Are you Rick? If so, I left this message on your talk page. If not, my apologies, and here is the note:
Recent expansion of Tempest info
I'm a bit worried that the "Stratfordian Objections" section is now more Oxfordian than Stratfordian, which could generate legitimate claims of undue weight. If you are expanding the Oxfordian argument in that section, then it is necessary to also expand the Stratfordian side of the arguments. The Stritmatter/Kositsky research, for example, has been challenged by Alden T. Vaughan, in his 2008 paper "A Closer Look at the Evidence". I think you need to either expand the Stratfordian position, or reduce the extra Tempest stuff (for example) so that the section is more balanced.
I have similar concerns over the "Critical reception" section. Tempting though it might be, those two sections really need to be more about challenging the Oxfordian Theory than using it as an opportunity to provide an Oxfordian respond. We have to remember that the O Theory is only upheld by a small minority of scholars. A balanced article is not only the Wiki policy, but in the end, I think it will serve the Oxfordian cause better. Otherwise, the article can too easily be dismissed as so much propaganda. I hope this all makes sense!
It might be helpful to read this policy: wp:weight and keep in mind the following quote from that policy: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader." Thanks, Smatprt (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Issue of possible concern
I've created a Category:Oxfordians, and populated it with 27 articles so far. (The category is less than two days old.)
The category is being challenged and faced with deletion. If you like, please join the discussion about it here:
AfD nomination of Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)