Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Absence of Oxfordian sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Also, , stop WP:EDITWARRING, you may be blocked if you continue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Disgrace 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: FYI- Genealogically, for those directly related, it adds 'Clarity' amidst academic snobbery. Dositheus (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change from "Oxford" to "De Vere"