Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:12, 16 July 2012 editZbrnajsem (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,242 edits →Status and purpose of a "Talk page"← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:48, 3 December 2024 edit undoNaturalistic (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users962 edits →Introduction is totally biased against the Oxford theory
(606 intermediate revisions by 68 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{talk header}}		{{talk header}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{~~Wikiproject~~ Shakespeare~~\|class=b~~\|importance=mid}}		{{WikiProject Shakespeare\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Alternative Views\|importance=high}}
	{{WP1.0\|v0.7=held\|class=B\|category=Langlit\|WPCD=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Skepticism\|importance=low}}
	}}		}}
	{{Good article tools}}		{{Good article tools}}
			{{British English}}
			{{to do}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = ~~100K~~		\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	\|counter = 3		\|counter = 5
	\|minthreadsleft = 5		\|minthreadsleft = 5
	\|algo = old(60d)		\|algo = old(60d)
	\|archive = Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship/Archive %(counter)d
	}}
	{{archive box \|search=yes \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=2 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index \|
	# ]
	# ]
	}}		}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn		{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Line 21:		Line 20:
	}}		}}

			== Computer analysis? ==
	== Possible subtle vandalism found in the article? ==

	"The book also claims that the queen had children by the Earl of Leicester, Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury, Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, Mary Sidney and Elizabeth Leighton."

	The last two names are female, so it's unlikely the queen had children by them, considering the lack of genetical engineering in the era... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:I assume one is a male, just has a female-sounding name. For example, George is a boy or girl's name; one of Nancy's Friends in the "Nancy Drew" series is a girl named George. Another example: Alex = Alexander, Alex = Alexandria (or Alexandra). I know an Alex who's female. ] (]) 23:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

	::No, it's just that the comma after 'Leicester' should have been a colon. He's the alleged father. The others are all kids. ] (]) 00:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

	== On the evidence ==

	If "no evidence links Oxford to Shakespeare's works," then why do so many people believe he was the author? Why are most of the books and articles touting an alternative author about Oxford (and not others)? Why was a movie made about him? Why is he the most popular alternative candidate? {{unsigned\|96.231.125.99}}

	::No other candidate (including the realtor of S. upon Avon) have the necessary background for the italian job. Almost half of the works published as "by W.S." deal with Italy, with such an accuracy that locations can be traced to the doorway, even today. Oxenford was all over Italy, including, but not limited to italian womanfolk. No matter how much power and influence the british royalty expended to erase all trace leading of E. O., the italian job cannot be undone from the W.S. canon, even though the stratfordster never set foot outside Blighty. ] (]) 19:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

	::If no evidence exists that Oxford wrote the plays (and absolutely none does) the correct approach to validate the theory would be to find some. Instead, what Oxfordians have done is chain together a mountain of inference, supposition and deduction allied to a huge list of alleged similarities between Oxford,s life and the events portrayed in the plays as if they were autobiographical instead of works of imagination. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:::Derby probably went to Italy too; Marlowe certainly went to the continent. For all we know, WS may have done too. There is no evidence whatever that the "stratfordster never set foot outside Blighty". Still, there's no special knowledge of Italy in the plays, however hard one tries to invent it. And "the British royalty" have no motivation whatever to deny Oxford's authorship of any plays. ] (]) 19:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

	"For all we know, WS may have done too" is a very weak argument. For all we know, Shakespeare from Stratford may have been to Denmark. He be an ancestor of Glenn Close. He may have been a lot of things. "There is no evidence whatever that the 'stratfordster never set foot outside Blighty'." The same bad argument. Very difficult to prove a negative statement. There is no evidence that Shakespeare from Stratford never visited Scotland. You could make millions of such statements. We have solid proof that Oxford visited Italy, was literate, and knew Italian. "Still, there's no special knowledge of Italy in the plays, however hard one tries to invent it." Wrong again. There is special, specific knowledge that is contemporaneous with the Italy at the time. Whoever wrote the plays had to have access to this first-hand knowledge in some way. "And 'the British royalty' have no motivation whatever to deny Oxford's authorship of any plays." This statement is an irrelevant non sequitur. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:That's a good question. Of course there's no evidence connecting ''any'' of the alternative candidates. There is no simple answer, but I think it's that he fulfils the emotional needs of alternative author theorists better than the others. There is some discussion of this in Shapiro and Gibson, but it's a neglected topic. ] (]) 16:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

	== "Parallels with the plays"-long and ludicrous ==

	Just a question for right now - what is this long section on "parallels with the plays" doing in an encyclopedia article? It is full of such utterly ludicrous passages as on "As You Like It":"One of the sights Oxford may have taken in on his 1575–76 Christmas season visit to Siena, Italy was its cathedral, whose artwork includes a mosaic of the Seven Ages of Man." Maybe Oxford went to the cathedral and maybe he looked at a mosaic and maybe this is where he got an idea for a speech in a play? It actually shocks me to see such obvious speculation in a supposed neutral source of information ( maybe I am easily shocked). That whole long passage is just a lot of speculative rubbish it seems to me, it should all be deleted and just two or three of the plays such as Hamlet and Love's Labours Lost which "Oxfordians" believe demonstrate their case best discussed. I am very new here and have no intention of trying to delete anything at the moment but just wanted to say that as a pair of fresh eyes coming to this article that passage on "parallels with the plays" is way too long, not neutral at all, and full of quite laughable speculation.] (]) 03:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
	:True, but in case you are not aware, this topic has been very contentious with sustained efforts by enthusiasists to use Misplaced Pages to explain the <small>TRUTH</small> regarding the issue, and was the subject of an ]. The main article is ] (which, due to heroic efforts by its principal authors, is a ]), and that SAQ article is good. There are some references in the section you mention, and some of those point to ] that describe the claims in the article, so it might be reasonable that the Oxfordian case is presented. It can be difficult knowing how best to do that in a ]. ] (]) 03:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
	:That section was once a stand-alone article, which by consensus was merged here. The most devoted Oxfordian editor tends to resist the removal of even the most ridiculous arguments like the seven ages one you mention. Of course the "Seven Ages" was almost as familiar a concept as the four seasons, and if you look at the Siena images they are completely different from Shakespeare's (no lover, no soldier for example). ] (]) 16:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
	:: So there are users of Misplaced Pages who would like to deny every single trace of Edward de Vere in Shakespeare´s work or even remove all the traces. This is a futile effort. --] (]) 16:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
	:::Shakespeare's seven ages speech derives primarily from ''Zodiacus Vitae'', a school text. The argument connecting it to the Siena designs is frankly ''desperate''. This supposed effort is not futile, since it is supported by almost all serious Shakespeare scholars. But of course ''this page'' is for discussion of the theory, which means that the arguments should be obviously be included. Nevertheless, the page should be coherent - not a rag-bag collection of any old idea that anyone ever had, thrown together. The case is not well supported when it is full of transparent misrepresentations of the facts. ] (]) 16:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
	::::One unintended consequence of having every fanciful connection reproduced here, given that Misplaced Pages is the 'goto' source for online argument, is that they get reproduced elsewhere. For example, the imdb board for the film was recently flooded by a poster who reproduced each tiny quoted similarity as a separate thread in the hope that serious argument would be deleted by the board's housekeeping routines. On the whole, if nonsense cannot be labelled as 'fanciful speculation' it should be omitted from an 'encyclopaedic' reference work. Readers who alight on this page are not aware that it is a ghetto for arguments that have proved unacceptable when submitted to the arbitration process elsewhere and unless there is a better warning that the page contains widely discredited argument and the unacceptable idea that Shakespeare's plays are code biography rather than works of imagination, I think the whole page should be removed.] (]) 11:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

	== Improvements ==

	I feel the article has been vastly improved with just a few changes. Still needs works in the body, but the introduction is looking very good. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:You ''can'' improve the article if you add useful, ''content'' rather than assertions. ] (]) 13:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::And preface the section by explaining that however similar the comparisons may seem, over the entire corpus of 37 plays, they do little to support the overall case of Oxford's authorship given that it would be relatively easy to come up with a similar list of 'similarities' to any other Elizabethan or Jacobean nobleman, or even members of the contemporary middle classes. It should at least acknowledge that these similarities are not seen to contribute anything to the argument outside the dedicated inner circle of Oxfordian zealots. ] (]) 11:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
	Recent vandalism has been deleted. Brilliant exposition restored. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:If you want a change that is retained in the article it will be necessary to understand some of the very reasonable procedures used at Misplaced Pages. See ] for an overview, but the critical points for the attempted changes are found in ]. Text like "convincingly demonstrates" ''must'' be attributed as someone's opinion, and the someone ''must'' be a recognized authority on the subject. Likewise "but this is hardly definitive as to their composition" and "This is a reasonable conclusion in light of recent scholarship" are the opinions of an editor: good stuff on a blog but not usable here. There are several other problems with the attempted changes. If there is a question about how to implement an improvement, please add a new section and ask. Also, you can try ].
	:Continuing the current line of repeating the changes and calling their reversion vandalism is just going to get the article protected so you cannot change it. ] (]) 02:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

	== Minerva Britanna ==

	The article states "Edward de Vere was known to Peacham, since in 1612 his Minerva Britanna anagramed Vere's name on the frontispiece, denoting him as the Minerva (or Mind) of the Age." Strangely this very claim was removed from the main article by our esteemed colleague Smatprt, presumably because he did not think it helped make the case, and perhaps because the wording there drew attention to the spuriousness of the claim itself (The wording was, ''a device from Henry Peacham's Minerva Britanna (1612) depicting a hand appearing from behind a curtain and writing the Latin motto MENTE VIDEBOR ("By the mind I shall be seen") was first used to support Bacon's candidacy, but is seen by Oxfordians as a clue to Oxford's hidden authorship. By interpreting the final full stop as the beginning of an "I", the phrase becomes an anagram of TIBI NOM. DE VERE ("Thy Name is De Vere")''. ] (]) 14:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

	:This piece of analysis by Mark Anderson has been comprehensively discredited. There is no indication in the 'device' that it was intended to have an additional letter 'I'. Indeed the hand has already written an 'I' and the new letter it appears to be adding is completely different. There is space for at least four more letters on the empty part of the scoll. There is no latin word 'videbori' in any case. and TIBI NOM DE VERE is an incorrect use of the indicative pronoun. Proponents ignore the fact that Minerva is female and a Goddess and if you want to find a powerful, goddess-like female to associate with 'Britannia' you do not have to look very far at the Elizabethan court. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Oxford´s travel and his stay in Italy ==

	Thanks to user 67.142.235.68 who removed this unbelievable nonsense concerning Oxford´s travel‎ to Italy and his stay there for almost one year. Without any justification someone tried to minimize the significance of Oxford´s stay in this beautiful and culturally important country and of the experience he gathered there for the authorship question. --] (]) 10:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

	:Your paragraph is almost a copendium of ''non sequiturs''. He gathered no experience for the "authorship question". That sentence is nonsensical. If you mean the experience he gathered has been used by proponents of Oxford in debates ''about'' the "authorship question", then that's true of course. It's also valid to criticise that so-called evidence. Though unsourced, many of those criticisms are entirely valid and are often made. The fact that Italy is "beautiful and culturally important" is preposterously irrelevant. No-one said it isn't. So's China. And of course Oxford was the only "candidate" who went to Italy. ] (]) 12:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

	::I am prepared to discuss with you, ]. First of all, you obviously misunderstood my second sentence. I was not saying: "He gathered experience for the authorship question". Instead of this, I was saying: "Someone tried to minimize '''the significance''' of Oxford´s stay in Italy and of the experience he gathered there '''for the authorship question'''. This is different. As everybody knows, WS of Stratford never visited Italy, and this fact is also significant for the pending solution of the authorship question. Those deleted unsourced criticisms were simply a guess-work without any substance. Apropos, the true author of the Shakespeare canon was an artist and was not obliged to be 100 p.c. exact in geography. However, it can be e.g. said that Bohemia was a powerful country in the Middle Ages and had in fact at a certain time even access to the Adriatic See. --] (]) 19:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

	:::Everbody does not know that WS of Stratford never visited Italy. We have no evidence for what he was doing for several years from the mid 1580s to 1592, so he might have done. But it makes no difference if he did or didn't. The stuff about Oxford in Italy is simply "guesswork without any substance". It is factually true that Shakespeare does not describe ''any'' distinctive Italian flora. It is also true that he describes a coast in Bohemia (copying from his source), which someone who had visited the area should know is wrong, and he makes other mistakes about the geography of Italy (as well as other places). But then you argue that he does not have to be "100% accurate" anyway, so the whole Oxfordian argument that you have just propounded goes out of the window! Bohemia, BTW, is a specific region. It never had a coast. The fact that the person who ruled it at one time also ruled other territories that ''did'' have a coast does not mean that Bohemia did or ever did. In any case this is utterly irrelevant, since visiting Italy in the 16th century does not give you special access to information about Medieval Bohemia and the whole coast-of-Bohemia thing is copied from Thomas Lodge's ''Rosalynd''. ] (]) 20:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::Oops, brainstorm there - I meant Greene's ''Pandosto'' of course, not Lodge's ''Rosalynd''. Wrong play. ] (]) 21:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::Out of the window goes nothing. You seem to be very keen to find some single argument. In any case, we have very little evidence what WS of Stratford did at any time, except e.g. that we know he was a merchant and travelled between Stratford and London. His "seven lost years", this is very special. And then out of a sudden he is the utmost poet, not a crow (Green). Where did he write the plays and sonnets? Where were his numerous books? Where are his original manuscripts? Where is his school attendance? How is it possible that his son-in-law did not mention him as a poet? How is it possible that the First Folio was initiated by sort of relatives of the Earl of Oxford? And ever heard of the Fourth T? Etc. Good night anyway for today. --] (]) 20:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::::You are shifting your arguments again. He wasn't the utmost poet at all in 1592. Have you read his early works? They are pretty crude, and obviously imitate earlier literature: Greene, Peele, Marlowe ''et al''. Where did he write them? Who cares? That's a silly question, All you need is a pen, paper, a literary tradition, imagination and motivation. ''Where'' you dip your ink is the least important issue. As for his books - where are Marlowe's books, or Greene's books, or Kyd's books, or Lodge's, or Peele's, or Nashe's? Can you identify ''any'' copies of books owned by them? Why would you expect to be able to do so? There is is no evidence whatever that the First Folio was initiated by "sort of relatives" (''sort of'' relatives?) of Oxford. It was initiated by Shakespeare's colleagues, Heminges and Condell, and was ''patronised'' by aristocrats. Aristocrats were all "sort-of" relatives of one another. They tended to inter-marry you know. Heminges and Condell have a direct, documrnted relationship with Shakespeare, not Oxford. They are listed as sharer-members of his company and they are even mentioned in his will. It doesn't get clearer than that. ] (]) 23:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

	You missed the point, Paul B. ], was son-in-law of ]. His wife was Lady Susan de Vere (26 May 1587–1628/29), daughter of Edward de Vere. In 1623, Philip Herbert, the then 1st Earl of Montgomery, and his elder brother, ], were, as it is well known, sponsors of the printing of the ] of the plays attributed until now to William Shakespeare of Stratford. For lack of evidence, their role in this important affair is utterly unclear, but there is the possibility that the brethren even possessed the original manuscripts of the plays. --] (]) 20:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

	:Your missing the point. This page is for discussing how to improve the article so that it best reflects the assessment of the most respected academic sources on th esubject. These sources certainly would nto use phrases such as "attributed until now to William Shakespeare of Stratford". A preference for such language suggests that you are hear to advance a fringe theory and not to reflect mainstream scholarship.--] (]) 21:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

	::What do you mean by "fringe theory", ]? Does this expression and the treatment of any theory as "fringe" belong to the 21st century? I can´t believe it. We are free men, we have free opinions. I don´t know what "mainstream scholarship" is. Do you want to exclude me from a talk page of Misplaced Pages, this world-wide medium? --] (]) 06:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

	:::Misplaced Pages policy on ] is very well established. It is the same reason that creationists cannot write on the ] page that while the planet has been thought up to now to be billions of years old, this position is crumbling in the light of new evidence. It's the reason that someone who thinks ] faked his own death cannot alter the lead to say that he ''allegedly'' died on November 22, 1963. Even if the Earl of Oxford really did write these plays and poems, Misplaced Pages policy is to faithfully report the overwhelming scholarly consensus that he didn't; remember, would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'."]] - ] (]) 21:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

	==Bold, Revert, Discuss==
	Cengime, your bold revisions have destroyed a page of careful consensus that was reached by discussions over 10 years. A major part of the consensus was that the "in-your-face" anti-Oxfordian rhetoric was left for the SAQ main page, and that this page was focused on the Oxfordian claims. I have therefore reverted all of your massive re-editing over the past few days and would be happy to enter into a cycle of consensus-based editing.] (]) 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

	:Where was that consensus reached? I searched the archives of the talk pages of both articles for discussions you participated in, but only found you seemingly arguing that Oxfordian arguments should be uncritically repeated on that page as well. ("You prefer to exploit this page to disparage the people who have held such beliefs, rather than allowing this page to be a succinct summary of their arguments." - Talk:SAQ archive 26) The reason given for adding the NPOV tag to this article was that it treats Oxfordianism too much like an equally credible position (in violation of policy against giving an inflated picture of the notability or academic acceptance of fringe theories), and I agree. - ] (]) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

	:There is no "page of careful consensus". It has long been agreed that this page is an utter mess that violates almost all relevant Misplaced Pages policies. Of course this article should concentrate in detail on Oxfordian arguments, but it also should include mainstream rebuttals. I have long thought that the history section should go at the top, rather than be stuck at the end. Many of the "arguments" presented here are very distorted - some passages were and are downright erroneous. Others are pointless (e.g. the long Chapman quotation which has nothing to do with authorship as such). ] (]) 14:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

	:As more than a full day has passed with no defence of the reason given for the revert or further comments opposed to the revisions, I have decided to reinstate the edits and resume work on the article. For now, I'm mainly interested in trimming down or eliminating the "Parallels" sections. This article doesn't need a list of supposed evidence that long and detailed any more than ] needs a list of Bacon ciphers as long as the rest of the article or ] needs a long explication of "proofs" of claimed methods for squaring the circle; maybe three to five specific examples should be used to illustrate the general tenor of Oxfordian arguments, but describing them in minute detail at greater length than that gives them ], makes a mockery of guidelines on ], and serves only to make this page a ] for its subject. - ] (]) 13:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
	:I too was waiting for a day before reminding the editors who invoked BRD that it stands for "Bold, Revert, Discuss". There is no point in invoking this if you have no intention of participating in the D part. It's not a magic incantation to ward off all edits you don't like. Also, you have to discuss the way we should present content, not use the talk page to "prove" the Oxfordian position. ] (]) 14:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
	::Hi boys! How y'all been? I've been on a bit of a wiki-holiday, but I'm slowly getting back into the saddle again. ] (]) 19:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::Mostly quiet on the Oxfordshire front until this sudden flurry of skirmishes and new summer campigning. How are things in the real world? ] (]) 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::What real world? You mean the world where politicians say they believe in balanced budgets but not in raising taxes? Sometimes I wonder what the definition of reality is.
	::::I'm glad to see this article is finally receiving some sustained and systematic attention. I've been raking over the de Vere bio page; a lot of fantasy was infused in the last "rewrite". ] (]) 22:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

	== Oxfordian numerology ==

	I've just read an Oxfordian article cited in the text and replaced the copy of the abstract that was there before with this clearer summary:
	:A 2009 article in the Oxfordian journal '']'' noted that Meres compares 17 named English poets to 16 named classical poets, and claims that the numbers should be symmetrical, so this is proof that two of the English poets (viz., Oxford and Shakespeare) are actually one and the same.<nowiki><ref>Robert Detobel and K.C. Ligon, ''Brief Chronicles'' I (2009), 123-137.</ref></nowiki>
	Should this reference just be removed? I'm not sure this is a notable argument for Oxfordianism. - ] (]) 21:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

	:I find the argument ludicrous beyond words. I quite like it for that reason - since it screams out its own silliness. But of course it is not a notable argument discussed by other writers. Oxfordian editors are keen to include stuff from this journal because it comprises their main bid for academic respectability. I actually think it would be better to have a section discussing Oxfordian publications, ending with the establishment of this journal itself, noting that it aims to situate itself as a peer reviewed scholarly journal (see the ] article written by its editor). A few comments on the content af articles including this one could be added in that section. ] (]) 21:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

	::It isn't notable in the Misplaced Pages sense of the term, so no, it shouldn't be included. ] (]) 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

	== So what's next for this article? ==

	It's in a lot better shape than it was, but still a long way from Good status. For one thing, all of the citations need to be checked, and then the veracity of the citation should be determined and if it's questionable, it either needs to be noted or deleted. (I'm not too sure of Ogburn's claim about Michael Lok, for example.) In fact, should the spurious evidence Oxfordians give be rebutted as soon as it's mentioned? ] (]) 21:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

	:''Monstrous Adversary'' confirms a £3,000 investment in this voyage by Oxford on credit. Are you suggesting that there may now be too much immediate rebuttal or too little? - ] (]) 04:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

	::I'm saying Ogburn's interpretation of it may be faulty, and that all of his assertions need to be checked with other sources and rebutted if need be. My recollection is hazy, but I seem to recall that Michael Lok was the father of one of Oxford's servants, and Oxford stiffed him for a decade or so of back wages. I'll check when I get back in town. ] (]) 14:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

	:::Is the name "Michael Lok" significant in some way for Ogburn? Are we supposed to connect it with "Shy - lock"? Is that the idea? ] (]) 15:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

	The main problem with this article is that it is almost impossible to decide what arguments are sufficiently important to include and what are not. It's also very difficult to find a model for organising the arguments. The article suffers from the worst of "Misplaced Pages syndrome" - bits of Oxfordian argument thrown in higgledipiggldy, with "Stratfordian" rebuttals scattered about. What's included and what's excluded seems almost arbitrary. ] (]) 20:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

	:If we don't strictly limit the depth of this article, the never-ending stream of Oxfordian editors demanding to know why the article doesn't include decisive arguments X, Y, and Z will bloat it to the size of one of their thousand-page books. - ] (]) 01:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

	== Stratfordian Interpretation and Analysis of the Oxfordian theory of the Shakespeare authorship ==

	This is what the title of this article should be.
	"William Shakespeare" was a pseudonym sometimes spelled "Shake-speare". We have six surviving signatures of Will Shakspere from Stratford on Avon. He himself never spelled his name "Shakespeare," not even in his will, which mentions nothing of books, plays, or manuscripts. His name would not have been pronounced as we pronounce "Shakespeare" now. The dearth of hard information regarding Shakspere is incredible, as no mention of him as a person is ever made, though there are references to the pseudonym. In fact, we know more about any number of other writers who were living at the time. No one made any mention of Shakspere when he died. His children were illiterate, and neither them nor his son-in-law ever thought he was a writer. Most of the people from Stratford were illiterate. It should be mentioned that the Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford also had an estate on the river Avon, and he life in the Stratford suburb of London, two references made in the dedication to the First Folio. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:I understand your opinion, but Misplaced Pages is not the place for ], nor does it ] collect arguments for fringe views; it is an academically conservative reference work which reflects the balance of opinion in ], none of which give any credence to these arguments. - ] (]) 01:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

	:Incidentally, your generic anti-Stratfordian arguments about the lack of information about Shakespeare, supposed illiteracy of his family, etc. have nothing to do with Oxfordianism ''per se'', and belong at articles like ] and ]. The fact that de Vere inherited an estate on the Avon and lived near Stratford is in fact already mentioned in this article, in the section "Stratford connections and Oxford's annuity". - ] (]) 01:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
	::As far as I know, he never lived there. He rented the property, then sold it. He owned (and usually sold) lots of properties all over the country. Of course no-one would refer to Oxford by the name of the river near a house he didn't live in and sold 20 years earlier - they'd refer to his birthplace Castle Hedingham or house in Hackney. The fact that this ''ludicrous'' argument is presented as "evidence" is indicative of the utter impossiblity of rational argument. ] (]) 16:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
	Nothing in my comment was "cutting-edge analysis." These arguments have been around for decades. They've been ignored and ridiculed by orthodox scholars, but they're not new or, again, "cutting edge." The fact that they have been around for some time and have gathered the support of distguished researchers, scholars, and intellectuals is plenty argument enough that they should be included in any article that discusses Oxford as the author of the plays. This also demonstrates that they are not "fringe" theories. Various Oxfordians groups and societies exist to promote research in this area. Many articles and books have been written on the subject. Thus, they are not "fringe" theories, and your calling them so does not make them so. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:I sympathise with your enthusiasm, but it doesn't matter how many lawyers, librarians, and independent researchers consider Shakespeare's authorship an open question. For the purpose of determining ], only representation in reliable sources on Elizabethan literary history is relevant, and the world's Oxfordian English professors can be counted on one hand. As long as the Oxfordian theory is, as you note, "ignored and ridiculed" by the academic establishment, Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines, and essays are clear that it should not be treated like an equally valid alternative to what all the experts have believed for centuries. (Please save us the trouble of the usual self-comparison to Galileo.) - ] (]) 03:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

	How do you define "reliable"? The so-called experts ignore, distort, and misrepresent evidence that contradicts their point of view. For how many centuries have "experts" believed that the sun revolved around the Earth before scientists argued to the contrary. Many Shakespeare scholars simply refuse to engage the authorship question and will not let graduate students do serious research in the field if they want to become accredited in the field. Therefore, it is largely a "closed" field in academia, shut out to those who hold anything other than the traditional view. Thus, it is left to researchers outside of university English departments to write and research on the issue. This article is about, or should be about, the "Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship". It should not be about the "Stratfordian dismissal of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship," which is currently how is it written. And because it is about the Oxfordian theory, it would not be giving "undue weight" to this theory to discuss it in an objective way, rather than biased way it is being discussed now. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:You know, I asked you politely not to compare yourself to Galileo.

	:Thank you for asking what makes a source "reliable" for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. Here is the relevant section of ]:

	::The word "source" in Misplaced Pages has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability.

	::Articles should be based on reliable, ], published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Content related to ] or ] should be sourced especially carefully.

	::Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. See details in ''] and ]''.

	:] also contains relevant material:

	::Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. '''Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such.''' An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. '''This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence,''' such as Holocaust denial, or claims the Apollo moon landing was faked.

	:If academics treat the whole question as a waste of time, that only further attests to its fringe status. Whether or not this treatment is justified is irrelevant. - ] (]) 03:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
	You are using circular reasoning to define what is "reliable" in this case. Moreover, Roger Stritmatter is a Shakespeare academic who doesn't think this is a waste of time. His research demonstrates the concordance between Edward de Vere's bible and the "Shakespeare" plays. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:Speaking of Dr Stritmatter reminds me—if you are the user identified at ] as "The anon editor who most recently edited as {{ipuser\|71.191.2.38}} (previously {{ipuser\|71.191.7.125}}, {{ipuser\|71.191.11.102}}, {{ipuser\|71.191.1.240}} and other IPs shown in the page history of ])", then I must inform you are subject to a ] on all pages related to the Shakespeare authorship question or Edward de Vere, and may not even discuss these subjects on talk pages or any other part of Misplaced Pages.

	:In any case, the standards used to determine the reliable sources on William Shakespeare and the authorship question are the same as those on every other topic covered in Misplaced Pages, and this is neither the time nor the place to reconsider them. - ] (]) 20:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

	Are you going to arrest me? I understand that Misplaced Pages editors like ban editors who disagree with them. Just don't harm my children or other family members. Allow me my last cigarette before you put me before the firing squad.

			Has computer analysis not confirmed or corrected any of the theories, on the basis of stylistic tendencies, compared via large samples? ] (]) 23:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	Misplaced Pages is obviously not the place to discuss the Shakespeare authorship question, as all articles and discussions related to the matter are controlled by people who control the orthodox point of view, which common sense and reason demonstrate is utter nonsense. It will be left the younger generation of thinkers and scholars to lead the way, while the older generation hangs on to its Santa Clause fantasy of Shakspere from Stratford as the author of the great "Shakespearean" plays. The so-called "experts" in the field are wrong and refuse to admit it. It is not a fringe theory to explain they Shakspere wrote no plays and that Edward de Vere did. And discussing these realities is not giving them "undue weight". If I am wrong about all this, then Misplaced Pages as an open source of information is a failure as a source of intelligent and objective information. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:It really is best to just ignore these types of editors and just remind them of the is also covered under the sanctions, so any violations can be deleted. ] (]) 20:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

			:From the article: "According to a computerised textual comparison developed by the Claremont Shakespeare Clinic, the styles of Shakespeare and Oxford were found to be "light years apart", and the odds of Oxford having written Shakespeare were reported as "lower than the odds of getting hit by lightning"." ] (]) 11:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
	:To be honest, my anonymous friend, it's hard to take accusations of bias seriously when they come from someone who thinks the first sentence should be I would be happy to continue this discussion via e-mail, but further flagrant violations of your topic ban will be reverted. - ] (]) 20:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

			== This is not a grammatically correct sentence ==
	== Original research ==

			Their arguments are "not taken seriously by Shakespeare scholars because they consistently distort and misrepresent the historical record", "neglect to provide necessary context" and calling some of their arguments 'outright fabrication'".
	], a lot of your additions seem to be ]. For example, in the section ], the very first sentence is sourced to a site that says nothing about the Oxfordian interpretation of ''Macbeth''. Sources cited must be in context to the article, IOW they should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. And any statement that cites scholarly consensus must be sourced to a reliable reference that states exactly that; an editor cannot make that determination himself. ] (]) 20:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

			How is it acceptable to attach the phrase at the end "and calling some of their arguments 'outright fabrication'"?
	:That is the source cited by the anonymous user who added that paragraph in . - ] (]) 20:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
			Grammatically it's nonsense. Why doesn't anyone see that?] (]) 15:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
			:Well, this may not necessarily be the most widely read article on Misplaced Pages, and so poor syntax sometimes stays. I've fixed it. Thank you for your attention, ]. Another time, when you see something like this, nothing prevents you from fixing it yourself. ] \| ] 15:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC).

			== Bias ==
	== Status and purpose of a "Talk page" ==

			This article needs more attention. I am no Oxfordian, but the article has bias, conflating belief in Oxfordian authorship with fringe conspiracy theories. The reasons another author may have let Shakespeare publish plays under Shakespeare's name are hard to ascertain, but the article makes speculative conclusions supporting the traditional view while dismissing competing views as fringe conspiracy theories <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)</small>
	What has been said to "Talk pages"?
			:Generic complaints have no value. What text needs attention? Why? What reliable source would justify different text? ] (]) 02:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

			To answer this question above: see Roger Strittmatter's page in Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	8) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aspire to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.

			:He is mentioned and used as reference in the article. ] (]) 13:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
	So, I understand that a talk page is still a page for a free ''discussion of the associated article''. What is a personal view which is "not allowed"? Everybody speaks from a personal point of view, user Cengime, user Tom Reedy, user Zbrnajsem. I say once more: Nobody has the right to restrict free decent discussion on Misplaced Pages in the 21st century. This would be completely absurd! This would be outright censorship. There can be no restrictions for talk contributions to this special page on the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship in the way that this talk page could only be used by persons adhering to the so-called mainstream theory (called by most people "Stratfordian theory"). I am to a high degree critical to voices saying that the Oxfordian theory is something like creationism or thing like this. What sort of argument is this? This arguing has no value, no dignity.

			== Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020 ==
	As to the "ban" on monopolization, what about this special moment? Are there people who would like to monopolize this talk page for a certain view of the Oxfordian theory, and in the same time to exclude the other view, I mean the view of the supporters of this theory as such?

			{{edit semi-protected\|Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship\|answered=yes}}
	And is there a possibility to criticize something like a misuse of such practices like excessive deleting on this page, which we experienced in the past days? --] (]) 11:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
			I object to the classification of this theory of authorship under Conspiracy. I also object to much of the language used throughout. This article has a strong level of bias geared at steering away interested readers away from this topic and discrediting those who are interested in it. That is not the job of a Misplaced Pages page or Misplaced Pages in general. For example, the sentence "Oxfordians, however, reject the historical record" is entirely false. Oxfordians cite different aspects of the historical record than Stratfordians do; some may even say they cite it more accurately. If they tend interpret the evidence somewhat differently, this is in keeping with what all historians do. The second part of this sentence "and claim that circumstantial evidence supports Oxford’s authorship" could also be said for many of the Stratfordian arguments. We are talking about a theory of authorship that has had many dozen books published about it in various languages, a theory which has received substantial scholarly and academic focus, honed over a century. The goal of this page should not be to "convert" potential readers to Oxfordian theory, but as it stands the current language and classification is designed to casts aspersions on it. (]) 04:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
			:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> On Misplaced Pages, what ] is of little relevance if you cannot back it up with ]. If what you describe is even remotely true, then this is seemingly ] and would require ] before changes are made to the article. Additionally, as the edit request template states, " "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." {{ndash}} it's unclear how you would suggest fixing this, ignoring all the caveats I mentioned before. And all of this for Shakespeare... ] (] / ]) 04:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

			== Introduction is totally biased against the Oxford theory ==
	:Please read the links in the information about the ArbCom sanctions I placed on your talk page.
	:Also please read ], which specifically states that "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject", as well as ]. Believe it or not, ] I hope this answers your questions. ] (]) 12:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
	:As to your other questions: this article is about "the view of the supporters of this theory as such", so the views are not being excluded, but neutrally presented and put into academic context. As far as I can see, no one has deleted any material from this page, but any off-topic abuse of the talk page can and will be deleted. I do see that the archive robot has moved some old discussions to the archives, where they may be found. ] (]) 12:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
	:You have every right to criticise what you may consider to be "excessive deletion", though you should explain why you think specific deletions are inappropriate. And may I remind you that your recent reappearance on this talk page was to ''praise'' an editor for deleting material you didn't like, despite the fact that it was largely accurate . So your complaint is not very ''consistent''. If you want to discuss what arguments should be included and how the article should be organised you are welcome to do so. For some reason very few Oxfordian editors seem to be able to engage in discussion of that sort, but instead use the talk page to "prove" their case. So far you have been no exception, but you can still participate usefully if you choose to do so. ] (]) 13:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

			The summary and first part of this article should be neutral but is not neutral, it is 100% critical and dismissive of the Oxford authorship.
	::I have carefully read everything what was told to me above, and I can say that I find especially the response of ] quite helpful. I still don´t understand what "an academic context" should be. I am not a scholar specialized on literature, this I can say. However, I have earned a PhD of a certain kind, so I consider myself an academician. Or would it be false in someone´s eyes to make such a self-description? Well, I am a supporter of the Oxfordian theory, and as such I demand the right to participate on this talk page. However, I know that I would be immediately topic-banned, if I tried to state something supporting Oxford in any article concerning the Shakespeare case, not only in the article on the Oxfordian theory, but even in the article on the historical person of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. It is allowed to me just to do very minor editing, isn´t it? Does anybody think this is compatible with standards of publishing on this electronic encyclopaedia in the 21st century, this age of enlightment? I find myself remembered on some previous ages, and I strongly oppose such attitudes. The existence of the "topic-ban" is the reason why not many Oxfordians can be "useful" for this and the other articles. As soon as they say they are Oxfordians, they are confronted with a lot of reproach, to describe the real situation very tactfully. So the article on the Oxfordian theory does not say everything what is known, and there is scarcely anybody who can oversee the whole matter. The deleting of the last time was excessive, this is my opinion. --] (]) 15:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
			It should be rewritten to balance and summarize the "Circumstantial evidence" section.
			The evidence for Oxford has grown to overwhelming proportions. The evidence for Derby (Oxford's son-in-law) becomes evidence for Oxford. So does the evidence for Rutland (son of a very close friend who grew up with Oxford).
			Suddenly an opus that bears ZERO relation to Will of Stratford is illuminated by a huge amount of autobiographical detail.
			Explanations emerge out of the mist for ALL the poem and first folio dedications, for the meanings of the sonnets, and plays like Hamlet, All's Well that Ends Well, Timon of Athens, Love's Labours Lost. ] (]) 23:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:48, 3 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Shakespeare Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

To-do list for Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2023-07-14

There are no active tasks for this page

Add mainstream context to "Science"
Write section on Oxfordian publications, including Brief Chronicles

Computer analysis?

Has computer analysis not confirmed or corrected any of the theories, on the basis of stylistic tendencies, compared via large samples? Valetude (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

From the article: "According to a computerised textual comparison developed by the Claremont Shakespeare Clinic, the styles of Shakespeare and Oxford were found to be "light years apart", and the odds of Oxford having written Shakespeare were reported as "lower than the odds of getting hit by lightning"." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not a grammatically correct sentence

Their arguments are "not taken seriously by Shakespeare scholars because they consistently distort and misrepresent the historical record", "neglect to provide necessary context" and calling some of their arguments 'outright fabrication'".

How is it acceptable to attach the phrase at the end "and calling some of their arguments 'outright fabrication'"? Grammatically it's nonsense. Why doesn't anyone see that?Cdg1072 (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, this may not necessarily be the most widely read article on Misplaced Pages, and so poor syntax sometimes stays. I've fixed it. Thank you for your attention, Cdg1072. Another time, when you see something like this, nothing prevents you from fixing it yourself. Bishonen | talk 15:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC).

Bias

This article needs more attention. I am no Oxfordian, but the article has bias, conflating belief in Oxfordian authorship with fringe conspiracy theories. The reasons another author may have let Shakespeare publish plays under Shakespeare's name are hard to ascertain, but the article makes speculative conclusions supporting the traditional view while dismissing competing views as fringe conspiracy theories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unified field (talk • contribs) 01:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Generic complaints have no value. What text needs attention? Why? What reliable source would justify different text? Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

To answer this question above: see Roger Strittmatter's page in Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:180:8300:EF0:61AE:61B3:D4A6:3816 (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

He is mentioned and used as reference in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I object to the classification of this theory of authorship under Conspiracy. I also object to much of the language used throughout. This article has a strong level of bias geared at steering away interested readers away from this topic and discrediting those who are interested in it. That is not the job of a Misplaced Pages page or Misplaced Pages in general. For example, the sentence "Oxfordians, however, reject the historical record" is entirely false. Oxfordians cite different aspects of the historical record than Stratfordians do; some may even say they cite it more accurately. If they tend interpret the evidence somewhat differently, this is in keeping with what all historians do. The second part of this sentence "and claim that circumstantial evidence supports Oxford’s authorship" could also be said for many of the Stratfordian arguments. We are talking about a theory of authorship that has had many dozen books published about it in various languages, a theory which has received substantial scholarly and academic focus, honed over a century. The goal of this page should not be to "convert" potential readers to Oxfordian theory, but as it stands the current language and classification is designed to casts aspersions on it. (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. On Misplaced Pages, what you think is of little relevance if you cannot back it up with reliable sources. If what you describe is even remotely true, then this is seemingly controversial and would require consensus to be achieved here on the talk page before changes are made to the article. Additionally, as the edit request template states, " "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." – it's unclear how you would suggest fixing this, ignoring all the caveats I mentioned before. And all of this for Shakespeare... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Introduction is totally biased against the Oxford theory

The summary and first part of this article should be neutral but is not neutral, it is 100% critical and dismissive of the Oxford authorship. It should be rewritten to balance and summarize the "Circumstantial evidence" section. The evidence for Oxford has grown to overwhelming proportions. The evidence for Derby (Oxford's son-in-law) becomes evidence for Oxford. So does the evidence for Rutland (son of a very close friend who grew up with Oxford). Suddenly an opus that bears ZERO relation to Will of Stratford is illuminated by a huge amount of autobiographical detail. Explanations emerge out of the mist for ALL the poem and first folio dedications, for the meanings of the sonnets, and plays like Hamlet, All's Well that Ends Well, Timon of Athens, Love's Labours Lost. Naturalistic (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Categories: