor. The difference between the contributions of most editors here and Smatprt's is that Smatprt feels he controls this article and only his version is permissible. This involves the obligatory insertion of propaganda (see WP:SOAP) to the effect that Oxford is the most popular candidate. He does this under the pretence of conducting himself in a 'proper' manner, quoting which Wiki guidelines he is following, and the fact that Oxford is mentioned (albeit negatively) in a host of scholarly books. He is oblivious to the amount of bias he is creating but then Smatprt has no difficulty deluding himself. The scale of denial he needs to muster to believe in Oxford is enormous (to you and me but not to him) involving the repudiation of all scholarly dating of plays after 1604 (with any topical allusions thereafter inserted by actors) and the fact that there is not a single piece of hard evidence connecting Oxford with a Shakespeare play (at least Bacon is connected to The Comedy of Errors through the Gesta Grayorum). Rest assured that those who read this article will not be so easily deluded. The general public can recognise an evangelist when they see one. As for you and me, despite the work of many editors, we will have to resign ourselves to the fact that this article will remain poor and leave Smatprt in his own private world of goodies and baddies where Oxford emerges as the hero to save the day. For me, it's sad he uses this article to act out his personal issues, one of which is obviously the demand to be heard, when hiring a therapist could save us and him a whole lot of grief. (Puzzle Master 12:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Reverted article to get rid of anti-Stratfordian POV. (Felsommerfeld 14:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And in doing so, you edited out "Although all alternative candidates are rejected in most academic circles, popular interest in the subject has continued into the 21st century", making the article even more POV. I have restored.  To repeat - mass deletion of propely referenced material is highly controversial and should be discussed first at talk.Smatprt 15:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, my dear anti-Stratfordian, I don't give a damn. (Felsommerfeld 22:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. Very professional.Smatprt 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, academians react to Oxford negatively - JUST LIKE ALL THE CANDIDATES! But the fact remains that the academic community has labled Oxford as "the leading candidate", "the most popular candidate", "the leading theory", etc., cannot be disputed.  And can we be honest - if I was supportive of Bacon, instead of Oxford, Barry would not be making this ruckus.Smatprt 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the "academic community" has labelled him any such thing. It's a fact that he's currently the most popular, but the phrase 'leading candidate' implies that the academic community has given his supporters some sort of approval. Paul B 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would generally agree with that, Paul. "Popular" is the word that is used by academics far more than "leading", although "leading" is used as well.Smatprt 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "Hangemhigh", "Tolerancebelowzero" - where are you guys suddenly appearing from and is the reappearence of Tom Reedy under his own name related? Is there a code somewhere? Paul B 23:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - interesting that all 3 were created as "new users" on July 8th & 9th.  Sockpuppets?Smatprt 00:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sockpuppet, huh? You sure know how to make enemies here. (Hangemhigh 11:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If not, then I apologize.  Seeing 3 new editors appear on the same page on the same day led me to assume something I should not have.Smatprt 14:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, so Stephen Moorer. You altered my edit which corrected the reversion to alphabetical order of the candidates. Anyway, my real question is about your comment "the candidate order is not alpha - it details the top candidates based on current knolwdge and research". Which Wiki guideline says that candidates must be in order of popularity and not alpha order? Or is this something you have unilaterally decided? (Bodleyman 08:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No wiki guideline dictates any order in a case like this.  No unilateral decision - much discussion and a consensus built by another editor - Singing Badger, I believe.  FYI - the candidates were never alpha - just haphazardly added over the years. BTW - if alpha, why would Marlowe be before DeVere? More to the point - the history of alternative candidate section ended with DeVere acknowledged as the most popular current candidate, then went on to his bio. In terms of flow, this makes for better readability.Smatprt 14:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So Oxford suddenly loses his title and becomes DeVere (and that rather than SOS's preferred spelling "de Vere" too) so he can go up the alphabet list. Do you have to be so unrelentingly one sided? Paul B 14:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul, if it's the title, it would be Earl of Oxford. Is it DeVere or De Vere? Oxford or Earl of Oxford?  But this alpha debate is silly. If the consensus wants this alpha, so be it, but that discussion has never appeared on this page, as you know.Smatprt 15:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it wouldn't be E for "Earl". That's not how encyclopedias and directories arrange names. Wikipedia is unusual in that you'd look for Frank Zappa by typing F first rather than Z, but that's because it's not a book. Paul B 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is this guy?

message: Why are unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry so rife on this page? Will people please read WP:AGF, and then either hold their tongues, or present some actual evidence, if they want to allege that I am Alabamaboy or that Smatprt is BenJonson or that a newbie is TomReedy or that the Earl of Oxford is Shakespeare. AndyJones 07:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mission. To rid the world of conspiracy theories. (Suckpipette 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppetry

message: The reversion I'm defending was agreed upon over 9 months ago. Smatprt or Stephen Moorer has simply made it POV Earl of Oxford (re. Paul B.'s discussion above, the original alpha candidate order was altered by Moorer without discussion). 
: Actually, there was considerable discussion and consensus brokered by Singing Badger about 6 months ago.  Barry participated in those discussions as well as many other editors. Check the archive. Smatprt 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, you are refering to a discussion from another page so you are mixing apples and oranges. Alabamaboy brokered a compromise on the William Shakespeare page - not this one. FYI - Alabamaboy has since left that page because of what he percieved as higher standards being set for that page than others during the FA process. I defended the article against editors who wanted to remove the section IN WHOLE - what alabamaboy described as an attempt to "whitewash" the authorship issue. I supported his consensus and his request that I not edit war (made because several editors continued to dicker with the paragraph in question) was honored.Smatprt 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Following a suggestion by Mandel (Archive 4, 27 April) I've moved the Raleigh argument to the Baconian Theory article. Mandel also argues that the 1604 section belongs in the Oxfordian Theory article and I agree. It's primarily a defence of Oxford and only indirectly an anti-Stratfordian argument (just as Raleigh's execution is primarily an argument for Bacon). I think in structuring the article we should consider the reader and put aside our own personal wishes. I don't care which candidate appears first in the article. Let Smatprt have Oxford first if it means a lot to him. However, I think that however much we believe our own candidate did it, the balance of the article should be paramount. I hope Smatprt can manage to stop being so defensive about Oxford. There's a whole article on him for Christ's sake! I can't believe that you want to monopolise the main article as well! Sadly, in the anarchic Wikipedia where the rules have no executive force behind them, unless people have self-awareness and can compromise then it just comes down to a battle of wills. I'd like to see everyone win here but as I said, it demands a minimum level of self-awareness as to the fairness of what one is asking for. (Puzzle Master 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, I agree with your statement.  I do not agree about the 1604 issue for the following reason - it is one of the strongest anti-stratfordian arguments in the article. What, after all, could be a stronger issue?  If Shakespeare was dead by 1604, then the Stratford lad is out. I am sorry that the issue is problematic for the Bacon candidacy (at least a sole-Bacon candidacy), but anti-baconism is not the intent - anti-stratfordianism is. With the 1609 "ever-living poet" reference, as well as the unexplained stoppage of regular Shakespeare publication in 1604, plus the questions raised by the Heminge/Ostler case, where a witness testified that Shakespeare was deceased - they all add up to a legitimate question.  It is most damaging to the Stratfordian theory.  That is why I believe it should stay.  The fact that it was deleted without any discussion (like the hypen issue) is a greater cause of concern.Smatprt 05:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait. How are you going to show that the writer was dead by 1604? The words "ever-living" in the Sonnets can be taken both ways. Surely, it's more likely to mean alive than dead. In fact, it actually says "living"! Also, I don’t follow the logic that if the author stopped writing in 1604 then this would eliminate Shakspere from being the author. You claim "there would be no reason for him [Shakspere] to give up a lucrative career at the height of his (alleged) fame". Why not? Nobody knows why Shakspere might retire. The Workes of Ben Jonson (1616) inform us that he stopped appearing in Jonson's plays after Sejanus in 1603 so he evidently had a reason for that. There is also “in 1604, Shake-speare fell silent.” He did? There are at least 10 plays dated by scholars to be after 1604. No doubt you reject all this as biased research. This brings me to the problem I have with you. It’s the extreme lengths you’re willing to go to in order to establish your thesis. It’s a complete loss of perspective. It’s selectively speculative, illogical, and contains no evidence (apart from references which share your outlook). Here's some evidence. In The Tempest we have Stephano and Trinculo. In 1609, there was a court rumour that the King's first cousin Arabella Stuart was intending to marry Stephano Janiculo, a man of dubious character who was masquerading as the Prince of Moldavia (see Riggs, David, Ben Jonson, A Life, Harvard University Press: 1989, p.156). Ben Jonson used this topical allusion in Act 5, Scene 3 of Epicoene (1610): "... the Prince of Moldavia, and his mistris, mistris Epicoene". So it was a big talking point. Of course, the two characters Stephano and Trinculo (which appear to be drawn from Stephano Janiculo's name) also have dubious intent in The Tempest in plotting to kill Prospero. So there is evidence that the author Shakespeare was inserting topical allusions and was still alive in 1609. This also supports the idea that it was the topical Strachey letter that sourced The Tempest. So I still don’t care for this 1604/1609 section and still maintain that it’s an Oxfordian argument. If it was kept in, Oxford would receive a much higher profile than any other alternative candidate. What I’d really appreciate though is for you to sit down quietly, have a long hard think about what you’re doing, then recognise as most editors do here (and they're not out to get you) that what you’re really trying to do in this article is sell the Oxfordian cause. I don't think it's malicious. In fact, I don't think you have any control over it. To me, your lack of self-awareness is a symptom of a low level of mental health (hence my suggestion of therapy which I sincerely hope you take up). (Puzzle Master 10:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be wasting your time trying to discuss this rationally with Stephen Moorer. Most other people here myself included have already come to that conclusion. (Felsommerfeld 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I know that you are trying to smear my name by leaving comments against me on the talk pages of administrators. Thanks for the extra incentive to oppose your ridiculous ownership of this article.  May I cordially invite you to examine my own list of contributions which I haven't quite finished.  In case you're wondering, they're all administrators. (Felsommerfeld 16:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Guys, That one re-organization edit and the hyphenation edit have been reverted and re-reverted way over three times.  Please discuss it here and reach a consensus first before changing.  I would also suggest breaking down huge edits into a series of smaller ones. AdamBiswanger1 21:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the joys of having an admin account in the "A"s.  I completely agree with AB:  when I counted, it looked like people were just about keeping their reversions slightly slower than 3/day, but frankly that's no excuse:  given the rapid deterioration in any attempt at civil and constructive discussion of these edits, if people keep reverting and trading insults, or if "new" accounts appear to mysteriously appear to do the same thing, they'll find their "right to revert" will be construed as disruptive editing, and hence blockable.  Alai 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion to consensus

message: I find it puzzling that while much space has been devoted to discussing identity & chronology, very little has been given to style -- how these authors use language. Do they betray a common vocabulary, use of metaphors, etc.? I bring this up because Caroline Spurgeon, Shakespeare's Imagery (Boston: Beacon, 1958) is an example of research, admittedly from an earlier generation, that examines Shakespeare use of images, and compares it to his contemporaries -- as well as to Marlowe & Bacon -- & finds that the several authors show distinct preferences for certain varieties of imagery. Shakespeare's most common source of images is from sports and games (riding, bird-snaring, falconry as well as archery); Marlowe draws from "bookish" topics (as befits a University man) and frequently uses personification, while Bacon draws from sceens of home life ("everything touching the house and daily life indoors") which Spurgeon believes is that this includes "many images drawn from light and darkness".
My point in mentioning this is not to convince anyone (although this book settled the question for me long ago), but that without discussing Spurgeon's research no advocate for a non-Stratfordian position would be adequately prepared to defend their belief. And I feel without a discussion of this text & its implications, this article does not qualify FA status. -- llywrch 21:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point, Llywrch. There should be a sentence or two added to the section about William Plumer Fowler's 1986 book, *Shakespeare Identified in Oxford's Letters.* This massive book goes through 37 of Oxford's extant letters to show the close affinity, in terms of vocabulary and phraseology, between these letters and the works of Shakespeare. Fowler's work has not recieved the attention it deserves. While not beyond criticism, the book goes very far to demonstrate the plausibility, on stylistic grounds, of Oxford's authorship. Decades ago J.M. Robertson argued, persuasively in my opinion, that Bacon could be ruled out of consideration on stylistic grounds (and there are those today, like Ward Elliott, who think the same can be said of Oxford). --BenJonson 17:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I read somewhere that Bacon was more of a prose writer than the more poetic Shakespeare. Wrad 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  AFAIK, Bacon never wrote a line of poetry in his life. However, Spurgeon selected him to compare against Shakespeare because at the time she wrote "the claim that Bacon is in truth Shakespeare and wrote his plays is still held to be a serious and well-foudned one by a lage number of people. It is natural, therefore, that one should be eager to ask, 'What does an examination of their images tell us?'" (p. 16) -- llywrch 05:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Mmm ... Bacon certainly wrote poetry and published it in The Translation of Certain Psalms (1625) where he renders various psalms into verse form. From these, the barrister Nigel Cockburn (The Bacon-Shakespeare Question 1998) has rooted out certain metaphorical parallels with Shakespeare's work. I'm amused that Spurgeon could believe that Bacon might use the same imagery in his work on natural philosophy as in his conjectured plays and poetry. Also I can't help thinking that it's rather lazy forming an opinion on the basis of one dubious test. It is better to make a complete study of the arguments for all candidates (including Shakspere) ... then decide. (Puzzle Master 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe. But Spurgeon's study is a well-known one, & was the most comprehensive until that time. Until her book was published, no one had looked at Shakespeare's imagery in such a systematic way, let alone included a comparison to a number of his contemporaries. -- llywrch 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Omission?

message: Interesting article here - which discusses some of the more basic hypotheses. 
A couple of extracts -
:"Acclaimed actor Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance, the former artistic director of Shakespeare's Globe Theater in London, unveiled a "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt" on the authorship of Shakespeare's work Saturday, following the final matinee of "I am Shakespeare," a play investigating the bard's identity, in Chichester, southern England."...
:"The declaration names 20 prominent doubters of the past, including Mark Twain, Orson Welles, Sir John Gielgud and Charlie Chaplin."
Jacobi subscribes to the group theory. It is not unlikely that Shakespeare's works have some element of collaboration. This is common in acting companies. --MacRusgail 13:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yahoo article 

message: Is this a legitimate addition?  All of the material seems to have been added by the same person, and a google search yields sparse information about Greville as a candidate for Shakespeare's works.  Any thoughts? AdamBiswanger1 00:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may deserve a few sentences or a paragraph. But we've definitely got some undue weight going on... Wrad 00:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole thing is a copyright violation from this site: http://www.masterofshakespeare.com/fulke_greville.htm, and needs to be summarized and reworded drastically. Wrad 00:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I'm thinking about deleting it... maybe throwing a sentence in the "other candidates" section... AdamBiswanger1 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done just that.  And removed the link to the plagerised SPAM cite. Kept the picture though - but under "other candidates"Smatprt 07:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fulke Greville

message: I think it's time to shorten this article, (as per WP:SIZE), as it has grown to well over 60 kb.  We can start by (and feel free to add your ideas):
#Shortening info on alternative candidates (most already have their own articles)
#Shortening the enormous introduction
#Can anything else warrant its own article?
AdamBiswanger1 17:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relevant policies (for general reference): WP:CFORK, WP:SS, WP:SIZE. AdamBiswanger1 17:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortening the article

message: After searching many websites and publications, I found that the debate is rarely called "Shakespearean".  It's almost always "Shakespeare", which makes sense, since it's about the man and not the larger catagorie known as Shakespearean.  I therefore made this minor change to the name of the article.  I hope no one has a problem with this. Smatprt 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: It says that there are no detailed records of Shakespeare's attendance in any school, but there aren't detailed records of anybody's attendance. Seems like whoever wrote this was a bit biased. Please correct this posthaste. Magicallydajesus 06:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: Sorry, I didn't mean my edits to start an edit war. When I saw all the [citation needed] markers, and thought I could help by supplying some citations. As for WP:RS, it does say: "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context." And considering the context of statements like "Mainstream scholars assume that..." or "Stratfordians claim that..." you can't get much more authoritative than a website where a mainstream Stratfordian scholar actually makes those claims! If we can't cite any Stratfordian webpages in that context, then what can we cite?  P Ingerson (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "David Kathman is not an acknowledged expert in Authorship studies". Since most 'Statfordians' (i.e. Shakespeare scholars) do not accept that 'authorship studies' is a legitimate field, that's rather like excluding the opinions of an evolutionary scientist from an article on Creationism on the grounds that he is "not an expert of creationist studies". However, Smatprt knows very well that David Kathman wrote the chapter on Authorship in the Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide, edited by Stanley Wells. That means he's accepted as an expert on Authorship studies by Oxford University Press and by a Professor of Shakespeare Studies and Director of the Shakespeare Institute. You don't get much more authoritative than that! Paul B 16:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. DK clearly an acknowledged expert on the subject. AndyJones 11:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: For starters, here is a source for much of the information you seek - It's called "Shakespeare and his Rivals: A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy" by George McMichael and Edgar M. Glenn, a pair of college professors. It is copyright 1962, and published by The Odyssey Press, in NY. lib of congess card #62-11942. It is strictly informative, providing source documents, contemp. reference, first signs of doubt, etc. It makes it clear on the first page that "most academic scholars aceept that Shakespeare was Shakespeare", and in presenting each theory, pretty much dismisses them - although without all the anger and name-calling and wild theories that Kathman advances. I do agree that better sources would be the best compromise and appreciate P Ingerson for a civility that is often lacking on this page.Smatprt 07:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno. A book published 45 years ago is all very well, but the article often needs to cite refutations of Oxfordian claims made more recently. AndyJones 11:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And another: The Authorship of Shakespeare.  James G. McManaway. Publisher: Folger Shakespeare Library. Cornell University Pres, Ithaca, NY. 1962.Smatprt 07:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been established that David Kathman's views are representative of the generally-accepted Stratfordian contentions.  If this is not the case, we are essentially grafting original research into the article.  Often Kathman merely cites primary sources from which he bases what seems to be just that, original research.  Essentially, we can only include citations that support the generally-accepted Stratfordian contentions, unless note otherwise ("David Kathman contends that...")  As it stands now, claiming that most experts believe something by citing one of them isn't logical.  If Mark Anderson, an Oxfordian, were to posit an unorthodox, unique claim, I would certainly not preface it with "Oxfordians hold that_______________Mark Anderson, etc. So, guys, we need to either:
#Establish that Kathman and Stratfordians are one in the same, 
#Mention in the article that these claims are unique to Kathman, or 
#Replace this citation with a secondary source or a peer-reviewed journal.  AdamBiswanger1 15:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have misunderstood the concept of original research when used in the context of Wikipedia. Experts are allowed to do original research. We - Wikipedia editors - are not. Kathman is an expert, as is established by his many scholarly publications. We report the views of experts. 16:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have misunderstood my comment.  We do report the research of experts, but if we report what one possibly dissenting expert thinks, we do not purport it to represent all experts, and we do not support a phenomenon (Stratfordian thought) by providing an example (One Stratfordian), unless we are certain that the example is indicative of the phenomenon.  However we are not quite in a position to do that because it is impractical, so our only solution is to use a neutral publication that surveys the arguments on both sides, or to provide numerous examples of expert Stratfordians advancing the same claim.  Also, in WP:OR, we are reminded that editors cannot use a synthesis of sources to advance a new position.  So, listing all of the minute, and often conflicting contentions of various Stratfordian experts would assert an idea of Stratfordian that we ourselves have created.  AdamBiswanger1 17:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as "Stratfordian thought". Very few academics respond in detail to specific Oxfordian arguments. I think your interpretation of WP:OR is rather off the mark. There is and never can be some metaphysical concept of 'Statfordians' or 'Oxfordians'. There are only a relatively few individual authors. Saying 'Strafordians say..' is just to say this is a Stratfordian argument. There is no 'new synthesis' involved at all. However it would be no big deal to write that Kathman says this. It's not a big policy related issue. You are making a mountain of a molehill. Paul B 20:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: OR isn't a problem in this context, it's an internal wikipedia rule: researchers doing original research is normal. AndyJones 11:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that Kathman does not work in academia is irrelevant. Mutual fund analysis is rather more remunerative. The fact that he is accepted as an expert by journals, editors and academic publishers is the important point. The 'ridiculous assertions' are only ridiculous in your fantasy world. Provide evidence that they are considered ridiculous by anyone outside Oxfordianism. What you consider to be ridiculous is of no more weight than PuzzleMaster's narcissistic pronouncements about the stupidity of Stanley Wells and Jonathan Bate in comparison to his glorious self. Paul B 09:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of all the people I have encountered here, Mr Barlow, your pronouncements exhibit the least evidence of both intellectual depth and of having researched these matters. You are but a sponge that uncritically soaks up anything that anyone who carries the name of academic tells you, not only because you lack the intellectual capacity for critical thinking but because you also lack the imagination to recognise the range of possibilities available. All you can offer is invective in the mistaken hope that those who have done enough research to embarrass your shallow point of view will go way. But I will be here for years to come, if only to celebrate the day, if it ever comes, when you manage to cobble together a worthwhile argument. (Puzzle Master 22:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Dr Barlow to you, you silly, silly little man. Paul B 22:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That only demonstrates how easy it is to get a PhD. (Puzzle Master 00:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's be clear. Smatprt is a POV pusher, as defined in Wikipedia:Information suppression. He wishes to suppress any material that will contradict his preferred POV and push any material that will support it. His main reason for wishing to keep out the Kathman pages is that they contain very very detailed anti-Oxfordian arguments which are not to be found elsewhere because Shakespeare scholars do not on the whole publish on paper detailed refutations of Oxfordiansm. The majority of Oxfordian books are published by commercial publishers and have no more status as RS than the writings of Erik von Danekin. This is a clear double standard. Paul B 10:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Specifically, I think http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html is the best available citation for the "Shake-speare" vs. "Shaksper" claim, so I'll restore it, alongside the print citation already there. AndyJones 11:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes - let's do be clear Paul, while you and your gang of bullies may call me a POV pusher, in actuality I am a POV defender.  If it were not for me and the other "heretics" (to use a name we have been called on these pages), you and your gang of bullies would have been successful in completely deleting the authorship issue from all of Wikipedia. Efforts by the most overzealous of you would have been successful and the many deletions that I have fought to restore would have been gone forever. You all keep accusing me of deleting information that I disagree with, but you have yet to show examples in any sufficient quantity to make that charge stick.  But keep making it, everyone - it makes is sooooo easy to defend. Do I go overboard with the reverts? - sure, sometimes I do, but quite frankly, I see it as a valid response to the rudeness, nastiness and ongoing bullying exhibited by you and your buddies. I think what really upsets you is that neither I, nor Barry for that matter, are ever going to go away. And yes, I will continue to defend a POV that you and others want censored from the site.Smatprt 04:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fairly typical of your lies. Long long before you came along I did my best to maintain balance on this page according to the Wikipedia rules, and even bending them in favour of anti-Strafordian claims - precisely because Oxfordian and other arguments do not typically come from reliable sources according to WP:RS.
*Wrong again - there are plenty of RS our there that cover these issues.
I have never argued that they be excluded. What I have done is point out to you that you that most Oxfordian argument could be excluded if we applied your  double standards. You will use any argument you can think of to exclude arguments in favour of the mainstream position
*Wrong again.  I have no record of deletionism - unlike you and your gang of bullies.Smatprt (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Dr Barlow (where's the PhD from Walmart? Just joking!) There you go again, attacking with the accusation "his aggressive personal absuse" - the spelling is yours. You evidently lack the awareness you're doing this. I don't agree with Smatprt's authorship candidate and I think his reverting is obsessive but I don't feel bullied by him as I do by you. You are a typical forum bully whose success depends on the majority giving him free reign as they do here. If you presented counter-arguments that would be fine, but all your contributions that I have seen are personal attacks ("silly, silly man" and "narcissistic pronouncements") so it's ironic that that's what you accuse me of. In contrast, my reasoned position is sprinkled throughout the archives here if you care to do the research (which I doubt). As Smatprt says, we are NEVER going to go away. (Puzzle Master 00:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The utter childishness your your abuse should be evident to all. When one resorts to sneering at typos one may as well give up. I only called you a silly man after you resorted to the infantile tactics we see here, and after you personally abused Bates and Wells. Paul B 08:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's incredible that someone can question the research ability of Stanley Wells and Jonathan Bate. These guys are professors! And why does this article exist? If Shakespeare didn't write it then half of England would have known. It's a conspiracy theory and all conspiracy theories are propagated by the mentally unbalanced. QED (Felsommerfeld 12:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My advice: go and talk to PaulB. You are wonderfully suited for each other! I reiterate  my earlier comment that Wells and Bates have not sufficiently researched the Shakespeare authorship issue (certainly not the Baconian case). (Puzzle Master 14:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barry is right on this - Wells and Bates have not researched the authorship in depth and admit to it, because they deem it unworthy of their time.  As a result Wells even allowed Kathman to repeat his own POV/mistakes in the ONE book that Kathman has actually contributed to.Smatprt (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops!  I didn't mean to start an edit war! 

message: I have blocked one user in this dispute for excessive reverting. Excessive reverting is disruptive, being disruptive is being blockable. Please do not revert more then one time a day on this article for the next while, and discuss your differences on the talk page (here). If you guys need assistance sorting out the dispute, see dispute resolution. Thank you. —— Eagle101Need help? 08:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruption 

message: No doubt Smatprt will revert my changes yet again. I've deleted the mention of Derek Jacobi's support for Oxfordianism and the trivially silly "ever-living" solution to the Sonnets puzzle (in the Sonnets graphic) which is supposed to be a De Vere anagram of some kind. It's obvious, even to a moron that, whatever the solution to the Sonnets puzzles is, because there is a point between each word, it involves ALL the words not one small phrase conveniently selected. I know these things: puzzles is my speciality! The Jacobi deletion was carried out because Smatprt tries to insert an Oxfordian reference at EVERY opportunity. He hasn't the slightest interest in balance. For him, this article is merely a vehicle to promote his views. But we've been here before ... many times ... haven't we? And despite MANY warnings he has obviously NO INTENTION of changing his crusading style. Sigh! (Puzzle Master 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barry, Barry, Barry - at least get the argument right so YOU don't look like a moron - the "ever-living poet" reference has nothing to do with anagrams or other puzzles.  The issue is that the term "ever-living" usually refers to a DEAD person!  Shakespeare himself gives us the best example in H6 - refering to the DEAD Henry V, we have "ever-living man of memory". I know that this offends you because the "he was dead prior to 1609" argument makes things hard for the Bacon candidacy, which is your POV.  But none-the-less, it cannot be argued that if it can be proved that the author was dead by 1609, thus knocking Stratford off his pedestal, then the Authorship Question would be drastically affected. You accuse me of POV pushing, but then you delete material that conflicts with YOUR POV. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle...Smatprt 03:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I know that John Michell author of Who Wrote Shakespeare? (who I like) claims that "our ever-living" is an anagram of "Nil Vero Verius" (apart from one letter) which was Oxford's motto. Second, where is the proof that "ever-living" does not mean ... ever-living?! In other words, he lives for ever in his writing. You would like it to mean a dead person because Oxford was dead by 1609 when the Sonnets was registered but the truth is no one knows what was meant in which case there's no issue and it doesn't deserve mention. My third point is that I see a major obstacle to Oxford's candidacy ... he was dead before 11 of the plays were written! I don't have to reject the dating of 11 plays to give Bacon a fighting chance but you have no choice for Oxford. So now it's all about probabilities. What is the chance that independent researchers have got maybe one, two, three datings wrong (we're still in the realm of the probable), four, five (I'm getting doubtful), six, seven (wait a minute), eight ... ELEVEN!!! It's your estimation of what is probable that I think is faulty. If I had come to the authorship problem knowing nothing about it and someone had said "Oxford is a candidate and by the way a lot of research shows he was dead before 11 Shake-speare plays were written" I wouldn't have bothered with him. But you desperately want him to be Shakespeare and you would be prepared to accept the utterly improbable to keep him as Shakespeare. That's the difference between you and me. I don't think the case for Bacon is anywhere near as improbable as it is for Oxford. A psychological point: I think both you and BenJonson are identifying with and using Oxford to make sense of your own lives which is why you obsessively revert changes here even when the probability of you being right is against you (in other words, you're defending you). The point is, Oxford doesn't make sense of Shake-speare the author's life. The whole case for Oxford rests on autobiographical interpretations but I don't see why the plays are necessarily autobiographical. I mean, Harry Potter's parents were murdered by a wizard ... this did not happen to J.K.Rowling! And even if aspects of Oxford's life are represented in Hamlet what precludes someone who knew Oxford from writing about him? The Oxford case is making gratuitous assumptions. (Puzzle Master 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And Derek Jacobi is NOTABLE WP:NOTE just as Mark Twain (who was no researcher) is NOTABLE. BTW  - it is my understanding that Jacobi's belief in a group includes Bacon as a major player in that group, as do many other group theories. Bacon and Oxford were close...so....who knows, maybe we are both right!Smatprt 03:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence at my disposal suggests otherwise. I think Bacon wrote the Shake-speare work alone as the political and moral Histories for his Great Instauration project. To understand this we need to appreciate that Bacon (described by some as the finest mind for 500 years) was trying to revise the entire teaching of Aristotle (which was heavily ingrained in the culture) and put human knowledge on a more secure footing. However, if you like, we can agree that Stratfordianism is a propaganda machine that rejects all reasonable attempts to investigate it. I'd like to see the end of this brainwashing of our students (and some of the brainwashed are right here at Wikipedia defending these Shakespeare pages). (Puzzle Master 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oxfordian Slant

message: I've just bought Shakespeare By Another Name from amazon. I gave up at page 25. It's painful, tediously painful, to read! I wanted the book to tell me what the case for Oxford was. But what kind of historical investigation starts at page 1 with the assumption that Oxford is Shake-speare then, without any attempt to construct an argument, spends page after page gratuitously assigning lines from Shake-speare to aspects of de Vere's life? It's pure evangelism! It's crammed with irrelevant biographical detail and a simple browse discovered an error of fact too (like the assumption on page 403 that it was Strachey who delivered Strachey's letter to England and so it would have arrived too late to source the first known performance of The Tempest when, in fact, it was Gates who brought it to England much earlier). I'm annoyed with myself for wasting an evening on it. No wonder the Stratfordians are thriving! (Puzzle Master 22:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to argue with you, but I don't think it's as bad as you say, although alot of the interpretations are sketchy, like when he contends that such-and-such a friend of de Vere's was the inspiration for such-and-such a character.  But some evidence is downright convincing, like Hamlet's irrelevant mentioning of his abduction by pirates who left him naked on the shore, but spared him his life when he revealed he was a noble.  The story matches remarkably with de Vere's.  And, as far as the method of assuming that de Vere was Shakespeare, that just makes writing and reading the book easier, getting rid of the need for "could have" and "might have been" at every sentence. AdamBiswanger1 21:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm mystified why you are so careful to convey the impression that you're not attacking me. As to the issue at hand, what if the pirates story does match the details of de Vere's life? Why does that necessarily mean that he wrote Hamlet? In Twelfth Night there are good parallels with Sir Toby Belch and Sir Posthumus Hoby with regard to an incident that went to Star Chamber in 1601 involving the disorderly conduct of William Eure in Hoby's house. Toby also refers to Sir Edward Coke's conduct of "thouing" Raleigh three times (an insult) at his trial in 1603 with "if thou thou'st him thrice, it shall not be amisse". The Comedy of Errors, in making use of a gold chain (which is not in the Plautine version), alludes to a real incident involving Sir Roger Manswood's theft of a gold chain which went to Star Chamber in 1591. Macbeth refers to witches and King James wrote a notable treatise on witchcraft. The Shakespeare work is littered with topical references to personalities. No one claims these personalities wrote the play they appeared in. But Oxfordians claim that Oxford wrote Hamlet. It's an unwarranted leap from the improbable to the definite. (Puzzle Master 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to "convey the impression" that I'm not "attacking" you for two reasons:  One, this is an article talk page and not a place to discuss the relative merits of a book.  Secondly, I don't profess to be an expert on the subject, and my only interest was to defend the basic integrity of the book without summarily dismissing it after reading, say, 25 pages of it.  The New York Times Review of Books, one of the premier book-review publications in the US, said that the book "deserves serious attention", and that's really all I'm trying to say as well. AdamBiswanger1 20:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it deserves serious attention, even if you remain unconvinced.  It deserves attention if only for the reason that it was written by "an outsider, a stranger to the field" (author's note, p. 411), who until 1993 had never even heard of any such thing as a doubt about the authorship of Shakespeare, let alone had had any biases about it.  With regard to Hamlet, pages 190-191 might be of interest if you want to read more about de Vere's knowledge of Denmark.  His brother-in-law Peregrine Bertie was Ambassador there: Bertie paid an extended visit to Elsinore, he met Tycho Brahe (whose observation of a supernova was mirrored in the "bright star that's westward from the pole"), and he met actual Danish courtiers named Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.  He would have relayed these facts to de Vere, his wife's brother.  Did the Stratford guy have such experiences or know of such people?  (Btw, I can see no attack on you coming from AdamBiswanger.  He might be disagreeing with your opinions, but it's all been done civilly, certainly involving no attack on you personally).  --  JackofOz 00:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My meaning was simply this: I didn't expect an attack and I didn't perceive anything that Adam wrote as an attack. Perhaps you should study the Bacon theory and then form a view as to which case has the greater merit http://barryispuzzled.com/shakpuzz.pdf (Puzzle Master 13:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I had a quick browse and it seems well written. I'll read it fully when I have some time. --  JackofOz 13:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark Anderson's Oxfordian Book

message: I see William Nugent/Liam Nuinseann is mentioned in this article. There is a fascinating article on Indymedia that should attract the attention of all people interested in this topic. Liam Nuinseann was an Oxford educated Irish language poet, who was also a brother of one of Ireland's most powerful Norman nobles, the Baron Delvin. He was also a rebel. But anyway the guy on Indymedia has done a very well researched article arguing that Nugent is Shakespeare. Indeed, it's so good I'm only left to wonder who the guy who wrote it really is as I'm very familiar with historians of sixteenth-century Ireland. Here it is: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79358 (it should really be on a Shakespeare website as I'd love to hear arguments against it). 86.42.97.195 11:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Liam Nuinseann]]/ William Nugent