Talk:Oxfordian theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oxfordian theory is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Oxfordian theory is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oxfordian theory article.
Article policies

This article's name seems to me a little awkward. Kpjas 16:07 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at Oxfordian theory? - Hephaestos 03:56 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. scc 04:02 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Read Shakespearean authorship - this article is almost entirely redundant with the relevant section of that one. Is there significantly more to say about this, rather than just merging and redirecting? - David Gerard 16:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am inclined to sympathize, but in answer to your question, I think there is indeed significantly more to say. I've updated the page to provide some references to Oxford's Elizabethan-era reputation as a concealed writer, a link to Professor Alan Nelson's archive of transcripts from de Vere's letters, and a few edits for clarity in other sections. As I see it, this page is needed to supply greater detail than can reasonably be given on the Shakespearean authorship page. The case for Oxford is a dynamic and rapidly growing one. Details: http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/news.html

Contents

[edit] External links

Most of the linked websites have a bias, so putting them in a category would seem a service. If there is a site without whiff of controversy, that should probably be listed first. Categories might be: Neutral, Oxfordian, and Stratfordian. Perhaps it is sufficient to order the links by these three categories without adding titles. Fotoguzzi 11:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, though there'll be some dispute about what counts as "neutral"! Paul B 12:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I gave the links a tidyup and divided them. None of them seemed to count as 'neutral'. The Singing Badger 15:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

I've beefed up this section in line with the stuff I've done of the Baconian theory page - only I forgot to sign in first, so they look like anonymous edits in the history. I might do some more cross-fertilization between the two sections.Bedesboy 14:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clue on Shakespeare's Grave?

Growing up as a kid, I had never heard that there was a controversy over the authorship of Shakespeare until an issue of "Games Magazine" that came out in the 1990s, which postulated that Shakespeare was Edward de Vere and even used a supposed "code" in the inscription on his grave to explain that the grave itself admits to the true authorship. It was something about a v-shaped pattern where it spelled something out, and had the initials "EDV" in it, and explained why there were some oddly arranged smaller letters in the inscription that supposedly didn't make sense the way they're on there, but can be explained by the code. I don't know if I actually believe the theory - but it was the first time I heard the Oxfordian arguement and it fascinated me, even if I didn't necessarily believe in it. I've tried googling and I really can't find any information on this article or its claims about the grave. Even if the code theory was proven to be laughable or false, I'd imagine it would still be worthy of mentioning that it was put forward once. The problem is the article came out in a puzzles magazine with limited distribution before the internet age really took off - hence I can't find a thing about it. If anyone knows something about this article, or has ever heard this "grave code" theory before, I'd love to read about it again. Not to "prove" the Oxfordian side, but just to list as another arguement. --63.167.255.231 20:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but perhaps your vague recollection refers to the purported anagram attached to "MENTE. VIDEBOR"? If so, there are the links [1] and [2] (among others) that discuss it. Myasuda 01:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV bias

This article unrelentingly presents one side of a case. For example, "1604" (an early death for the Earl) should be a negative to the theory that the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays, but instead we're told it's a positive.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 10:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also the statement that many prominent early 20th century thinkers such as Sigmund Freud believed in the theory needs a source ASAP, also appears to be an example of argumentum ad verecundiam but those are generally allowed. I'm putting a reminder on my to-do list, no source by the weekend (1/20/2007) and it goes. Quadzilla99 15:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree it's a logical fallacy to use Freud's opinion as evidence of the truth of the underlying proposition. It is true and interesting that he held the opinion, though. I'll source this from Mitchell (because that's easy) in the next few minutes. People can feel free to improve the source. AndyJones 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of name

Shld outright falsehoods be allowed, even if credited to a Supreme Court Justice? The opening discussion of "terminology" claims that "most references to the man from Stratford in legal documents usually spell the first syllable of his name with only four letters, Shak- or sometimes Shag- or Shax-, whereas the dramatist's name is consistently rendered with a long "a" as in "Shake". But "Shax" in fact comes from a court record of plays performed for James' coronation. It is not at all the only case in which an unambiguous reference to the author is spelled "Shak.. " or some variant of that. But the mistaken claim here is not more egregious than many others in the article.18:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)128.135.232.240

  • Yes (and your last point is articulately expressed by Kathman in the article linked to in footnote 2). I think this section needs rewiting, for clarity. I'll give it some thought. AndyJones 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxenford

How is it confusing? It is confusing that Meres calls "Oxenford" "best for comedies" when we claim it is about Oxford. Shouldn't we introduce the fact that both "Oxford" and "Oxenford refer to the same person. Or should we delete the Meres reference to avoid confusion? Jvbishop 15:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    • I think it muddies up a very clean opening paragraph. If you really think the info is imperative, I would suggest a footnote.Smatprt 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I think it should have at least some mention. You are right that the opening paragraph is rather well written. I shall think on how to best put it in. Jvbishop 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • May I suggest either an expanded footnote, or more appropriately, to make the explanation where the first "oxenford" actually occurs on the page. Frankly, though, it seems like one of those many minor details that doesnt warrant further space usage.Smatprt 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what next?- To Smatprt

One of the early paragraphs states that the Oxford case is "substantially based on striking parallels between the text of the plays and Oxford's life" but the section covering this is rather lacking. I think this is the section you need to expand on next. I like a lot of the edits you made yesterday though. Good work. Jvbishop 13:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

    • I will certainly look at that and see what I can add.
    • Also - I agree with others who feel the terminology section needs work. Right now, it's pretty much a mess. Can anyone simplify it - or combine it with the overview? Frankly, I think the issue is a non-starter for Oxfordians and already repeats what is on the Shakespeare Authorship page. Is it really needed under Oxfordian Theory, since it isn't specific to Oxford? Any suggestions - anyone?Smatprt 16:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crinkley Review of Ogburn

I appreciate the contributions of whoever added the clarification that Crinkley stated that he was not persuaded by Ogburn's book. Unfortunately Crinkley died before he had the opportunity to take stock of the many developoments that have taken place since then, significantly in consequence of Ogburn's book, which did persuade numberless readers, many of whom went on to make their own signal contributions to the debate. In the interest of providing a thoroughly balanced view of Crinkley's review, I made the following modification:

Although Crinkley rejected Ogburn's thesis, believing that "The case made for Oxford in leaves one unconvinced: plausible but unproved, possible but improbable, less satisfactory than the unsatisfactory orthodoxy it challenges," he also concluded that "a particular achievement of...Ogburn is that he focused our attention so effectively on what we do not know about Shakespeare...[Problems that he identifies]cast a shadow over the traditional recieved theory of authorship."

I think the present wording now gives appropriate weight to the intellectual complexity of Crinkley's position as stated in the review. I hope others will agree. --BenJonson 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Oxford as Poet and Playwright Section

What is the reference for this claim: "Stratfordians disagree with this interpretation of Peacham's work. They point out that the Peacham copied large parts of Puttenham's work but did not use the names of those writers who would not have been considered "gentlemen", a title that Peacham felt should not be applied to actors. They also argue that the list is only of poets and that Peacham does not list playwrights"?--BenJonson 01:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is more original research by David Kathman, or someone on his personal website. I have found a number of quotes being attributed to this website. As he is not a professional researcher, an Eliz Lit prof., or simply posting excerpts from actual published research works, I am either deleting the more outrageous material or asking for a suitable source for edits that are less controversial. If anyone wants to put anything back in, please come up with better sources.Smatprt 05:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what was posted by another editor (who is also a Wiki administrator) on the Shakespeare Authorship discussion page: "We can use the sources quoted by Kathman. However, websites such as his are not considered valid sources for WP, especially since there are a endless number of books and journal articles we can use instead of his." quoted by Smatprt 05:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Fair enough: I won't revert those changes but I will make two points:
    • Be careful not to confuse WP:RS with WP:OR. The problem with Kathman is WP:RS. Quoting Kathman is not WP:OR because Kathman (AFAWK) is not a wikipedia editor.
    • Nobody will thank you for labeling other users. I'll allow you to label me personally as "Stratfordian" because I self-identify in that way. However to use it of others, as you just did of Alabamaboy is uncivil, and I'd like you to be aware of the fact. As I've pointed out to you before, anyone disinterested is "Stratfordian" by your standards, and that does not stop such labeling being impolite. AndyJones 07:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I thought that alabamaboy had identified himself as stratfordian. While I am not looking to be "thanked" by any of the editors of these pages, I will certainly delete the reference (although the mainstream editors of these pages certainly do a lot of labeling themselves. I hope you are able to help them out as well.)Smatprt 13:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't mean to labour the point (...here goes anyway...), but the change you've made above is fundamentally no different. You're still identifying another user by reference to his POV rather than respecting him for who he is. (Mainstream, stratfordian, stratfordian, mainstream: what's the difference?) I see a few people on other talk pages who have taken offence at this: I don't think it's just me being a pedant. AndyJones 16:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - as long as it works both ways. Similar comments such as "another Oxfordian" or "Oxfordian vandalism" or "taken over by Oxfordians" should also not be used, yes? Smatprt 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Recent deletions without discussion

I think the deletion of this material [3], along with it’s sarcastic POV remark, is an excellent example of the tactics certain editors often employ on this page. Instead of putting a reference request on the paragraph in question, as Andy has often done, or opened a discussion prior to deletion, as Tom or Wrad might have done, Paul simply deleted the material he did not like (or agree with), and then belittled the statement and, by extension, the contributing editor.

In order to address the issue, (after the fact), I offer the following argument:

  • To deny the existence of line-altering or improvisation in the Elizabethan Theatre shows a misunderstanding of the history, background and traditions of the theatre.
  • Primarily, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the role of the Fool (or Vice) in Elizabethan Theatre. According to David Scott Kastan in A Companion to Shakespeare, “The company always recruited a clown, who was capable of improvisation”, typically commenting on topical events that would get audience reactions.
  • In Shakespeare's Clown: Actor and Text in the Elizabethan Playhouse, by David Wiles (University of London) he states ”Just as a fool in a morris dance broke formation and danced where he pleased, so the Vice (Fool) swept aside the confines of a script” – again using social comment as the main device.
  • Countless editors have commented on Kemps departure from the Chamberlain’s Men in 1599 as being “asked to leave due to his chronic improvising” and that Shakespeare made reference to this in Hamlet: “And let those that play your clowns speak no more than is set down for them; for there be of them that will themselves laugh, to set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh too (3.2.40-5)
  • After Kemp, we got the great Armin. To quote some Fool-ish literature I found - “Armin's fool is a stage presence rather than a solo artist. His major skills were mime and mimicry; even his improvisational material had to be reworked and rehearsed. (To rework and rehearse something, one generally has to write in down in the promtbook or stage managers script.)
  • Armin published Nest of Ninnies, in which he categorized two kinds of fools: 1) naturals--mentally deranged or feeble-minded simpletons; and 2) artificials--quick-witted allowed fools. (To be quick witted on the Elizabethan stage referred to the ability to improv, and engage the audience in repartee, of which Armin was a master.
  • Improv was not exclusive to the Fool. Staying with Shakespeare, please remember Bottom, the great tragedian of Quince’s company in Midsummer - adding lines so as not to offend the ladies of the court, suggesting rewrites, wrangling to play parts by adding in more lines of his own devising…
  • In Wiles book he also explains the ongoing animosity between the writer and the traditional actor “whose art was rooted in improvisation.” Wiles even notes certain lines that have "the clumsiness of an improvisation”
  • And yes, Stratfordians in general (and many other authorship researchers) ignore these facts and insist on using topical allusions to date a play with “certainty”, which is simply impossible. We simply don’t know when any particular topical allusion was added, nor by whom.

In the future, can we discuss these deletions, or simply ask for a cite request, instead of being sarcastic and belittling?Smatprt 07:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule that every edit has to be agreed with you. Your comments about the Fool are so much page-filling irrelevance, since you have no evcidence that improvisations would appear in the script (indeed, how could they be?), and thus in the printed version. Nor are topical references restricted to thre role o the Fool by any means. If you are seriously suggesting that inserted topical references would be included in printed versions then you'd have to assert also that in many cases Shakespeareian verse would have to be created by the improviser to fit into the lines. More to the point, this is pure OR; there is no citation at all for this claim. It's also completely irrelevant to "Stratfordianism", it's a purely ad hoc Oxfordian get-out clause to explain post-1604 references that can't otherwise be explained away. It has no relevance to Baconianism, and indeed a "Stratfordian" might have to use exactly the same argument if a reliable post 1616 reference were identified. Paul B 08:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not ask that you check with me for agreement. I asked for the common courtesty (and recommended Wiki behaviour) of discussing potential deletions or at least posting a cite request.
  • I did not say that topical references were restricted to the Fool. You apparently failed to read the last few bullet points and are ignoring that the traditional actor's art was "rooted in improvisation" (Wiles) (not OR)
  • Topical references inserted into the printed versions? Have you ever heard of a proptbook or stage managers script? If the business became regular or was an important "cue", or in the case of Armin's contributions, which were reworked and rehearsed, then yes, it would have been written in one of the company's working scripts.
  • Iambic pentameter is hardly difficult to improv. Even today's actors are adept at it. An old theatre tradition in Shakespeare, when waiting for a late actor, is to say " Methinks I hear his footsteps even now" or "Methinks I hear the footsteps of the King" (said very loudly towards the offstage actor who has missed an entrance!).
  • Wiles comments in his book that "There will come a Christian by, Will be worth a Jewes Eye" sounds more like an improv than an original line. That line certainly made it into print. (not OR)
  • You complain that this is an Oxfordian argument. Well.... this is the Oxfordian Theory page!
  • And Yes - a Stratfordian (or any researcher) could use the same argument - that is exactly why using "topical allusions" to date the plays with "certainty" is so problematic!Smatprt 15:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Edits by Smatprt

The reasons for undoing the POV reversions by Smarprt are:

(1) There is a utilitarian and NPOV reason for using the terms "Stratfordian" and "Oxfordian" in this article to distinguish between two different and distinct bodies of scholarship. There is no reason to assert that "Stratfordian" should be used while the accurate use of the term "Oxfordian" should be eliminated; in fact, it's a clearly POV-motivated desire to legitimize one body of scholarship and de-legitimize another.
First, no de-legitimazation was intended. Due to the fact that many authorship arguments are shared by different authorship adherents, it many cases it would be inaccurate to simply narrow each argument as only supported by "Oxfordians". Further, in some paragraphs, once the term "Oxfordian" is used, to keep using it in the same sentence or paragraph is redundant. Finally, the reduction of labels is a response to another editor who suggested that using the term "Oxfordian" over and over again, was POV pushing and angering other editors. I am trying to find a balance to these conflicting suggestions.Smatprt 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
(2) Whether you like it or not, there is contemporary documentary evidence ascribing the authorship of the plays to William Shakespeare. It is done so on the title page of the First Folio (as has now been explicitly cited). But one could also cite, to choose another random example, the title page of the first quarto of Midsummer Night's Dream, which identifies the play as "Written by William Shakespeare". This is simply not a point of contention. It is not even a point of contention in serious Oxfordian scholarship. Serious Oxfordian scholarship focuses on the question of why someone named Shakespeare was credited with writing the plays when, as they contend, he did not. Serious Oxfordians don't simply try to pretend that Shakespeare was never credited as the author.
The problem is, by William Shakespeare, you mean (and the reader is led to believe), that Shakespeare of Stratford is the man being refered to. But this is not the case. And this is one of the common arguments of almost all anti-Stratfordians - there are no documents or first hand accounts that tie the name "William Shakespeare" (the author) to "Shakespeare of Stratford". On these pages we must be extremely clear about who we are talking about in context of the authorship question: Shakespeare (the author) or Shakespeare of Stratford. Smatprt 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
(3) I'm not sure what the reason for removing the reference to Shakespeare's date of death is. The various timelines for authorship, and how those compare to the personal timelines of the various purported authors, is in fact one of the key elements of Oxfordian studies.
I agree, and I believe in my last edit this information is intact.Smatprt 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
(4) A discussion of the spelling of "Shake-speare" on the title page of the sonnets would not be out of place, but it's unnecessary to then use an inconsistent spelling of Shakespeare throughout that section of the article.
Many discussions HAVE taken place. No matter how you cut it, the name printed on the Title Page of the Sonnets is "SHAKE-SPEARE". Deleting that fact, (and the deletion of the Title page graphic and hyphen discussion) is simply hiding the issue.Smatprt 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we can put this type of needless advocacy and biased POV to rest. Justin Bacon 21:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to continue discussions over these issues and hope I have provided responses that, at least, give you a better understanding of these edits. However, you should also be aware that many of these issues have been discussed on other pages so you might want to check the archives at William Shakespeare and Shakespeare Authorship Question.Smatprt 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Also - I originally restored or altered the material section by section, instead of simply reverting a series of edits with one click, as you have done. By doing so you also removed new material and references. Can you consider being a little more careful with you edits?Smatprt 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
While I have no opinion on authorship theory, I couldn't agree more with Smatprt here on reverts. According to Wikipedia:Revert#When to revert, "Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously." It is "used primarily for fighting vandalism." It specifically says "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." I've been in a few cases where people reverted several of my edits at once, and it is very aggravating. Anyway, I wouldn't say I'm an expert on this subject by any means, but it would seem that the general theme on authorship pages has been reversion after reversion, rather than discussion and improvement. Wrad 00:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, I see accusations of 3RR violations in edit summaries, but I've gone through them to see if there's anything reportable (I would have reported it and suggested a block, if so). Nobody seems to be even close to their third revert. Can we therefore please keep this discussion on the issues, and avoid unnecessary wikilawyering. AndyJones 07:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inexplicable lacuna

I am surprised to not find any mention of De Vere's pederastic relationship with Orazio Cogno and possible affection for Southampton as supporting evidence for his identification with the pederastic author of the Sonnets. Haiduc 20:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonnets Section

Well, I did the best I could. I don't think it's complete, but it's a start. If anyone thinks it needs some editing, go to it. In my opinion, it could use a few more citations and some expansion, which I'll try to get to as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PT Theory

In my opinion, the PT theory section is somewhat long. After all, by definition, it's a different theory. I'd say two paragraphs and a link are adequate. Anything more than that just eats away at the space available for the Oxfordian Theory, and after all that's the name of the page. I also don't understand why the Notes secton lists every reference twice.

[edit] Friederich Nietzsche

I think we need a reference for Friederich Nietzsche. I'm not saying it's wrong, but he's not on the Shakespeare-Oxford Society Honor Roll of Skeptics page, nor is there any reference to Shakespeare on the Friederich Nietzsche page on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

According to his sister - who is very unreliable - he was possibly a Baconian. A Baconian website attempts to read Baconism into N's own published statements, but can't find anything definitive. [4]. Nevertheless, it wouldn't be surprising given N's belief in the ideal of the philosopher-poet (i.e. himself) and his penchant for making provocative iconoclastic claims. Oxfordian theory didn't exist in N's lifetime, so if he is to be mentioned it should be on the general authorship page, not here. Paul B 06:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually - in two of his books he mentons the authorship problem and in both cases suggested Bacon as the author. The mentions can be found in Will to Power and Ecce Homo. Here, he is being listed as an "anti-stratfordian" - as long as he is labled as such, I see no problem with him being listed as an official doubter.Smatprt 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't understand the word "definitive". Perhaps also you are unaware that The Will to Power is a conflation edited by his sister. I read Ecce Homo years ago and am perfectly well aware of its contents, which are consistent with what I said. Paul B 00:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not say "definitive", I said "mentions" and "suggested". And you obviously have not even read the article and don't even know the context in which this reference is being used. But just keep picking at sores, Paul. Like a pimply teenager, it just makes you look uglier. But I suppose that just goes with your constant nastiness.Smatprt 05:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It's sometimes difficult to believe these levels of obtuseness. I said definitive in the comment to which you replied. Do try to understand what you are reading before you reply. Picking at sores is what you do, since there was simply no point to your reply, which contained information I had already linked to. But you hadn't bothered to read it or to understand what was being said had you? I understand perfectly well the context. Paul B 11:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So perhaps he should be removed from the last paragraph of the "Further Criticism" section. I don't know who put him there, but I'd vote for him to be removed, unless there is more information. Rick 2.0 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've located a web site that quotes Nietzsche. Apparently, he was a Baconian, but this was prior to the publication of "Shakespeare Identified." I've linked to it directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section Order

I would suggest placing the "Notable Anti-Stratfordian" section above the "History of the Oxfordian Theory" section. That way, both Oxfordian sections would be adjacent and the Introduction, with its discussion of the meaning of Stratfordian, Anti-Stratfordian and Oxfordian, would naturally lead into the discussion of Anti-Stratfordians and then into a discussion of the Oxfordian Theory itself. Rick 2.0 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Go ahead!Smatprt (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Anti-Stratfordians

Do you think the "his" in the Mark Twain quote could be ambiguous to those unfamiliar with Twain's position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest the following: “All the rest of (Shakespeare's) vast history, as furnished by the biographers, is built up, course upon course, of guesses, inferences, theories, conjectures--an Eiffel Tower of artificialities rising sky-high from a very flat and very thin foundation of inconsequential facts." Rick 2.0 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good solution. I would support that. Smatprt 19:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further Criticism

I believe the reason that phrase "the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries for his poetic and dramatic skill was distinctly modest" in the Further Criticism section lacks a citation is because it is a misunderstanding of the Stratfordian argument. Their basic argument is that his poetry itself is modest, not his contemporary acclaim. If I'm wrong then let's see a citation. In any case, the fact that an author who is alleged to have hidden his output under another's name lacks acclaim is hardly deciding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.187.116 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Tudor theory

There's nothing wrong with discussing the PT theory at length ON THE PT THEORY PAGE. But this is the Oxfordian Theory page. They are separate although related theories. I would strongly suggest that the PT theory section here be no more than 2 paragraphs or so with a link to a PT Theory article. Space is at a premium, so why force 2 separate items into the space allotted for one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved the last PT theory expansion to its own page. I used the link already set up in the PT section. Have at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good solution. Great work. Smatprt (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "shyster Lok"

The context in the article is pregnant with the impliation that Shylock is a contraction of "shyster Lok". This is pushing it a bit, isn't it? According to the OED, the first recorded use of "shyster" was in 1844 in the United States. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But Charlton Ogburn believed that "Shyster" may be an Americanism that preserved an old English usage. But we can take it out if people think that's best or add a sentence stating Ogburn's opinion. Rick 2.0 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with deleting the material. It is a bit of a reach and there are many stronger parallels mentioned thru-out the article. Besides, the article is so long that any more additions and we should probably break out some of the material into its own article.Smatprt (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wise move. This sort of stuff does your case no good at all :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually "my case" would be more of a group with Oxford as it's leader, but this is the next best thing, being the most popular and well founded "case" of the 20th and 21st centuries!Smatprt (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Length

I'd be interested in hearing the options if it becomes necessary to break the article in two. My suggestion would be Part I: The Theory, and Part II: The Criticism. But I'm open to other options. Also what are the limits? I've noticed that the "American Civil War" is at 84k. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick 2.0 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

To take the criticism out of the article would be highly controversial and the resulting article would not live up to Wiki NPOV standards. The standard approach is to take a supporting section that is fairly long itself and which has the likelihood of getting longer over time, and turn it into its own article. See WP:SUMMARY

In this article, for example, the best section that would stand on its own (another requirement) as a seperate article would probably be the "parallels with the plays" section. Ultimately, all 37 (or 38) could conceivably be covered. Then then new article would be linked and summarized in the main article. In this case a 1 or 2 paragraph section could be developed that summarizes the current play write-ups, including the titles covered, each with their own link to the new article/play section. Sorry - I babbled. Does all that make sense?Smatprt (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Recommended length before splitting: up to 60k. See WP:LENGTH Smatprt (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I did notice that they spoke of "very long articles" over 400k, so we seem to have time to come to a decision. When do you suggest we split the article? Now or when it reaches some absolute size? There doesn't seem to be any technical limit (or they won't have mentioned 400k). I suppose we could also split off the "parallels with the sonnets" section in a similar manner. Rick 2.0 (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

400K was mentoned as so large it can cause problems for computors. Recommended limits are further down in the article:

Article size What to do

> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided up

> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

> 40 KB May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)

< 30 KB Length alone does not justify division Smatprt (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edward de Vere and the Oxford theory, what does it have to do with Elizabeth?

Some believe that Edward was Elizabeth's illegitament son. She was in her step-mother, Catherine Parr's home and was kicked out because of rumors of sexual immorality involving Catherine's husband. Soon afterward, Edward de Vere was born. Edward was a favorite in the Elizabethian court. He got a thousand pounds a years which is $700,000 nowdays. Some believe that Elizabeth paid him so much because she wanted him to keep quiet about writing Shakespeare's plays. Writing was a commoner thing. That is a small part of the Oxford Theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.190.176 (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] latest section on H8

The latest section is (in my opinion) one of Sobran's weakest arguments. For example, the sonnet does not say that he "wants" his name buried, just that it "will" be. Weak arguments like this don't help. There may be better arguments for what you are trying to say, but I still think it's one of those non-issues that proves very little, if anything. I would recommend deleting it. Also, Instead of continuing to copy sonnets in whole or in part, why don't we just start linking to them - then people can read the whole sonnet and we won't take up space in this article with too many quotes, which is what I think we have now. Will do some trimming for now - if you feel strongly about restoring something, how about some additional sources? That would certainly help. Smatprt (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English way of discussing the oxfordian view

In England the oxfordian view is very controversial. When discussed, it does not lead to a discussion on content, but to a discussion as being 'ridiculous'. Even in universities a scientific approach is hardly possible. Identity and Shakespeare are so connected in England that oxfordians are mainly found outside of England. On the other hand the Oxfordians are not willing to talk to Stattfordians either. This means that there are two schools opposite each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.18.109.60 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And the point of this section is... what? (Interesting that the first accredited Authorship/Oxfordian degree program is in an English University!) Not to mention that Mark Rylance (Globe Theatre), Derek Jacobi, etc., are from that side of the pond. Smatprt (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)