Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smatprt (talk | contribs) at 22:58, 16 March 2013 (This should be all one section so that the source quotes are all together and at one link.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:58, 16 March 2013 by Smatprt (talk | contribs) (This should be all one section so that the source quotes are all together and at one link.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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: 2 months

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: 2 months

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government B‑class

	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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Controversial half-sentence on Oxford´s character

In your opinion, Paul B, 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 Othello). 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? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 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...". Paul B (talk) 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. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 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... AndyTheGrump (talk) 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! Paul B (talk) 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 libri prohibiti for Misplaced Pages? This would be very strange. And I tell you again, Paul B, 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. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC) --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The 71.191.1.186 IP was almost certainly the same as banned editor User:HenryVIIIyes, 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. Paul B (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

-Zbrnajsem. I am sure you have been told on multiple occasions where to find Misplaced Pages's policy on identifying reliable sources. 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 woo-water cure-alls to magic teapots. 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 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, AndyTheGrump. Please try to understand historical facts. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 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? AndyTheGrump (talk) 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. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I would remind you that WP:BLP 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty aware of Misplaced Pages policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR). Can it be said also with respect to your editings, AndyTheGrump, 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? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been very fast with your action. I am slower, AndyTheGrump. I have not refused the redaction. Now I redact my previous personal attack on Professor May's academic credentials. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 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 <s> and </s> to start and end the strikeout of text), or remove them entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, 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. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 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. Knitwitted (talk) 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? Knitwitted (talk) 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. Paul B (talk) 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. Knitwitted (talk) 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. Paul B (talk) 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? Knitwitted (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources

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

Incest and Agency in Elizabeth's England. 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. Tom Reedy (talk) 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. Smatprt (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Stone, Lawrence (1965), The Crisis of the Aristocracy, 1558-1641, Oxford University Press

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? Smatprt (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we are following policies and guidelines. You can read them here. Tom Reedy (talk) 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? Smatprt (talk) 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 WP:WEIGHT, this article will cover the Oxfordian theory in the same proportion as other biographies written by independent, reliable sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 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.Smatprt (talk)

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. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

SYNTH, Cherrypicking and COI issues.

I have added a WP:SYNTH 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:

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. Smatprt (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you check the reference, which encompasses three pages, not just the one sentence you reproduced here. Tom Reedy (talk) 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. Smatprt (talk) 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)

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 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 WP:SYNTH. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No more comments, eh? Next time read the source and the policies all the way through. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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. Smatprt (talk) 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?Smatprt (talk) 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. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that you have moved from WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRYPICKING to WP:POV, 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. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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:

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 WP:ORIGINALSYN. 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):

"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 without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." Which leads us to Cherry Picking...

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".

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:

"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.

"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.

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 is being presented as fact, when it is actually opinion, 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.

Cherry Picking issue #2: In the context of Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines, Oxford is notable for several reasons:

most notable today as the leading alternate authorship candidate
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.

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.

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (12 April 1550 – 24 June 1604) was an English peer andcourtier of the Elizabethan era. Lauded in his own time as a lyric poet, playwright, sportsman, and patron of the arts, since the 1920s he has been the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works. 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."

Oxford was the only son of John de Vere, 16th Earl of Oxford and Margery Golding. After the death of his father in 1562, he became a ward of Queen Elizabeth and received an excellent education in the household of her principal advisor, Sir William Cecil, with whose daughter he made an unfortunate marriage. Oxford was a champion jouster, travelled widely throughout Italy and France, and is recorded by Stow as having introduced various Italian fashions to the English court.

Oxford was noted for his literary and theatrical patronage, and between 1564 and 1599 some 33 works included dedications to him by authors including Arthur Golding, John Lyly, Robert Greene and Anthony Munday. Oxford was the patron of at least one acting company, as well as separate companies of musicians, tumblers and performing animals. In 1583 he bought the sublease of the first Blackfriars Theatre and gifted it to the poet-playwright Lyly, who operated it for a season under Oxford's patronage.

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 not 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.

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, with no specifics or contradictory opinions - of which there are many - that to be featured in the lead is also completely against policy due to WEIGHT issues.

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.

Tom, I hope you don't just automatically send me off to the Noticeboards. Please consider these arguments. Smatprt (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Joseph W. Houppert, John Lyly, Twayne Publishers, 1975, page 14, ISBN 0805713492, 9780805713497
Blackstone 2002, p. 199 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBlackstone2002 (help)
May 1980, pp. 8 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMay1980 (help).
May 2007, p. 61 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMay2007 (help).
May 1980, p. 9 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMay1980 (help).
http://link.library.utoronto.ca/reed/troupehits.cfm?PeopleListID=550
Chambers 1923, pp. 100–102 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFChambers1923 (help); Nelson 2003, pp. 391–2 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNelson2003 (help).
Smith 1964, pp. 151, 155 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSmith1964 (help).

Categories: