Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

Absence of Oxfordian sources
It's really inexcusable and shoddy that this page has no Oxfordian sources for the content related to the Shakespeare authorship question. The reference to the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare's authorship in the opening paragraph lacks support in the notes. Why not cite Charlton Ogburn or J. Thomas Looney? Similarly, note 188 is a mere popular article from the New York Time when there are a host of substantive and recent Oxfordian books which would be far more appropriate, such as Mark Anderson's Shakespeare By Another Name (2005) or Richard Malim's The Earl of Oxford and the Making of "Shakespeare": The Literary Life of Edward de Vere in Context (2011).

References to this issue should include useful and substantive sources, whether the editors agree with them or not; the present documentation is wholly inadequate and disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudleymq (talk • contribs) 17:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:RS and WP:FRINGE before adding references to this article. Ledes do not require references unless the statements are contentious, as the statements in that section are repeated in the main body of the text and are sourced by reliable sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I must agree with these comments. The long-term damage done to this page by listing hundreds of citations to one book, when literally dozens of books have been written about this man,is very evident; the bibliography itself screams a priori prejudice. This is unfortunate and should be changed to protect the reputation of Wikipedia.73.132.250.25 (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations
This is just to congratulate all the industrious scrubbers who have put in so many hours on the references to this article. This article, in this purified form, is destined to become a textbook case of the perversion of scholarship for purely doctrinaire ends, the exclusion of contrary opinion, and the sanitization of a historical record to conform to the intellectual rigidities of a corp of morons. Truly, a remarkable bibliography in every regard, one that students of critical thinking may learn from for a long time. Good work.

Dr. Stritmatter

Disgrace
This article is an utter disgrace. There is no mention of "Shakespeare by Another Name" by Mark Anderson, which links Edward de Vere to Shakespeare. There are no citations of other articles and books about Edward de Vere, most of which show de Vere to be a strong candidate for "Shakespeare." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanfalconer2017 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This article does have a section on Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, and that article mentions Anderson (one of many) and use his book as a source. There's also Mark Anderson (writer). You may think it a disgrace, but on WP the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates mainly fall under WP:FRINGE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also,, stop WP:EDITWARRING, you may be blocked if you continue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That said, the section looks a little weird, cite-wise. If someone who knows the subject and WP could take a look, it couldn´t hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You think? The selection of references is absurd, and gives the utterly false impression that Professor Nelson's hit job bio is reliable or respected among researchers in this field. On the contrary, the absurdity of Nelson's method and arguments have been extensively exposed by informed reviewers, here and elsewhere: https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/tag/alan-nelson/ 73.132.250.25 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

SAQ in the WP:LEAD of this article
, hello, and welcome to a WP:TALKPAGE. WP has plenty of SAQ articles, this is not one of them. The WP:LEAD in this article summarize the SAQ-section in this article (afaict, "Eighty-seven "alternative" authors" is just something WP says in the list article, it's not actually from a WP:RS). The proper amount of SAQ in this article is next to none. The lead here is not the place to go into details about SAQ. The current version is proper WP:WEIGHT for this article. "alternative candidates proposed" is not misleading, just short and inclomplete, which is fine in this context. Refs like are not very helpful, it's like saying "It's in that library somewhere, go find it". You may find the referencing "tool" found here Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/3 helpful, there are others.

I'm also unsure about some of your other WP:LEAD changes. The current version,

playwright, but "his violent and perverse temper" and "reckless waste"[1] precluded him from attaining any courtly or governmental responsibility and resulted in the total loss of his extensive inheritance.[2] In the 1888-1900 Dictionary of National Biography,

makes me ask why these "nameless" quotes are in the WP:LEAD and what is so stellar about the 1888-1900 Dictionary of National Biography that it must be mentioned in-text in this part of the article?

That's my view, we'll see if others have any. I'm not a lit PhD who's taught Shakespeare for decades, I've just been editing WP for awhile.

One more thing. SAQ is one of several... let's say conflict areas on WP, and the topic (wherever it appears) is under something called Discretionary sanctions. And, like I said at your talkpage, I still hope you like it here and decide to stay! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yet another thing, about references in the WP:LEAD, see WP:LEADREF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If the SAQ is mentioned in the article, then I guess it should be reflected in the lead with due weight. There's no reason to have any refs though, as there's no reason to be quoting the DNB (particularly in the lead). Use the ODNB and don't cite it in the lead. ——  Serial  10:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Controversial topics tend to have more refs in the lead (check [23] at Jai Shri Ram for example), sometimes it seems to help a bit, but in general, if the WP:LEAD is done right, they should not be necessary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was sratching my head, asking "what on Earth is SAQ"? Not sure about lead inclusion. With the current coverage in the article, I would lean towards WP:UNDUE, but if it's true that he is one of the most popular Shakespeare candidates, it seems like this aspect may not be sufficiently covered in the article. Events and people referenced in conspiracy theories may be especially notable just because of their conspiracy associations. Just my two cents. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Buidhe. Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford/Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship has a sort of Evolution/Intelligent design relationship, in that there's no question that "the other topic" is WP:N on its own and has an enormous amount of sources, some even WP:RS. There's even an "Oxfordian" drama-film, Anonymous (Derek Jacobi!).
 * Per the spirit of WP:OTHER, compare how SAQ is mentioned in the other "big ones", William Shakespeare, Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby (some would add Henry Neville (died 1615)). The current amount of SAQ in this article is quite reasonable, which of course doesn't mean it's perfect. But adding WP:LEAD only stuff is not a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, the current amount of SAQ in this article is the Since the 1920s, he has been among the most prominent alternative candidates proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works. lead-sentence and the Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi GGS- First, thanks for your comments above. I just reverted your change to the wording at the end of the first paragraph of the lede, as I think the previous wording was more neutral. I think WP stamps things with the term "fringe theory" more than it should. Eric talk 17:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was a rapid undo of my revert! Well, maybe I just have a different take on the tone of "fringe theory". Eric talk 17:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I see it, while the tone may not be considered "neutral" by all considerers, it's quite clearly WP:NPOV. Actually, I think even some Oxfordians may agree with the term, they just think it's a Alfred Wegener kind of fringe theory. Perhaps the next century will tell. The intention was to comply somewhat with 's argument, as I understood it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I just wanted to make clear what 's main argument (repeated) is:
 * "We know WS wrote the plays in exactly the same way we know O was an earl: the historical record for both facts is extensive & unequivocal. There's 0 evidence for any alternative author. Oxfordianism is a textbook conspiracy theory."
 * And, to note that this, to my own view, is a strongly biased, POV argument. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 18:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. I made a comment to that effect on her talkpage. Eric talk 18:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For a certain value of "evidence" there is more than 0. For example, the lifespans of O and S partly overlaps, that is evidence. They were both poets, that is evidence. But the evidence for Will, compared to any of the 87 or whatever, makes any other candidate a fringe theory. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You may be right, when you "compare." But when you look at all the evidence for Will just by itself, I don't think you get to a value of say, 60%. Not over 50, I feel. And herein is the rub. When all the lacunae are systematically described, it does make you scratch your head, I think. warshy (¥¥) 20:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Name change from "Oxford" to "De Vere"
Hello all- has changed apparently every instance of "Oxford", where used as de Vere's name, to "De Vere". While some may find this preferable, I think such a change would merit discussion here before implementation. Eric talk 14:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've no opinion on its correctness, but I find the revised version more readable. And I've no objection to editors being bold: we can always change it back if there are objections here. AndyJones (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "Oxford" is correct. Peers are referred to by their titles, not their surnames. (We refer to Wellington and Salisbury, not "Wellesley" and "Gascoyne-Cecil".) There is a reason why it is referred to as the "Oxfordian theory", and not the "De Vere-ian theory". Proteus (Talk) 17:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing how 'Peers' refer to themselves. I wanted to add clarity, which was the only reason for the edit. Dositheus (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I did not say anything about how peers refer to themselves, so I'm not sure what relevance your first comment has. And it is the opposite of clear to use names which are not those commonly used. Proteus (Talk) 10:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI- Genealogically, for those directly related, it adds 'Clarity' amidst academic snobbery. Dositheus (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)