tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2012179240296572398.post2585812811531032318..comments2024-03-28T17:16:14.568+00:00Comments on Retro-Forteana: The Wikipedia Authorship QuestionAndrew Mayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17073306343984931484noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2012179240296572398.post-25913074173854101682013-12-02T10:53:08.798+00:002013-12-02T10:53:08.798+00:00I can testify that if there were ever a Politburo ...I can testify that if there were ever a Politburo operating in the free world, it is the group of editors fencing the topic of Shakespeare's identity from any but the most ideologically doctrinal conclusions. Their circular reasoning by which to accomplish this is to hijack the Wikipedia guideline that says only accepted academic sources may be referenced and expressed. And I don't mean that other facts and sources are rejected, they are rejected with the threats, intimidation, and vituperation usually suitable for heretics, perverts, traitors, and convicted criminals.<br /><br />Of course the important point of an inquiry into historical error is that those who adopted the error are not the best judges of whether it was an error. And in truth, I have read enormously persuasive history, political data, and literary textual analysis that points directly to the one person the Wikipedia Mafia wants to go away and never come back, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.<br /><br />Just my personal experience after being thrown off the topic page, along with some of the best scholars I have read.William Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09012399534900562162noreply@blogger.com