Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

Some things to consider fixing when editing resumes

Taking into consideration some of the remarks above, in addition to points raised generally over the past month.

(a) Add source as per Nina Green's request for the line:-

'In later years Burghley was to upbraid Oxford frequently for his prodigal extravagance.'

No. Nina simply didn't check the source, in Ward, at the end of the second line, which is indeed Ward p.31. The ref applies to both sentences.

'Prodigal' can be elided, and the source should read, with the template system employed, Ward 1928, p. 31 Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani is right. I now see that Ward does say on p. 31 that 'In later years we shall find Lord Burghley continually upbraiding Oxford for his extravagance'. Ward doesn't, so far as I know, provide references later in his book which would justify his use of the phrase 'continually upbraiding', but nonetheless, that's exactly what he says on p. 31. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(b) 'the sixth son of Sir Thomas Tyrrell of East Horndon' can be elided (an unnecessary specification in any case') or it should be prefaced by 'according to some sources'.

(c)The words in the lead, 'participated in military campaigns in the Northern Rebellion (1569)' are misleading as I noted above and on LessHeard vanU's page.

I suggest:'participated in two military campaigns, in the Northern Rebellion (1569-1570),..' (the appropriate section notes he participated in April-May, 1570)

(d) The section 'Shakespearean authorship question' should not head the page, but be relocated at the bottom of the page as per the DNB standard biography, since it is incidental to Oxford's life, and never figured in accounts of it for 316 years.

(e) On the matriculated impubes, the sources all say this (a) Charles Henry Cooper, Thompson Cooper (eds.) Athenae Cantabrigienses, Volume 2, 1861 (Gregg Press, 1967) p.389 (b) B. M. Ward, The seventeenth Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604: from contemporary documents, 1928 p.11; (c) Alan H. Nelson, 'Monstrous Adversary,' 2003 p.24 (d) Daphne Pearson, Edward de Vere (1550-1604): the crisis and consequences of wardship, 2005 p.14 Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(f):As per Nina Green's request above: 'was displeased with the arrangement' as 'assured the Earl of Rutland he personally might well have thought of a different arrangement'/ or some variant of the same consonant with the Rutland letter. Alternatively one could just elide the phrase.Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Either would work, but I think the latter (eliding the phrase) might be preferable because it's difficult to know what Lord Burghley really thought. He seems to be hinting to Rutland that he would have eventually suggested a marriage between Anne Cecil and Rutland if Oxford had not stepped in with his proposal, but on the other hand, is Burghley just being diplomatic? If the phrase is kept in, I'd be inclined to cite Ward (p.62) because although Alan cites HMC Rutland, i, p. 95 as his source, the Calendar of Rutland manuscripts is available online, and the spelling in it is not the modernized spelling used in Alan's quotation on p.72 of Monstrous Adversary, which instead bears a considerable resemblance to the modern spelling version on p. 62 of Ward, so the citation perhaps properly belongs to Ward. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me suggest this.

'She had been pledged to Philip Sidney in August 1569, and others had apparently sought her hand. Oxford was the most eligible bachelor in England. Cecil, who had risen to Baron Burghley by February, and apparently had entertained the idea of her marrying the earl of Rutland, acquiesced. According to Nelson, Oxford's rank trumped all else.' Ward 1928, pp. 61–63Nelson 2003, pp. 71–73

My policy from the start has been to use both Ward and Nelson, and, had I not undertaken the voluntary ban, would have accompanied every key point with dual sourcing, while maintaining the most neutral narration of the story as we have it, so that readers can readily access the respective sources quickly. (Note for example re interpretations notes 25/26, where Ward's interpretation is given and then Nelson's) One of the drudges of wikiwork is that effectively, we read a thousand or more pages on any subject, often 5-6 books, and index by page everything, so that the younger generation is no longer obliged to read anything beyond a few pages, but if uncertain, can simply check in a library by following the refs to go to the precise pages.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It might be that Oxford's rank trumped all else, but it might also be that Burghley realized that Anne was infatuated with Oxford and wanted her to be happy (what little evidence there is suggests that Anne loved Oxford to the end of her life, in spite of everything). Rather than speculate, maybe we should just let all this detail (which is more about Anne and Burghley and Rutland than Oxford) go. But nonetheless, if you want to put it in, I wouldn't object. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Historians can make inferences from evidence, in fact that is what historians basically do. They generally are trained not to make inferences from the absence of evidence. There is evidence for Oxford's rank, Burghley's views on the marriage, and inferences have been drawn by RS. There is no evidence for Burghley's thoughts on Anne's motivations. The two issues are distinct. One is legitimate inference in an RS, the other pure speculation. That's why I registered the former.Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that Alan isn't a historian and thus hasn't been trained 'not to make inferences from the absence of evidence', isn't it confusing to claim, as Alan does on p. 71, that 'Evidently Oxford's rank trumped all else' when in fact Rutland was also a high-ranking Earl? Just asking, because the fine distinction Alan seems to be making between the ranking of earls in marry his daughter is lost on me and I suspect would be lost on most people. I think the factual quality of the article would be improved by omitting this sort of speculation as to Lord Burghley's motives, but that's just my opinion. I happen to like what I'd read of Lord Burghley, and I'd like to give his motives the benefit of the doubt since we don't know what they were. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You might like to examine the use of the word 'evidently' in Nelson's several hundred pages. I have. I gather he doesn't use it as 'according to the evidence=obviously' but 'ostensibly, apparently, the odds are' etc. Nelson is a cultural historian. If you do classical Greek and Latin, you get intensive training in the language, and then write pages on 'Thucydides' and 'Tacitus', 'Sophocles' and 'Seneca', 'Plato' and 'Lucretius' (history, theatre, philosophy, etc). Once you have mastered this, you choose where to move, history, philosophy, literature etc., but even if you specialize, the historian still uses philology, the philosopher must learn how rhetoric works in literature, and the literary specialist must know how to evaluate historical evidence. Most historians down to recent times were trained this way. And it goes for Old-Middle-Elizabethan literature and documentary scholars. Mastery of texts, and then you specialize. History gets nowhere without this philological-literary preparation, and that is any English lit major of the past works historically, as an historian. To write, as Schoenbaum, May, Nelson, Chambers do does not require a doctorate in some modern faculty of history. If you write the life of someone who died 400 years ago, using archives, and the historical secondary literature, you are practising the profession of the historian, whatever your primary credentials. No one raises this point, as far as I know, except Oxfordians, almost none of whom have recognized credentials in literary theory, historical methodology, or philology. I say this without wishing in the least to imply anything negative about your personal commitment over decades to research. It is just that it looks shabby to try and discredit someone whom you disagree within on such an extremely tendentious equivocation, one which most informed readers won't concur with. I've noticed quite a few errors in Nelson myself, some you've noted here. But I notice them, after a year, in anything intricate I write, and in most books on subjects I have a detailed knowledge of. It is in the nature of things that specialists, notn infrequently, slip up, and that they do should not occasion suspicion about their qualifications, but a reflection on the intrinsic difficulties of getting anything right.

Let me tell you an anecdote about a classical scholar, which I read somewhere in Toynbee's voluminous works as a youth. He was prepossessed by grammar, and in middle age, began to refuse to read any classical author who did not express himself according to the best usage of the definitive and exhaustive German grammars on classical languages. A Latinist, he ended up constitutionally incapable to reading anything earlier than Vergil or later than Ovid. Catullus was so badly reported, he was cancelled. Propertius was deeply problematical because of bad transmission. Then Vergil's Aeneid has those 48 half lines unfinished, and some questionable grammar. Out. Then Horace, then Ovid, then Cicero, they all had blots. I think he ended his days reading grammars written in the late 19th century rather than Latin authors, because only the former expressed perfectly the ideal forms of competent Latin usage, and all real authors were too painfully distant from that ideal. Knowledge is empathy with the past, but also humility at the intrinsic limitations in our cognitive ability to know it, in Ranke's words, wie es eigentlich gewesen ist.Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(g)The Ref to lead on his comedies runs:"Puttenham and Meres reckon him among 'the best for comedy' in his day; but, although he was a patron of players, no specimens of his dramatic productions survive."

Correct me if I'm wrong on this but Meres marked him down as 'the best for comedy' while Puttenham classified him among the 'courtly makers', whose 'doings' would be worth finding out. The context suggests primarily poetry, but the point is, whatever the provenance of the quote from the secondary source it attributes to Puttenham a judgement made only by Meres. It's quite easy to find material in May Nelson and Ward on this, and I will supply it presently in the few days left to me, along with a few other things. Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason, technically, why this should be removed but

the sixth son of Sir Thomas Tyrrell of East Horndon.

I have placed it provisorily here. Two RS state it, and a private researcher denies it to be confirmed in the records. Normally, to edit it out on personal research grounds would infringe WP:V, and WP:OR. And I personally see no reason to do as I am doing now, except for this, that it is not necessary to the text. If I find however that this is confirmed in two or three other modern RS, I will reinsert it. Any editor who sees this differently however will be within their rights to reinsert it. And I will not oppose such an edit, though I think both courtesy and commitment to essentials provide a ground to simply expunge the point, which Nina thinks controversial.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your doing this. The ultimate source of the error is The Complete Peerage, cited by Alan as his source, and Alan has merely repeated the error. It's not vital that this error be deleted from the article, but it would improve the factual quality of the article because this error has led to other errors on Alan's part, including his claim that Richard Tyrrell was Charles Tyrrell's brother. This entail in Richard Tyrrell's will makes it clear that he was not Charles Tyrrell's brother:

>Item, I will and bequeath unto Edward, my son, all my lands and tenements with their appurtenances to him and to his heirs males of his body lawfully begotten, and for default of such issue that all my said manors, lands, tenements & hereditaments with their appurtenances except the manor of Sundon shall remain and be unto Thomas Tyrrell, my eldest brother’s son, and to his heirs males of his body lawfully begotten, and for default of such issue the remainder thereof to Henry Tyrrell, my second brother, and to the heirs males of his body lawfully begotten, and for default of such issue the remainder thereof unto Robert Tyrrell, my brother, and to his heirs males of his body lawfully begotten, and for default of such issue, the remainder thereof unto Eustace Tyrrell, my brother, and his heirs males of his body lawfully begotten, and for default of such issue the remainder thereof unto Charles Tyrrell that married the Countess of Oxford and his heirs males lawfully begotten, and for default of such issue the remainder thereof to Charles Tyrrell, servant to the Lord Rich, and to his heirs males lawfully begotten, and for default of such issue the remainder thereof unto the right heirs of me, the said Richard Tyrrell, forever;<

In my view the entail in the will of Richard Tyrrell above also suggests that it was likely the Charles Tyrrell who was the 'servant to the Lord Rich' who was actually the sixth son of Sir Thomas Tyrrell of Horndon.

I understand the problem with using primary source documents, but sometimes it's only primary source documents which reveal the errors in otherwise reliable secondary sources.

Nothing earth-shattering turns on whether the error is left in, or removed, from the article, but I think it would improve the factual quality of the article if it were removed, particularly since it's not vital to an article on Edward de Vere. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I should perhaps have added that it was because of Alan's mention of the will of Charles Tyrrell's alleged brother Richard on p. 41 of Monstrous Adversary that I ordered a copy of Richard Tyrrell's will from the National Archives and transcribed it, only to find that it doesn't say what Alan claims it says. Alan writes on p. 41:

>Although Margery and Charles are first identified as husband and wife in a will signed on 13 May 1566 by Charles' brother Richard of Assheton, Essex . . . .<

But in fact, as noted above, the entail in Richard Tyrrell's will demonstrates that Charles Tyrrell was not Richard Tyrrell's brother, and indicates, moreover, that there was another Charles Tyrrell, 'servant to the Lord Rich', who was likely the Charles Tyrrell who was the 'sixth son of Sir Thomas Tyrrell of Heron' in East Horndon. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I can't see it, but then I am not an expert on the Peerage nor on Elizabethan documents. If the word 'brother' is not used of the first Richard Tyrrell, who married Oxford's widow, neither is it used of the second Tyrrell, who was the servant to the Lord Rich. Where's the proof as opposed to a different inference, that escaped the Peerage, and the other authoritative sources?Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant to write 'If the word 'brother' is not used of the first Charles Tyrrell, who married Oxford's widow, neither is it used of the second Tyrrell, who was the servant to the Lord Rich'. Exactly. When Richard Tyrrell is referring to his brothers in the entail, he calls them 'brother'. When he refers to both the Charles Tyrrells, who were obviously relations of some sort or he wouldn't have included them in the entail, he doesn't call them brothers because neither of the Charles Tyrrells was his brother. Alan simply misread the will. Moreover all the sources are clear that Richard Tyrrell of Asshedon was most definitely not one of the 'six sons of Sir Thomas Tyrrell of Heron, in East Horndon', so if he and Oxford's stepfather, Charles Tyrrell, were brothers, as Alan claims, then obviously Charles Tyrrell couldn't have been a son of Sir Thomas Tyrrell of Heron either. So Alan, without realizing it, in one of his statements on p. 41 disproves another of his statements on p. 41.

I just don't see the point of referring Wikipedia readers to a page in Alan's book on which this sort of confusion reigns. I could point out another error of Alan's concerning Charles Tyrrell's alleged annulled marriage on p. 41, but I think people's heads are spinning already. :-) It just seems pragmatic to omit the statement concerning Charles Tyrrell's background from the article entirely. It doesn't add anything to the article, it's almost certainly wrong, and it leads Wikipedia readers to a page in Alan's book where there are further errors. If it stays in the article, I won't lose any sleep over it, but I think it would improve the article to omit it. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan's comment on p.41 about Charles Tyrrell's alleged annulled marriage is worth considering because it is yet another error of a type which raises the question of whether Alan's book can be considered a reliable source. On p. 41, Alan writes:

([Oxford's stepfather] Charles [Tyrrell's] prior marriage to Agnes Chitwode alias Odell had been annulled by the Court of Delegates on 6 April 1560.)

Alan cites as his source 'BL MS Add. Charter 44271 (annullment)'. However if Alan actually looked at this manuscript, he misread it, because there is an account of this rather famous case in Strype's Annals. But more importantly there is this account of it, taken from a 1559 Act of Parliament, on pp. 327-8 of Documents of the English Reformation 1526-170, ed. by Gerald Bray, c1994:

http://books.google.com/books?id=UGi6WWtzkJYC&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&ots=LCCGcJwbv4&dq=tyrrell+chetwood&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html&sig=31Cb4v0HyfvtmmNvya_qmvamPzM

>23. And where one pretended sentence has heretofore been given in the Consistory of Paul's before certain judges delegate, by the authority legatine of the late Cardinal Pole, by reason of a foreign usurped power and authority, against Richard Chetwood, Esq., and Agnes his wife, by the name of Agnes Woodhall, at the suit of Charles Tyrrell, gentleman, in a cause of matrimony solemnized between the said Richard and Agnes, as by the same pretended sentence more plainly doth appear, from which sentence the said Richard and Agnes have appealed to the court of Rome, which appeal does there remain, and yet is not determined; may it therefore please your Highness that it may be enacted by the authority aforesaid, that if sentence in the said appeal shall happen to be given at the said court of Rome for and in the behalf of the said Richard and Agnes, for the reversing of the said pretended sentence, before the end of threescore days next after the end of this session of this present Parliament (i.e. by 07 July 1559), that then the same shall be judged and taken to be good and effectual in the law, and shall and may be used, pleaded and allowed in any court or place within this realm; anything in this Act or any other Act or statute contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

>And if no sentence shall be given at the court of Rome in the said appeal for the reversing of the said pretended sentence before the end of the said threescore days, that then it shall and may be lawful for the said Richard and Agnes, and either of them, at any time hereafter, to commence, take, sue and prosecute their said appeal from the said pretended sentence, and for the reversing of the said pretended sentence, within this realm, in such like manner and form as was used to be pursued or might have been pursued, within this realm, at any time since the twenty-fourth year of the reign of the said late King Henry VIII (1532-33), upon any sentences given in the court or courts of any archbishop within this realm.<

>And that such appeal as so hereafter shall be taken or pursued by the said Richard Chetwood and Agnes, or either of them, and the sentence that herein or thereupon shall hereafter be given, shall be judged to be good and effectual in the law to all intents and purposes; any law, custom, usage, canon, constitution or any other matter or cause to the contrary notwithstanding.<

The bottom line is that this Charles Tyrrell, whoever he was (and it seems likely he was the Charles Tyrrell who was 'servant to the Lord Rich', not the Charles Tyrrell who was Oxford's stepfather), was never married to Agnes Chetwood. Charles Tyrrell was merely the person who instigated the suit to have the marriage between Agnes Woodhall and Richard Chetwood annulled.

Considering that the case in question is well enough known to have been part of a 1559 Act of Parliament, why did Alan make the egregious errors not only of falsely claiming that Oxford's stepfather Charles Tyrrell was married to Agnes Chitwode and that the marriage was annulled, but also of citing a manuscript source which demonstrates that Charles Tyrrell was not married to Agnes Chitwode? I'll leave that up to readers of this message.

Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, you cannot technically wage a campaign against Nelson's book on this page, which is not a forum or venue for such issues and in violation of WP:BLP. Much of what you contest is in Ward, Debrett's Peerage, Pearson (wh has been severely criticized by specialists ) and DNB and other sources. You are singling him out in what looks to the outside viewer as a personal attempt to disinvalidate his recognized status as an Elizabethan scholar, and you lack the public credentials to do this. No one here can conduct research and challenge an RS adducing these private researches. I will be quite happy to collaborate, but only if you drop this monocular assault. Nelson has written 500 detailed pages and has been peer-reviewed. If you wish to be cited, you must find a peer-reviewing non-partisan journal that enjoys scholarly respect, write an objective review of it, and if, accepted, it can be cited here. I could tear apart a lot of stuff on your page (as I showed earlier, you get things wrong), but I don't. There are tight rules governing what editors can and cannot do, and you are attempting, I've no doubt with a sincere bona fides, to do things that subvert the protocols here. Read them very carefully.Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"disinvalidate"? That's an excretable concoction! Tom Reedy (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand how Wikipedia determines what is, or is not, a reliable source. As I've said before (and forgive me for repeating myself), Alan is not a historian and his book has not been reviewed by professional historians. I've already demonstrated here that there are significant errors in Alan's handling of factual material from primary source manuscripts. Alan's own transcripts and other highly respected published sources such as Bray's Documents of the Reformation (cited above) establish that what Alan says in his book about the contents of certain primary source documents doesn't factually represent what the documents actually say. I could cite many more examples of factual errors in Alan's book, but leaving that aside, and merely taking the other points I've just mentioned into consideration, at what point does Wikipedia itself begin to question whether it can simply cite Alan's book as a reliable source, or whether Wikipedia itself has to say 'Maybe we can cite Alan's book for some things, but we have to be cautious'. I'm merely asking, because I really don't know. I'm new to Wikipedia, and don't understand its policies. Just by way of example, Wikipedia doesn't accept Brief Chronicles as a reliable source, yet Brief Chronicles is included in the bibliographies of The Modern Language Association and The Folger Shakespeare Library. So why does Wikipedia not accept Brief Chronicles as a reliable source, while accepting a book written by someone who is not a historian and whose book has not been reviewed by reliable historians? I'm sincerely confused about Wikipedia's criteria for assessing what constitutes a reliable source, and who actually makes that determination.

That said, I do want to co-operate with you on editing the article when you return from holidays, and so I'm quite willing to refrain from further comments on errors in Alan's book in the interim. Agreed?

You state that you could 'tear apart a lot of stuff' on my page (I assume you mean the Documents page on my website). If so, I would welcome that. I'm always revising the summaries to the documents on that page in order to reflect new information and correct earlier errors. Any help any editor of this page can provide in correcting errors on the Documents page of my website would be appreciated.

Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nelson's book has been reviewed, often favourably, by many scholars of the period. You dismiss this, saying they aren't historians. Neither are you, by the same criterion, and I say this without venom. It is no great boast to say that one can tear apart Looney, Ogburn Sr. Ogburn Jr, Farina, Malim, Anderson and all the rest. It is very painful, if a duty, to read their books, the inferential overload is appalling. I do think it admirable that you pursue archival research, but the argument can never be made, because though you may correct oversights (a valuable service to the academy) a positive argument for the theory cannot be constructed because it is purely inferential. I mentioned above that the problem is one of a lack of thorough understanding of fact, inference, proof, and probability. Generally Nelson has this. I've seen no evidence those who criticize him do. In any case, this is all immaterial to the problems of this page. One last point. Most first-rate poets in English wrote better than the de Vere whose poems we know, at the same age. No one wrote better than Shakespeare. Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I note the words 'Alan's book has been reviewed, often favourably', from which I deduce that even among non-historians there have been unfavourable reviews of Alan's book, and of course there have been no reviews of it at all by professional historians. Daphne Pearson's book began life as a dissertation for a Ph.D. in history, and of course was eventually reviewed by professional historians, and as you note above, has been 'severely criticized by specialists'. If Alan's book were to be reviewed by professional historians, who is to say whether it might not get the same treatment, considering the factual errors it contains?

Well I've read several reviews calling is exhaustive, definitive, etc. The only point he's criticized on his that it's jolly hard reading given the number of primary documents reproduced. Not a classic narrative history. Pearson's book is badly organized, and she makes, it is said, deductions that are not always persuasive, etc. But at the same time has a host of invaluable, exhaustvely analysed material on an obscure topic, land. This is customary with secondary sources, that they are subject to nit-picking which however in no way undermines their use as secondary sources in academia. Go through most academic books with a fine toothcomb and, as Paul Barlow said, you'll find a good deal to correct, much less, if they go through the peer-review before approval process common at places like Yale and Harvard etc., than the hopeless mess of popular books that simply repeat or mingle and patch in a lot of material from similar books in the genre. Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In any event, my question was about the criteria which Wikipedia uses to determine what is, and what is not, a reliable source, and who makes that determination. This has nothing to do with my own qualifications, or with anyone's qualifications, for that matter, although you keep coming back to that point. It has to do with Wikipedia's criteria. On what basis has Wikipedia determined that Alan's book is a reliable source, and that Brief Chronicles is not a reliable source, and who makes those determinations? Just asking, because I really don't know.

Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, see WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Basically, Wikipedia reflects the establishment status quo, or the scholary consensus, if you will. Its accepted sources are reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, such as current academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks. No original research is allowed as a source, see WP:OR. Primary sources can only be used to verify the text and cannot be cited exclusively to verify a statement or interpretation. I.e. I can use a primary source to make sure a quoted section is spelled right, but I can't use it to counter a secondary source.

Nelson is an accepted source because he is a recognized orthodox scholar with a university connection and his book was published by a university press.

Books, journals, and Web sites that advocate a point of view in opposition to the mainstream academic consensus (such as Oxfordism) are not considered reliable sources. In other words, you cannot source an article about Oxford using Looney or Ogburn.

Brief Chronicles is not a reliable source because it advocates a position directly opposed to the academic consensus that William Shakespeare of Stratford was the primary author of the works attributed to him, and so is a fringe journal with no real academic peer review that mainstream academics accept.

Fringe sources are considered primary sources for the topic of Oxfordism, and so cannot even be used as stand-alone sources in the Oxfordism article. They can be used to describe what Oxfordism is, but even then they have to be accompanied by a reliable mainstream source and it has to be made clear that the view is not accepted by mainstream scholars.

I know it's confusing, and that's why misunderstandings and clashes about what is a usable source often occur. Here's an example that might help:

In the Oxfordian article, I can say something like, "Oxfordians believe that Oxford had to hide his authorship because of the stigma of print, a social convention that supposedly restricted their literary works to private and courtly audiences—as opposed to commercial endeavours—at the risk of social disgrace if violated." I can then source that to a passage in Ogburn and another mainstream source such as Shapiro. Better yet, I can source it to Shapiro quoting Ogburn, thereby turning Ogburn into a secondary source.

What I cannot do is say, "Oxford had to hide his authorship because of the stigma of print, a social convention that restricted their literary works to private and courtly audiences—as opposed to commercial endeavours—at the risk of social disgrace if violated," and then source that to Ogburn only. I have to make it clear that it is a view held by Oxfordians, not a true statement by the academy.

That's a real simple example but I hope it gives you a better idea of what we're talking about when we say "reliable source". Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also see WP:Rs#Scholarship: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." Tom Reedy (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nishidami writes: "Nelson's inferences, which come from one of the ranking world authorities on Elizabethan primary documents" -documents which he is is unable to read in the original. Only two Stratfordians, Mrs.Pearson and Mr. Nelson, have done any original research on the Earl of Oxford. And since Nelson has relied on Daphne who does read Latin, for scores of his references,we must logically conclude that Daphne has the superior academic authority. However as Oxfordian Paul in a peer reviewed article has shown that in many respects her own work is also filled with errors, the only logical conclusion is that there is no Stratfordian "ranking world authority" on the life of the Seventeenth Earl Of Oxford.Charles Darnay (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The ranking status of scholars is determined by university positions, publishers, peer reviews etc. It is not determined by imaginary Dickensian characters. Of course even the greatest scholars get things wrong. The more wide ranging and the more original ones research, the more room there is for slip ups over details. Archival research entails a lot of note-taking and organisation of material. Anyone who is collating a mass of original scholarship and drawing new conclusions, will find it very difficult to "cover all bases" over details. As I say, the more original the work, the more likely it is that errors will slip in, because even expert peer reviewers will not have the information with which to identify them. The problem is compounded if all concerned also have to contend with a publisher's deadline. But it is not up to us to decide these matters. As Nishidani says, this all pales into insignificance compared with Oxfordian literature. I read two pages of Anderson once, but simply could not continue because the number of preposterous inferences, non-sequiturs and instances of misinformation had become overwhelming. Ogburn was worse. Nelson's errors, such as they are, are trivial in comparison. Paul B (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"It is not up to us to decide these matters."Speak for yourself,Paul.By their fruits we shall know them, and you.

Are you are seriouslhy claiming that the hundreds of historical errors in Nelson's book were the result of a publisher's deadline? The fiends didn't even give him time to learn Latin.That by publishing numerous malicious "errors" , the ever accelerating quantity of the same renders him the more academically crediible.

If so, Mao Tse Tung's "History of the Chinese Revolution" must be one of the most scholarly tomes of all time. Or how about the collected speaches of Dr.Fidel Castro? Or consider the work of Dr.Goebels who certainly held access to one of the largest collections of Judaica in world history.What's more, none of the above three ever received a negative academic review during the entire course of their tenure in power.

Nishidmi attempted to exalt Nelson to the position of a world wide authority.Your criteria of what constitues s world wide authority are deplorably inadequate as formulated .And if original research were not banned here,I would entertain you with my personal researches into Houston Baker(former head of PMLA)who,abetted by some 87 other peer reviewed members of the Duke falculty,gave a peer review to now disbarred District Attorney Mike Nifong(who posseses a higher degree in law) and his Great Duke Rape Hoax.

Or(and this is directly pertinent to the present point as distinct from your overreaching generalizations)we might consider the case of peer reviewed Donald Foster whose works on Shakespeare and the Jon Benet Ramsey murder case(among others) are on record as containing more logical and historical errors than all of Pearson,Nelson and any Oxfordian biographers of Oxford who ever lived.And Tom Reedy guru David Kathman placed his admiration for Foster's labors on permanent record in the DNB Shakespeare article.

By the way,while you are clairifyiing your previous criteria, please specify the specific two pages in Mark Anderson(who is has never been a subject of discussion here and is therefore irrelevent to the exposure of Nishidami's egregrious editorial misconduct) in which you pretend to find errors equivalent to the total of those contained in Nelson's book.Otherwise show the belated honesty to delete the above misinformation. Charles Darnay (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your laughable references to Goebbels, Castro and Duke rape case (!) just indicate a total lack of a sense of proportion and even relevance. You write "'It is not up to us to decide these matters.' Speak for yourself, Paul. By their fruits we shall know them, and you." Well, we don't rely on quotations from Jesus; we rely on Wikipedia policy, which is to be found in WP:RS and WP:V. So, no, I am not speaking for myself. I am speaking for Wikipedia. As it happens, you also misrepresent Jesus, but frankly, that's irreleveant. My bet is that you have never undertaken any original research in your life, so you have no idea how difficult it is to cover all bases when uncovering new material. Actually, it's almost impossible. Your comments about how many errors are "on record" regarding Don Foster are meaningless, since you have no source for them. As for Anderson, the pages in question were on the Ashbourne portrait. Paul B (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes original research

I just read this on the Wikipedia page on original research:

>If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is "original research".<

I'm a little surprised because my earlier editing of the article in which I cited primary sources was entirely deleted on the ground that it was 'original research'. But it wasn't original research by Wikipedia's definition. I was merely citing primary sources for certain facts, which Wikipedia allows. Original research, by Wikipedia's definition, is adding something for which no source exists. A very different thing. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Read this: Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, especially "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Instead of looking for a loophole that would allow you to do what several experienced editors have told you is not allowed, why not just learn how Wikipedia wants it done? It's not that difficult, and it would save a lot of grief and time that could be better spent creating content. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for your input. I'm most definitely 'not looking for a loophole'. I'm trying to find a way to make the article more factually accurate. The Wikipedia policy you've quoted above supports my position. I made no 'interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources'. I merely cited primary sources to support statements which were already in the article and had been there for months before I ever saw the article. In other words, I merely provided sources for statements in the article which were unsourced. Yet despite the fact that what I did is consistent with Wikipedia policy, and was commented on and permitted to stand by a Wikipedia editor at the time I made the edits, all the sourcing I'd added to the article was deleted recently. I would suggest that what we have to keep in mind here is that in this article we're not dealing with the authorship issue. We're dealing with Oxford's biography. My sourcing of statements in the article was consistent with Wikipedia policy, and made the article more factually accurate. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, Nishidani was the editor who originally cut them from the main page, and I didn't review them all at the time since I trust his judgement, but if you'll copy all of those passages that used a primary source here (perhaps in a new section), we can go over them one-by-one. You may be right, and if you are they can be restored, but IIRC the ones I did peruse were obvious interpretations and not mere facts. (The one I remember concerned the second husband of Margery Golding.) Tom Reedy (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, that seems fair. Could we start with this one?

Shortly after his marriage, at the age of twenty-two, Oxford was licensed to enter on his lands by the Queen's letters patent of 30 May 1572. NinaGreen 205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That didn't quite work out. The reference turned into a footnote. I'll try it again:

Shortly after his marriage, at the age of twenty-two, Oxford was licensed to enter on his lands by the Queen's letters patent of 30 May 1572. Reference cited: The National Archives C 66/1090, mm. 29-30.

Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, that one looks to be pretty innocuous, but can you give a link to the source also (which I'm sure you did at the time) so we can actually see it?

Also, the way to indent is with colons. One colon=one indent, 2 colons=2 indents, etc. And if you sign with four tildes (~), it will automatically sign your IP address. If you go to your user page and register your name, it will automatically sign with you name when you enter 4 tildes. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'a link to the source'. Oxford's licence to enter on his lands is a document in the National Archives, so the NA catalogue number I've given is the ultimate source. I ordered a copy of the document a long time ago, and transcribed and translated it, and it's posted on the Documents page of my website. I googled C 66/1090 just now, and the document on my website was the first thing that popped up, so it's available for anyone who wants to read it.

Incidentally I checked Daphne Pearson's book online just now, and she not only gives the wrong document number, but the wrong date. She had the document number right in her unpublished dissertation (footnote 242), but has it wrong in her published book (see p. 29, and footnote 54 on p. 31). She didn't have a date in her unpublished dissertation, and she has the wrong date in her book.

Oxford's licence to enter on his lands was a turning point in his life, marking the end of his wardship. It would be useful to readers to include it in the article, and to give an accurate date and reference.

Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link to C 66/1090.

Well I can see all kinds of problems with interpretations in that source, Nina. I don't have time right at the moment to go into it, but I will later on today. For one thing I believe your idea of "fine" as pertaining to land conveyance is conflated with a fine imposed for an offense. But more later. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote:'For one thing I believe your idea of "fine" as pertaining to land conveyance is conflated with a fine imposed for an offense'. You couldn't be more wrong about that. There are transcripts of several dozen Elizabethan fines involving Oxford's lands on the Documents page on my website, and they have nothing to do with offences and everything to do with land transactions. See, for example, Fitch, Marc ed., Feet of Fines for Essex, vols. V and VI, which has descriptions of these fines involving Oxford's lands, from whence I got the catalogue numbers so that I could order copies from the National Archives and transcribe and translate them for my website. This is one area where I have expertise other editors of this page don't have. I'm familiar with the various types of Elizabethan legal documents such as fines, I can read the various Elizabethan scripts in which the original documents are written, and I can translate the formulaic and specialized law Latin they're written in. I've transcribed and translated several hundred of these Elizabethan legal documents involving Oxford's lands. Because I have this expertise, I can help make the article more factually accurate where other editors of this page would be at a loss. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. I have very little knowledge in this area. I was going by the language you used, specifically "levied". My impression is that fines were issued and recorded, not levied, which to me (in my admitted ignorance, again) implies a penalty and not a land conveyance.

I have asked for some help from the OR noticeboard. Opinions from disinterested editors is almost always helpful. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This might help to clarify Wikipedia's problem. The date on which Oxford entered on his lands (and the reference for that date) is important to the article because this was a turning point in Oxford's life, and particularly in his finances. But Wikipedia can't cite Daphne Pearson's book or Alan Nelson's book for this fact in Oxford's life because Pearson and Nelson are in conflict with respect to both the date (Pearson has 31 May, Alan has 30 May) and the reference (in footnote 54 on p. 31 Pearson wrongly cites 'P.R.O. C66/1091/3159, m. 29-30, return of lands to the earl of Oxford, 31 May 1572', while in a footnote on p.456 Nelson cites Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1569-72, p. 159). If Wikipedia editors check Alan's reference on p. 159 of the Calendar of Patent Rolls (which, incidentally, is an eminently reliable secondary source), they'll find that it's directly in conflict with Pearson's footnote both as to the date and the NA catalogue number. So how do Wikipedia editors choose between citing Nelson or Pearson when they're in direct conflict with each other? What do Wikipedia's rules say about that? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that Daphne Pearson gives yet a third different citation for the document which establishes Oxford's entry on his lands. In this case, she gives 'P.R.O. C66/1090/3159 (Lat.)'. It really is quite astonishing to find three different citations given by Pearson for the same document. This last one is in footnote 18 on p.29 of her article on the De Vere Harlakenden lawsuits in the Spring 1999 issue of The Elizabethan Review (vol. 7, no. 1). Surely this sort of thing is a problem for Wikipedia. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, how is that a third one? She obviously has made several mistakes in citing P.R.O. C66/1091/3159, m. 29-30, because C66/1091 doesn't exist, nor does C66/1091/3159, and C66/3159 is from 26 Chas II, but P.R.O. C66/1090/3159 is the same as P.R.O. C66/1091/3159, m. 29-30--she just left out the membrane numbers (but they're both wrong).

Above you wrote, "But Wikipedia can't cite Daphne Pearson's book or Alan Nelson's book for this fact in Oxford's life because Pearson and Nelson are in conflict with respect to both the date (Pearson has 31 May, Alan has 30 May) and the reference ..." How does Pearson's error affect Nelson's cite? He has the right date and a good cite, yes? So in answer to your question, "So how do Wikipedia editors choose between citing Nelson or Pearson when they're in direct conflict with each other?", the editors choose Nelson. From my understanding this is the way primary sources are used: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." So in this particular case it would be referenced by Nelson as a secondary source.

To determine which source, Pearson or Nelson, has priority, WP:RS says, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." Both Nelson and Pearson have been reviewed, and the reviews I have read rate Nelson above Pearson as far as accuracy and scholarship, so he would be preferred over Pearson.

As far as using your transcriptions and translations of primary sources, WP:V says, "...self-published media, such as books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:V. It takes repeated reading to get a grasp of Wikipedia policies. I'm still learning almost every day. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: I doubt we'll get any input from uninvolved editors. Any topic related to the SAQ in any way has long been worn out as far as uninvolved editors are concerned.

Tom, you wrote:

How does Pearson's error affect Nelson's cite? He has the right date and a good cite, yes? So in answer to your question, "So how do Wikipedia editors choose between citing Nelson or Pearson when they're in direct conflict with each other?", the editors choose Nelson.

But without my input, the editors wouldn't have even realized there was a conflict between Nelson's and Pearson's citations, right? That's my point. I have expertise which other editors of this article don't have.

So what's the next step? We could add the statement to the article, citing Nelson. You wrote above: 'He has the right date and a good cite, yes?' Nelson has the right date, and I suspect his citation is accurate (I have a copy of the actual document, but I don't have a copy of that volume of the CPR). But what value has Alan added? None. He has merely cited the CPR, 1569-72, p. 159, and quoted verbatim from the description on that page which was written by the authors of the CPR, not by Alan. So why would the Wikipedia article not direct readers to the real source of the statement, that is, CPR, 1569-72, p. 159? That would make sense to me. If Alan adds value to something, and doesn't just copy verbatim from another source, then one needs to consider citing him. But if Alan's just copying from an eminently reliable secondary source, why not give the credit where it belongs, and cite that source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia demands secondary sources and forbids citing primary sources to stay away from original research. If you will read those two articles I linked to, you will learn what the Wikipedia policies are. Original research has its place, but Wikipedia is not that place. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you've lost me. The Calendar of Patent Rolls is not original research. It is one of the most accepted secondary sources among historians. Are you seriously contending that Wikipedia cannot cite the Calendar of Patent Rolls? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Calendar of Patent Rolls is a primary source. See the article Calendar of Patent Rolls. I can only repeat my quotation of Wikipedia policy: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." This conversation seems to be going around and around. Have you read the policies I linked to? Here they are again: WP:RS and WP:V, and also WP:OR.

That means that, as per Wikipedia policy, if you use the original National Archive record or the Calendar of Patent Rolls description to source the statement that Oxford was licensed to enter on his lands by the Queen's letters patent of 30 May 1572 in a Wikipedia article, it must be referenced to a secondary source because the original is in Latin and not readily accessible to the average reader. Please read the appropriate policies before you repeat your objection to Wikipedia policies. I understand that you have no such policy for your Web site, but this is Wikipedia, with its own policies and guidelines. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you are confusing two different dictionary definitions of 'primary'.

2. Of the highest rank or importance; principal, chief.

3. a. That is not subordinate to or derived from anything else; that is the source or cause of something; fundamental; original.

In the link to the Calendar of Patent Rolls article, the word is used in sense 2, 'principal', not in sense 3, 'original'. The article makes it clear that the original or primary source documents are in Latin, and therefore the CPR is the principal secondary source which historians consult to find summaries in English of the content of the original primary source documents and the reference numbers under which the original primary source documents can be found in the National Archives. The CPR is clearly a secondary source. It is derived from the original primary source documents. It is not the original primary source documents themselves.

Moreover this is not a case of either 'original research' or the 'interpretation' of primary source documents, so I don't know why you have brought those topics up again. It's a matter of the sourcing of a simple statement of fact for which the source is the Calendar of Patent Rolls, which is clearly by definition a secondary source since it is a published digest in English of the original documents in Latin. It's no wonder you feel the discussion seems to be spinning in a circle when you keep bringing up points which aren't relevant to the sourcing of a simple statement of fact. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, you can stop adding colons. One I outdented (that line thingey above that brought my comment back to the left of the page) it starts all over again. The only purpose of progressive indentation is to make clear who is replying to whom.

The CPR is clearly a primary source when it is used as a reference for an article on Oxford. The fact that it is of a secondary derivation is not relevant to it being a source for an encyclopedia article, as it does not establish notability for Oxford nor discuss or analyse the entry how it relates to him, but is merely an index list of entries in the patent rolls. See both Secondary source and WP:PRIMARY. And yes, WP:OR is relevant to this because your use of your original research to source a statement is what brought this whole thing on.

What do you have against using Nelson, since the primary source supports his statement? I realise you're not used to doing things the Wikipedia way, but it is based upon scholarly methodology and if one insists on editing Wikipedia articles one must at least attempt to understand how they should be sourced. Arguing against the policy of the encyclopedia is useless. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the colons, and thanks for the help with that.

I'm not arguing against Wikipedia policy. That would be futile and counter-productive. I'm arguing against your narrow and misleading interpretation of Wikipedia policy, which turns a well-established secondary source used by all historians of the period, the Calendar of Patent Rolls, into a primary source. If the CPR is a primary source, as you would have it, what are the original documents themselves? Both the original 16th century documents in Latin in the National Archives and a recently-published digest of their contents in English cannot both be primary sources. Your interpretation of the meaning of 'primary source' in this instance is clearly wrong, is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, and is far too limiting. In effect, it restricts the Wikipedia article on Edward de Vere to becoming nothing more than a promotional vehicle for Alan Nelson's book. There are some instances in which Alan's book should be cited because Alan has added value or has independently researched a point. But where Alan has merely copied the English digest from the CPR, which is clearly itself the secondary source for the statement in question, Alan has added no value, and the proper citation for this factual statement is to the CPR. It's very important to get this matter of the secondary sources on which historians of the period rely sorted out for purposes of this Wikipedia article because there are many of them, such as the Calendar of Patent Rolls, the various Calendar of State Papers, Emmison's Feet of Fines for Essex etc., which are pertinent to statements in the article. To ban all these highly respected and widely-used secondary sources in favour of exclusive citations from Alan Nelson's book is to turn the article into a mere promotional piece for Alan Nelson's book, as I said earlier. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are arguing against Wikipedia policy, and I have seen no evidence whatsoever that you've read what the policies are, nor that you've even read the article about secondary sources that I linked to.

The CPR is a well-established source for historians, yes, but Wikipedia editors are not historians, and I doubt seriously any historian would consider it to be a secondary source.

You need to read those policy articles to which I furnished links before accusing me of misinterpreting policy. For the purposes of this article all of those sources you named are considered primary sources, and they are not "banned", but their use is restricted. If you think not, please quote the relevant Wikipedia policies that support your contention.

You are misrepresenting the use of Nelson. No one is arguing for "exclusive citations from Alan Nelson's book". Please re-read my earlier messages, as well as my quotations from policy. Having to continually reiterate the same statements with no indication or acknowledgment that you've even read--much less comprehended--them is tiresome.

I also suggest you state your case and ask for opinions at the OR noticeboard. If I am wrong, they will let us know. Apparently nothing I say is having any effect nor is likely to. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, here is what is says at the secondary source link you provided above:

In scholarship, a secondary source[1][2] is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information. Primary and secondary are relative terms, and some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used.

That's as clear as it can possibly be. A primary source is 'an original source of the information being discussed'. The Calendar of Patent Rolls is NOT the original source of the information being discussed. The original source of the information is the 16th century documents written in Latin on parchment on the patent rolls in the National Archives. The Calendar of Patent Rolls is a modern printed digest in English which synthesizes the contents of those original documents, and is by definition a secondary source which involves 'synthesis' of the original 16th century documents. You are wrongly and unnecessarily limiting and restricting the sources which can be cited in the article. We really do need to get this matter cleared up so that work on the article can move forward. Every time you cite something from Wikipedia policy, it turns out to directly contradict your position. Surely that should tell you something. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read and comprehend the entire sentence. "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." The CPR does none of those, neither "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation". It is instead an abstract and a calendar index, and as such is a secondary source in relation to the records it calendars, but it is a primary source in relation to an article about Oxford. "Primary and secondary are relative terms, and some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used." Do you not understand the difference?

I don't know why you keep going on about this. Policy allows these to be used, as long as it is (to repeat myself for the third or fourth time) referenced to a secondary source, which in this case would be Nelson.

In any case, you can ask for opinions from knowledgeable editors at the OR noticeboard (to repeat myself for the third time). I am not trying to win an argument here. I have gone way further in trying to explain to you what the policy is than should be necessary. You obviously need to find somebody who can explain it to you better than I can. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I've said many times that there are numerous factual errors in Alan's book, and that one has to be very cautious about citing him. It now turns out that Alan's citation is wrong. There is nothing on p. 159 of CPR, 1569-72 which pertains to Oxford. The reference is on p. 450. It reads:

3159.) 30 May 1572. Licence for Edward Deveere, Earl of Oxford, son and heir and elder issue male of John Deveer, late earl of Oxford, to enter upon his lands; issues from the time when Edward attained the age of 21. [m.29] [m.30]

Alan has copied this entry on p. 83 of his book, but his citation for it, on p. 456 of his book, is CPR, 1569-72, p. 159, which is wrong. The entry is on p. 450 of that volume. I have a pdf file of the page which I could send you. Unfortunately I can't post a pdf file to this discussion page.

So the bottom line is that Daphne's date and citation are both wrong, and Alan's citation is wrong. What are we to cite as a reference for this statement of fact other than the Calendar of Patent Rolls? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

So that's where Daphene got 'P.R.O. C66/1090/3159 (Lat.)', with the last four numbers being the CPR reference. And there are numerous factual errors in every book; this one--if it proves to be one--is certainly very minor.

I'll look at Alan's cite later today. Are you sure he uses the same book/citation style as you do? Because often reference numbers change as repositories change their systems, although I don't think that's the case here, since Nelson is earlier than Daphne. I find it hard to believe that two independent researchers would get the same citation wrong. One or the other is using a different reference or a different system. and have you checked his Web site to see if this has been acknowledged and corrected? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I came to the same conclusion, i.e. that Daphne took 3159 from the CPR. By a historian's standards, that's an egregious error. Those numbers are there merely for the purpose of enumerating items sequentially in the CPR volume itself. They are never used in citing primary source documents. The correct primary source reference is the one on my website, C 66/1090, mm. 29-30. If one tried to order a copy of the original document from the National Archives using 3159, the NA wouldn't know what to do with it. It's not part of their cataloguing system.

One also has to wonder whether Alan's erroneous 'p. 159' isn't just 3159 with the '3' eliminated. It seems clear from his book that Alan didn't examine the original primary source document. He merely copied the entry from the CPR. It's also open to debate whether Daphne ever examined the original document either. Her use of the 3159 from the CPR suggests she didn't. But I may be wrong about that.

So we're left with the question of what do we cite for this statement of fact if not the CPR. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail so that you could send me that PDF.

I would cite Nelson, because he has the date correct, and then note that his supporting cite is in error, giving the correct CPR ref along with it, similar to the note in the Rev. Miles Bodley sntry here. The important consideration is that the article is factual, and that appears to be the best practical solution. I'll e-mail Alan and ask him about it. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the Wikipedia policy statement which provides that Wikipedia editors are to correct the errors in Alan Nelson's book rather than cite the Calendar of Patent Rolls which has the correct date and the correct reference in case a reader wanted to consult the original document? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, complete accuracy in an encyclopedia is a moving target, and is the reason why Wikipedia has a noticeboard devoted to almost every aspect of writing an encyclopedia, such as neutral point of view, reliable sources, etc. See this opinion for the RS noticeboard, especially the comment, “Many sources contain errors. They are still reliable, though we try not to reproduce the errors. We rely on the good sense of editors to keep out the errors as best we can.”

See this discussion, especially the comments, “Every reliable source has errors, and the more reliable the source the more self-reflective it is about identifying and correcting these errors”, and “Having an error correcting mechanism is one of the things that makes a reliable source reliable. The fact of a visible error correcting mechanism is an affirmative indicator that a source is reliable.” As you know, Alan has a Web site on which he posts errata found in his books.

This discussion also is useful, especially the comment, "No source is absolutely "reliable" or absolutely "unreliable". We have to look at the specifics of the situation. Lots of sources are reliable when looked at in general terms, but end up being unreliable for something specific. When two or more reliable sources disagree with one another, you have to ask why? If it is possible that the disagreement is due to one of the sources making a simple error, then we can attempt to determine which source made the error (ie which is the most reliable source in terms of that specific fact). If we think can not determine who made the error, we should neutrally discuss what each source says, (essentially treating the disagreement as if it were a difference of opinion/POV per WP:NPOV)."

All of those comments are support enough to use my suggestion. We're not building an inflexible, brittle structure that is so hidebound by policies that it ignores common sense, neither is it possible to write policies that predict every specific problem that will come up.

Again, you need to follow the policy on primary sources, i.e. their use is restricted mainly to support or augment a secondary source. Only in very particular circumstances would you use a primary source by itself, and in this case it is not necessary. In any case this weary discussion has run its course as far as I'm concerned. You've responded to very few of my points, and any further explanation on my part would be only more repetition along the same lines that I have repeated at least three times. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, what I see here is bias. You argue that Alan's erroneous citation for Oxford's entry on his lands should be cited, rather than the Calendar of Patent Rolls. You even have a personal relationship with Alan such that you stated above that you would contact Alan about the matter. This is astonishing. How can Wikipedia be viewed as objective with this sort of thing going on? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you at least do me the kindness of paying attention? I'm not arguing; I made a common sense suggestion. I did not say that "Alan's erroneous citation for Oxford's entry on his lands should be cited, rather than the Calendar of Patent Rolls.", I said his book should be cited as a source for the fact, which he has correct, and then the CPR included along with a note correcting his citation.

As far as any "personal relationship", I met the man twice a couple of years ago. I daresay you know him better than I, since he gives you credit on his site. He has a publicly-available Web site at which he solicits corrections and gives his e-mail address for that purpose. Your purpose does not seem to be to edit Wikipedia, but to push your original research into this article using much the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tactics that anti-Stratfordians use so well. Find somebody else to play with; I've wasted too much time trying to explain Wikipedia policy to someone who's really not interested, and I'd rather edit articles than spin my wheels on this idiocy. It's no surprise that no other editor has contributed to this discussion, even though I've asked. One look at your passive-aggressive merry-go-round posts is enough for anybody with less patience than I have. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are arguing for an exception to be made in citing Alan's book for which there is no Wikipedia precedent. Wikipedia does not knowingly cites sources which contain errors. What you are arguing for is in direct contravention of the Wikipedia policy you quoted above:

“Many sources contain errors. They are still reliable, though we try not to reproduce the errors. We rely on the good sense of editors to keep out the errors as best we can.”

You are not trying to 'keep out the error', as per Wikipedia policy. You are arguing in favour of citing Alan's book, thus inevitably directing the reader to Alan's erroneous reference. Moreover you are arguing in favour of citing Alan's erroneous reference when you have the option of citing instead one of the most highly-respected sources used by historians of the period, the Calendar of Patent Rolls. In this instance it matters not whether the CPR is a primary or a secondary because Wikipedia policy clearly states that primary sources can be cited, although they must be used with care. In this instance, since the citation is for a simple statement of fact, 'care' is hardly an issue. Moreover the CPR is not a primary source, no matter how many times you claim that it is. It is a secondary source. The primary source in this instance is the original document in the National Archives, and there cannot be two primary sources for the same document. The argument that there can be two primary sources for the same document is completely illogical. But even if the CPR were a primary source, this is the very sort of instance envisaged by Wikipedia in which a primary source can be cited. There is no other accurate secondary source for the statement for Oxford's entry on his lands, and since we are dealing with a mere statement of fact, there is no danger of misinterpretation in citing the CPR as a source in this instance (even if the CPR were a primary source, which it is not).

It seems to me that you are treating matters involving Oxford's biography, which is the subject of this article, as though we were debating the authorship issue. We're not. We're merely trying to put together an accurate article for Wikipedia on Oxford's life. Why not yield a point, when it's such an easy one to yield? Perhaps then other editors will be motivated to get involved. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, as you requested above, I've sent you an e-mail with pdf copies of p. 159 (Alan's erroneous citation) and p. 450 (the correct citation) from the 1569-72 volume of the Calendar of Patent Rolls. I wish I could make the pdfs available on this discussion page, but that's not possible. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina: You go, girl. I'm impressed at the breadth of your knowledge. You're doing a terrific job. Mizelmouse (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the PDFs. I e-mailed Alan and aske dhim about it and received a reply just a while ago. He wrote, "I transcribed probably a million words for the book; I suppose I can be forgiven a few incorrect page numbers", especially since he said that that Liverpool University Press published his book without hiring a copy editor to check citations.

He also wrote that academic reviews of the book have been excellent, and such reviews are one way Wikipedia assesses a source. He writes that he will correct any errors in his transcriptions of the texts, but that he isn't worried that a page number error would invalidate his book.

And BTW, I also brought to his attention some other inconsistencies and errors in the citations, such as p. 455, note 16: CPR, 1569-72, p. 159 [3094-95]. The idea that these errors disqualify his book as a source for this article is ludicrous, but if you disagree you can take it to the WP:RS noticeboard and solicit other opinions. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What to accept

Do we have to accept the original view of Will Shaksper as the author of the "Shakespearean" plays only because this explanation has been around the longest? If in November of 2010, no one had even been told who wrote these plays and we had to start from scratch looking for evidence, and you piled up all the evidence (hard, such as it, and circumstantial, which is voluminous) for all the different candidates, who would come out on top? Edward de Vere. There simply is no contest. So why, when say who wrote the plays, do we defer to the view that has been around the longest? Frankly, the view that the sun revolves around the Earth, that the Earth is flat, and that God put on Earth on the creatures as they are now are views that have been around a lot longer than evolution, that the Earth is round, and that the Earth revolves around the sun. Should we therefore continue to believe the former views and ignore the latter explanations? I don't think so. We need to state forthrightly that Edward de Vere was the authors of these plays, because the evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.6.122 (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This explains all those coincidences that you take for "circumstantial evidence", the very same type of evidence used by 74 other candidates. You might want to pick up a book about authorship attribution; it would answer your question about why that type of evidence is not used to identify authors. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)