Talk:List of Oxfordian theory supporters

Egan and Howard

Egan is not an Oxfordian, as you would know if you had actually read your reference, and neither of the Howard refs you added are acceptable according to Wikipedia policy for a fringe topic, but instead of deleting the entry, I tagged it to avoid an edit skirmish over an article that will either be deleted or made Featured Article depending on the current ANI discussion. Please read WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. I have researched this claim, and no sources I know of say he was an Oxfordian. A new biography of Howard has just been published, but I have not read it. Perhaps the "mystery" of his authorship views will be solved in those pages; but I can tell you that the book written by his son specifically states that he was a Strat. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, you're incorrect. Neither of Ronald Howard's books on Leslie state or imply any such thing. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orson Welles

Hi, Ednaquick, welcome to Wikipedia. You are new to Wikipedia and have only made 5 edits (all of them deletions from this article). I'd like to politely ask you to please familiarize yourself a bit more with Wikipedia policy, and do not delete cited and sourced information, regardless of your personal feelings about it. I have restored Orson Welles to the list. Persona Grata is a well-known interview book written by illustrious journalist Kenneth Tynan, who was also a friend of and fairly frequent collaborator with Orson Welles, with photographs by illustrious photographer Sir Cecil Beaton. The quotation came from Tynan's interview(s) with Welles, and Welles never retracted the statement, even though he lived 32 more years and did subsequent interviews and collaborations with Tynan. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ednaquick, check out the Welles entry at Declaration of Reasonable Doubt; it gives more context. Both lists also include John Galsworthy, who also was not an Oxfordian. The only source for him is an Oxfordian book, and he said it was a good mystery; he didn't endorse the theory.

Apparently if you ever say anything at all concerning Oxfordism, no matter how slight or no matter what else you say later, unless you vehemently disavow any belief in the theory, Oxfordians will interpret that as support. It's a good example of Oxfordian methodology. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that (I just removed Galsworthy, before seeing this comment). Gielgud's inclusion seems problematic too on the evidence provided here, but it may be legitimate. Greenwood should not be here. Even the cited webpage clearly does not include any endorsement of Oxford. Softlavender is seemingly not interested in adding genuine Oxfordians (such as those I've recently added) only in squeezing in as many famous names as possible on the slightest hint of supportive evidence. Paul B (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Oxfordian theory supporters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]