Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:22, 17 March 2013 editTom Reedy (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers14,081 edits →SYNTH, Cherrypicking and COI issues.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:33, 2 December 2024 edit undoTom Reedy (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers14,081 edits →WP:RS question on de Vere burial place: ReplyTag: Reply
(206 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~Talk header~~ \|search=yes }}		{{talkheader\|search=yes }}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|living=n\|listas=Vere, Edward de 17th Earl of Oxford\|1=
			{{WikiProject Biography\|a&e-work-group=y\|a&e-priority=Low\|peerage-work-group=y\|peerage-priority=Low\|politician-work-group=y\|politician-priority=Low}}
			}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 5:		Line 8:
	\|counter = 5		\|counter = 5
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|algo = old(~~60d~~)		\|algo = old(30d)
	\|archive = Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
	{{Auto archiving notice \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=2 \|units=months }}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn		{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes		\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
	}}		}}
			{{OnThisDay\|date1=2017-06-24\|oldid1=787234389}}
	{{WikiProject Biography
	\|living=no
	\|class=B
	\|politician-work-group=yes
	\|peerage-work-group=yes
	\|a&e-work-group=yes
	\|listas=Vere, Edward de 17th Earl of Oxford
	}}

	== Controversial half-sentence on Oxford´s character ==

	::In your opinion, ], the following is reliable: ''Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate,...'' This is a negative judgment just at the start - but you want it there. We should delete it. Edward de Vere was not so reckless as you possibly mean. On the contrary, certain men were reckless to him, he was for example told that Anne Cecil was untrue to him (similarity with ]). He was by no means obliged to be a high politician, so why to say something like this (he was an educated man and poet, this is enough). And his estate was ruinated partially a) by his heavy financial duties to the Crown, b) by his long and costly educational trip to Italy, c) by unsuccessful investments. This has nothing to do with unpredictability. Of course, he was hereditary Great Chamberlain, and at a certain time he was very near to the Queen. She liked him. This is not mentioned in the article (or is it?), although there are reliable sources. People have seen ''Anonymous'', and maybe they have a certain opinion. I mean, there are too many people who know how biased many passages in this article are. Are you aware of this fact? --] (]) 16:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
	::::The statement is made by Steven May, who is deemed to be a reliable source by Misplaced Pages's standards. You seem to be confusing the issue of whether the statement is ''fair'' assessment Eddie de V himself with whether or not the ''source'' for it is reliable. ''Anonymous'' which is a Hollywood fiction has, of course, no reliability ''whatever''. Now you could have a case that opinion should not be presented as fact. That is to say, May's opinion should be attributed to him. That would be arguable if it was a ''contested'' view. I don't know of any reliable source that disagrees with it. However, I don't have a problem saying, "May says...". ] (]) 17:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

	:::::I would like to see that this sentence, as indicated above, is deleted at the very beginning of the article. Then it would continue with (as far as I know) "Oxford was patron of the arts..." Every reader who otherwise doesn´t know anything about Eddie (your language, Paul) is, with the present text, inclined to think about him very badly. We don´t want to support this, or do we? There are other opinions, much more favourable about Eddie, that are not cited in the article. Are known Oxfordians, who write just about EO as a person of history (not directly in connection with SAQ), not eligible to be cited on Misplaced Pages? This was what User BenJonson found strange, and it is no good situation that he is banned. There is no rule saying so! If you agree, Paul, I would delete the sentence as it is. (Maybe we should ask other contributors, too, what they think about it. But seemingly nobody else cares.) If you don´t agree, please move this at least to some other place, and simultaneously a) modify it somehow, b) put your formula (like ''May says'') down there. Of course, then it would be still appropriate to cite some other reliable source with a more positive judgment on EO. There are certainly other sources. I can´t imagine there were none. Must it be always only a source who is 100 % accepted by the Stratfordians? There is no need to say, at the same time, anything like "he was a great poet". I do think so, indeed. But this is so far my private matter. At this moment, it is important for me to support strictly NPOV tendencies in this article. I am quite sure there is a lot to be done in this respect. --] (]) 18:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

	::::::Here we go again. Zbrnajsem, has it never occurred to you that your endless assertions that anyone who's opinions you don't like is biased and unworthy to comment on your beloved 'poet/playwight' might actually be counterproductive? If you have a serious objection to the content of the lede, just tell us what it is, and what you proposes as an alternative, and cut out all the bullshit about 'Stratfordians' and the rest... ] (]) 19:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

	::::::It does not matter if it is "rude", what matters is whether it is a good summary for the lede! Oxfordian literature is not generally acceptable because it does not conform to academic standards. I don't think many scholars think he was a great poet (if we are talking about the works published under his own name, of course. He was such a modest guy that he allowed the mediocre stuff to be circulated as his own work, while the really good stuff came out under the names "Shakespeare", "Lyly", "Munday", "Golding" or one of his other many ''noms de plume''). However, it's fair to say that May himself considers his poetic work innovative. This, I should note, is also found in the lede. In fact this half-sentence is the only negative comment in all the lede (apart perhaps from the statement that his marriage was "unfortuate", which does not imply any blame). Even the rest of the sentence you complain about is positive! ] (]) 20:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

	My first point, defining my complaints more precisely, I have to say that there is no coherent logics behind the incriminated full sentence. In its entirety the sentence is not justified: '''''Although''' he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent '''nature''' that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and '''led to the ruination of his estate''', Oxford was a patron of the arts...'' There is no causality in this text (which is probably a combination of two different texts with two different points of view), no logical consecutivity. The first part of it is simply not acceptable, the second part starting with ''Oxford'' is correct at this place. By the way, I am not identical with editor 71.191.1.186 who first deleted the problematic half-sentence. My second point, you tell me: ''Oxfordian literature is not generally acceptable because it does not conform to academic standards.'' Who has posted this as the official policy of Misplaced Pages, where was it laid down that this is a rule on Misplaced Pages? And what does it mean ''generally not conforming to academic standards''? Generally, but not always? And how are the academic standards defined? As far as I know the practice all over the world, if books were published, especially but not only those written by academically educated people, then this literature can almost always be cited, there are almost no exceptions. You would not allow citations from Stritmatter´s dissertation accepted by a US university? Think of US Constitution and Freedom of Speech. Misplaced Pages has its domicile in the US (in Florida, I suppose), so Misplaced Pages is subject to the US Law and jurisdiction, not to the British Law as you once wrote. This is only a statement, nothing else. So, on the one hand there can´t be an onesided choice of literature for citations. On the other hand, if a particular citation is not correct or misleading in a certain context, then it does not belong to a Misplaced Pages article. Are there any lists of allowed books and articles, kept up-to-date every week, and are there any lists of ] for Misplaced Pages? This would be very strange. And I tell you again, ], this is no discussion about SAQ. This is a discussion solely about EO as a historical person, and it is grossly against NPOV, if there is an onesided depiction of his character as a bad guy, when there are other informations, other judgments. The first part of the sentence is not a good summary. It should be deleted from the lede, and it should not be placed somewhere else in the article. --] (]) 21:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC) --] (]) 10:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

	:The 71.191.1.186 IP was almost certainly the same as banned editor ], since he has edited under variations of the 71. IP. I have already pointed out that the article is not one sided, and that the lede contains far more positive statements than negative ones. But essentially you seem to want ''all'' "negative" views to be removed. Your personal view that it is a misjudgement does not count for much. The rest of you ludicrous commentary about "freedom of speech" is a bit rich coming from someone who wants to ''delete'' text because it is "rude" about an aristocrat. What kind of "freedom" of speech is that! I'm sure Stalin would have agreed with your definition of free speech. ] (]) 12:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

	::-Zbrnajsem. I am sure you have been told on multiple occasions where to find ]. That is the policy. That is how we do it. It is entirely pointless arguing against the policy here. This is not a forum for endless rants about some perceived injustice concerning a minor English peer who has been dead for for-hundred-odd years. And please drop the hogwash concerning NPOV and 'freedom of speech' - it fools nobody, and we've heard it all before from promoters of everything from ] to ]. We don't give 'equal weight' to fringe beliefs, and if mainstream sources say that long-dead Ed was an idiot, so will we, regardless of your opinions on the matter. ] (]) 16:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

	:::What has Stalin to do with English aristocrats? With liking them or not liking them? The bolsheviks executed the Czar family, as far as I know. My definition of the Freedom of Speech is, among other points, to be free to use sources. No sources should be forbidden, there should not be any libri prohibiti in the sense of this expression in Latin. I don´t agree with either of you on this point. My standpoint is in accordance with the modern times, I would say, in accordance with the principles of democracy and freedom of opinion. Is this forbidden on a talk page in Misplaced Pages? EO was by no means a minor English peer, ]. Please try to understand historical facts. --] (]) 20:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

	::::This is not a forum. Please stop wasting everyone's time with your vacuous blather about 'freedom of speech'. We couldn't agree here to ignore Misplaced Pages's policy on what sources are suitable for articles even if we wanted to. If you wish to propose a change to policy, ''you can't do it here.'' Is that to difficult a concept for you to comprehend? ] (]) 20:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

	Three Wikipedians including my person have in the last days objected this half-sentence mentioned above, and so it was now again deleted by me. I explained the reasons for this step thoroughly. I would consider it very unappropriate, if somebody imposes this sentence on the article once more. It has no justification. There are books which might be correct in some of their textual parts, but other parts in those books can be misleading. Historical persons deserve justice. --] (]) 20:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

	:I would remind you that ] policy applies to Misplaced Pages talk pages, and suggest that you redact your aspersions regarding May's academic credibility. Should you fail to do so, I shall raise the matter elsewhere, and ask that you be prohibited from contributing on such matters. ] (]) 20:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

	::I am pretty aware of Misplaced Pages policies: ] (NPOV), ] (V), ] (NOR). Can it be said also with respect to your editings, ], as they occurred up to now in the above matter, both in the article and on this talk page? And how can it be qualified when you call my contributions "vacuous blather", and have no intention to apologize for it? --] (]) 08:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

	:::Since you refuse to redact your personal attack on Professor May's academic credentials, I shall now be raising the issue elsewhere. ] (]) 16:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

	::::You have been very fast with your action. I am slower, ]. I have not refused the redaction. Now I redact my previous personal attack on Professor May's academic credentials. --] (]) 18:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

	:::::I think that rather than stating that you redact your comments on May, it might be more appropriate to actually do so - to either strike them out from your post (use <nowiki><s> and </s> to start and end the strikeout of text</nowiki>), or remove them entirely. ] (]) 19:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

	], the name is no more mentioned. I am able of self-restrict, and would hope for reciprocity. However, I maintain what I said, i.e. that there is no sufficient causality and consecutivity in the text (as a whole) now again present in the article, because it is a combination of two (maybe three) different textual parts with two different points of view. You can´t say that such a judgment is not allowed. --] (]) 22:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

	:"He had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate" is judgmental. What source(s) does May use to back up his statement? No other possible explanation exists as to why Oxford never attained "any court or government responsibility" other than his perceived personality? Really a poor argument on May's part to assign personality traits to the prospect of job offers. Again, May's assertation that Oxford's personality "led to the ruination of his estate" is untrue. Nina Green has accurately researched that Oxford's estate was mis-managed during his years as a ward. ] (]) 16:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

	::Also, how does an article written about the poems of Oxford and Devereux qualify as the authority on Oxford's potential jobs and the condition of his estate? ] (]) 16:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::MNina's "accurate" research was discussed here some while ago. It is simply way out on a limb. It is not for us to judge whether May's argument is poor, though if you don't think personality traits and behaviour have an effect on one's capacity to get 'job offers' you have an odd view of how careers progress (or don't). Other non-partisan writers on Oxford come to the same conclusion. ] (]) 22:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::No response regarding my query as to how May is an expert on Oxford's finances. I've deleted the biased statement. ] (]) 17:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	:::::May is an expert on Oxford. His view is uncontroversial among scholars who are not also fringe theorists. This has been pointed out ''ad nauseam''. It is therefore not "biassed". Indeed, May has no known or disernable bias against Oxford. Describing both good and bad points does not make you biassed. Portraying a historical individual as flawless does. ] (]) 19:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

	::::::Paul, what legal authority does Dr. May cite which would render de Vere incapable of selling his own lands? De Vere obtained licenses to alienate his lands, was fined and acknowledged receipts for sales of clear title... i.e. the courts approved the disposal of his lands. Isn't it merely Dr. May's (and others) '''opinion''' that de Vere was reckless, etc. and ruined his estate? Shouldn't de Vere's situation be compared to other noblemen of the same time period with similar land holdings? Did Dr. May do this? ] (]) 19:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

	== Sources ==

	I'm parking sources here for a rewrite of this article when I get time.

	. This goes into detail on the Sidney/Oxford incident in the context of the Anjou marriage crisis, which was the cause of Oxford's downfall at court. ] (]) 03:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
	::In the editor's opinion, it was the cause. Unless you have a RS that says that all scholars agree with you. ] (]) 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

	* {{Citation\|title= The Crisis of the Aristocracy, 1558-1641\|last=Stone\|first=Lawrence\|publisher=Oxford University Press\|year=1965\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=8AlwAAAAIAAJ}}

	== Shakespeare Authorship Summary ==

	This summary of the main article is lacking in just about every way I can imagine. It lacks even the minimum of detail, especially considering its notability to the subject. I attempted supplying such detail, using standard summary style guidelines, and it was all reverted. 100% of the additions, removed based on "WEIGHT" and that "there's a link to the main article". A summary style approach has not even been attempted. Are we going to follow policy and guidelines in this article or not? ] (]) 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
	:Yes, we are following policies and guidelines. You can read them . ] (]) 20:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
	So you are actually saying that independent reliable sources do not connect Oxford and the Oxfordian Theory in a serious and prominent way."? Seriously, Tom? ] (]) 22:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
	:I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that in conformance to the guideline I linked to above and the policy of ], this article will cover the Oxfordian theory in the same proportion as other biographies written by independent, reliable sources. ] (]) 22:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
	And no, you are not following policy. And writing a summary of a main article is not supposed to be controversial.] (])
	:Everything is controversial when an editor wants to give a fringe theory undue weight in an article. Check out the Marlowe page and teh Bacon page to get an idea of the proper amount of weight the authorship theory should have in a biographical article. ] (]) 22:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

	== SYNTH, Cherrypicking and COI issues. ==

	*I have added a ] tag to the opening section, based on the line "Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate,", which does not appear in the source as paraphrased. Also, this line is the precise definition of - '''"selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says. This applies to both quotations and paraphrasings. Do not cherrypick."''' I attempted to replace with an actual quote:

	:''"In the opinion of Stephen May, Oxford's modern editor, "Much as Oxford's rash, unpredictable nature minimized his success in the world of practical affairs, he deserves recognition not only as a poet but as a nobleman with extraordinary intellectual interests and commitments."''

	Unfortunately, this was reverted back to the offending paraphrase. Can we have some guidance by editors without a conflict of interest? For the record, Both Tom Reedy and Paul Barlow either write or lecture on the authorship, so their COI is undeniable. My interest in the subject is also well known, so I would include myself in the COI group. This is why I'm asking for outside comments. Thanks. ] (]) 22:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
	:I suggest you check the reference, which encompasses three pages, not just the one sentence you reproduced here. ] (]) 22:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
	I have read the entire reference, as well as the full article - which is how I discovered that you are synthesizing the info and coming up with your own paraphrase, which is not accurate. Thus my request for comments here. It's also CherryPicking, which you are silent on. ] (]) 22:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
	:Oh really? Perhaps you skipped over these parts:
	::Upon coming of age in 1571, Oxford was probably regarded with higher expectations that were held for any other young nobleman of the reign. … his future could hardly look more promising …. But waste the old earldom he did in a process that was well underway by January of 1575 when he set out upon an elegant continental tour; during his fifteen months abroad, Edward spent some 4,561 pounds, a sum derived largely from the estates '''which he insisted''' that his father-in-law sell for him. …De Vere had run up debts totaling thousands of pounds. Between 1575 and 1586, Oxford '''divested himself''' of most of his lands … (page 5)

	::De Vere's '''prodigality''' was but '''one aspect of a self-indulgent, erratic, often belligerent temperament which undermined his youthful prospects as well as his later ambitions'''. His '''tendency toward violence''' erupted at the age of seventeen when he killed one of his guardian's servants … Oxford so vehemently opposed the betrothal of his sister, Mary, to Peregrine Bertie … that Bertie feared for his life, and the Earl not only quarreled with Sidney … but may have planned his assassination as well. (page 6)

			== Congratulations ==
	:: Oxford was noticeably disadvantaged by what Gilbert Talbot termed his 'fyckle hed' …. Oxford rejected his first wife, Anne Cecil, on trumped up charges …. In 1589 he betrayed the friends with whom he had joined in a secret profession of adherence to Catholicism, and when Anne Vavasour … gave birth at court to his illegitimate son he did not merely abandon her but insulted her publically as well …. '''These reckless tendencies did not go unnoticed by the Queen …. It is noteworthy that she never appointed Oxford to a position of trust or sole responsibility.''' ....the Earl often requested military duty, but he never gained command of any sizeable body of troops ….(page 7) He was never entrusted with a diplomatic mission, entertainment of foreign dignitaries, nor office at court on in the government at large…. His pension was an act of charity … was designed to solve an unusual problem, the preservation of a necessary state figure whose irresponsibility precluded a grant which might be farmed out, commuted , or sold.(page 8)"
			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
	:This is the material that is summed up with the phrase, "Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate ..." Show us all how that qualifies as ]. ] (]) 00:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

			== SAQ in the ] of this article ==
	::No more comments, eh? Next time read the source and the policies all the way through. ] (]) 03:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
			{{u\|MaineJill}}, hello, and welcome to a ]. WP has plenty of SAQ articles, this is not one of them. The ] ''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 ]). 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 ] for ''this'' article. "alternative candidates proposed" is not misleading, just short and inclomplete, which is fine in this context. Refs like<ref>''Shakespeare Documented: A multi-institutional resource documenting Shakespeare in his own time,'' National Archives, the British, Bodleian, and Folger Libraries, et al. https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/</ref> 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 ] helpful, there are others.
			{{reftalk}}

			I'm also unsure about some of your other ] changes. The current version,
	Don't be that way, Tom. I will respond when I have time. I do work for a living. You are wrong on this and I will post why soon enough. Please stop accusing me of not reading sources or policies all the way thru. That is just as much a personal attack as calling me incompetent, which you have also recently done. Please stop this. It's disruptive and against policy. ] (]) 14:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
	Also, this dispute is not over. Removing a tag, as you have done, prior to resolution, is also against policy, as you well know. Will you follow policy and self revert your tag removal until this dispute is resolved?] (]) 14:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
	:I resolved it by providing the relevant material from which the sentence was derived. I doubt any editor who had read the material competently would have agreed with your tagging the article for synthesis or cherry-picking. You can always take this to the noticeboards for an outside opinion; posting it on this talk page won't get much attention from outside editors. This talk page only averages 20 views a day, and that's up considerably since you returned from your topic ban.
	:And I'm sure the dispute is not over; you don't have to advise me on that. ] (]) 20:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
	Now that you have moved from ] and ] to ], you need to go ahead and take it to dispute resolution, because I have no idea what you're referencing as POV, and I suspect it has as much validity as your last tagging. ] (]) 01:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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

			makes me ask why these "nameless" quotes are in the ] 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?
	:Tom, it sounds like you are saying that you don't want me to discuss it here, but would rather I move directly on to dispute resolution. Unfortunately, that would not be following the dispute process. Issues need to be thoroughly aired on the talk page, and that is my intention:

			That's my view, we'll see if others have any. I'm not a , I've just been editing WP for awhile.
	:First, you may not be aware that there is no Cherry-picking tag. It's a form of POV editing, which is why the POV tag is what is recommended in case of suspected Cherry-picking. And while there is a synth tag, due to the fact that there are multiple issues involved (synth, cherry picking, & COI), the POV tag is a cleaner and more appropriate choice (no one wants to see multiple tags cluttering up an article).
	:Regarding Synthesis. The rule: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion '''''not explicitly stated by any of the sources'''''." In this case, its all in one source (May), but it contains context and qualifications that you are not providing. In any case, it is not "explicitly stated by that source". So if you are asking why I'm moving from Synthesis to CherryPicking? Well, it's a bit of both. Let me explain:

	*'''Synthesis issue''': You have written "Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate". You have provided some quotes above. Not one of them, however, '''implicitly states''' exactly what it was that "led to the ruination of his estate". You seem to be picking quotes that suit your own views, and pasting them together to make your point. Thus the suspicion of ]. Further, you fail to include, in the causes of his financial downfall, any expenses of Wardship, or his expenses in patronizing scores of artists, writers and scientists. Most important, however, you failed to provide this quote from the very next page of your own source (9):

			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 ]. And, like I said at your talkpage, I ''still'' hope you like it here and decide to stay! ] (]) 09:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
	:::"Oxford's genuine commitment to learning throughout his career lends a '''necessary qualification''' to Stone's conclusion that De Vere simply squandered the more than 70,000 pounds he derived from selling off his patrimony...for which some part of this amount Oxford acquired a splendid reputation for nurture of the arts and sciences".
	:Regarding Cherry picking. The rule: "In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information <u>without including contradictory or significant</u> '''qualifying''' information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." Which leads us to Cherry Picking...

			Yet another thing, about references in the ], see ]. ] (]) 10:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
	*'''Cherry Picking Issue #1''': As illustrated by the quote above, you have failed in include the qualifying information supplied by May, which even May writes is a '''"necessary qualification"'''.
			*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 ] and ''don't'' cite it in the lead. ]] 10:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
			**Controversial topics tend to have more refs in the lead (check at ] for example), sometimes it seems to help a bit, but in general, if the ] is done right, they should not be necessary. ] (]) 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 ], 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. (] · ]) ''']''' 12:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
			::::Thanks, Buidhe. Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford/] has a sort of ]/] relationship, in that there's no question that "the other topic" is ] on its own and has an enormous amount of sources, some even ]. There's even an "Oxfordian" drama-film, '']'' (]!).
			::::Per the spirit of ], compare how SAQ is mentioned in the other "big ones", ], ], ] and ] (some would add ]). The current amount of SAQ in this article is quite reasonable, which of course doesn't mean it's perfect. But adding ] only stuff is not a good idea. ] (]) 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 ] section. ] (]) 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 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". ] <sup>]</sup> 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 ]. Actually, I think even some Oxfordians may agree with the term, they just think it's a ] kind of fringe theory. Perhaps the next century will tell. The intention was to comply somewhat with {{u\|MaineJill}}'s argument, as I understood it. ] (]) 18:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' I just wanted to make clear what {{u\|MaineJill}}'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, ] ] 18:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
			::Agree. I made a comment to that effect on her talkpage. ] <sup>]</sup> 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 ]. ] (]) 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. ] ] 20:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

			== Name change from "Oxford" to "De Vere" ==
	::Cherry Picking 1 suggested fixes: There are several summations provided by May that could be used in this article, as opposed to the one being chose and paraphrased. For example:

			Hello all- {{u\|Dositheus}} 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
	:::'''"Oxford's poems... comprise the earliest substantial alleviation of a dearth of courtier verse throughout the first decade of Elizabeth's rein. He is her first truly prestigious courtier poet"''' - Food for thought, but I agree this is not sweeping enough.

			: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. ] (]) 16:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
	:::'''"In the opinion of Stephen May, Oxford's modern editor, "Much as Oxford's rash, unpredictable nature minimized his success in the world of practical affairs, he deserves recognition not only as a poet but as a nobleman with extraordinary intellectual interests and commitments."''' - This seems to satisfy all the requirements. It eliminated the Synth and provided the direct (and balanced) quote from the source.

			::"Oxford" is correct. Peers are referred to by their titles, not their surnames. (We refer to ] and ], 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". ] ] 17:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
	:: but you are insisting that your summation is the only one that can be used, with no qualifications or contradictory opinions. Further, in this instance (and others through-out the article), the information in question <u>is being presented as fact, when it is actually opinion</u>, and as such, needs attribution. I provided this in the quote directly above, but this was also reverted. You know well, especially when it comes to the causes of Oxford's financial downfall, that there is disagreement among researchers, and that the Ward system created huge financial issues for the Wards, as laid out by Pearson (Edward De Vere (1550-1604): The Crisis And Consequences Of Wardship), whom you are familiar with. Pearson, in fact, is listed as a source for this article, but there seems to be a lot of picking and choosing between her and Nelson, instead of noting conflicting opinions as is required under the cherry picking guidelines.

			:::I'm not arguing how 'Peers' refer to themselves. I wanted to add clarity, which was the only reason for the edit. ] (]) 06:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Cherry Picking issue #2''': In the context of Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines, Oxford is notable for several reasons:

			::::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. ] ] 10:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
	::*most notable today as the leading alternate authorship candidate
			:::::FYI- Genealogically, for those directly related, it adds 'Clarity' amidst academic snobbery. ] (]) 14:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	::*lauded as an important courtier poet
	::*lauded as a playwright, and the 'best for comedy"
	::*lauded as a patron with extraordinary intellectual interests and commitments
	::*lauded as a champion jouster, "his prowess winning admiring comments from participants", as the article says.
	::*noted as introducing Italian fashion to the court (big deal, right? but he's been noted for it)
	::*noted for maintaining acting companies, and companies of musicians, tumblers and performing animals.

			== The fart isn't mentioned ==
	These are, arguably, the things that make Oxford notable by Wikpedia standards. These are the things that should be capsulized in the lead, which I attempted to with this summary for the opening graph, followed by the rest of the lead as I had edited it.

			I was expecting to see a reference to the book '']'' by 17th century author ], which recounts a story of Edward de Vere, "... earle of Oxford, making his low obeisance to Queen Elizabeth, happened to let a fart, at which he was so abashed that he went to travell 7 yeares. On his returne the Queen welcomed him home and sayd 'My lord, I had forgot the fart.'" The story is mentioned in the article ] and cited to https://archive.org/details/briefliveschiefl02aubruoft/page/270 - which unfortunately seems to be a somewhat bowdlerized version.
	::::'''Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford''' (12 April 1550{{spaced ndash}}24 June 1604) was an English ] and] of the ]. Lauded in his own time as a lyric poet, playwright,<ref> Joseph W. Houppert, John Lyly, Twayne Publishers, 1975, page 14, ISBN 0805713492, 9780805713497</ref> sportsman, and patron of the arts,<ref>{{Harvnb\|Blackstone\|2002\|p=199}}</ref> since the 1920s he has been the most popular ] proposed for the ]. In the opinion of ], Oxford's modern editor, "Much as Oxford's rash, unpredictable nature minimized his success in the world of practical affairs, he deserves recognition not only as a poet but as a nobleman with extraordinary intellectual interests and commitments."<ref>{{Harvnb\|May\|1980\|pp=8}}.</ref>

			It's likely apocryphal, but may fit in the plots and scandals section. As far as I can tell this does seem to be what he's known for in popular culture. ~] <small>(])</small> 20:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
	::::Oxford was the only son of ] and Margery Golding. After the death of his father in 1562, he became a ] of ] and received an excellent education in the household of her principal advisor, ], with whose daughter he made an unfortunate marriage.<ref name="May 2007 61">{{Harvnb\|May\|2007\|p=61}}.</ref> Oxford was a champion ], travelled widely throughout Italy and France, and is recorded by ] as having introduced various Italian fashions to the English court.
			== WP:RS question on de Vere burial place ==

			Removed the paragraphs in Last Years claiming that an unpublished manuscript has "led to questions regarding his burial place," concerning that manuscript, including a lengthy quotation from the manuscript.
	::::Oxford was noted for his literary and theatrical patronage, and between 1564 and 1599 some 33 works included dedications to him by authors including ], ], ] and ].<ref>{{Harvnb\|May\|1980\|p=9}}.</ref> Oxford was the patron of at least one acting company, as well as separate companies of musicians, tumblers and performing animals.<ref>http://link.library.utoronto.ca/reed/troupehits.cfm?PeopleListID=550</ref><ref>{{Harvnb\|Chambers\|1923\|pp=100–102}}; {{Harvnb\|Nelson\|2003\|pp=391–2}}.</ref> In 1583 he bought the sublease of the first ] and gifted it to the poet-playwright Lyly, who operated it for a season under Oxford's patronage.<ref>{{Harvnb\|Smith\|1964\|pp=151, 155}}.</ref>
			There's no citation for any reliable source raising any question about Oxford's burial. This appears to be purely WP:OR. The question is in the mind of the original poster of this material, not a reliable source.
			Further, devoting two paragraphs and a quotation to a primary source document not mentioned in any cited source seems disproportional. The actual records of de Vere's burial rate a single sentence. This material isn't appropriate for a wikipedia article.] (]) 01:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

			:{{u\|Bomagosh}}, could you enlighten us as to how you arrive at your judgement that the five sources in the material you deleted are not reliable? ] <sup>]</sup> 02:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
	:This was reverted without talk or explanation other than "this is a biography article, not a hagiography. Most biographers agree with May, who is represented accurately". As I have shown, May was <u>not</u> represented accurately, given the synthesis issue I have noted above, and the deletion of the '''necessary qualification''' that he himself pointed out. And if anyone thinks that Oxford appears a Saint (the hagiography jab), then they missed the phrase "rash, unpredictable nature minimized his success in the world of practical affairs". And the part about his bad marriage. Hardly a Saintly write-up.

			::None of the sources support your statement,"The absence of a grave marker and an unpublished manuscript written fifteen years after Oxford's death have led to questions regarding his burial place." The sources cited violate ] and ]. ] (]) 02:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Cherry Picking issue #3''': It's pretty much unanimous that Oxford's military service was not notable. Why then is his non-notable military service listed in the lead? This seems another example of cherry picking so that the general editors can include the statement "but he fled the field" - another opinion presented as fact. The lead is supposed to 'summarize' the article. However, his military service is so rarely mentioned in the article, <u>with no specifics or contradictory opinions</u> - of which there are many - that to be featured in the lead is also completely against policy due to WEIGHT issues.

			:::No reliable source provided (or that I'm aware of) cites the sources in the material to raise questions about Oxford's burial place. If you find a reliable source where questions are raised by the existence of a distant relative's unpublished manuscript account that conflicts with two actual records of burial and the will of the man's widow expressing her desire to be buried in Hackney near her husband's body, cite that. There are no records that Oxford was ever disinterred from Hackney, or buried in Westminster. In the absence of any reliable source, the extensive speculation, in addition to the policy issued raised by @] above, also violate ]. ] (]) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
	*'''COI issues''': Based on this mass deletion ], I can find no other reason than a POV and/or COI issue. This was simply a standard summary version of a major article. Oxford is (today) most notable as the leading alternative authorship candidate. This is not in dispute. It even says so in the lead. But to remove 95% of the detail, and then bury what's left at the end of the article is simply not up to policy on notability or summary guidelines. Nor is the argument, "there's a link, follow it", based in policy.

			:::: I don't have a dog in the race, but I did not find the mere mention of speculation regarding Oxford's burial place to be unjustified.
	:Tom, I hope you don't just automatically send me off to the Noticeboards. Please consider these arguments. ] (]) 22:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
			::::{{u\|Tom Reedy}}, to whom are you addressing the above "your statement"? I am not the originator of that passage. In an edit from a few years ago, I made a copyedit to that sentence, and re-wrote the next two for a more encyclopedic style, removing language that came across to me as sounding indignant (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=prev&oldid=1025640296h). You'll note that I also clarified the presentation of evidence that Oxford was buried at St Augustine.
			::::{{u\|Bomagosh}}, with "distant relative", are you saying that Percival Golding was not Oxford's first cousin? In the above-linked edit I state that he is, but I no longer know what led me to believe he was. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

			::::::<i>I am not the originator of that passage.</i> Pretty sure you are: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=prev&oldid=1025640296 ] (]) 16:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	::So in your opinion, since Oxford's main notability today is his candidacy for the True Author of Shakespeare's works, this article should concentrate on the reasons for that and ignore or minimize everything else, such as his military service, his loathsome treatment of his wife and mistress, and the personality characteristics that made him such a shit.
			:::::::{{u\|Tom Reedy}}, did you mean to post the same link that I had already posted a couple lines above? That diff clearly shows what text was already there and what changes I made, so I'm wondering if you meant to paste a different link. Note that before I posted above, I searched for my edits to the article so I could see what I'd written and what I'd changed. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	::As I have said before, you are not a very thorough reader.
			::::::::You might want to click on the two links. And yes, you were the person who added the language being objected to. ] (]) 22:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	::*You are correct in that not one of the quotes I provided "'''implicitly states''' exactly what it was that 'led to the ruination of his estate'". Do you know what the word "implicit" means?
			:::::::::Sorry, I don't know what more I can do to help you understand this. Maybe it would help for you to review ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
	::*What characteristics of Oxford does May say "undermined his youthful prospects as well as his later ambitions"?
			::::::::::Bruh I posted a link to the diff clearly showing you are the originator of the objectionable phrase. You posted a link to the edited page. I think you're the one who needs to brush up on how to post WP article links. ] (]) 00:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Answer: his temperament, which consisted of
			:::::The premise to bring in the primary source document is the claim that the lack of grave marker and the manuscript led to "questions." This is a statement of fact that should be supported by a reliable source, since it's the premise for over 2000 characters of text being included in the article. If no reliable source has expressed the question, what's the justification for including this in Misplaced Pages?
	:::1. prodigality (which May says caused him to "waste the old earldom" by running up debts and selling his lands so that by 1583 he was described by Burghley as practically bankrupt)
			:::::Notably, in Nelson's biography of Oxford, Golding's statement concerning Oxford's burial is quoted, and Nelson, our secondary source quoted throughout the article, states that Golding erred as to both the burial site and to Oxford's membership in the Privy Council. Nelson also describes Golding as Oxford's "half-cousin, once removed." Golding's father was half-brother to Oxford's mother, one of eleven siblings and half siblings; and Percival was one of eight children of his father Arthur.
	:::2. self-indulgence
			:::::So our main secondary source for this article had read and reproduced this passage from Golding's manuscript, and unambiguously rejected it as erroneous. Unless some other reliable source exists that expresses questions about Oxford's burial site based on this document, there's no justification for this material's inclusion. ] (]) 15:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::3. erratic (i.e. his "fyckle hed", '''fickle:''' Changing frequently, esp. as regards one's loyalties, interests, or affection, or, as May calls them, "reckless tendencies"
			:::::Further concerning "distant relative:" Beyond being, according to Alan Nelson, Oxford's "half-cousin, once removed," he was also 29 years younger, and not of Oxford's social rank -- a commoner. All this suggests that Golding would not have been particularly personally close to the earl. ] (]) 15:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::4. belligerency
			::::::Thanks for clarifying. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::5. tendency toward violence
	:::6. his irresponsibility
	:::In short, May is presented accurately.
	::*Regarding your complaint that the sentence fails to include May's "necessary qualification", please notice that the sentence in question begins with "Although", which means "in spite of the fact that; even though," synonyms are "though - albeit - while - notwithstanding - as", and is then followed by a list of what you say he is most notable for: "... Oxford was a patron of the arts and noted in his own time as a lyric poet and playwright, and since the 1920s he has been the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works."
	::*In fact, Oxford was probably more noted in his own time for being a shit than for being a poet. Poetry was light stuff in the Elizabethan age, considered to be an indulgence of youth, and any person of substance who followed it beyond youth was looked upon as effeminate and weak, so much so that Sir Phillip Sidney (a commoner with 38 dedications, BTW, 5 more than Oxford) named his work of criticism ''The Defense of Poesy''.
	::*It may be May's opinion, but coincidentally, his opinion is also shared by Oxford's other biographers. Everyone of his biographers said he was a shit, and that despite being a shit, he was a generous patron of the arts and a minor court poet. In fact one entire book, Pearson, barely mentions his literary activity and concentrates on his finances as an exemplar of what Lawrence Stone described as the "Crisis of the Aristocracy, the changes that were transforming the country and the economy.
	::*As I stated earlier, the authorship material should be represented in the this article in the same proportion it is represented in reliable sources. That also goes for every other thing about Oxford. Neither you nor I gets to arbitrarily determine what is notable about Oxford's life and bend this article in that direction. Leaving out Oxford's major character flaws because you don't think they're notable enough is the essence of cheery picking. In fact, your "solution" to "Cherry Picking Issue #1" is just that: picking out one sentence from may that reflects what you think the article's message should be. Who says only one sentence from May has to be used? My sentence sums up four pages, not just one sentence.
	::I want to go directly to the boards because all of this has been discussed and it is burdensome and time-consuming to continue to do so. All the facts are on the table, all the diffs are there, the discussion is above for all to see. In my opinion after years of experience dealing with you, you still don't understand Misplaced Pages's policy of neutrality. ] (]) 01:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
	::P.S. Oxford did not "maintain" playing companies; he patronised them. To think that he supported them shows your misunderstanding of that type of patronage. And the article doesn't say he "fled the field". Read what it says, not what you think it says. ] (]) 02:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:33, 2 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford 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: 30 days

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

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on June 24, 2017.

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

SAQ in the WP:LEAD of this article

MaineJill, 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.

References

Shakespeare Documented: A multi-institutional resource documenting Shakespeare in his own time, National Archives, the British, Bodleian, and Folger Libraries, et al. https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/

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" precluded him from attaining any courtly or governmental responsibility and resulted in the total loss of his extensive inheritance. 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 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 · 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#Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship 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 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 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 MaineJill's argument, as I understood it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment I just wanted to make clear what MaineJill'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 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- Dositheus 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 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)

The fart isn't mentioned

I was expecting to see a reference to the book Brief Lives by 17th century author John Aubrey, which recounts a story of Edward de Vere, "... earle of Oxford, making his low obeisance to Queen Elizabeth, happened to let a fart, at which he was so abashed that he went to travell 7 yeares. On his returne the Queen welcomed him home and sayd 'My lord, I had forgot the fart.'" The story is mentioned in the article flatulence humor and cited to https://archive.org/details/briefliveschiefl02aubruoft/page/270 - which unfortunately seems to be a somewhat bowdlerized version.

It's likely apocryphal, but may fit in the plots and scandals section. As far as I can tell this does seem to be what he's known for in popular culture. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS question on de Vere burial place

Removed the paragraphs in Last Years claiming that an unpublished manuscript has "led to questions regarding his burial place," concerning that manuscript, including a lengthy quotation from the manuscript. There's no citation for any reliable source raising any question about Oxford's burial. This appears to be purely WP:OR. The question is in the mind of the original poster of this material, not a reliable source. Further, devoting two paragraphs and a quotation to a primary source document not mentioned in any cited source seems disproportional. The actual records of de Vere's burial rate a single sentence. This material isn't appropriate for a wikipedia article.Bomagosh (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Bomagosh, could you enlighten us as to how you arrive at your judgement that the five sources in the material you deleted are not reliable? Eric 02:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

None of the sources support your statement,"The absence of a grave marker and an unpublished manuscript written fifteen years after Oxford's death have led to questions regarding his burial place." The sources cited violate WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No reliable source provided (or that I'm aware of) cites the sources in the material to raise questions about Oxford's burial place. If you find a reliable source where questions are raised by the existence of a distant relative's unpublished manuscript account that conflicts with two actual records of burial and the will of the man's widow expressing her desire to be buried in Hackney near her husband's body, cite that. There are no records that Oxford was ever disinterred from Hackney, or buried in Westminster. In the absence of any reliable source, the extensive speculation, in addition to the policy issued raised by @Tom Reedy above, also violate WP:WEIGHT. Bomagosh (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in the race, but I did not find the mere mention of speculation regarding Oxford's burial place to be unjustified.

Tom Reedy, to whom are you addressing the above "your statement"? I am not the originator of that passage. In an edit from a few years ago, I made a copyedit to that sentence, and re-wrote the next two for a more encyclopedic style, removing language that came across to me as sounding indignant (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=prev&oldid=1025640296h). You'll note that I also clarified the presentation of evidence that Oxford was buried at St Augustine.

Bomagosh, with "distant relative", are you saying that Percival Golding was not Oxford's first cousin? In the above-linked edit I state that he is, but I no longer know what led me to believe he was. Eric 13:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not the originator of that passage. Pretty sure you are: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=prev&oldid=1025640296 Tom Reedy (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Tom Reedy, did you mean to post the same link that I had already posted a couple lines above? That diff clearly shows what text was already there and what changes I made, so I'm wondering if you meant to paste a different link. Note that before I posted above, I searched for my edits to the article so I could see what I'd written and what I'd changed. Eric 20:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You might want to click on the two links. And yes, you were the person who added the language being objected to. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what more I can do to help you understand this. Maybe it would help for you to review WP:DIFF. Eric 12:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Bruh I posted a link to the diff clearly showing you are the originator of the objectionable phrase. You posted a link to the edited page. I think you're the one who needs to brush up on how to post WP article links. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The premise to bring in the primary source document is the claim that the lack of grave marker and the manuscript led to "questions." This is a statement of fact that should be supported by a reliable source, since it's the premise for over 2000 characters of text being included in the article. If no reliable source has expressed the question, what's the justification for including this in Misplaced Pages?

Notably, in Nelson's biography of Oxford, Golding's statement concerning Oxford's burial is quoted, and Nelson, our secondary source quoted throughout the article, states that Golding erred as to both the burial site and to Oxford's membership in the Privy Council. Nelson also describes Golding as Oxford's "half-cousin, once removed." Golding's father was half-brother to Oxford's mother, one of eleven siblings and half siblings; and Percival was one of eight children of his father Arthur.

So our main secondary source for this article had read and reproduced this passage from Golding's manuscript, and unambiguously rejected it as erroneous. Unless some other reliable source exists that expresses questions about Oxford's burial site based on this document, there's no justification for this material's inclusion. Bomagosh (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Further concerning "distant relative:" Beyond being, according to Alan Nelson, Oxford's "half-cousin, once removed," he was also 29 years younger, and not of Oxford's social rank -- a commoner. All this suggests that Golding would not have been particularly personally close to the earl. Bomagosh (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Eric 18:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: