Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

Untitled

• Archive 1

Shakespeare authorship

This section reads like an attempt to persuade the reader rather than a balanced presentation of the basic facts. It needs cutting down and there's no need to say who subscribes to the theory - it just needs a presentation of the main issues. RegHiside (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note: the above comment was made by a known sock puppet for an abusive past editor who was banned for sock puppetry, making threats against fellow editors, and generally abusive behavior.Smatprt (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why, Smatprt, am I not surprised by this revelation? The page needs continued work to provide relevant biographical detail and a renewed commitment to NPOV, not platitudes like "basic presentation of the facts," and a limitation to "presentation of the main issues," whatever these empty phrases are supposed to mean.--BenJonson (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Patronage

In pursuit of the principles noted about (relevant biographical detail and renewed commitment to NPOV) added a section on Oxford's patronage, with multiple links to relevant wiki pages supplying context and background. I will be creating an article on "Hamlet's book." --BenJonson (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

An article on Hamlet's Book would indeed be worth having. No doubt you mean an article about the mystery of which book Hamlet enters reading in Act 2, scene ii, of the play, and not an article on Cardan's De Consolatione, which as we know has been proposed as a likely candidate - notably by Hardin Craig in his article 'Hamlet's Book' in Huntington Library Bulletin for 1934. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Fart

The legend of the good Earl's accidental fart while "making his low obeisance to Queen Elizabeth" came to my attention today. It appeared in the Oxford academic journal Past & Present here, cited from the original work Brief Lives by John Aubrey here, on page 270. Normally I'd just add that little nugget into the article straight away, as the Past & Present reference alone qualifies it as a reliably sourced bit of information. However, in this case, it appears that the editors have spent a good deal of time maintaining the integrity of the article, so I'd be loathe to add what is basically a four-hundred-year-old fart joke into this well-written article if any of the established editors had any objections to it. I just think that the smell of this legend has been spreading, so to speak, and it's been consistently attributed (falsely or not) to our dear scholar Edward. So, I ask before I plunge ahead, would anyone object to me adding this into the main article? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge tag and action

ScienceApologist, who is the overseer of the merge and rewrite procedure, has stated that the merge template should not be removed until consensus to do so has been reached on the talk page. (see here). He has also stated that the merge also must be discussed before its execution, so I am beginning this section to do that. My position is that the information in this article concerning the Oxfordian theory is already in the SAQ article that currently occupies the main page and will be included in any subsequent approved version, so the merger is essentially complete and the material here is redundant. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Any discussion on merging is premature. The directive was pretty clear that no decision to merge was made and that the first step is to offer alternative SAQ sandbox articles. Please review the following statements:

• "ScienceApologist, closing this conversation after only 32 hours seems rather hasty to me and in my opinion it was done without much clarity. If there was a consensus reached above it alludes me and I can only draw the conclusion that you have made an arbitrary ruling. Perhaps in a debate like this such a ruling is necessary, but its subverts the collaborative process and is likely to create more ill will among editors at an already fractious group of articles. I personally would have allowed discussion to continue longer and tried to reach a good compromise.

However, I am not going to contest your decision. I do think you need to make a much more clear and precise closing summary above as to where this is going. (i.e. what exact articles are being merged and to where) Are we merging just Oxford articles? is everything being merged to one page? Is nothing being merged but just a rewrite? What exactly is happening?4meter4 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)"

• "The reason the "ruling" was vague is because the argument itself is vague. Without an alternative to point to, it is very difficult to decide whether the alternative is better even though those arguing for the alternative (including yourself) seem to have the collective weight of Wikipedia policies and guidelines as well as the most reliable sources on their side. My point is do not worry about which articles will be merged yet. Work on the sandbox and then see where content forking may be required. Merging is a stand-in idea for getting the various sticks-in-the-mud unstuck (and that applies to all sides who are engaging far too much in arguing with each other and not nearly enough with actually editing). ScienceApologist (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)"

• "For what it is worth, I misread the close. What I meant is that there seems to be a consensus against undertaking a merge. I see that the close says the opposite, perhaps Peter just mistyped? It happens. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)"

• "In looking at ScienceApologist's further explanation of his ruling I don't think he has actually ruled in favor of either party of this debate. He's merely suspended judgement and directed everyone to create the sort of changes that need to be made. He hasn't made a ruling on any mergers or article deletions at all...yet. It's a "let's see the alternative first before deciding" approach. I think this is very smart and exactly what needs to be done in this contentious climate. Bravo!4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)"

Tom, please stop starting side issues and just finish your sandbox draft. Since we have been given our tasks, you have spread this issue over a dozen (at least) other articles, using various rationale in your attempt to delete material you don't want included on Wikipedia. In each case I protested your deletion of material, and in each case you brought in Nishidani to reinstate your edits. The two of you tag team to win every edit war you engage in. And now you are here starting another fight. And you two have the audacity to accuse me of wasting time and getting on everyone's nerves. Your "two-week draft" has turned into 3 months. Quit stalling and get to work.

As to the tagging - both SoftLavender and I have explained that now that the discussion has closed, the tag is no longer needed (as it implies that a discussion can still be joined). And as I have shown above, the decision to merge was ambiguous with the closer stating "My point is do not worry about which articles will be merged yet. Work on the sandbox and then see where content forking may be required. Merging is a stand-in idea for getting the various sticks-in-the-mud unstuck (and that applies to all sides who are engaging far too much in arguing with each other and not nearly enough with actually editing)." Given the circumstances, insisting that the tags stays is simply unreasonable and could be construed as a form of tag-bombing, or just another side-issue that you are creating. Smatprt (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nelson biography; authorship q.

There are several refs to the Nelson biography (which is the most recent), but they are mere tags, indicating that the first ref was been deleted through some sort of edit. I am going to add the full ref back into the first mention, just for the sake of consistency.

I would ask too, if any of the contributors have actually read Nelson? He proves conclusively that Oxford cannot be "Shakespeare," and yet the article as a whole still reads as if this were a live possiblity. The current consensus among academics is that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, and not anyone else, that is, Oxford's authorship is not a live possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonemacduff (talk • contribs) 04:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I for one have read Nelson. His is simply one opinion among many. His assertions are merely those - assertions. To say he has proved anything "conclusively" is also just an opinion. Regardless of Nelson, Oxford is still the strongest alternative candidate and is acknowledged as such by many, many researchers, including Shapiro, et al. By the way - I assume you are familiar with the mainstream Shakespeare scholar Vickers? He has recently concluded that Shakespeare didn't write all of Shakespeare, rather that he collaborated with numerous other writers, particularly during the last decade of his life. Smatprt (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this article needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view using more up-to-date references, including Nelson, and to weed out the NPOV language, original research, and non-reliable sources throughout. Since it's a biographical article on Oxford, there's no reason for a complete rundown on the Shakespeare authorship question nor is this the place for arguments, just a brief mention and links to the appropriate articles, like the main Shakespeare article. And obvious fallacies, such as the assertion that he served during the Battle of the Spanish Armada in 1588, should be deleted.

And Theonemacduff, many more scholars than Nelson have proven Oxford (or any other pretender) didn't write Shakespeare, but that makes no difference in matters of faith. That Shakespeare collaborated with other writers has been known for centuries--1635, I believe, is the date of the first documentary proof.

Oh, and BTW, "most popular" =/= "strongest". Tom Reedy (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is not only POV, but it is badly written. It would make a good project after the SAQ mess is over with. I've been looking over both Nelson and Ward, and neither of them are what I would call neutral: Ward is an idolater and Nelson is muckraker. It's a shame, too, because Oxford is an interesting person in his own right, and it isn't his fault that he was picked out by Looney as a Shakespeare claimant, which is where all the worship and denigration spring from. He was a shit, yes, but all aristocrats of the time were shits, and Oxford, an extreme embodiment of aristocratic privilege, was at least an interesting shit, which you can't say for most of his fellow aristos. It would be a challenge to write a neutral article about him, because it's never been done. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Nelson

I was going to share my thoughts, but thought maybe these reviews from the linked Amazon site said it better:

• "This review is from: Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (Liverpool University Press - Liverpool English Texts & Studies) (Paperback)

"I have for some years been interested in the nobility of 16th and 17th century England, and have read a number of pretty good biographies, so looked forward to MONSTROUS ADVERSARY with great anticipation. Unfortunately it was clear early on in the book that Nelson was anything but a disinterested biographer. The tone of the book breathes hostility toward its subject, and after having read it, as well as having looked over Nelson's web site, it's obvious why. This was not a biography per se, it was a polemic, in the guise of a biography, against the idea that de Vere was Shakespeare. Whether that idea is harebrained or not - and Nelson believes it is - is beside the point. Nelson misses no opportunity to defame de Vere, treating as valid every scrap of negative evidence, however dubious - for example, that given by his Catholic ex-friends after he had delivered them to the authorities. Nelson's interpretations are the mirror image of Ward, as he describes the earlier writer's 1928 biography; where he infers nothing but the best of his subject, Nelson infers nothing but the worst. I note that Nelson is not a historian, and quite frankly, it shows. That he relies on the likes of William F. Buckley - one of the lousiest writers of fiction I've come across - as an arbiter of de Vere's poetry implies that he must be pretty desperate to prove his case, whatever its merits. He dismisses Ward's book as "hagiography"; as I remember it, having read it years ago, it was pretty good. Nelson's, in any case, is a "hatchet job".

"As to matters of style, I can do no better than quote the end of the very first sentence of the Introduction, which made my heart sink from the get-go: "[de Vere's life] ... just overlapped the reign of Elizabeth I at both ends". Ugh. And Nelson is ... oh, yes, Professor Emeritus in the Department of English at the University of California, Berkeley. Ye gods.

"Having paid good money for what I assumed was going to be a biography, I ended up with a screed that was obviously produced to demolish the de Vere = Shakespeare movement. If that's what Nelson wanted to write, potential readers should have been made aware of this. As it stands, this anything but impartial view of de Vere disqualifies MONSTROUS ADVERSARY as legitimate biography, for all its invaluable documentation."

• "This book provides copious new archival material discovered by the author in England and Italy regarding Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. However, the uses to which professor Nelson has applied his discoveries are mostly unscholarly. Every chapter in this new biography (the first by B.M. Ward was published in 1928) seems designed to undermine the reputation of Oxford, from his management of money and his friends to his poetry, his theatrical and literary patronage, even the grammar and spelling used in his private letters! A strange combination of excellent research and polemics."

• "Professor Alan H. Nelson of Berkeley has produced Monstrous Adversary, The Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (Liverpool University Press, paperback, 527 pp., $32.00). Nelson's biography of Oxford offers a mass of new documentary information on his subject, with additional material available on his website: socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/oxdocs.html. Prof. Nelson deserves thanks and praise for this research, as well as for his openness in sharing his archival discoveries.

"In six of his chapters (29, 45, 46, and 75-7) Nelson analyzes Oxford's poetry, literary patronage, and sponsorship of acting companies. The contents of these chapters should remind readers that Nelson hails from the English Department of one of America's leading universities. When analyzing metrical conventions, the niceties of dedications, or the history of theatrical troupes, he shows the sure touch of an expert in his field. I do not imply that readers must accede to Nelson's every judgment on these matters, though I find little to disagree with, but readers should recognize an obvious professional. Unfortunately, Nelson cannot do history.

"Monstrous Adversary is a documentary biography composed of extensive quotations from contemporary letters, memoranda, legal records, and such like, stitched together with Nelson's comments. Nelson asks in his "Introduction" that we let "the documentary evidence speak for itself" (p. 5). His request fails for two reasons. First, documentary evidence rarely makes sense without the appropriate context, which includes not only historical background information on the religious, legal, social, or cultural practices of a long ago era, but also personal information, such as establishing who struck the first blow in a fight, or whether a witness was truthful in other matters. As I will show, Nelson totally botches the context of event after event. Secondly, Nelson, who with some justice refers to Oxford's first biographer, B. M. Ward, as a hagiographer (250), pushes much further in the opposite direction, so much so that his study of Oxford may well be dubbed demonography.

"The seventeenth Earl of Oxford was anything but a model nobleman of his time. He threw away his family fortune, he failed to develop the career expected of an earl by shouldering his share of local and national responsibilities, and he fathered a child out of wedlock. Quite possibly he also drank too much as a young man. On the other hand, he excelled in his generosity, he earned praise for his writings, and he retained the favor of his famously headstrong and moralistic Queen. But these facts have long been known. What does Nelson add to them? Quite a lot of detail and color: Nelson's persistence and skill as a document sleuth flesh out both major and minor events of Oxford's story. Unfortunately, Nelson the analyst relates to Nelson the researcher as Hyde relates to Jekyll - moreover Nelson's obsessive denigration of Oxford carries him from error into fantasy."

To sum it up, Nelson has done some great research, but his obvious hatred of Oxford (as Shakespeare) has cast a cloud over his work. Tom called it "muckraking" - and I whole-heartedly agree. We need to be very careful in referencing his work. Lets stick to the facts he (Nelson) has brought forth. As for his characterizations and interpretations, we need to steer pretty clear of them.Smatprt (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

We have the same trouble with Ward and a lot of the other sources, except in the opposite direction, and Nelson is a lot more accurate with the historical details. When I get done with my SAQ task (I merely kamakazied over here looking for Oxfordian evidence), this I think would be a good article to collaborate on. Since his main claim to notability is the SAQ, I doubt we'd have the same problems, since most of the problems in this article relate to form (such as the lede) and emphasis. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Smatprt, do you have Ward? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, try to make this article better instead of worse. Oxford was not forced to marry, and he did not serve in the armada. Adding Oxfordian arguments will only make this article another battleground, so stick to reliable sources and accepted fact. There's a lot of non-RS and OR that needs to be weeded out, as well as a lot of editorialising. I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this right now, but trying to whitewash Oxford (such as by leaving out his profligacy and extravagance, which even Looney admits, and even uses as evidence) does no service to anyone, and especially the people who come here looking for accurate information. 173.71.21.140 (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Tom Reedy (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course he was forced to marry. He fled the country right after the marriage, and he even refused to consumate for years. But yes, let's not go round on this right now. Leaving out the huge debts owed to Burghley due to outrageous charges during his wardship also needs to be addressed. Burghley ended up with what, 300 estates? by the time he died? He made a fortune off his wards and forced many into marraiges unless they bought their way out. Yes, Oxford loved to spend, but much of that was spent on patronage, travel and court entertainment, not to mention employing writers like Lyly and the rest. Eventually, all this needs to be put in context or we still won't have a neutral article.Smatprt (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And you see from my notes above that I agree that Nelson has done some great research. Facts? Yes! But his interpretations? No. Same with Ogburn - he did some great research and as far as biographical info on Oxford, he is certainly RS. He too found many useful facts and contemporary quotes, etc - but I agree, his interpretations do not belong any more than Nelson's do. Smatprt (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I also agree about Ward and Ogburn, etc. - but frankly, there is a big difference between idolatry (which most of the Stratfordian biographers are equally guilty of) and the kind of hatchet-job attacks that Nelson unfortunately resorted to. The William Shakespeare article is pretty whitewashed when it comes to deleting mentions of his fines for hoarding, tax debts, etc., etc. When it comes to a standard biography, shouldn't it work both ways?Smatprt (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oxford was married in 1571 and went travelling in 1575, and there are extant letters testifying to his desire to marry his wife. You're the one making the interpretations. Shakespeare was never fined for hoarding, and he paid his taxes, unlike Oxford, who was on the same roll of tax defaulters several years running.

I've been called out of town and in any case I don't want to battle with you on this right now, and I also have more pressing tasks than this one, which seems destined to become yet another SAQ promotion as long as you're the main writer unless someone steps in. JMHO. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom Reedy credits Nelson too much, methinks! There are no extant letters from Oxford "testifying to his desire to marry" Anne Cecil, so we really cannot be sure how he felt about it. To the contrary, Lord St. John wrote from Paris to Lord Rutland on 28 July 1571: "Th'Earl of Oxenforde hathe gotten hym a wyffe - or at lest a wyffe hathe caught hym - that is Mrs. [=Mistress] Anne Cycille, wheareunto the Queen hathe gyven her consent, the which hathe causyd great wypping [=weeping], waling, and sorowful chere, of those that hoped to have hade that golden daye. Thus you may see whilst that some triumphe with oliphe [=olive] branchis, others folowe the chariot with wyllowe garlands" (Ward 61-2; Nelson 71). By this it might appear that Anne had caught Oxford, not the other way around. But of course, there's always more than one way of interpreting a document, isn't there? On the flipside, yes, Burghley wrote the following in his diary on 3 Aug. 1571 (a week after St. John's letter): "The Erle of Oxford declared to the Queens Majesty at Hampton-court his Desyre to match with my Daughter Anne: wherto the Queen assented: so did the Duke of Norfolk, being then a Presoner in his own House, called Howard-house." (Nelson 71). Moreover, on 15 Aug. Burghley wrote to the earl of Rutland, who had had designs on Anne for himself: "I think it doth seem strange to your Lordship to hear of a purposed determination in my Lord of Oxford to marry with my daughter; and so before his Lordship moved it to me I might have thought it, if any other had moved it to me himself...&c" (Ward 62; Nelson 72). Is't possible Burghley was being disingenuous, even in his own diary, for posterity's sake!? There is ample evidence elsewhere in Burghley's 'Notes to Self' where he appears to have done this very thing. But wait! On Wed. 19 December--the date of the double wedding ceremony (Hastings+Somerset)--Burghley wrote to Walsingham: "I can write no more for lack of leasure, being occasioned to write at this time divers waies, and not unoccupied with feasting my friends at the marriage of my daughter, who is this day married to the Earl of Oxford to my comfort, by reason of the Queenes Majestie, who hath very honourably with her presence and great favour accompanied it" (Ward 64; Nelson end p. 74). According to this, Oxford is marrying Anne, "by reason of the Queenes Majestie." What should we make of this then? One could argue that, after raising Cecil to the peerage just ten months previously (or to narrow it further, five months prior to the first extant rumor of the marriage), which would have ensured there were no disparagement, that the queen had commanded Oxford to marry Anne. As the queen's ward, that was certainly her prerogative. That Oxford may have balked early on is further suggested when Hugh Fitz-William wrote to the Countess of Shrewsbury on Fri. 21 September, the month following the first reports: "They say the Queen will be at my Lord of Burghley's house beside Waltham on Sunday next [=23 Sept.], where my Lord of Oxford shall marry Mistress Anne Cecil his daughter." (Ward 63; Nelson 73-4). What caused the three month delay? Had Oxford indeed balked? Was Fitz-William merely misinformed? Or is there some other explanation? We cannot know, can we? Moreover, the French ambassador Fenelon's letter to the King and Queen of France dated Sat. 22 December, in which he describes four marriages that had taken place at Court the previous week, was apparently "arranged for the accommodation of certain noblemen who were caught up in the affairs of the Duke of Norfolk; and I believe that this has been to reassure them" (Nelson 75). Does this speak more to Oxford's desire to marry Anne or the queen having forced him? Either? Neither? Tom Reedy reiterated this argument with the following statement a bit further up: "Oxford was not forced to marry, and he did not serve in the armada. Adding Oxfordian arguments will only make this article another battleground, so stick to reliable sources and accepted fact." What makes a "fact" a "fact," and what makes it "acceptable"? Regarding the marriage, are we to take Burghley's word for it--at face value? This is the same man who was responsible--via his alleged deception ('The Copy of a Letter...', pace Nelson)--for giving Oxford credit for service in the Armada that was not served. There is certainly enough evidence to rebut the argument that Oxford was not forced to marry, just as there is enough evidence to rebut the argument that he did not serve in the Armada, however little or great that service was. There is really no "proof" one way or another. Nor has anything been "proved" one way or another--most especially by Prof. Nelson. There is only evidence and interpretation thereof. There is only one thing I will claim to be sure of: the so-called "SAQ mess" isn't about to be "over with"--not in our lifetimes, ladies and gentlemen! On a final note, with regard to the statement that "Nelson is a lot more accurate with the historical details [than Ward]," I would respectfully ask those of this opinion to read pp. 22-27 of Christopher Paul's article "A First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Adversary" that outlines a few of Nelson's gaffes in the Fall 2006 issue of Shakespeare Matters at: http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter_Archive/SM_Template6.1Fall(3.4%5D.pdf. See also some further representative examples by Robert Detobel towards the bottom of the webpage at: http://shake-speare-today.de/front_content.php?idcat=140. Please read also pp. 6-11 of Dr. Noemi Magri's article "Orazio vs. Nelson: transcript of the Cuoco Document in Italian/Latin" in the April 2006 DVS newsletter at: http://www.deveresociety.co.uk/articles/April06DVSN.pdf that begins: "The blunders and misreadings contained in 'Chapter 28 Orazio "Cogno/Coquo"' of Prof. Alan Nelson's Monstrous Adversary (2003) have made it necessary to publish the testimony of the inquiry made by the Venetian Inquisition into Orazio Cuoco in 1577 in the original." I would direct you to Robert Brazil's website that also contains a list (again, only a fraction) of Nelson's errors, but I cannot locate the URL at the moment. VNV 04:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vero-Nihil-Verius (talk • contribs)

So Oxfordians don't like Nelson. Big surprise. Amid all this verbiage you have not produced one scintilla of evidence that Oxford was 'forced' to marry. The lamenting in your early quotation is obviously supposed to be from other women who might have 'caught' the eligable Oxford. The reference to the 'Queen's majesty' is most easily explained as her favour to the match, which allowed it to go ahead. Paul B (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

VNV: I did not write there were any letters from Oxford testifying to his desire to marry Anne Cecil; I wrote "there are extant letters testifying to his desire to marry his wife". That it was a diary entry and not a letter is due to my not having a source at hand when I wrote that, but the statement stands, despite all your suggestions and interpretations. The difference between you and me is that I don't make flat statements based on my idiosyncratic interpretations. Nelson made some errors (what scholar is free of them), and we're all grateful to Robert Brazil (God rest his soul, and I say that with no irony whatsoever) for compiling a list of errata, but he at least can read a simple English sentence, such as what I wrote above. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Poetry

One of the three poems, namely 'If women could be fair and yet not fond,' is not known with certitude to be Oxford's. Attribution is split. Steven W. May writes:

'Now, this whimsical love lyric may not be Oxford's at all. It is attributed to the Earl only in a Bodleian Library manuscript anthology that dates from the mid-1580s. Neither Looney nor Grosart were aware, however, that another text of the poem is ascribed to an unidentified "R.W." in a British Library manuscript that is contemporary with the Bodleian anthology but somewhat more dependable in both its texts and attributions to De Vere's poems. . . Oxford may have written, "If women could be fair," but the evidence is inconclusive, and I therefore classified the poem as only possibly his in my edition Steven W. May, Tennessee Law Review, Symposium 2004 p.299

Thus if retained the header should read 'Poems by Oxford, or attributed to Oxford', with a note of clarification on this point.Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for the section on Oxford as a candidate for writing Shakespeare's works.

In 1920 J. Thomas Looney, an English schoolteacher, proposed de Vere as a candidate for the authorship of Shakespeare's works. The theory, based on perceived analogies between de Vere's life and poetics and both the stories and style of Shakespeare's plays and sonnets, gradually replaced the ascendency of Francis Bacon in the field. The idea enjoyed a minor vogue in amateur Shakespearean circles, and has been revitalized by discussions on television, and internet forums in recent decades. Mainstream scholarship has either been dismissive or ignored the proposal, though recently several scholarly works have both summarized and responded critically to the theories.

More or less, this fits WP:RS, WP:Undue, and directs interested or curious readers to the appropriate wiki venue for describing the details of Looney's theory, i.e., Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. The page on his life should basically deal with that life as perceived and recorded by his contemporaries and historians. It seems pointless to cite, as the page does now, one or two details and vague replies, since even the most comprehensive survey of the ideas in that movement, that by Matus, runs to over 40 pages. Those details should be left to the Oxfordian theory page. Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted material on will

In his last will and testament, the 16th Earl appointed six executors, including his widow and his only son and heir. Administration of the will was granted on 29 May 1563 to only one of the executors, the 16th Earl's former servant, Robert Christmas.

I don't see why this is material to a biography. In any case, it is misleading. Nelson writes:

'The will was probated on 29 May 1563, on the oath of Robert Christmas, gentleman, to whom administration is granted, with power reserved to Margery Countess of Oxford, Edward Lord Bolbec, Sir John Wentworth and Henry Golding, John Turner renouncing. On 22 July 1963 Margery would similarly renounce'. (p.33)

One could remove the preceding stuff on this as well, apart from the sum of the annual income de Vere jr received. Unfortunately, this is all sourced improperly.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Butcher edits

I have been accused by an 'anonymous' I/P editor of butchering the text. His or her idea of editing can be seen by the following piece of editorializing.

Defenders of the traditional view of William of Stratford as the author of the "Shakespearean" plays go to extraordinary lengths to ignore the overwhelming circumstantial evidence pointing to Edward de Vere true author of the plays. The traditional view is accepted by so many simply because it was the first view and the one with the longest history. But in a side-by-side comparison of the evidence, Edward de Vere is the clear winner in the authorship debate.

The question is rhetorical. Touch de Vere's reputation among his fans, and anything related to the theory, and you get bad editing, and bad editors. Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the process of revising the whole article in a close review of sources, and text. Everything I will do will be focused on anchoring all statements in Ward and Nelson and several other major RS. While reviewing, I would appreciate your collaboration in holding off in-line comments or defences of de Vere, or edits that restore dubious information. You can freely do this once my comprehensive revision of the page is finished, which won't be that long. The page at least will begin to have proper templates, no archival references and first-rate sourcing.

The Encyclopedia Britannica article you cite is an example of needless contention, and that can be discussed in due course. You wish this phrasing, with that source's support, to be put in the lead.

(de Vere)'who is today most recognized as the strongest alternative candidate for the authorship of Shakespeare's plays' (source Encyclopedia Britannica 15th ed.

What does the source say?

(a)

English lyric poet and patron of an acting company, Oxford’s Men, who became, in the 20th century, the strongest candidate proposed (next to William Shakespeare himself) for the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays.

(b)

‘The debate, however, remained lively in the late 20th century.’

I.e. the Britannica (a) says de Vere’ became the strongest candidate next to William Shakespeare in the 20th century, and that the debate remained lively in the concluding decades of that century. Since the online version was edited as late as 2009, in the 21st century, those past tenses are to be read in their proper grammatical senses. (b) next to is used in comparisons. Macmillan defines the function of 'next to' in its online dictionary in the following way:-

‘used for showing that you are not including the person or thing that is really the best, biggest, worst etc when you are making a comparison’ (Macmillan)

This means that one strong construal of the Enc-brit. remark is that the writer is saying something like

'(E de Vere was an )English lyric poet and patron of an acting company, Oxford’s Men, who became, if we exclude William Shakespeare himself from the comparision, the strongest candidate proposed last century among the alternative candidates proposed for the authorship of his plays.

I.e. the EC is saying (a) William Shakespeare is the strongest candidate (b)in the last century, de Vere figured as the strongest candidate among alternative proposals, and (c) his candidature remained a lively topic in the last decades of the last century. It does not say, today (2010), which is a WP:OR intrusion. The verbs used are both in the preterite tense, denoting completed action, not in the present perfect, whch refers to an event occurring in the past with consequences for the present ('today').

Nuance is everything both in reading historical documents on Shakespeare (or anyone else) and contemporary scholarly prose. It has been ignored in that edit, creating a WP:OR construction based on a simple misprision of English grammatical distinctions regarding tense and aspect. I would therefore appreciate it if you withhold your objections, esp. those based on a hasty construal of complex issues, until my review has been done. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ps. I might add that the Enc Brit source has to be used with great care since it gets several details wrong, and like many encyclopedias is way behind cutting edge scholarship. One example.

‘His 23 acknowledged poems were written in youth.’

Whoever wrote that doesn’t know the subject. His ‘acknowledged poems’, according to the ranking authority on his verse, Steven May, (1980, 1999, 204) amount to 16, with 4 further attributions. The datum is confirmed by the world’s foremost authority on his life Alan Nelson.(2003, 2004). The assertion used in the Enc.Britannia was made in 1920, relying on an old edition of poetry published in the late 19th century.Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems

and a company of musicians.

• This is a reference to an internet index on theatre listing the mere fact that he sponsored one performance by a group of musicians, a one-off event in 1585, and clearly is irrelevant to the lead, and misleading as written.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• I can't see the purpose of the following long citation for the page. The author is a rather obscure, the book minor. I will supply other eulogies in dedications to deVere presently. In the meantime, I'll place it here.

John Brooke later interpreted the gift as a token of Cambridge's acknowledgement of the young de Vere's virtue and learning. In the dedication of his The Staff of Christian Faith (1577), he wrote:

"For if in the opinion of all men, there can be found no one more fitte, for patronage and defence of learning, then the skilfull: for that he is both wyse and able to iudge and discerne truly thereof. I vnderstanding righte well that your honor hathe continually, euen from your tender yeares, bestowed your time and trauayle towards the attayning of the same, as also the vniuersitie of Cambridge hath acknowledged in graunting and giuing vnto you such commendation and prayse thereof, as verily by righte was due vnto your excellent vertue and rare learning. Wherin verily Cambridge the mother of learning, and learned men, hath openly confessed: and in this hir confessing made knowen vnto al men, that your honor being learned and able to iudge as a safe harbor and defence of learning, and therefore one most fitte to whose honorable patronage I might safely commit this my poore and simple labours." (STC 12476)

Nishidani, I'm not working on this renovation and I just dropped by to take a break and make a kamikaze edit, but this quote from Nelson:

'In the Brincknell incident, Oxford learned a lesson which largely determined the next thirty years of his life: he could commit no act, however egregious, that his powerful guardian Cecil would not personally forgive and persuade others to forget.'

seems to be an editorial conclusion instead of a straight biographical fact. As contentious as this article is, IMHO it should refrain from interjecting opinions from both Ward and Nelson, and just concentrate on stating the unadorned biographical facts as far as possible. If all could agree on trying to keep a NPOV in a biography by leaving out controversial opinions—whether praise or criticism—from his biographers I think we could avoid much trouble. It's worth a shot, anyway. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Tom, it's not my editorial conclusion, but that of his major modern biographer. From past experience, esp. from the area where I am permabanned, it is standard practice (I must admit I fought against the practice, to no avail) to allow the most extraordinary opinions to be cited about people, living or dead, in a special section, and I've seen distinguished administrators vigorously defend such material, if they dislike the person. Apparently, NPOV doesn't mean a page must be void of critical judgements by competent scholars, if these form part of the record.(I can't cite the 20 odd pages that come to mind, since I'm banned from mentioning the past).

Ward opens his biography arguing that historically de Vere, in his time, and, as it has proved, over time, received mixed evaluations of an extreme kind.

'Of all the great Elizabethans who made the Sixteenth Century, the heroic age of English History both in action and letters, there is not one so little known and so universally misjudged as Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford. At te hands of his contemporaries he received both scurrilous abuse and unstinted praise, and therefore it is perhaps not surprising that posterity should have accepted the first and doubtd the second.' (1928 p.vii)

I thought when I read that, that this page could do with a summary section on de Vere in historical hindsight, as evaluated by his supporters and those who read his record, as does Nelson, negatively. I don't think that would upset WP:NPOV, it would merely allow the reader, in the end, to appreciate the wildly different ways de Vere's heritage has been interpreted by competent historians. But I respect your opinion, and hope others, when I've done the general overhaul, chip in on this and the rest of the page. So, I'll go ahead and remove the judgement, and place it here for consideration.Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Possible WP:NPOV problem, as per above, relocated from the article for deliberation by editors here.

In his recent biography, Stanford University's Alan Nelson argues that:

'In the Brincknell incident, Oxford learned a lesson which largely determined the next thirty years of his life: he could commit no act, however egregious, that his powerful guardian Cecil would not personally forgive and persuade others to forget.'

Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed the huge traffic jam of references below, and replaced them with one simple reference, Daphne Pearson's book. Why a note about income needs to be massively overdocumented by poor sources escapes me.

On the death of his father on 3 August 1562, the twelve-year-old Oxford became the 17th Earl of Oxford and Lord Great Chamberlain of England, inheriting an annual income of approximately £2250.<refs =The National Archives C 142/136/12, WARD 8/13; Green, Maria Giannina, "The Fall of the House of Oxford", Brief Chronicles: Volume 1 (2009), pp. 49-122. URL: http://www.briefchronicles.com/ojs/index.php/bc/article/view/7/55; Paul, Christopher, Shorter Notices: "Daphne Pearson, Edward de Vere (1550-1604): The Crisis and Consequences of Wardship, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005)", English Historical Review, cxxi. 493 (Sept. 2006), pp. 1173-74; Paul, Christopher, "A Crisis of Scholarship: Misreading the Earl of Oxford", The Oxfordian, Vol. 9 (2006), pp. 91-112. URL:http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/wp-content/oxfordian/A_Crisis.pdf

Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it adds back-formed legitimacy to the source. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Patronage

The section on patronage has to be carefully reviewed. That authors dedicate their works to an aristocrat is one thing. That aristocrats exercise patronage, another. The distinction in the text doesn't seem to be maintained, since the fact that many authors dedicated works to him does not mean he was their patron, at first glance. It means the author sought patronage. This will have to be determined by RS usage.Nishidani (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Portrait size

My impression, from memory, is that the size of the image for de Vere's portrait is much larger than those for many other Elizabethans, and for wiki bios generally. I don't want to 'belittle' the man. I'm wondering if this is so, and if so, whether it could be reduced to conform with the general trend for portrait images? Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The painting is so gorgeous (much better than the old one, see the history) I hate to downsize it, but I went ahead and put in the standard peer infobox. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Authorship in lede

I don't see how you can leave it out of the introductory sentence, because if it were not so this article would be about half the length of what it is, and probably still a stub, because he didn't do anything notable at all except patronise some writers, and he wasn't even in the top tier of patronage. As Nelson writes, "he held no office of consequence, not performed a notable deed." We don't even know in what capacity he served in his military career, probably because he was a supernumerary. IOW, the authorship that has been thrust upon him is his major only noteworthiness, and as such needs to be clearly spelled out in the opening sentence. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Poem of mixed attribution removed. Reasons

I have removed this from the text:-

If women could be fair and yet not fond,
Or that their love were firm not fickle, still,
I would not marvel that they make men bond,
By service long to purchase their good will;
But when I see how frail those creatures are,
I muse that men forget themselves so far.
To mark the choice they make, and how they change,
How oft from Phoebus do they flee to Pan,
Unsettled still like haggards wild they range,
These gentle birds that fly from man to man;
Who would not scorn and shake them from the fist
And let them fly fair fools which way they list.
Yet for disport we fawn and flatter both,
To pass the time when nothing else can please,
And train them to our lure with subtle oath,
Till, weary of their wiles, ourselves we ease;
And then we say when we their fancy try,
To play with fools, O what a fool was I.

Steven W. May, the foremost authority on de Vere's verse wrote in 2004:

'this whimsical love lyric may not be Oxford's at all. It is attributed to the Earl only in a Bodleian Library manuscript anthology that dates from the mid 1580s.' Neither Looney nor Grosart were aware, however, that another text of the poem is ascribed to an unidentified "R.W" in a British Library Manuscript that is contemporary with the Bodleian anthology but somewhat more dependable in oth texts and attributions to De Vere's poems. Oxford may have written, "If women coulkd be fair", but the evidence is inconclusive' (May, 2004:223/299)

(ps. A proper transcription of this poem can be found in Nelson's bio (2003:388)

Interpretations have no place there. Just the facts.

If this is the principle, why was the the version I began to edit during your absence so riddled with 'interpretations' picked from non-RS Oxfordian material, and you hadn't noticed anything of the sort over the last 3 years?

This is quite easy to establish. Compare

your last version, before I began editing

my version before you started restoring the old version.

The following is a quick list of what was on the page when you last edited it, and to which in the editing history you not only took no exception to, but actually supplied as 'facts' devoid of 'interpretation'.

• (a) Oxford was tutored by some of the greatest minds of the Elizabethan age (no source. No record Smith tutored Oxford, as then implied. Speculation and WP:OR violation)
• (b) 'In view of Oxford's theatrical activities, it is interesting to note that Cecil is regarded by many Elizabethan scholars as the prototype for the character of Polonius in Hamlet,' (no source. ‘It is interesting’ is editorializing, and the rest not pertinent to Oxford's bio, if it is to be a succession of facts.)
• (c) Oxford's mother, Margery (née Golding), married a Gentleman Pensioner named Charles Tyrrell, often erroneously stated to have been the sixth son of Sir Thomas Tyrrell of East Horndon and his wife, Constance Blount, although it is clear from his will that he was not a member of that branch of the Tyrrell family (no source, denied by RS, speculative)
• (d) 'Nowell was Oxford's tutor in 1563, the same year that Nowell signed his name on the only known copy of the Beowulf manuscript.' (also known as the "Nowell Codex" (no source. WP:OR probably, and ignores what Nowell remarked of de Vere).
• (e) 'Oxford may also have assisted his maternal uncle, Arthur Golding, in the first English translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses.' (a speculation advanced by Ogburn’s Oxfordian book (not RS), with no evidence in Elizabethan documents)
• (f)'the seventeen-year-old Oxford killed an unarmed under-cook, Thomas Brincknell, . .While the details of the case remain obscure, it is probable that Brincknell's death was accidental.' (no source. Speculative editorializing)
• (g) 'Interestingly, the English chronicler and Shakespeare source Raphael Holinshed was one of the jurors at this trial.' (‘Interestingly' is editorializing. It is a fact, but unsourced)
• (h) 'John Lyly, with whom he acted as co-producer' (the source is unreliable, and never mentions co-production. Speculation)
• (i) His extensive patronage, considerable debts incurred as a royal ward, as well as possible mismanagement of his estates, forced the sale of his ancestral lands.(sourced to Nina Green, (not RS) completely untrue, and unfactual.)
• (j) he was forced to marry Lord Burghley's fifteen-year-old daughter (Untrue, speculative (by Ogburn I believe) and unsourced.)
• (k) As master of the queen's Court of Wards, however, Burghley had the power to arrange the marriages of his wards or impose huge fines upon them (source Ogburn. Not RS, and his speculation)
• (l) the first of at least three campaigns he participated in (untrue. Unsourced)
• (m) Further controversy ensued after he found that his wife had given birth to a daughter during his journey.(unsourced. Untrue. He wrote to his wife, according to Ward, expressing joy at the news.)
• (n) Howard and Arundel later received pensions from Philip II, and furnished Spain with intelligence against England, suggesting that Oxford's allegations against them in 1581 were not without merit (WP:OR infraction based on speculative inference from archival papers)
• (o) The charges against Oxford were not taken seriously at the time, although the libels found their way into some historical accounts and Oxford's reputation was thereafter tarnished (all speculation from the non RS source Ogburn)
• (p)Oxford's injury perhaps resulted in the lameness mentioned in his letter to Lord Burghley of 25 March 1595 (Speculation unsupported by a source)
• (q) It has been suggested that the annuity may also have been granted for his services in maintaining a group of writers and a company of actors, and that the obscurity of his later life is to be explained by his immersion in literary and dramatic pursuits (speculation, sourced to Ward, but no page no. provided)
• (r) patronizing the creative work of John Lyly and Anthony Munday, both considered important sources for and influences on Shakespeare (speculation, unsupported by a source, and untrue.)
• (s) Oxford seemed destined to enjoy greater favour under King James, (speculation unsupported by any source)
• (t) Contrary to much which has been written on the topic, Oxford died a relatively wealthy man, having acquired property in 1580 which by the time of his death had been extensively developed, and was considered to be worth £20,000 (speculation, devoid of any grounding in the standard works on this subject of his finances, and sourced to inaccessible primary soures)
• (u) sometimes been called “Hamlet’s book” because of several close verbal and philosophical parallels between it and Shakespeare’s play, particularly a passage on the unsavoriness of old men’s company, to which Hamlet seems to refer in his satirical banter with Polonius (re: plum-tree gum, plentiful lack of wit, most weak hams, etc.), as well a passage with remarkable similarities to Hamlet’s “To be, or not to be” soliloquy (speculation. No source provided)
• (v) The poem 'Woman's Changeableness' published as de Vere's may nmot be his, therefore its presence is speculation
• (w) his reputation as a concealed poet (untrue, unsourced speculation. WP:OR violation, since the term has been borrowed from Baconian studies to interpret two notices one in Puttenham)

From your editing history, none of this struck you as problematical. What you do find problematical is my use of the ranking academic biography on de Vere, by Nelson to source this page, whose references were predominantly archival, and unverifiable.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Why I was compelled to revert

(1) here we have the summary 'expanding lead, removing running commentary from notes'

This is essentially a revert to the old lead, before I began editing. That lead was full of poor sourcing, providing data now disposed of by historians. Smatprt, you have resources the following ridiculously poor sources.

• luminarium org. paper, by an Oxfordian Goldstein whose competence in Elizabethan history can be judged by the MA he earned in Media Studies from New York University.
• (b) Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed. A poor outdated patchy article, containing errors clarified by later research, from 1974 before many new studies were made on Oxford.
• (c)|title=REED - Patrons and Performances |publisher=Link.library.utoronto.ca, a useless list, of two bits of raw data which is no way as detailed as the RS I used to give the full picture below in the section on theatre.
• (d) DoubtAboutWill.org is again an advocacy link, the page has nothing about de Vere/Oxford, and is RS only for itself, not for a wikipedia biography.

This last accompanies in text advice, suggesting in text (facts! no interpretations!): 'For more information on this topic, see Oxfordian theory.' Using this non RS serves to restore the tone of advocacy in the lead.' That is advocacy.

(2) here the summary reads: 'Shakespearean authorship question: remove - undue weight being given to one biased critic. no balance. re-occurring problem here.'

• (a) the biased critic is one of the foremost historians of Renaissance England.
• (b) He is the foremost modern authority on de Vere's life.
• (c) Editors have no given right on wikipedia to accept or deny RS because they do not like them, or revile their authors.
• (d) the text removed is not undue weight, it is modelled on Alan Nelson’s DNB article, which, after a lengthy exposition of de Vere’s life, concluded with the words I cite.

(3) here we have the edit summary: 'removing speculation. More weight issues concerning this one biased critic being over-used in this article'.

• 'It is not speculation. It is exactly according to the source’s text:

My text ran:

'perhaps as a courtesy admission. He purchased no known legal books.' (Harvnb|Nelson|2003|p=46)

The source texts runs:

‘As with numerous other noblemen, Oxford's may have been a mere courtesy admission’ +'Oxford purchased no known legal books'.

Your attempt to prove this is 'speculation' shows you misunderstand what historians do with archival evidence. They 'interpret' the raw data to make coherent sense of the scattered sources. All historical writing is interpretative. Some classics expositions of why, see Pieter Geyl's Napoleon, For and Against,' (1948) or Hayden White's Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe for a briefing on the subject. Our RS 'interpret'. We paraphrase, avoiding WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. You appear not to understand this.

(4) here the edit summary runs: 'over use of Nelson - again and again. must stop stating opinions and stick to the known facts.'

The text challenged ran:

'(Oxford)who was part of her entourage, was granted, along with a dozen other visitors, an unearned M.A by the University of Cambridge on 10 August 1564 and an M.A from the University of Oxford on 6 September 1566.’

I provided three sources to justify my words.

• (a)Harvnb|Nelson|2003|pp=42-45 ‘academic degrees ‘in honour of the university’ were bestowed on seventeen visitors’ (p.42 )
• ‘On 6 September Oxford MAs were showered upon distinguished guests, as Cambridge degrees had been two years before. . .Again, no academic accomplishment or desert is to be imputed to any recipient’(45)
• (b) Harvnb|Nelson|2004: 'Oxford accompanied the queen on progress to Cambridge in August 1564, and to Oxford in September 1566. Like others in the queen's retinue he was granted an unearned MA on each occasion.'
• (c) Harvnb|Ward|1928|p=27:'in 1566 we find him in the train of Her Majesty during her progress to this University. It was here, on September 6th, in company with other “nobles and persons of quality,” that he was created Master of Arts in a convocation held in the public refectory of Christ Church College’

Conclusion: You dismiss as ‘speculation’ the verbatim reproduction of words from de Vere’s leading modern biographer, you are arguing Oxford's biography got things wrong by making 'assumptions' you don't agree with, and thus let private prejudices interfere with your judgement, which must be informed strictly by policies regarding editing. In doing so you hold our best modern source for Oxford's life hostage, prefer to his account a one page bio snippet penned by an Oxfordian MA in Media studies, not in Elizabethan history, Oxfordian websites, and raw data bases that list sparse facts that are fully explained and contextualised in many books on the history of the Elizabethan theatre (see my bibliography). On this basis you expunge whatever fellow editors harvest from Nelson if the content does not make de Vere look good. Such practices leave editors like myself little option but reverting.Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

finally, in a section on de Vere's poetry, you cannot include, as you did earlier, a poem whose attribution to him is questioned. The heading implies this is definitely by Oxford, when there is no such certainty. I might also note that where the earlier text used old spelling in citing documents, your version of the poem is in modernized English, and from an old (1874) source that gets the punctuation wrong. Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead problems

his theatrical activities included owning the lease on the first Blackfriars Theatre, producing grand entertainments at Hampton Court, and sponsoring at least two acting companies and a company of musicians.

'included owning' by tense means a continuative state, when it actually refers to 4 years in the early 1580s. That Oxford once held the lease, and then passed it to his secretary, is not matter for a lead, in my view. If you look round, a substantial number of nobles had troupes, entertainers, players and musicians around them, and were patrons. What we know of Oxford's patronage here is extremely thin, for want of sources. There was nothing exceptional in this, but the lead makes out the impression this was somewhat exceptional. If so, very good documentation will be required to justify it.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sample poems attributed to Oxford

The change of title to reintroduce 'If women could be fair, and yet not fond' has, as a consequence, the unfortunate innuendo for the reader that the other two poems are also 'attributed' to Oxford, instead of being among the 16 which are by Oxford. So this is no solution to the problem I outlined above.

I have removed the link to Byrd. It is true that he set the 3rd poem to music, and was associated with Oxford. But this is irrelevant. It is not proof that Oxford wrote the poem.Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Shakespeare Authorship Question section

I suggest anyone editing here look at Nelson's DBN life of de Vere. He deals with this fringe suggestion, which was an historical incident in Oxford's biography, in a couple of lines at the very bottom. This is a biographical article, and must therefore deal with the facts of his life, not on the use to which the data have been put by non-academic sources in the 20th century to promote a theory almost no scholar subscribes to. It is simply an issue of WP:Undue abuse to attempt to showcase the fringe theory, by placing this section at the top. I have rewritten roughly 30 pieces of the text which displaced a patent editorializing intervention for the Oxfordian reading of his life based, implicitly or explicitly on extremely poor sources. Since de Vere's life has been passed under the microscope by academic experts, there is no need to step outside of good scholarly sources with a respectable academic imprint. Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

His prominence in the authorship debate is precisely what makes him notable! That everyone agrees with. You even agree - it takes first position in the lead in both your and Tom's version and everyone's recent edits. But then you want to move the section about his notability to the very bottom of the article? That makes absolutely no sense at all. I get your bias just like you get mine. But on this one, you are making no sense. Please explain.Smatprt (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like a voluntary truce has been offered on our behalf. I'll go there now and respond. So call off the cavalry, ok? Smatprt (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Factual errors in Nelson and Pearson

The egregious factual errors in Pearson's book on Oxford's wardship and finances are explicated in detail in Christopher Paul's article in The Oxfordian cited in the references for this article. Nelson openly admits he merely followed Pearson concerning Oxford's wardship and finances, thus compounding Pearson's errors. There are also a myriad of factual errors on topics other than Oxford's wardship and finances in Nelson's book. And although Nelson does not always openly credit his source, even a cursory examination of his book establishes that he largely follows Ward's earlier biography of Oxford. In consequence, the only accurate source of factual information on Oxford's wardship and finances and a number of other topics is primary source documents, and an earlier Wikipedia editor approved my citation of them at the time I edited the article some months ago. These primary source documents themselves, along with transcripts of hundreds of other documents mentioning Oxford, are readily available in modern-spelling transcripts at www.oxford-shakespeare.com/documents.html, so no user of Wikipedia need go to an archive to determine what the primary source documents actually say. The complete removal, in recent weeks, of my hours of work in accurately sourcing statements in the Edward de Vere article constituted vandalism as vandalism is defined by Wikipedia. Nina Green —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are not forbidden, but we can't use them to weave together our own stories about historical figures. Also, the Shakespeare issue would not in any encyclopedia be put at the top of an article as you have done. Yes, it should be mentioned in the lede, since it is part of what makes Oxford notable, but it should not precede an objective account of his life. Yes, we know that the transcripts are up on the Oxford site. That is not considered a reliable source for information. Certainly its glosses are not. Many of the statements you made are speculation presented as fact, for example: "On 23 July 1567, the seventeen-year-old Oxford accidentally killed an unarmed under-cook". The truth is that we don't really know what happened, so we cannot simply assert that the death was an accident. Paul B (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. To clarify, I don't endorse everything in the article as it currently stands. There is much room for further revision (and since the lead, among many other things, was not written by me, I would have no objection to revision of it). My comments were directed to the deliberate removal of all my references to primary source documents, and to the perception that Pearson and Nelson's books are reliable sources. In some respects they are, but both books also contain egregious factual errors, and they cannot be cited without checking the 'facts' cited in them against the primary source documents. Your comment that the transcripts and translations on my site are 'not considered a reliable source for information' puzzles me. If you can demonstrate to me that anything in any one of my transcripts does not accurately reflect the content of the document in question, I'll be happy to change it. I've striven to make the summaries as accurate as possible, and I think they are accurate. Moreover my transcripts have the advantage of being in modern spelling, and are thus accessible to everyone, which the original documents certainly are not, being in Latin, and in various Elizabethan scripts. As for what you term the 'glosses' and which I term 'summaries', their purpose is to summarize the sometimes very obscure content of the documents for readers, and to refer readers to other related documents on the same topic which they might not otherwise be aware of. The 'glosses' (summaries) are thus a very valuable resource for readers. But again, if you can find any instance in which one of my summaries misrepresents the content of a document, please let me know and I'll change it. Re the Brinknell incident. The coroner's inquest found the death accidental. Your quarrel is with the Elizabethan jurors. :-) Nina Green —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Elizabethan jurors concluded that Brincknell deliberately threw himself on the sword as an act of suicide. How weird is that? There was no verdict of accidental death. In any case, the court's verdict is a primary source; we prefer what modern experts say. Nelson clearly says the verdict is 'fiction' and that we don't know whether the stabbing was deliberate or accidental. Paul B (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The basis of content contribution is Wikipedia:Verifiability, where the nutshell states

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

What you have included in the article, in interpreting documents, is Wikipedia:Original research and is not regarded as appropriate per

Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

especially as the material is not so much published but collated. As for the removal of the content contributed by you, it is not vandalism even if disregarding the probable impropiety of it, but the second section of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - which is a part of Wikipedia:Consensus, the model the project uses as the basis of collegiate editing. Once your block expires the discussion can restart on whether there are any reliable, third party sources for the information upon which you rely. I shall return the article to the previous version until consensus concurs that your preferred edits are permissible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI Less, the dates are the years of Oxford's participation, not the date when the war began. I'm sure that'll be made clear in the next revision. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I take responsibility for this, Tom. See my note on Less's page. What has apparently happened is that Nina Green checked the link in the lead to Northern Rebellion, saw 1569 in the lead, and corrected the 1570 date I provided, which refers to the period in which de Vere is thought to have participated in Sussex's mop-up campaigns in April and May. Had she looked at the box on the link page, she would have noted that the rebellion ended in (mid)January 1570.

All of the documentary evidence is on Nelson pp.50-53. Oxford asked Burghley to honour his word to allow him to see foreign wars (Nov.1569). Oxford appealed to the Queen to do so again in Feb 1570, he was given her authorization to travel north on March 30, and circumstantial evidence (slight) suggests that he may have served. Both the Oxfordian Ward (1928:p.48) and Nelson (2003:53) concur that, in Ward's words: 'We do not know for certain what part Lord Oxford played in this campaign'.

Like the 'leading patron' bit, the text has been written carelessly, and shall have to be redacted to reflect these nuances.

Jeez, you're still optimistic? i.e. that there will be a 'next revsion'!:) You're made a sterner stuff than me, Gunga Tom.:)Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting an explanation as to why my careful and accurate sourcing of statements in this article was vandalized while I was away during the past three weeks. When I added the archival sources many months ago, they were approved by a Wikipedia editor. Moreover not only were the archival references recently vandalized, but also the reference to my published article in Brief Chronicles, a peer-reviewed academic journal, was deleted. These archival sources cannot be characterized as 'original research'. As noted earlier on this page, Alan Nelson's book is merely a series of quotations from these same archival sources stitched together with a bit of commentary. And as stated earlier, Alan misinterprets these sources, thus generating factual errors. For example, re the Brincknell incident, Alan deliberately conflates William Waters, one of the jurors in the coroner's inquest into the death of Thomas Brincknell, and Oxford's servant, William Walter. On p. 48, Alan writes of the coroner's inquest that:

>The 17 jurymen were, however, as compliant as the jury was packed: one juryman, William Waters, was Oxford's own servant.<

Alan clearly knew this statement to be false since he himself transcribed the testimony of Oxford's servant, William Walter, in a 1599 lawsuit in which William Walter described himself as being 50 years of age on 8 May 1599. See Alan's transcript at:

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/RUSWEL/ruswel07.html

Oxford's servant, William Walter, was thus almost the same age as the 17-year-old Oxford at the time of Thomas Brincknell's death, and could not possibly have served on a jury at that age. The juryman William Waters was obviously an entirely different person from Oxford's servant, William Walter. Because he did not like the jury's finding that the death was the result of Brincknell's own actions, Alan deliberately made a false statement about one of the jurors to impugn the jury's finding. This is merely one among dozens of examples I could cite which demonstrate that no 'fact' stated in Alan's book can be accepted without checking it against archival documents. Nina Green —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.205.73 (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing this I notice that you also neglected to include Cecil's recollection of the event in which he confessed to tampering with the jury: "I did my best to have the jury find the death of a poor man whom he killed in my house to be found se defendendo." (also on p. 48.

Se defendendo: that which takes place upon a sudden encounter, where two persons upon a sudden quarrel, without premeditation or malice, fight upon equal terms, and one, before a mortal stroke has been given, declines any further combat, and retreats as far as he can with safety, and kills his adversary, through necessity, to avoid immediate death.

So whatever the circumstances were, Cecil certainly felt that Oxford needed some type of protection from an untainted jury. Your claim that your version is based on a "careful and accurate sourcing of statements" does not bear scrutiny.

And while I'm running my mouth, let me explain a comment I made that Smatprt has tried to get some mileage from. I said that Nelson was a muckraker and Ward was a hagiographer. Since apparently Smatprt doesn't know what a muckraker is, let me give the definition: "A muckraker is, primarily, a reporter or writer who investigates and publishes truthful reports involving a host of social issues, broadly including crime and corruption and often involving elected officials, political leaders and influential members of business and industry." You can read the rest of the definition at the article. Those who hold the term in low esteem are those who are the targets of the muckraker and those who defend those people.

For balance I suppose we should define hagiographer: "The term "hagiographic" has also been used as a pejorative reference to the works of biographers and historians perceived to be uncritical or 'reverential' to their subject."

Is Nelson a muckraker? Yes, he is, and he doesn't have to scrape very deep, while Ward is left to write down the visions that apparently came to him in an opium dream. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, on p. 48 Alan says that another of the jurors at the Brincknell inquest was 'the subsequently more famous Ralph (or Raphael) Holinshed, Cecil's protege'. Again, trying to impugn the jury's finding by claiming the jury was 'packed' with Oxford's supporters, Alan is in error. If you go to the document itself on my webpage (KB 9/169, Part 1, 13), my transcript, taken from Alan's own transcript, shows that the juror's name is given in Latin as Randolphi Holynshedd, and Randolphi is not Latin for either Ralph or Raphael. Alan knew full well that the juror's name was not Ralph or Raphael Holinshed, since Alan himself transcribed the report of the coroner's inquest. I've now ordered a copy of the original document from the National Archives to check against Alan's transcript. Nina Green —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.205.73 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting articles is not "vandalising" and it is highly inappropriate to throw around such accusations. Also, it makes no sense to say that your edits were "approved by a wikipedia editor". One editor does not have to right to "approve" edits in such a way that they can not be changed thereafter. Please familiarise yourself with Wikiperdia protocols. Brief Chronicles is an Oxfordian publication, edited by Oxfordian ideologue Roger Stritmatter. It would not normally count as "peer reviewed" since it is transparently a propaganda outlet. However, I guess that's debatable. The rest of your post completely misunderstands Wikipedia policy. You write "If my transcripts of these archival sources (readily available to everyone on my webpage) are 'original research' and thus to be banned under Wikipedia's policy, then so is Alan's book, for the same reason, namely that it's largely a series of quotations from archival sources." Read WP:OR and WP:RS. I directed you to these policies months ago, but you show not sign whatever of having even glanced at them. Nelson is allowed to do "original research". That's the whole point of being a scholar. He publishes his original research with respected publishers, and we accept the legitimacy of his work (which does not mean agreeing with it) because of that. You cannot do your own original research to "disprove" his and post the results of your personal findings in article space. If you can get them published by a legitimate publisher, preferably a scholarly one, first, then they can be used. But even then they can still only be presented as your opinion set against his, not as fact. Your wild conspiratorial accusations that Alan Nelson deliberately lied are most inappropriate. Read WP:BLP. Paul B (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's leave Alan's motives out of it. The fact is, Alan's own transcripts on his own website prove that the statements on pp.47-8 of his book about the jurors William Waters and Randolph Holinshed re the Brincknell incident are factually wrong. Are we trying to improve the article by making it factually correct, or are we merely trying to score debating points? My objective is to improve the article by making it factually correct. However if I edit it, my edit will be reverted, so it's obviously up to you to decide whether or not to remove the erroneous statements about the jurors William Waters and Randolph Holinshed, as well as the citation to Alan's book in that regard, isn't it? If you don't do it in order to improve the accuracy of the article, who will? Just asking. Nina Green —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If the 'vandal' may be permitted to drop a note. No one spoke of Prof. Nelson's motives, but rather of the impropriety of claiming that he willingly distorts history documents. You accused him, a ranking authority on Elizabethan documents, of fraudulent falsification of historical documents ('Alan deliberately conflates . . . Alan clearly knew this statement to be false . . Alan deliberately made a false statement about'), and this is a rather serious violation of WP:BLP. This was pointed out, and you deflected the matter by raising the irrelevant issue of why he might have manipulated the record, as if that was the objection, only to wave it away. I suggest, with Paul, that you closely review wikipedia's core policies. I know it is trying to have to buckle to these rules, but they set the conditions under which we work with each other. p.s. just on a point, you apparently checked Nelson's index to his transcription, but not the transcription itself in making inferences about William Walter's age. The primary document says, not 50, as in Nelson's index, but aged 50 yeares or therabout{es}, and the later term's vagueness is crucial. But this, for a wikipedian, is neither here nor there.Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would add that Wikipedia rules have their drawbacks, as we all recognise. One of my own books is cited in some articles. However, I know only too well how many errors it contains (minor ones, I hasten to state). However, if I were to correct an error cited to my own book I would be conducting "original research" and my edit could be overturned. There are certainly occasions when an editor knows something is mistaken, but is prevented from correcting the error because a "reliable source" says otherwise. It can be very frustrating. But the rules are there to stop editors simply adding their own pet theories and unverifiable research to pages. The rules are not ideal, but the alternatives would be disastrous. Paul B (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Policy and Guidelines regarding Primary Sources

I think if we could focus the scope of the conversation it would be helpful to all concerned. In an attempt, I would like to discuss the use of primary sources, which is key to NinaGreen's additions, which were pretty much unilaterally removed from the present version (I could be wrong - if any do remain, please pardon the error). It has been said, and often repeated that we don't use primary sources, or words to that effect. I think we should all at least agree that this statement is incorrect. To quote the relevant policies. first, let's define it:

• From WP:OR “Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources."

Having said that, here are the policy and guidelines that should help us here:

• WP:OR Policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.”
• Wp:Fringe (reliable sources)]] "This policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources in addition to these; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", which is essential to writing an encyclopedia.”

• WP:ATT Note that this is an essay and not a guideline but it mirrors the OR policy quoted above. “Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.
• WP:SCLASS Guidelines for primary and secondary sources (again, this is an essay and not a guideline, but is also in keeping with the guidelines and policies on OR, sourcing and attribution. "If given in their proper context, primary sources can be the most neutral and informative way to present information in a Wikipedia article. Often, however, the import or significance of primary sources is not obvious or is controversial, in which case they should be supported by secondary sources.

Non-controversial and respected secondary sources can be even more neutral and informative than primary sources. Sometimes, however, secondary sources act as filters and add "spin" to primary sources. Therefore, polemical or controversial secondary sources should be balanced with other secondary sources, and typically by reference to the unvarnished primary sources, so that the reader can have a basis to determine which secondary source provides the most credible "spin" on the primary sources.

When available, well-respected tertiary sources, such as textbooks and legal treatises, can be the most neutral secondary sources for use in Wikipedia articles. Frequently, however, the process by which the author collected the information is unclear and not well documented, and sometimes, the author is unknown. In such cases, tertiary articles should be supported by primary and other secondary sources."

I would hope given the above policies, guidelines and WP essays, that we can all agree that primary sources can be used, but should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Is that agreeable? Smatprt (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This reading is best discussed at the mediation page, I believe, not here. I noted a long list of errors of editorial method and oversight above to justify my revision of the page according to the best lights of WP:RS. Many of those errors, which are fairly obvious, were reinstated. I suggest the interpretation of what wikipedia policies relevant to the congeries of articles being written be conducted the appropriate page, but in the meantime, due input on those unanswered queries of mine, at least 23, would be appreciated.Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, the mediation has to do with completely different issues - not the use of Primary sources, (or anything to do with sources). This kind of minutia needs to be discussed either here, or if we can't resolve it, then at the RS board. I was hoping we could resolve it here, based on the issues raised by NinaGreen, who is obviously not up on the myriad of wiki policies and guidelines. My policy and guideline postings, therefore, are for the mutual benefit of NinaGreen, Paul, and anyone else who cares to edit this particular article. Having said that, do you at least agree that Primary sources can be used in certain circumstances? Smatprt (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - we've been directed not to go into minutia at the RFC (or the mediation, for that matter). I believe answering your 23 points would do just that, as the varied reasoning is all over the place. Better to discuss the bigger issues (like use of Primary sources), as they come up than to start 23 different arguments. The Primary source issue has come up on this page, so it should be discussed here first, before escalating the matter. That's my take, at least. Smatprt (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You misread me. I spoke of discussing the details of this page, and its problems, as I outlined them, among many others I could cite, above. The function of this page is to discuss the article issues. We haven't been directed not to discuss on the mediation page the clash between the way I, Tom or any Dick or Harry read wiki policies, and the way others may read them. Our problems arise from different interpretations of the safest methods to use in writing articles dealing with WP:fringe topics, or articles on mainstream topics, covered in comprehensive detail by mainstream scholarship where a WP:fringe theory exists at its margins. In the short time left to me, I certainly will undertake to observe that distinction. Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

To cut to the chase: Primary sources should not be used except in cases where secondary or tertiary sources are unavailable. Since their use for this article is disrptive and the discussion has devolved into yet one more interminable thread, they should not be used except with the agreement of all parties.

WP:RS sources should also be the preferred sources in all cases. That one side or the other is arguing to use non-RS sources and primary sources indicates that the information supported by those sources is controversial and just another point to waste more time better spent in editing. There is a wealth of WP:RS about Oxford. Use it and not the non-approved sources. When in Rome, act like the Romans, not like the Indians. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As someone who lives in Rome, I suggest we avoid acting like Romans, whose fabrication of documents at all official levels is a normal part of the routine of politics, getting a degree in dentistry, science or medicine, obtaining a document of identity, paying bills, getting bank loans, you name it. (ethnic BLP violation!).Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My objective is to improve the factual quality of the article. However if no-one is prepared to remove statements in the article which have been established to be inaccurate (i.e. Alan's erroneous statements about the jurors William Waters and Randolph Holinshed re the Brincknell incident), then we're all just wasting our time in terms of improving the quality of the article. I have a wealth of specialized knowledge derived from having transcribed and translated hundreds of original documents concerning Oxford's life (I'm not speaking of the authorship issue here; I'm speaking of Oxford's biography). If people editing this article refuse to take advantage of that specialized knowledge, both by refusing to allow the citation of primary source documents which are readily available for anyone to check on my website, AND by refusing to cite my article in Brief Chronicles, then I guess that's Wikipedia's loss and a loss to all Wikipedia users who would like a reliable article on Oxford. What else can I say? Nina Green 205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My advice to you would be to write an article or a book and have it published by a non-fringe peer-reviewed journal or university press and sit back and wait for the academic reviews. Ostensibly a lot of fringe apologists publish with mainstream presses, but since they advocate a fringe view they don't meet the WP:RS requirements, and can only be cited as an example of a fringe argument, not accepted as a fact. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that Alan Nelson's errors with respect to the Brincknell jury still stand, which suggests a lack of commitment to improving the factual quality of this article. One can only ask what we're here for if the objective is not to improve the factual quality of the article. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We have already explained the rules of Wikipedia. We cannot take your word, based on your interpretation of documents, that Nelson's conclusions are in error. Maybe they are, maybe they are not, but your personal interpretations do not suffice. Paul B (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nina Green. Just a technical note. You appear not to distinguish a fact from an inference, in saying you stick to facts, and Nelson to 'fabrications'. Let us take it that Nelson made two inferences from the fact that William Walter and Randolph Holinshed are registered as jurors, identifying the former with the homonymous person in Oxford's household, and the latter with the historian Raphael Holinshed (the Holinshed family has Ralphs and Randolphs in abundance). You made two different inferences from the same facts, namely that Randolph is not Raphael, and the juror William Waters is not William Waters of Oxford's household. In both cases you are asking us to favour your inferences, which are unpublished, against Nelson's inferences, which come from one of the ranking world authorities on Elizabethan primary documents, who published them under peer-reviewed University imprint. We are not allowed to do that by, as you request, comparing both versions to the primary documents. That would be a WP:OR violation which favours, in turn, another WP:OR violation, in order to get onto the page a perspective that does not qualify according to WP:RS. The protocols of editing do not allow us to do what you request, and wikipedia is concerned, not with the truth, but with verifiability according to good sourcing (WP:V).Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously not asking you to take my word for it. I am asking you and everyone editing this page to take cognizance of the fact that Alan's own transcripts on his own website at http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/oxdocs.html establish that Alan's interpretive comments regarding the Brincknell jury on pp. 47-8 of his book are erroneous. Since you introduced these factual errors into the article, then you, or someone else editing this page, should remove them. If I were to do it, my edit would be reverted. It is thus up to you or someone else editing this page to correct these factual errors in order to improve the factual quality of the article. I feel quite certain that Wikipedia policy does not prohibit deleting something from an article which is factually inaccurate, particularly when it involves a notable historical personage, in this case the historian Raphael Holinshed. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to give us links to those probative transcripts on his page? Because I searched it yesterday night and couldn't find them. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

For Nelson's transcription of Brinckell here

For his transcript on William Waters here

For Nina Green's transcription and translation of Brincknell hereNishidani (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those, but exactly how does that prove Alan wrong? Did she establish there were two different Waters/Walters; Raphel Hollingshead/Randolphi Holynshedd; Marlow/Marlin; Shakspere/Shaxberd? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, you've misrepresented Alan's qualifications. Alan is not a historian, and by his own admission Alan does not read Latin, and a very large number of the documents involving Oxford, including the coroner's inquest into Brinknell's death, are in Latin. When it comes to matters involving Oxford, Alan's sole area of professional expertise is in reading Elizabethan scripts. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Alan's not a historian? That's news to me. Perhaps you would like to peruse [his bibliography]. I'm sure it pales to insignificance compared with yours. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't proved these are factual errors (b) the page you left was replete with the most elementary errors, which you did not notice while editing (c) even in your edits you restore patently erroneous matters, as when you changed the date 1570, indicating the year Oxford is said to have participated in the Northern Rebellion, to 1569, the date the Northern Rebellion broke out, without noticing the ambiguity (d) I made a short list of 23 errors on the page as I found it, and much as you had left it, above, which you have not yet replied to (e) you have not replied to my point that you yourself are 'hoist with your own petard' in asserting as a series of facts your own inferences, while deploring them in Nelson (f) you persist in ignoring all polite suggestions that you study and master the simple policy guidelines for wiki editors (g) I did not 'introduce' factual errors into the page. I read a thousand odd pages of materials on de Vere, judged acceptable sources in terms of the protocols of wikipedia, and transcribed, with precise page references, what those sources said, as per WP:RS and WP:V. I would, just from curiosity, like to know something of your own academic background in classical languages, Elizabethan documents and paleography. I myself have checked, just to exhaustively listen to your arguments, both the Latin and the translation, and input on why the latter is flawed would be welcome. Your last point says Nelson's only competence is in transcribing the shape of characters imprinted on archival documents from the Elizabethan period, without understanding the content of the message. Fine. Take it up with the University of Californa, Berkeley, and get them to revoke his emeritus title. He's evidently been working as an historian under false pretenses, if your comments are to be trusted, as opposed to what his peers and reviewers, Heaton, Pendleton, Guibbory, May, Barnaby etc., say of him. Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is whether Alan's book is a reliable source. Alan is not a historian, nor by his own admission does he read Latin. He was a professor of English, and a paleographer. Alan thus has expertise in transcribing Elizabethan documents, not in the interpretation of their historical or legal content. In the latter regard, Alan is not professionally qualified. I have personally documented literally dozens of signficant factual errors in Alan's book. Does this sound like a reliable source? And where are the reviews of Alan's book by historians which would support your claim that it is a reliable source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is whether you are a reliable source for challenging the credentials of the professor emeritus of English at Berkeley, and implicitly saying that his colleagues in the field are wrong, in their peer reviews, to call him an 'historian'. Could I note something. If you don't recognize the names of the historians who reviewed Nelson's book, which I named, then I suggest we are wasting our time. You are eloquent in talking about Nelson's lack of qualifications, but refuse to provide your own. You needn't give them, but, by the same token, you should not challenge the credentials of a scholar and period historian, recognized as such by his academic peers, without given the independent observer some ground for accepting your tacit assumption that you are uniquely qualified to make a judgement, while those whose background we know, whose credentials demonstrate unequivocally they have the right Ph.d and publishing record to qualify as competent experts, are not. In sum, we don't know what your qualifications are, but are asked to take your word for it that recognized experts get everything wrong. This is not the way the academic world works, nor the way wikipedia, which reflects it, works. Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue remains whether Alan's book is a reliable source. You say you've provided links to favourable reviews of Alan's book by professional historians. Where are they? Incidentally, you seem to be under a misapprehension concerning my earlier work on this article. I did not write the earlier version of the article, nor did I attempt to correct all the errors in it. I merely accurately sourced certain statements in the article. Those citations were approved by an earlier Wikipedia editor, and stood for many months. While I was away for three weeks recently, you completely deleted everything I had contributed to the article, and now, when confronted with evidence from Alan's own transcripts concerning his erroneous interpretation of the Brincknell inquest document, you refuse to delete this erroneous material which you yourself added to the article. How does that improve the factual quality of the article? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Repetition of a point of view, while one refuses to listen to one's interlocutor, is not a proper way to conduct a dialogue.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My objective is the factual improvement of the article. That objective involves determining whether Alan's Nelson's book is a reliable source. You say you have reviews of it by professional historians which establish that. Where are they? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To repeat. (And please read a reply before responding to it), read Heaton, Pendleton, Guibbory, May and Barnaby's reviews of Nelson, I'll provided others if needed. I have JSTOR and ProjectMuse copies, I'm sure as an independent researcher you can access them.Nishidani (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Clive, Professor Steven W. May is not a historian. Like Alan, he is an English professor. Please provide the full names and citations for reviews of Alan's book by professional historians. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

First provide me, as is reasonable at this point, your curriculum vitae regarding your academic qualifications as an expert in classical Latin, Renaissance chancellery Latin, epigraphy, paleography, and Elizabethan history. At which institution did you gain your Ph.d.? I think the question fair, because you are consistently calling fraudulent a recognised authority on the Elizabethan period. This is not about Alan Nelson, it is about your claim to be more qualified than him as an expert on these subjects, and an historian of that era.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Clive, this is not about me in the slightest. I am not cited as a source in the article on Edward de Vere, and my contributions to the article were deleted by you. You then revised the entire article based on Alan's book. This is about whether Alan's book is a reliable source. You claim to be able to produce reviews by professional historians which establish that Alan's book is a reliable source. Yet you do not do so. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The de Vere patronage sourcing and wording question

User:Tom Reedy has asked me to note, as an un-involved editor, that the discussion about the above-described topic at WP:RSN appears to have reached a suitable compromise concerning how to report De Vere's patronage. Hope that helps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, I added a link to your comment for future reference. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

For the phrase one of the leading patrons in the lead, we should therefore have, when the text can be edited, De Vere was notable for his theatrical and literary patronage, with no source required. This of course can be revisted eventually when the relevant section dealing with his patronage, theatrical and literary work is completed, naturally. Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer "noted". Open up another RfC!. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Get off the court, Puppy! or it's foils and a Brincknell verdict at dawn tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you know the word "clumsy" does not appear in the Shakespeare works? Proving that Brincknell was not the Bard. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)