Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

What constitutes original research

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

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

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

That's not "Wikipedia's definition", Nina, that's the fallacy of the undistributed middle you've got there. Also, I'm afraid it doesn't make any difference that you were only citing primary sources to support statements which were already in the article. It's not the dialogical editing process that needs to not make claims based on primary sources; it's the text of the article as it exists now. You can't expect the reader to study the History tab and go "oh well that's all right then, the person who added the sources 'merely provided sources for statements in the article which were unsourced'". Bishonen | talk 22:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

Shortly after his marriage, at the age of twenty-two, Oxford was licensed to enter on his lands by the Queen's letters patent of 30 May 1572.ref The National Archives C 66/1090, mm. 29-30 ref NinaGreen 205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the link to C 66/1090.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom, you wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom, Alan is obviously not a third party source when you are writing to him and collaborating with him in defending his errors. Alan is someone with a dog in the fight, and in writing to him in order to defend his errors, you have disqualified yourself as an objective editor of this page. The errors in Alan's book go far beyond a few mis-cited page numbers. I've already documented much more significant errors on this Discussion page (see above), and can document many more. The number of errors goes to the heart of the question of whether Alan's book can be considered a reliable third party source by Wikipedia. As for reviews of Alan's book, here are the ones he has posted on his webpage.

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/monstrous.html

One is a review on a blog by a non-specialist, another is a one-paragraph blurb, while the third is a review in an Oxfordian publication. Not one is a review by a professional historian. If you know of other reviews, please, by all means share the bibliographic details with us.

Moreover you have still not dealt with the fact that the CPR is a secondary source. To say that a modern printed volume which translates and digests the entries on the huge rolls of parchment in the National Archives on which most of the entries are written in Latin is a primary source is an absurdity. Wikipedia rules are workable, and based on common sense. That sort of illogic defies common sense. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your depiction of my consulting Alan Nelson and your conclusions are just bizarre. You need to seek an opinion from WP:NOR/N. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for pinpointing yet another error in Alan's references (see above). As you've noted, Alan cites the same erroneous p. 159 in the CPR for this statement in his book:

On 4 May Oxford witnessed the creation of Walter Devereux as Earl of Essex and Edward Fynes alias Clinton as Earl of Lincoln.

Because I had sent you a pdf file of p. 159 of that volume of the CPR, you were able to see that there is nothing about the creation of Walter Devereux as Earl of Essex and Edward Fynes as Earl of Lincoln on that page. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for sending me pdfs of two further reviews of Alan's book. The first is another one-paragraph review by Achsah Guibbory, and the second, by Dr. Gabriel Heaton of the University of Warwick, whose doctorate is in English, not history, proves my point that Alan has a dog in the fight and that his book cannot be considered a reliable third party source by Wikipedia.

Monstrous Adversary may be firmly based in primary documents, but this is not to suggest that its author lacks an opinion on his subject: Alan Nelson developed a vigorous dislike for the man when researching this biography. This is the biographer’s prerogative, but leads to some uneasy moments. Oxford can hardly be blamed for having strong belief in his inherently superior honour: what Elizabethan nobleman did not? It seems a little unreasonable to count against Oxford his belief in the possible existence of the North-West passage, or his patronage of men who believed that earthquakes were expressions of God’s wrath. Nelson also seems overly willing to accept libellous accusations made against Oxford by Charles Arundel and Henry Howard.

Nelson first came to Oxford from an engagement with the ‘authorship controversy’ and, although the name Shakespeare only appears a few times in Monstrous Adversary, one of its purposes is to challenge the fanciful character of Oxford promoted by ‘Oxfordians’ from J. Thomas Loonie and Bernard M. Ward onwards.

Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Bio and publications of Achsah Guibbory: Ann Whitney Olin Professor of English, joined the faculty of Barnard in 2004, after teaching at the University of Illinois for many years. At Barnard, her teaching specialties include Milton, Donne, seventeenth-century literature and nation-formation, and Christian/Jewish relations and religious identities in the early modern period. She is affiliated with Barnard's Medieval and Renaissance studies program. Her book, Christian Identity, Jews, and Israel in Seventeenth-century England, has been just published by Oxford University Press (fall 2010). The research for this book was supported by a National Endowment for the Humanities Senior Research Fellowship (2002) and a Guggenheim Fellowship (2008). Her other publications include Ceremony and Community from Herbert to Milton (Cambridge University Press, 1998), The Cambridge Companion to John Donne (2006), and numerous journal articles and book chapters on seventeenth-century literature and culture.

Her review, “Recent Studies in the English Renaissance” in Studies in English Literature 1500-1900, 45:1, Winter 2005, pp. 213-254, begins, "It is remarkable how many of the books I received are about history: a number are written by historians, and published in a history series. I had expected a couple might be, but most, I thought, would be in 'Renaissance nondramatic literature,' even as the field has in many instances morphed into cultural history. So I was surprised when I kept receiving shipments of 'history' books. Perhaps the traditional boundaries between literature and history (at least on the part of 'literary scholars') really are breaking down, not only as we recognize the need to historicize, but also as we enlarge the category of 'literature' (in itself a kind of return, with a difference, to the situation in the Renaissance when disciplinary spheres were as yet not sharply differentiated, where one could be a 'literary author' and much else). It seems, however, more than that, and prompts me to ask several questions for which it is too early to provide answers."

Her one-paragraph review of Nelson:

Alan H. Nelson, in Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, has written a lengthy, meticulous biography of an interesting, immensely dislikeable, selfish, and self-serving nobleman, who accomplished nothing in his life (frittering away the wealth he inherited) but was connected with many important people: William Cecil, Queen Elizabeth, Charles Arundel, and Henry Howard. A few have believed he was Shakespeare, which seems most unlikely given Oxford’s lack of persistence in any serious task. We learn not only all the known details of his unexemplary life, but also about Elizabethan life among the nobles and elite. We learn, for example, how wardship worked, that Arundel, Howard, and Oxford were all connected with Catholicism and imprisoned; how a predatory, pederastic nobleman could get away with harming young boys in service and pursue similar affairs with women; how an affair could be secretly carried on in a “closet.” Oxford does not become more likeable or sympathetic as the book goes on, but it is a fascinating read and resource.

Bio and publications of Gabriel Heaton: He took his first degree at the University of Durham, and obtained his doctorate from Cambridge in 2003. He worked as a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Warwick, editing Elizabethan entertainments and related texts for Court and Culture in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I: A New Edition of John Nichols's Progresses. He is also the author of a number of articles on subjects including entertainments, libels, and the poet Aurelian Townshend. Dr Heaton currently works in the Department of Printed Books and Manuscripts at Sotheby's, where he is a Deputy Director specialising in post-Medieval English manuscripts. He is the author of numerous academic articles, and of Writing and Reading Royal Entertainments From George Gascoigne to Ben Jonson, published June 2010 by Oxford University Press.

His conclusion about Nelson’s book (beginning with the sentence you stopped at):

Despite its considerable scholarship, it is unlikely that Nelson’s book will change the minds of many Oxfordians: there is no clinching evidence here that proves categorically, once and for all, absolutely, that Oxford could not have written Shakespeare’s plays. Not, at least, to people who are not convinced by the fact that Oxford died before many of them were written.

Nelson has, however, done a real service to those interested in the Elizabethan court by bringing together much of the documentary record relating to a fascinating, if relatively minor, player in that world. Many of these documents, and others, can be found on ‘Oxdox’ (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/oxdocs.html), which is only part of Nelson’s superb website. Nelson’s book has its flaws, but it is the work of a scholar who is as generous as he is thorough, and for that we should be very grateful.

’nuff said. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire. Too much said, and all off-topic. The issue is whether Alan's book is a reliable third party source. A third party source can't have a dog in the fight. The fact that Alan has a dog in the fight was so obvious to Gabriel Heaton that he commented extensively on Alan's bias in his review. Moreover reviews by experts in English literature have no real bearing on determining whether Alan's book is historically accurate. Alan's book was not reviewed by any professional historian. And as we know, it contains a multitude of errors, some of which have already been documented here, and many more of which can be documented. I'll just mention one more right now. On p. 306, mistranscribing a document, Alan writes that Robert Cecil and Hugh Beeston the younger are 'serjeants of Edward, earl of Oxford'. Compounding his transcription error, Alan comments:

On 1 July Oxford finally received the grant of the attainted lands. His two 'serjeants', or agents, were Cecil and Hugh Beeston.

The document actually reads 'Hugh Beeston, servant of Edward, Earl of Oxford', not 'serjeant'. You can see the document on the Documents page of my website, as well as numerous other documents which state that Hugh Beeston the younger was Oxford's servant. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Is Monstrous Adversary a reliable source?

There are very few reliable sources on the factual details of Oxford's life. It seems to have been assumed until now for purposes of editing this page that Alan Nelson's Monstrous Adversary is a reliable source, and that it can be cited for virtually any statement made in it without the editors of this page doing any fact-checking. That assumption has been challenged by the errors already documented on this discussion page. Here's another one. On pp. 308-9 Alan writes:

In May [1588], as Burghley noted in his retrospective Diary (ii, p. 788), Elizabeth re-granted to Oxford two ancient properties:

A Graunt of the Priory of Earles Colne, and the Mannor of Colne in Essex, to the Earl of Oxford, and the Heyres of his Body, yelding the Rent of 66l.

Oxford had of course already sold these lands to Roger Harlackenden.<

Oxford's sale of Colne Priory to the Harlakendens, and Oxford's lawsuit against the Harlakendens for fraud which followed it, are important and well-documented events in Oxford's life (see the numerous items related to the sale and the lawsuit on the Documents page of my website). It's difficult to believe that Alan could make the erroneous claim that Oxford had already sold Colne Priory to Roger Harlakenden by May 1588 when Oxford did not sell Colne Priory until February 1592. But there it is, in black and white. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Another example. In the index to Monstrous Adversary, Alan states that there is a reference on p. 46 to Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. The passage is as follows:

From 30 September 1566 to 2 January 1567 the second session of Elizabeth's Second Parliament convened in Westminster Hall. Among the lords sat four minors:

Att the formost forme on the southside sate these peeres as followeth: . . . Veere Earl of Oxford warde . . . Manners Earle of Rutland warde . . . . Bourchier Erle of Bathe ward . . . . Wriostheley Erle of Southampton ward . . .

A moment's thought should have alerted Alan to the fact that this could not possibly be the 3rd Earl of Southampton, who was not born until 1573. The reference is to his father, the 2nd Earl of Southampton. See the DNB entry for the 2nd Earl, who was baptized in 1545, and whose wardship was granted to the Earl of Pembroke on 14 December 1550. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't go by your opinion of what qualifies as a reliable source. If you want to specifically ask about Monstrous Adversary, you need to do so at WP:RS/N. While you're at it, you might as well ask whether the Calendar of Patent Rolls is a secondary source. Until then (and I would wager afterward), Nelson is considered a reliable source and the CPR is considered a primary source. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We have only your word for it that Wikipedia considers Monstrous Adversary a reliable source. I have not seen any Wikipedia policy which states that a work which has not been peer-reviewed, that is, a work which purports to be a historical account but which has not been reviewed by a single historian, is a reliable source for a Wikipedia article on a historical topic. Nor have I seen a Wikipedia policy which states that a work which contains a significant number of errors would be considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source.

On a different but related topic, Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits books written by those with a dog in the fight from being considered third party sources.

It seems to me that you are constantly generalizing as to Wikipedia policies based solely on your personal interpretation of Wikipedia policies, not on the policies themselves. To date you haven't quoted a single Wikipedia policy which would qualify Alan Nelson's book as either a reliable source or a third party source.

The problem is that the editors who have written this particular article lack the background to identify errors in secondary sources. Editors of this page have background in the authorship controversy, but this article is not about the authorship controversy. It is about the historical facts of Oxford's life, and the editors of this page do not have background in that area. I do have that background, and I'm willing to share that background and make the article a first-class one. But there is a distinct lack of co-operation from other editors, who seem committed to promulgating the errors in Alan's book rather than co-operating with someone who can spot those errors. There seems to be an agenda here, rather than a commitment to writing a worthwhile and accurate article for Wikipedia. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The only "agenda" here is Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have referred you to WP:RS and WP:OR, but you have evinced nothing that would cause one to suspect you have read those policies. I have also referred you to WP:RS/N if you think I have been misrepresenting the policies. As to Alan having "a dog in the fight", I have no idea what you are referring to. If you mean authorship, his view reflects the scholarly consensus.

You are certainly welcome to edit this article and I believe that has been made clear. However, what I have been trying to make clear--to which you seem remarkably resistant--is that Wikipedia prohibits using primary sources except in conjunction with a secondary source, and considers such use of primary sources as original research. You might want to review the rationale of the admin who blocked you for this offence earlier, and his message at that time he placed on your talk page.

Sometimes I wonder whether you've read the Wikipedia policies yourself. For example, from the page you cite above:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Alan is not a third party source by Wikipedia's definition because of his known bias against Oxford, noted by Gabriel Heaton and by virtually anyone who has read his book. Moreover if Alan had a reputation for 'fact-checking and accuracy', it's been destroyed by the examples cited on this Discussion page. So are you suggesting that despite the fact that Alan is not a third party source, and despite the fact that his book contains documented factual errors, you want to continue to cite it endlessly in the article as a reliable third party source? It seems to me you are the one who needs to review Wikipedia policy, not me. And it definitely seems to me that there's an agenda here which has nothing to do with writing a high-quality factually accurate article for Wikipedia. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

On another note, I would say that every minute detail of Oxford's comings and goings are not important to a biography. Articles should be written in summary style and discrimination used in what to include instead of a tedious blow-by-blow description of every extant document, such as this edit, which if it goes anywhere should be in the cutline of the portrait. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not my edit. Why are you asking me about it? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought a senior diplomat writing to Cecil solely on the subject of this 25 year old's patronage of the arts was astonishing, but you need not agree!Unoquha (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not the sole topic he wrote to Cecil about. He reported that he had scheduled a meeting with Philip Chiverny, and that a Flemish painter had said he could be persuaded to go to England to paint because he didn't like Paris, and that he had done a very good portrait of Oxford (probably the one that the article's main image is based upon). My point is that larding an article with every detail makes for tediousness and that if that detail should be included, it should be in relation to the portrait. That section is woefully empty of where Oxford went and what he did during his travels, jumping from his leaving to his return within a few sentences, and then goes into family details. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. Though it could be doubted the present portrait is as witty & significant as the device that prompted the remark, the letter shows that Valentine was intimate with his master's former ward's Paris sojourn, which was long enough to dally with a painter, and so is a detail of his travels.Unoquha (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask you about it; I was merely giving an example of an overly-detailed edit to which this article is susceptible. The textual clue to my comment is the introductory clause, "On another note ...."

As to your other comments, I can only refer you again for the umpteenth time to WP:RS/N. Droning on and on about it here does no good at all. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would you drag a red herring like that into a discussion of whether Alan's book is a reliable source? Wouldn't it make sense to start another topic if you want to discuss detailed edits? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another example from the first page of Alan's book:

On 12 April 1550 a son was born to John de Vere, 16th Earl of Oxford, probably at Castle Hedingham in rural Essex. Noting the time of birth, the Earl consulted his astrologers. The news was dire:

The mathematicians that calculated the nativity of this Earl Edward told the Earl his father than the earldom would fall in the son's time.

Alan cites Buc (1982), p. 170, that is, Arthur Noel Kincaid's edition of The History of King Richard the Third (1619) by Sir George Buc. What Alan fails to mention is that the quotation above is a marginal note in square brackets on p. 170, and on the unnumbered page which immediately follows his introduction, Kincaid states very clearly that 'in the transcripts which follow, square brackets surround passages crossed out in the original'. It makes for a dramatic beginning. The Earl consulted his astrologers. The news was dire! But in fact the passage is crossed out in Buc's manuscript. Is this the sort of thing one expects from a reliable source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Being crossed out in a MS does not mean that the information is not correct, as you should know if you've read almost any MS of the time. More likely it means Buc decided not to include it if he had been able to follow it to the press. Even if the story were apocryphal, it reflects the contemporary opinion of Oxford's life. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, the point is that this is not the sort of thing one expects from a reliable source. Alan doesn't tell the reader that the marginal note is crossed out in Buc's manuscript. When one adds up all the factual errors in Alan's book, and combines the total with instances of this sort of sleight of hand, one doesn't come up with a reliable source. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

How about this on p.9:

Edward de Vere's mother, Margery, Countess of Oxford, was the daughter of Sir John Golding. . . . . Sir John's death the previous year released [Margery] from the oversight of both biological parents. . . . .

As a source for John Golding's death, Alan cites this on p. 444:

'Memorandum that Ihon Gowldinge Esquire was buried in the temple Church in london the xxviiith of November [1547]' (p. 7)

Alan doesn't even appear to have noticed that in the text he refers to Golding five times as a knight, but provides as a source for his burial a reference which refers to him as an esquire. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tracking Alan's errors to their sources often requires an enormous amount of work. On what basis did Alan knight Margery Golding's father, John Golding? Who knows? Alan cites Louis Thorn Golding's An Elizabethan Puritan on p. 443, but that can't be his source, since John Golding is never referred to as a knight in An Elizabethan Puritan. In fact he is never referred to as a knight in any source I've ever seen, yet Alan dubs him knight five times on p. 9. Similarly, what is the source for Alan's claim that Margery Golding's father was buried in the Temple church (see above)? In An Elizabethan Puritan, Louis Thorn Golding writes on p. 8:

[John Golding] was [in Essex] in 1527, for his first wife, who died in that year, was buried in Belchamp St. Paul's church on December 27th, and an altar tomb was erected for her in the chancel. He, too, was buried in it when he died twenty years after, but this tomb has long since disappeared.

We're speaking here of Margery Golding's father, Oxford's grandfather, yet Alan seems to have every fact he states about him wrong. Is this a reliable source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan's book largely follows Ward, referencing many of the same documents that Ward turned up almost a century ago. However Alan sometimes uses Ward without crediting him. One such instance occurs on p.39, where Alan writes:

Some eight months after young Oxford entered Cecil House, Lawrence Nowell wrote to Cecil:

I clearly see that my work for the Earl of Oxford cannot be much longer required.

The original letter is in Latin, which Alan quotes in a footnote on pp.448-9:

et meam operam haud fore diu Oxoniensi comiti necessariam facile intelligam

Alan's translation is taken word for word from Ward, who writes on p.20:

[Nowell] then goes on to ask Lord Burghley that to him may be entrusted the task of compiling an accurate map because" I clearly see that my work for the Earl of Oxford cannot be much longer required."

Is this what one expects from a reliable source, using someone else's translation without citing it? True, it's only a single sentence, but nonetheless, the translation was Ward's not Alan's. Why didn't Alan cite Ward? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only does Alan have the facts he cites about Oxford's maternal grandfather wrong (see above), he's wrong on the facts about Oxford's paternal grandmother as well. On p. 10 he writes:

Edward's paternal grandmother was Elizabeth nee Trussell, daughter of Edward Trussell of Cublesdon, Staffordshire, and Margaret Don (or Done), of the family which would later produce the poet John Donne.

Having said that Elizabeth Trussell was the daughter of Edward Trussell, on p. 444 Alan then cites as his source a statement that makes her the sister of Edward Trussell:

See HMC Lothian, Blickling, p. 74, for 'An account of the manors of John de Vere, Earl of Oxford, in right of his wife Elizabeth, sister and heiress of Edward Trussell'.

How's that for confusion? In fact, Oxford's paternal grandmother was the daughter of Edward Trussell, and the sister and heiress of John Trussell. See Douglas Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry, pp. 370 and 720, available online. Is Alan Nelson's book a reliable source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet another egregious error. On p. 11 Alan writes:

Sir George Buc, a contemporary of the 17th Earl, retails a prophecy that in fewer years than the 13th Earl had lived -- that is, before 1583, seventy years after his death in 1513 -- the earldom would be wasted, and ancestral bones would lie scattered in the fields.

Alan cites as his source Buc (1982), pp. 169-70, that is, Kincaid's edition cited above. But when one turns to pp. 169-70, one finds that it was not a prophecy at all. It was Buc's own statement, made when he wrote the book:

And this earldom was wasted and almost all dilapidated and spoiled, and the castles and manors pulled do[wn,] and the chapel wherein this Earl John de Vere was entombed and where all the sepulchres and goodly monuments of his ancestors were erected were all defaced and demolished and razed to the ground, and the bones of the ancient earls were left under the open air and in the fields, and all [which happened] within less than threescore years after the death of the said Earl John.

The statement is clearly ridiculous. Buc went mad before his death, and one can't help but wonder what his state of mind was when he wrote this. The 13th Earl, of whom Buc is speaking, died in 1513, as Alan says above, and Buc is therefore stating that less than 60 years later, i.e. circa 1571, when Oxford reached the age of majority, the whole earldom was wasted and the bones of Oxford's ancestors were lying in the fields. Utter nonsense.

Moreover in addition to claiming something as a prophecy which his source indicates clearly was not a prophecy, and in addition to giving credence to a clearly nonsensical statement, Alan has deliberately or carelessly distorted what Buc actually said. Buc did not say 'that in fewer years than the 13th Earl had lived'. He said 'within less than threescore years after the death of the said Earl John'. This deliberate or careless distortion by Alan makes a huge difference. What Buc actually said makes these events happen by circa 1571. By distorting Buc's statement, Alan brings the date to 1583 (see above). Is Alan's book a reliable source? Nina Green —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, here's an instance of Alan citing something which would not qualify as a reliable third party source under Wikipedia policy. On p. 12 Alan quotes a letter from 'the young Gregory Crumwell'. On p. 444 Alan cites as his source 'Allen (1932), p. 16', which turns out to be none other than Percy Allen's The Life Story of Edward de Vere as "William Shakespeare". Would you cite that book as a source for anything? I wouldn't. Yet Alan did, presumably because he didn't want to take the time to look up the original letter. (Percy Allen's book can be downloaded online, by the way). Moreover Alan clearly doesn't have any idea that 'the young Gregory Crumwell' he's talking about was in later life Baron Cromwell (d.1551). Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A well-reviewed book on a literary/historical figure by an emeritus professor of English at one of the best research universities in the world, published by the university press of an important British university, and written more or less in the author's area of specialty, is obviously a reliable source. That doesn't mean it can't contain errors, but this whole effort is ridiculous. john k (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The book wasn't well reviewed by anyone who could detect its historical errors. In fact it wasn't reviewed by a single historian. And even some of the literature specialists who reviewed it had negative comments about it, and in particular about Alan's manifest bias. Moreover, just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't mean he's an expert in fields unrelated to his Ph.D. The book is not in the slightest 'written more or less in the author's area of speciality'. Alan is not a specialist in Elizabethan history. Moreover the documentation of the errors in Alan's book isn't 'ridiculous' at all. Eventually, the number of errors in a book reaches critical mass, and the work can't be considerable reliable by anyone's standards. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You do not get to decide that a book is not a reliable source because you find errors of detail in it. If you can check a particular factual claim against a footnote that goes to a published primary source, and find that it doesn't match, I think that would be good reason not to rely on Nelson for that particular fact. It does not discredit the work as a whole. Any book will contain minor errors of the sort you are bringing up here. As to area of specialty, a specialist in renaissance English literature is perfectly well qualified to write a biography of a literary/historical figure from that era. With the recent interest of renaissance literary scholars in historical context, I'd say that English professors are perfectly well qualified to review the book, as well. A review of Nelson's book was published in the Renaissance Quarterly, which is an interdisciplinary literary/historical journal, although the reviewer (Andrew Barnaby) is indeed a professor of English. There's also a review in Sixteenth Century Journal, which is, again, an interdisciplinary journal. That historians have chosen not to review the book suggests mostly that Oxford is a figure of no particular interest to historians, rather than any particular evaluation of Nelson's book. This is all ridiculous, at any rate. You are a dedicated Oxfordian POV pusher, and your entire purpose here is simply to attack and delegitimize the work of those few mainstream scholars who have bothered to deal with your pet subject. This is not serious, and won't be serious no matter how many minor inconsistencies you find in Nelson's book. Go away and tend to your own website. Wikipedia is not for you. john k (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

John, thanks for the kind words. I've noticed the welcoming attitude from editors of this page, and it truly warms the heart. :-)

You wrote:

Any book will contain minor errors of the sort you are bringing up here.

Standards are certainly slipping in academia, then. :-) I hadn't expected to hear that sort of thing from someone with a Ph.D. But in fact, what you say is not true. Point me to a single historical work in which one could find this many errors of fact, transcription and citation (and that's not even taking into consideration errors of interpretation) within a few pages, and I might reconsider. Until then, I'll continue to hold the view that a book with this many errors within the first few pages doesn't fall within Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

John, I see you are a Wikipedia administrator, and on checking the Wikipedia administrator rules, I note the following:

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.

Does telling someone with expertise which could benefit a Wikipedia article to get lost fall within that definition? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that, after having dubbed John Golding a knight five times on p. 9, and having recorded his burial as an esquire in an endnote on p. 444, Alan has him as an esquire again on p.14:

The 16th Earl's second marriage is recorded in the parish register of St Andrew in the village of Belchamp St Paul's, Essex, under the year 1548:

The weddinge of my Lorde Ihon Devere Earle of Oxenforde and Margery the daughter of Ihon Gouldinge Esquier the firste of Auguste.

Is Alan's book reliable? Shouldn't an author with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (see Wikipedia policy statement) correct such inconsistencies before his book goes to press? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is an instance where Alan clearly does not know what he is talking about. Referring to the Protector Somerset's extortion of the 16th Earl's lands, Alan writes on p. 17:

The promise of marriage was enforced by a bond dated 26 February [1548], with a penalty of £6000; it was further enforced (but eventually reversed) by subsequent acts of Parliament.

Somerset's extortion against the 16th Earl was most certainly reversed by a 'subsequent Act of Parliament' (see HL/PO/PB/1/1551/5E6n35 on the Documents page of my website), but it was never 'enforced' by a 'subsequent Act of Parliament'. This is an error of major proportions. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another major error on the same topic. On p. 18 Alan writes:

The irregular circumstances of the 16th Earl's marriage help to explain the words of a sympathetic eighteenth-century historian:

Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, Protector of the Realm, out of his extreme avarice and greedy appetitie [sic] did under colour of justice convent before himself for certain criminal causes John Earl of Oxford and so terrify him that to save his life he was obliged to alienate to the said Duke by deed all his estates, lordships, castles, manors, &c.

On p. 446, Alan cites Louis Thorn Golding's An Elizabethan Puritan, p. 235, citing Morant, p. 293. When one checks Golding, p. 235, one finds this:

Morant's footnote, for which he gives no authority, is found in the second volume of his History of Essex, on p. 293. It reads as follows [Golding then quotes the passage I've just quoted above].

So what was Morant's source, unknown to L.T. Golding and to Alan Nelson? It was the very Act of Parliament which restored the 16th Earl's lands to him mentioned by Alan on p. 17! Here is the wording taken from the copy of the Act on my website (with a few words omitted to make comparison easier):

Where Edward, late Duke of Somerset, . . . Protector of all his Majesty’s realms, . . . of his extreme avarice & greedy appetite . . . under the colour of administration of justice, did convent before himself for certain supposed criminal causes John, Earl of Oxenford, one of the King’s most loving subjects, who personally appeared before the said Duke, and then the said Duke so circumvented and coerced the said Earl of Oxenford to accomplish the desire of the said Duke (though it were unconscionable), and used such comminations & threats towards him in that behalf that he, the Earl, did seal & subscribe with his own hand one counterpane of one indenture devised by the said Duke & his counsel bearing date the first day of February in the second year [=1 February 1548] of our said Sovereign Lord the King his reign made between the said Duke on the one party and the said Earl on the other party etc.

So what Alan calls 'the words of a sympathetic eighteenth-century historian' are really the words of the Act of Parliament which restored the 16th Earl's lands to him after Somerset's extortion! Alan obviously never looked at the Act of Parliament to which he refers on p. 17. Moreover where the Act uses the words 'supposed criminal causes', Alan, following Golding, writes 'criminal causes', thus turning what the Act of Parliament rejected into a fact. Major errors. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan ends Chapter 3 with yet another major error concerning the consequences of Somerset's extortion against the 16th Earl. On p. 19 he writes:

Somerset could threaten but not command the 16th Earl. In any case, he held power only until 1 October 1549; any residual hold was weakened with his execution in 1552 and terminated on 22 January 1553.

Leaving aside the amusing suggestion that his execution 'weakened' Somerset's hold on the 16th Earl :-), Alan is so vague here that the reader hasn't the faintest idea what he's talking about. As his authority for the vague statement that Somerset's hold 'terminated on 22 January 1553', Alan cites on p. 446:

Will of 1552 (settled by Parliament of 5-6 Edward VI); CPR, Edward VI, iv, pp. 376-7.

Once again Alan vaguely refers to that Act of Parliament which he apparently never set eyes on since he never gives a reference number for it, and did not recognize a direct paraphrase from it when he ran across it on p.235 of Louis Thorn Golding's An Elizabethan Puritan. Alan's second reference is to TNA C 66/848, which is available on the Documents page of my website. Alan's reference makes it clear that he hasn't researched this point any further than the Calendar of Patent Rolls. Yet Alan holds forth on this topic for several pages in his book, drawing conclusions right, left and center, without having looked at the original documents to determine what they actually say. Is Alan's book a reliable source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Further evidence that Alan never looked at that Act of Parliament he refers to so often. On p. 21 he writes:

On 21 December [1552] Oxford signed his second but first surviving will. Since Tudor wills were often deferred until death seemed imminent, he may have felt himself in mortal danger . . . .

If Alan had looked at that Act of Parliament he would have seen, among other provisions, the following:

Provided always and that it may be enacted by the authority aforesaid that the said now Earl by his last will & testament in writing sealed with his seal of arms & subscribed with his hand shall have full power & authority by virtue of this Act to assign, limit & appoint to his lawful wife overliving him for the term of her natural life to & for her jointure the manors, lands & tenements of Tilbury, Downham etc.

In other words, because Somerset's extortion had prevented the 16th Earl from settling a jointure on his wife for her to live on if she survived him, the Act of Parliament authorized the 16th Earl to do it via a will. Does Alan mention the obvious here, i.e. that one of the principal reasons the 16th Earl needed to make a will in 1552 was not that his life was in 'mortal danger', but rather that he needed to do it to provide a jointure for his wife? No. Is Alan's book a reliable source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Another instance involving the consequences of Somerset's extortion where Alan either doesn't know what he's talking about, or uses language so imprecisely that others can't possibly understand the facts correctly. On p. 21, Alan writes:

On 22 January 1553 the indenture of 1548 was revoked, thus voiding the requirement that Katherine [de Vere] must marry [Somerset's son], Henry, Lord Seymour.

The indenture was not 'revoked' by the letters patent of that date. The letters patent (TNA C 66/848 on my website) read, in my translation:

We give also & for the foresaid considerations by these presents we do grant to the said Earl of Oxford the foresaid bonds and the foresaid indentures & any of them at the will of the said Earl to be cancelled & annihilated.

In other words, the indentures, which had escheated to the Crown on Somerset's attainder, were granted to the 16th Earl by the King to do what he wanted with them (the only reasonable action being to destroy them). That is not at all the same thing as revocation of the indentures by the letters patent. Alan of course cites only the Calendar of Patent Rolls for this document, and obviously never looked at or translated the document itself. Is Alan's book a reliable source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

On p. 22 Alan makes an egregious error, confusing the 16th Earl's wife with Anne, Countess of Oxford, the widow of John de Vere, 14th Earl of Oxford. Alan writes:

Early in 1553 Countess Margery found herself in a skirmish over legal instruments establishing the jointure (or marriage settlement) of Margaret Arundel, sister of the unfortunate Catherine Howard and widow of the recently executed Sir Thomas Arundel. Northumberland addressed Lord Darcy and Sir William Cecil:

[The Countess of] Oxford, having almost finished her suits in the town, desired me to know what she should do touching Lady Arundel's jointure. She has received a letter from one of the council for its delivery to Lady Arundel. But although she is her niece and gave 500 marks to her marriage . . . .

The reference is clearly to the Countess of Oxford who was the widow of the 14th Earl of Oxford, was born a Howard, was the aunt of Lady Arundel, and was still alive in 1553. The reference is obviously not to the 16th Earl's wife, Countess Margery (nee Golding). Is Alan's book a reliable source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

On the face of it, it has all the attributes of a reliable source, but Nina's comments throw so much doubt on the scholarship of Alan H. Nelson of Berkeley that for now I should not choose to cite it myself. This throws up a conundrum for Wikipedians, as we have no mechanisms that I am aware of for judging the merits of sources. Indeed, if Wikipedia were to set itself up to stand in judgement on Professor Nelson, he and his peers would find it comical. I think for now the discrediting of academic works needs to be done elsewhere. Of course, where one of us can show from a primary source that a secondary source is wrong, challenging the statement rather than the credibility of a whole work, that is a proper way to deal with the problems a questionable work causes us. Once several such challenges have succeeded, a source is cited much less often by those who are aware of them. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable attitude. Using (published) primary sources like the Calendar, or other secondary sources, is fine if we want to cast down on a particular factual claim. No source is infallible, and if Nelson is wrong about specific points, we should not include them in the article. That does not mean that his book is not a reliable source. As Moonraker says, it is not Wikipedia's job to decide that a book by an academic at a reputable institution, published by a reputable academic press, is not a reliable source.

I will say that I strive in my own work to avoid errors of fact and interpretation, but I've read too many books by reputable historians that make significant errors of this sort just on issues where I happen to know that they are wrong to have any illusions that even the best book is going to contain errors, and often many errors. If you go through any scholarly work with a fine-toothed comb, as Nina is doing, and check every footnote against its sources, as Nina is also doing, you're probably going to find sloppiness. This seems like a repetition, in miniature, of the David Abraham affair, except that the role of Turner and Feldman is here being played by an Oxfordian with a website. The errors Nina has been pointing to seem to, for the most part, be minor errors of chronology and the like. Nelson makes some errors about when things have happened. He misidentifies people, getting genealogical details wrong, and so forth. This is all unfortunate. Where Nelson can be shown to be in error with other reliable sources, we should not repeat his mistakes. But such mistakes are an inevitable part of the process of archival research, as numerous eminent historians noted in defense of Abraham way back when. None of the errors Nina has pointed to seem material. They are all minor errors of detail, or minor mischaracterizations of sources. One of the errors is an error of indexing! It is unfortunate that Nelson makes these errors, but they do not in any way discredit his work. Furthermore, why should we take Nina's word for all this? She blatantly has an axe to grind with "Alan" here, and we should not be using a wikipedia talk page as a forum for somebody to denigrate the work of a well-respected scholar they disagree with. Nelson is, so far as I can gather, the only mainstream academic biographer of the seventeenth earl. His work was considered reputable enough that he is the author of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Oxford. It is simply absurd for wikipedia editors to decide that his work is not reliable on the basis of some unsubstantiated minor errors pointed out by an axe-grinding Oxfordian. If Nelson is not a reliable source, then there are no reliable sources on Oxford. Any further discussion of this is a waste of time. Nelson is a reliable source, full stop. If Nina wants to point out, with published sources, specific instances in which this article follows Nelson into an error, that is fine. But simply going through the book to find minor errors in order to generally impugn his credibility is a waste of everyone's time, and is [[WP:FORUM|not what wikipedia talk pages are for]. Perhaps I was harsh in the wording of my earlier email, but the kind of business Nina has been engaging in in this section and elsewhere on this topic is not appropriate for wikipedia, and should not be tolerated. john k (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

John, don't take my word for it. You have a Ph.D. in history. If you can find anything I've said about the errors in Alan's book on this discussion page to be inaccurate, point it out. And most of the errors in Alan's book are not immaterial, despite your attempts to minimize them. Going on at length about an Act of Parliament one has never laid eyes on and drawing all sorts of erroneous conclusions about it is not an immaterial error, for example. It makes me wonder what you would consider a material error. Perhaps you could provide an example. But you're right about one thing. You wrote:

If Nelson is not a reliable source, then there are no reliable sources on Oxford.

The fact of the matter is that there aren't any books on Oxford which are totally reliable. Ward is the best of the lot, but he's almost a century out of date. Many new documents have been located since Ward turned up the bulk of the documents about Oxford many decades ago. But not everything in the article has to be sourced to a book about Oxford. Other sources which contain reliable information and which can be cited in the article include the Calendars of State Papers,the Calendar of Patent Rolls, Emmison's Feet of Fines etc. And Ward's, Nelson's and Pearson's book can be cited for certain things. It's a matter of fact-checking. And co-operation. More than anything, it's a matter of putting aside prejudices dragged in from the authorship controversy. This article isn't about the authorship controversy, and contrary to what you've said, I'm not the slightest bit interested in dragging the authorship controversy into this article. I have no axe to grind whatever, although I'm not sure the same can be said about you. This article is about the facts of Oxford's life, not about the authorship controversy. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, maybe we got off on the wrong foot. I apologize for being rude to you and I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are trying to make this article better. It's hard to see someone who appears to be heavily invested in the authorship controversy, as you seem to be, going on at extreme lengths about minor factual errors in the only academic biography of Oxford, and not think that this is an authorship controversy axe-grinding. But perhaps this is unfair - you don't seem to edit wikipedia much outside of this article, so maybe you aren't really aware of how our policies work and such. It might be a good idea for you to review the relevant wikipedia policies on original research and reliable sources. Both are terms of art on wikipedia that don't necessarily mean what a plain English reading might suggest. We are not looking for sources that are "totally reliable". That is impossible (even the best source will not be right about everything), and is not what the term means. A reliable source means, well, at best what Nelson's book is - a well-reviewed work by a prominent scholar, published by an academic press, about the subject of the article. Our article shouldn't simply be a précis of Nelson - if there are other reliable sources on Oxford, we should use those as well, and it's fine to check sources like the Calendars to see if our secondary sources have made errors (at least in my view - other people seem to have stricter views on that). But the article should not be based on synthesizing primary materials (which the Calendars are, in this case). Wikipedia forbids "original research" which means that it's not our job to synthesize an account of Oxford's life on the basis of published primary sources. That does mean that our article can only be as good as the sources that exist on Oxford's life, of whom Nelson, whatever his errors may be, is the most prominent. But that is inevitable. It simply isn't the job of a wikipedia article to break new ground. If the editors of the ODNB saw fit to hire Nelson to write their article on the earl, it's hard to see how the far, far less reputable reference source we are all doing our best to improve here can then go out and reject Nelson's book as a source for the article. Whatever the flaws of the sources may be, they are the sources we have, and this article has to be mostly based on them, and not on our own primary research. If this doesn't appeal to you, then, as I said before, wikipedia probably isn't the place for you. The reliance on secondary sources can be frustrating, but it's a basic principle, and absolutely necessary to insure that wikipedia doesn't get filled up with half-baked quackery invented by wikipedia editors. As I said, if there is a specific instance where we go wrong following Nelson, I think it's fine to use published primary sources to show that he is wrong, and remove the particular error. But going after the work as a whole, or insisting the article should be written primarily based on primary documents, is not going to work. john k (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is in fact an active choice for Wikipedia, that if all the reliable secondary sources are wrong (even if demonstrably so) then Wikipedia's treatment of a subject will also be wrong to the same degree. If Nelson is wrong in any particular, then the place to correct him is with an article in a scholarly journal, or a book published on a university press (i.e. somewhere it will be subject to peer-review). Specifically, the errors pointed out above appear to be the kind of stuff that can be the basis for one or more articles in a scholarly journal; those articles can then be pointed out on this talk page; and the other editors of the page can then consider using them as citations (the Conflict of Interest policy effectively prevents citing your own articles, no matter how reliable). This also means that pointing out errors in Nelson here is rather unproductive (it's effectively just ranting); the energy might more productively be put into pointing out errors in this article, that are sourced to Nelson and suggesting a better secondary source (note well, it must be a secondary source; we cannot cite a fact in an article to a primary source if a secondary source exists and disagrees, as that would fall under the original research policy).
Nina: I'm jumping in from the sidelines here, but to me it seems that you could be a tremendous asset to the project and a great contributor to this article; except right now you seem to be intent on fighting the system rather than working within it. Your disagreement appears to me to be with what Wikipedia is and its policies (in which case, the talk page for this single article is not the place to discuss it); and for your contributions to be constructive you will need to understand these limitations and be willing to work within them. Specifically, would it help you to know that Wikipedia's policies are in part designed to prevent an enthusiastic fourteen-year-old from Boise who has seen Shakespeare in Love from writing an article on Oxford based solely on the portrayal of the character in the film? Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, there are no checks of academic credentials, and hence we cannot accept original research; nor can we counter what the actual academics say about a subject. At best we can be selective about which secondary sources we cite, but even there we have limits (if academics disagree, we must present both versions).
The problem isn't with the quality or extent of your research; the problem is the fact that you came by the knowledge through original research rather than through reading someone else's book. PS. If you want help with understanding Wikipedia's policies we're all willing to help; but you do have to want to understand, otherwise this will never achieve anything. --Xover (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that even if we accept that every instance of error pointed out by Nina is in fact an error, then Nelson is still 99 percent correct. I don't have one book on my shelf that is error-free, and that includes Chambers, Schoenbaum, and Wells. To compare Nelson with Ward is like comparing Schoenbaum with Ireland.

I have several times suggested that Nina take her complaints to WP:RS, but she seems to be not listening. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Original Research vs Primary Sources

I've started a new thread, after having read the comments at the end of the last thread, because I think what's at the root of the problem here is a misunderstanding of what constitutes 'original research' in Wikipedia-speak, and what Wikipedia's policy is on primary sources. I've read both policies. Original research, according to Wikipedia, is something for which there is no source. That's important because every fact we need to include in the Edward de Vere article has a source. That source is ultimately a primary source document. In some cases there is a reliable secondary source as well, but the important point to keep in mind in that for every fact we need to include in the article there is a primary source. Wikipedia policy does not forbid the use of primary sources, as has so often been erroneously stated on this Discussion page. Wikipedia policy states that primary sources are to be used with care. Well, we can be careful. We can first try to ascertain whether there's a reliable secondary source for the fact we want to use in the article, and if so, we can use it. If there isn't a reliable secondary source, then we can cite the primary source document, which will in almost every instance be a document in the collections of the National Archives or British Library, two highly-respected institutions. Agreed? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"I think what's at the root of the problem here is a misunderstanding of what constitutes 'original research' in Wikipedia-speak, and what Wikipedia's policy is on primary sources."

I agree, but the misunderstanding is on your part, not ours.

I'll let somebody else try to explain it to you. Apparently you refuse to read WP:RS and WP:OR, to which I have referred you several times. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There is certainly no rule against the use of primary sources per se. So you are right about that. What we cannot do is use primary sources to reach a new conclusion or defend a position. As is the case with all such rules, there will, of course, be grey areas. There's alaways a degree of uncertainty about where primary sources end and secondary ones begin. Also primary sources can themselves be wrong. What we cannot do is use primary sources to argue against reliable secondary sources. If you have a primary source that says "Sir John O'Baloney fought against the Spanish Armada" that does not disprove a secondary source that says Sir John spent the whole time drunk in a tavern. Yes, the secondary source may be be wrong; on the other hand the author may have good reason to say that the primary source is false. But we can't adjudicate on the basis of the primary source. Also we cannot draw conclusions from primary sources that go beyond the basic facts. For instance I have just removed a sentence from the entry on the composer Ernest Fanelli which stated that an article about him was published on April 1 and so may be a practical joke. [1]. That's called "synthesis". Two facts (the article's content and the date) are combined to create a conclusion (the content is a joke). Again, it is difficult to to draw the line between simple reading and synthesis, but we have to try to avoid it rather that try to get round the rules to achieve it. Paul B (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nina: In an everyday sense the word "reliable" can be taken to mean, for example, "likely to be correct or true". On Wikipedia the word has a quite distinct, and much more specific, meaning (see WP:SOURCES). It is possible for a source to be reliable (in the Wikipedia sense) without being reliable (in the sense "likely to be correct or true"). Please consult WP:V and WP:IRS if this feels at all strange, confusing or peculiar. Gabbe (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me just quote from the Wikipedia policy page on sources:

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources.

Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia contains no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose.

Primary sources, are sometimes difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.

This brings me back to the position I stated above. We can use primary sources for facts in the article for which no reliable secondary source exists. But we have to be careful. So can we proceed on that basis? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"We can use primary sources for facts in the article for which no reliable secondary source exists."

NO, YOU CANNOT!!! From WP:PRIMARY:

Policy: , 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. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

IN OTHER WORDS no, you cannot use your own transcriptions of records written in Latin, and you can't quote them directly because that is specialist knowledge, and you can't quote the Calendar of Patent Rolls because those are primary records also that were created at the same time the rolls were engrossed, and besides that reliable secondary sources exist for the information that should be included in this article.

This discussion started to sound like a broken record long ago. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you not read cite passages as quote? It would seem, Tom, from the rule you cite above that quoting the Calendar of Patent Rolls (which I think is a publication), where it is in English, without further elaboration, is completely fine. "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" End off.20:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the only fact you want to source directly to the CPR is included in Alan Nelson's book in which he directly quotes the source, and his only error is in citation. Since that fact is cited in a secondary source, i.e. Nelson, that is where this article should source the fact. As I suggested above, a note could be included with the correct primary cite, as per this opinion which I referenced above, with the comment the comment, “Many sources contain errors. They are still reliable, though we try not to reproduce the errors. We rely on the good sense of editors to keep out the errors as best we can.” "Good sense" is a key requirement here, which seems lacking, as evinced by running a discussion into 150 kbs by virtually repeating the same complaint ad nauseum. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote above:

you can't quote the Calendar of Patent Rolls because those are primary records also that were created at the same time the rolls were engrossed

What on earth are you talking about? I have a volume of the Calendar of Patent Rolls in front of me as I type this. It's for the years 1580-1582 of Queen Elizabeth's reign, and was published in London by Her Majesty's Stationary Office in 1986, i.e. 24 years ago. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, What on earth are you talking about? A primary source does not stop being primary because it got published. Julius Caesar is still a primary source on the Gallic Wars, even though we can all consult his book about published by Penguin. This discussion would be a lot easier if you would not argue in generalities but say what you want to add sourced to what contemporary documents. Then we can discuss whether or not it constitutes WP:SYN. Paul B (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that Nina is right and I was wrong on this, and for that I apologise. I have been under the misapprehension for years that the CPR is an abstract of the royal correspondence that was written down at the same time as the correspondence it calendared. In fact, they were abstracted and calendared in chronological order from the original rolls beginning in the 19th century, so it appears that they can indeed be used in a limited way, because while they are secondary sources in relation to the rolls themselves, they still are primary sources as far as their use in this article, and no "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" claims can be made from them, which severely limits their use even on matters of fact.

For example, to use the entry in question as a ref:

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

the most you would be able to say is something along the lines of:

Oxford was granted licence to enter his hereditary lands 30 May 1572, effective from the time he attained the age of 21.

No explanations or interpretations of that fact could be included. Any such interpretation requires a reliable secondary source. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The way you've worded the statement and sourced it sounds fine. Should we add it? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we need to eliminate the number 3159. Those numbers pertain only to the chronological numbering within the volume of the Calendar of Patent Rolls itself. All that's needed is CPR, 1569-72, p. 450. Nina Green

All very good. Generally, there is still a specific relevant use for the volume doc numbering, because many such references could be piped as links to free sites like British History on-line, where text is there, still located with the calendar document numbers, but the page numbers are not. This is rather nice thing to do since a casual wikipedia reader could be introduced to these published primaries, and I am sure it's agreed this project is a didactic exercise. (Of course, many (?most) secondaries reference the doc number rather than the page number as habit) And a more controversial suggestion; in this case, where the pub. prim. is then made readily available by links it ought to be permissable to massage the 'quote' for the article, if it were couched in obscure terms, to make it accessible? I say this particularly because there isn't a WP-middle Scots as yet.Unoquha (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any policy or guideline that prohibits it. I'm not sure how to format the ref so the link will work using CPR, but I'll see what I can work up. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the ref as PRO 1966, so the link will go to the ref using the Harvard no bracket template. The refs need to be cleaned out of all the authorship sources left as fossils from the old version: Matus, Shapiro, etc. What they cite now is better cited from other sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I see you've added it in the references section. Are you now going to insert the one-line statement you drafted above into the article itself? I think it should replace this sentence in the article:

On his coming of age on 12 April 1571, he was, technically, freed of Burghley's control, and entitled to an income of £666

The foregoing statement is inaccurate on two counts. Firstly, Oxford wasn't freed from the control of the Court of Wards until he was licenced to enter on his lands. That's why it's so important that we have a source for the exact date on which Oxford had finished the process of suing his livery and was granted licence to enter on his lands. The suing of livery was all about gaining independence from the Court of Wards, and a ward wasn't free from the control of the Court of Wards until he was granted licence to enter on his lands. Also, I think whoever wrote the line above for the article misinterpreted the £666 13s 4d [=1000 marks] which Oxford was granted under his father's will as annual 'income' of £666. It wasn't annual income from Oxford's lands. It was a lump sum bequeathed to him under his father's will. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're now getting into interpretation instead of a flat statement of fact. I would recommend working up a well-sourced paragraph about Oxford suing his livery and then using that drafted sentence to end it with. I'm not all that conversant with Oxford's biography, but I do know that a straight-forward account of his life would be most welcome. My understanding is that you and Nishidani were going to cooperate on that when he returns in February.

It seems to me that the article should be divided into his early life, his wardship and education, his travels, his life at court and subsequent fall, his family life including his relationship with Burghley, his patronage and his writing, and his later years and death. It is now very episodic with no shape to it at all, bouncing back and forth between unrelated events. It also needs to get rid of the editorialising, such as quoting opinions ("in the eyes of one biographer", etc.). Just a bare-bones chronological narrative would be a good start. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not getting into interpretation. It's just that we've run into more of Alan's errors. Whoever edited the article lifted several statements from p. 70 of Alan's book, including the statement that when Oxford came of age he was 'technically free from Burghley's control'. By 'Burghley's control', Alan can only mean the Court of Wards, of which Burghley was Master, but coming of age did not release a ward from wardship. A ward was only released from wardship after he had successfully sued his livery and been granted licence by the Queen to enter on his lands and receive the income from them, sell them, lease them, or whatever (see Hurstfield). That's why it's so important that we have the date and an accurate source for when Oxford had sued his livery and been licenced to enter on his lands, which was on 30 May 1572, over a year after he came of age on 12 April 1571. Alan is at his weakest when discussing Oxford's wardship and finances. He doesn't seem to understand the basics of the wardship system, and he admits he relied on Daphne Pearson for Oxford's finances. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Edits

If no-one objects, I'd like to make a few minor edits to the article. The first would be to move the second and third paragraphs out of the lede (do I have that word right?) to other sections of the article. It seems disjointed to have that information in the lede and then to pick up the same topics again later in the article. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The lede, or lead if you prefer, should be a summary of the rest of the article; so of necessity (by design) it repeats information given in the rest of the article. In fact, one should explicitly not include information in the lede that is not already covered in the article. You can find more information in: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). Generally it is best to finish the article and then to write or update the lede afterwards, rather than try to keep them in sync as you go; but that's just a practical consideration and not something governed by a style manual or policy or similar. --Xover (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Another suggestion would be to move this sentence out of the opening paragraph since it belongs to Oxford's life while he was a ward:

An early taste for literature is evident from in his purchases of books by Chaucer, Plutarch (in French), Cicero, perhaps Francesco Guicciardini (in Italian) and Plato (probably in Latin) in 1570.

Any objections? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the line I suggested should be moved is very similar to a line in Alan's article on Oxford in the DNB.

Here's the line from the article we're editing:

An early taste for literature is evident from in his purchases of books by Chaucer, Plutarch (in French), Cicero, perhaps Francesco Guicciardini (in Italian) and Plato (probably in Latin) in 1570.

Here's the line from Alan's article in the DNB:

An early taste for literature is evidenced in his purchases of books by Chaucer, Plutarch (in French), Cicero, and Plato (probably in Latin).

That seems a bit too close for comfort, and it's not the only line in the article we're editing which is very similar to lines in Alan's DNB article. Is there a Wikipedia policy on how directly other sources can be copied into articles? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

From WP:COPYVIO:"If there's substantial linguistic similarity ... [it] should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues ... the infringing content should be removed." It does seem to be a clear case of "too close for comfort", but the original post (as identified by wikiblame) did actually attribute to Alan Nelson. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that information. Much appreciated.

I think it would improve the article to move the sentence to its chronological place in Oxford's life, as suggested above. As the sources indicate, these books were purchased while he was a ward. Any objections? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that with a paraphrase, to move us away from the copyvio discomfort? --Old Moonraker (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

By the by, that sentence seems to me to cast more doubt on Nelson's thought processes... "An early taste for literature is evidenced in his purchases of books by Chaucer, Plutarch (in French), Cicero, and Plato (probably in Latin)..." In the 16th century (and far later than that) the buying of books by rich men was hardly ever evidence of a taste for the authors. It's just as likely that to Oxford they were books no nobleman should be without. Nelson needs to catch the meaning of "evidence". Moonraker2 (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"In the 16th century (and far later than that) the buying of books by rich men was hardly ever evidence of a taste for the authors." Cite? My impression from reading Puttingham is that the idea of an educated nobleman was one that came into fashion in the Elizabethan era. Before then prowess at arms was the chief status symbol. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I moved the sentence to the section dealing with events during Oxford's wardship, removing the 'copyvio discomfort' in the process, changed the citation to Ward, who has a detailed list of these and other purchases by the Court of Wards for Oxford, and substituted 'In May 1564' for the claim that Trogus Pompeius was published 'While de Vere was in Cambridge'. The citation for the latter is Nelson, p. 43, but on that page it says that Trogus Pompeius was published 'in the same year' that Oxford was granted an honorary degree in Cambridge, not that it was published while Oxford was briefly there in August 1564 to receive the degree. If other editors don't like the changes, let me know and I'll revert them. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina I changed "nineteen" to "19" as per WP:STYLE and fixed the ref, as well as providing a transition from the previous sentence and cutting the unnecessary detail of the records origin. All refs should conform to the Harvard no brackets template, which is easy enough to get from the examples.

IMO you don't need to check every edit on the discussion page before editing. WP has a bold edit, revert, discuss cycle that encourages bold editing as long as it conforms to policy, but it's also good to be cautious on an article that has been as contentious as this one. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those things up. I'll put the next few proposed edits on the Discussion page just to see how things go. We don't need any more revert wars. :-) Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The Early Life section began with Oxford's baptism. I've preceded that with a statement about his parents and siblings. It seems important to mention Katherine at the outset, as she challenged his legitimacy a few years later. Again, if other editors want to delete it, let me know and I'll take it out. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the pages in The Complete Peerage which cover the lives of Oxford and his father, the 16th Earl. The Complete Peerage is a reliable secondary source, and its detailed footnotes reference many primary source documents. I've cited The Complete Peerage for Oxford's birthdate in the paragraph above because it references the 16th Earl's inquisition post mortem, which is the most reliable source for Oxford's birthdate and isn't mentioned by either Ward or Nelson. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've now added a section on the challenge to Oxford's legitimacy by his half-sister, Katherine. I've cited Alan as the source for this because he at least comments on Louis Thorn Golding's mistranslation of the phrase 'minorem quatuordecem annorum', although Alan mistakenly attributes the error to Arthur Golding. The phrase means 'less than fourteen years of age', not 'a minor of fourteen years', as Louis Thorn Golding mistranslated it. Unfortunately Alan adds an error of his own, stating that the petition was brought by Katherine's husband, Lord Windsor, when the translation Alan provides states that it was Katherine herself who brought the petition.

Again, if any editors of this page have a problem with this addition to the article, please let me know. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted this sentence from the article:

Oxford never spoke of his step-father thereafter except contemptuously.

This is the sort of generalization which would be difficult to substantiate under any circumstances, and Ward doesn't substantiate it at all. On p. 30 Ward writes:

. . . .the fact remains that never in after years did Lord Oxford mention his stepfather other than contemptuously.

Ward gives no examples of Oxford's comments concerning his stepfather, and there are no footnotes referring readers to Ward's sources, if he had any. The only thing I've ever seen which might give the slightest credence to Ward's assertion is Charles Arundel's allegation that after his death Charles Tyrrell appeared to Oxford with a whip 'which had made a better show in the hand of a carman than of Hob Goblin'(see Nelson, p. 58). It's not at all clear that the comment about the whip making a better show in the hand of a carman isn't Arundel's own comment, and even if it isn't, it's certainly not sufficient support for Ward's categorical statement above. I think it improves the article to delete the sentence. However if other editors object, I'll put it back in. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a source and date for the statement in the article that Oxford took his seat in the House of Lords. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the words 'and he responded with a Latin poem to his wife etc.' from this statement in the article:

His wife Anne had, in the meantime, given birth to their daughter Elizabeth, conceived in Hampton Court in October 1574, on July 2, 1575.[54] The news reached Oxford in late September 1575, and he responded with a Latin poem to his wife, auguring that henceforth she would bear him a male heir.

Ward (pp. 107-8) and Nelson (p. 130) state that the original copy of the verses is no longer extant, and only a copy survives. Although Ward and Nelson speculate that Oxford might have been the author, he is referred to in the verses in the third person, which suggests rather strongly that someone else wrote them. I think it improves the article to remove speculative material of this sort. If other editors disagree, the statement can be restored. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted this speculative statement:

Edward de Vere, like most children of his class, was raised by surrogate parents.

The statement in the article was sourced to Nelson 2003, p. 34, but Nelson himself offers no source, and since documentary records of Oxford's life until his father's death are a complete blank apart from his matriculation at Cambridge, the statement appears to be completely speculative. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A minor edit. I added a link to the Wikipedia article on Arthur Golding. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've made several changes to the Early Life section which include joining the two separate paragraphs on Oxford at Cecil House into one, moving the paragraph on Margery Golding's remarriage to the end of the section, adding Hurstfield's book on the Court of Wards to the References, and deleting this erroneous sentence from the article:

His wardship lasted until 1571, when he maintained his majority.

As the earlier detailed discussion indicates, and Hurstfield's book supports entirely, wardship ended only after a ward had sued his livery, which didn't happen until after Oxford had turned 22, and was granted licence by the Queen on 30 May 1572 to enter on his lands. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

More Edits

I've started a new section, as the previous one was getting rather long.

I've edited the paragraph on Oxford's honourary degrees, adding the number of other noblemen and guests who were granted them along with Oxford, and deleting Alan's pejorative 'unearned' and substituting 'honorary'. As the lists on pp. 42 and 45 of Alan's book show, Leicester, Sussex, Warwick, Rutland, Clinton, Hunsdon, Burghley, Lord Admiral Howard and others received these honorary degrees along with Oxford. No historian writing a biography of any of these persons would pejoratively term these degrees 'unearned'. A historian would term them 'honorary', which is what they were. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've revised the paragraph on Oxford's tutors prior to his father's death. It now reads:

Oxford's earliest tutor was Thomas Fowle, a former fellow of St John's College, Cambridge, to whom the 16th Earl granted an annuity on 4 May 1558 'for service done & to be done in teaching Edward Vere, my son, Viscount Bulbeck'. In November of that year, Oxford matriculated as an impubes or fellow-commoner of Queen's College, Cambridge. His name disappears from the college registers in March 1559, and he did not receive a BA with his classmates in Lent 1562. Oxford was also tutored by Sir Thomas Smith and resided for a time in Smith's household. The evidence as to when Oxford resided with Smith is unclear, however, and Smith was not among those granted annuities by the 16th Earl.

I've cited Nelson and Pearson. The only liberty I've taken is in adding the words 'done and to be done' to Alan's translation on p.25. Alan quotes the Latin on p. 447, but even there he doesn't add the Latin words for 'done and to be done', but they're clearly there in the transcript of WARD 8/13 on his website, and they're also in the 16th Earl's inquisition post mortem (TNA C 142/136/12). Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the bull by the horns and revised the statement concerning Oxford's inherited income, leaving the citation which was already there to Christopher Paul's article. The line now reads:

Oxford was heir to an annual income assessed at approximately £2200, although he was not entitled to the revenues from the estates comprising his mother's jointure until after her death in 1568 nor to the revenues from certain estates set aside to pay his father's debts until 1583.

Despite what Daphne Pearson says in her book, these are the facts, supported by all the extant documents without exception. Hopefully other editors will agree to let this revision stand. It makes no sense to cite Pearson when she is so wrong on this vital point. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the statement that Sir Thomas Smith was part of the 16th Earl's circle (in the first paragraph under Early Life). The statement was unsourced, and while it might be true, I've seen no evidence of it. If someone has evidence for the statement, I'll put it back in. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the duelling endnotes citing Ward's and Alan's interpretations of Laurence Nowell's letter to Cecil on the ground that the reader can make up his/her own mind.205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Moonraker for encouraging me again to get a user account. I just did, but I hadn't activated it via e-mail before signing the message above. 205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I obviously still don't have the hang of signing messages. I'll try it again. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Added 16th Earl's support for Queen Mary to beginning paragraph, and David Loades as source. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What to accept. What to delete.

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

I posted this a couple of weeks ago. It's one thing for the proponents of the traditional point of view to edit out evidence supporting De Vere as the author. It's one thing for them to ignore and destroy solid evidence by earnest scholars in their effort to snuff out opposing points of view. But when they delete discussion sections that do not support their view, they do too far.

The problem with Nelson's book is that he ignores any of the overwhelming similarities between De Vere's life and the "Shakespearean" plays, but this is the scholar to go to for the Stratfordians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.5.24 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The 'earnest scholars' in question are, for the most part, not scholars at all, but amateurs, journalists or sensation mongers. There is, in contrast, a vast mass of real scholarship in support of the traditional attribution. As for your claim that if the plays had been published anonymously, Oxford would be considered the most likely author, I seriously doubt that, as there is no actual evidence at all. It's all speculation based on the biographical fallacy. BTW, perhaps you should read the many books showing how the plays are closely related to the lives of the Earl of Derby and/or Francis Bacon. Paul B (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There's almost nothing in terms of scholarship in support of the traditional attribution. There's plenty of speculation. This kind of scholarship speculates on what Shaksper must have done, read, seen or been to assuming he is the author. It's a circular argument. The traditional candidate did not speak English of the kind used in London. He makes no mention of his plays or writings in his will. He never left England. His children seem to have been illiterate. Just one example in support of De Vere is that he traveled to Italy and visited all the cities mentioned in the "Merchant of Venice." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.11.245 (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The scholarship is very detailed. Maybe you should read some actual books on Elizabethan literature. The way Shakespeare's works are attributed to him is exactly that same way that other poetry and prose is attributed. The speculations of biographers have nothing whatever to do with attribution. Attribution is not made by looking for someone whose life story can be mapped onto a series of fictional narratives, otherwise we'd be attributing the films of Ridely Scott not to a provincial bloke from South Shields, but to a time-travelling alien. We have no idea whether or not Shakespeare left England. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. He didn't visit ancient Rome either. You don't have to visit a place to set a play in it. The locations are generally simply copied from the sources. Do you think Webster had to visit Amalfi to write The Duchess of Malfi, or Marlowe had to visit Malta to write The Jew of Malta? BTW, the Earl of Derby also travelled round Europe. He's a far more sensible candidate, if you need one, since he didn't die in 1604. As for Shakespeare's will, wills don't typically mention "plays or writings" [2]. Why should they? Wills are for disposing of assets. Manuscripts were not assets. It's not as if his heirs would get royalties. There is a lot of scholarship on contemporary wills you can check for comparison. Paul B (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Still More Edits

It seems someone added a sentence or two to the beginning of the lede today. I want to make clear that it wasn't me. Also, I'm still having a problem with signing my postings. Help, anyone? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I figured it out. I have to log in first, which I just did. NinaGreenNinaGreen (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted these two sentences from the article:

In later years Burghley was to upbraid Oxford frequently for his prodigal extravagance. However he allowed de Vere to spend upwards of £1,000 per annum during the wardship: his tailor's bills alone, from the age of 12 to 16, totalled some £600.

The sentences are sourced to Ward, p. 31, but there are a number of problems with them, and I think the easiest thing is to delete them for the time being because they interrupt the flow of the Early Life section as it now stands, and put something on the topic back into the article later.

The first problem is that although Ward states that Lord Burghley frequently upbraided Oxford in later years for his prodigal extravagance, Ward provides no source, and I've never seen any evidence to that effect. The second problem is that the second sentence above is a misreading of Ward. Ward said 'Lord Burghley allowed his ward to spend about £1000 a year, expressed in terms of modern money, on his clothes', which is a very different thing from the statement above that Lord Burghley allowed Oxford to spend £1000 of Elizabethan money a year during his wardship. NinaGreen (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm moving blocks of text around and changing some of the headings to try to give some chronological structure to the article, and am losing track of some of the changes I've made in terms of reporting them here. However they're all chronicled in the editing History, so if any of the other editors of this page object to anything, please let me know. Some of the changes include shortening the report of Brinknell's death and deleting the reference to Charles Tyrrell being one of the six sons of Sir Thomas Tyrrell discussed earlier on this page. I've sourced the latter to The Complete Peerage, which made the error in the first place, and readers can go look it up there if they wish. There's no need for an error to appear in this article just because it's an error someplace else (or so I feel, anyway). NinaGreen (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added more material on Oxford's requests for foreign service in 1569-70 and the May 1571 tournament in which he participated in May 1571, and have toned down the necromancy section (for which there is little support apart from Alan's heated rhetoric). I've also added numerous links to other Wikipedia articles as I've gone along. If any of the editors of this page have objections to anything I've done so far, please let me know.205.250.205.73 (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully one of the editors of this page can help with this. After I had finished work on the article yesterday evening, at 11:28 p.m. an unidentified editor, using the address 218.186.9.227, reverted quite a lot of my work without placing any comments on the Discussion page. Is there anything that can be done? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Revert Wars

I placed this at the end of the last thread, but having had no response, I thought I'd start a new thread:

Hopefully one of the editors of this page can help with this. After I had finished work on the article yesterday evening, at 11:28 p.m. an unidentified editor, using the address 218.186.9.227, reverted quite a lot of my work without placing any comments on the Discussion page. Is there anything that can be done? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in revert wars, but apparently some anonymous editor, using the IP address 218.186.9.227, does want to engage in them. Is there anything which can be done to stop this, or at least to require the person in question to place possible reverts on the Discussion page before taking action? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you logged in consistently under your user name. It makes it less confusing trying to follow which edits are yours and which are thouse of other individuals. That's one good reason for having a user name. It makes it easier for other editors to spot potentially problematic edits. Paul B (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see 218.186.9.227 has made one edit to this article which did not undo any of your work [3]. The IP merely added a qualifier to a wholly unacceptable sentence added by IP 71.191.5.24.[4] Paul B (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I just set up an account yesterday, and haven't gotten used to logging in, but I'll get on it. I really can't figure out who made some rather large edits to my work about 11:30 yesterday evening, but since it seems to be a mystery, I'll go ahead and restore what I'd done if there are no objections from other editors. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence that your edits were undone by anyone at that time (or any other time that day). Perhaps you accidentally pressed the preview button instead of the save button or the session data was lost, which can happen if you have the edit pane open for too long. Paul B (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I'm not experienced at figuring out who edited what, but someone looked at the sequence of edits for me and said that it was your edit that removed quite a bit of the work I'd done. You were editing the lede, but somehow my work on the article went West as well. The only thing I'm interested in is getting back to where I was when I left off yesterday evening, and I'd like to do that without having to redo everything manually. Is there any way I can do that? NinaGreen (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's seems you are right. My edit did alter yours. I assure you that it was entirely accidental. I can restore your version, but in doing so all later edits you made will be lost. Paul B (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There were very few later edits, so I think I've restored your version with a few additions. Sorry about that. Paul B (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. NinaGreen (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, if you're the first to discover such an edit you should revert it. Editing on top of vandalism makes it more difficult to revert without deleting subsequent edits. Every Wikipedian has that responsibility, as Jack did with this edit. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

More Edits

I've done some further editing on Oxford's marriage, citing the usual secondary sources. However I've also added this paragraph on what it cost Oxford to sue his livery in order to regain possession of his lands, and the amounts of the bonds he had to enter into to guarantee payment of his debt to the Court of Wards (which in the end Oxford never paid; it was finally paid by the purchasers of his lands circa 1587). Here's the paragraph:

Although he had reached the age of majority and had married, Oxford was still not in possession of his inheritance. After suing his livery, Oxford was licenced to enter on his lands on 30 May 1572. However this privilege came at a price. The fines assessed against Oxford in the Court of Wards included £2000 for his wardship and marriage, £1257 18s 3/4d for his livery, and £48 19s 9-1/4d for mean rates, a total of £3306 17s 10d. To guarantee payment, Oxford entered into bonds to the Court of Wards totalling £11,000. Oxford's own bonds to the Court of Wards were in turn guaranteed by bonds to the Court of Wards in the amount of £5000 apiece entered into by two guarantors, John, Lord Darcy of Chiche, and Sir William Waldegrave. In return for these guarantees, Oxford entered into two statutes of £6000 apiece to Darcy and Waldegrave.

The only published source for this information is my article in Brief Chronicles, which I've cited. Both Daphne Pearson and Alan Nelson have either the figures themselves wrong, or they mis-state what the figures represent (and of course Alan openly admits that he relied on Daphne when it came to Oxford's finances).

If other editors want this paragraph removed, I'll take it out. The problem will be what to replace it with. NinaGreen (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Nina, Brief Chronicles is not considered a reliable source, as its policy states that it solicits "relevant original scholarship and essays that shed critical light on the Shakespeare canon and its authorship--particularly those written from an informed Oxfordian perspective", bringing WP:PARITY into play, which states "Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable."

As to a reliable source for the information, if none exists then it should not be included in the article. If the only error in those sources you cited is in the figures, then all of that blow-by-blow narrative you included (which really bogs it down for no purpose I can see) should be summarised instead of being minutely detailed. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand the difficulty concerning what is and what is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, and that the issue of meaningful peer review plays a large part in that determination. However my article is largely about legal issues, and one of the two peer reviewers of my article was a lawyer. He made some very helpful suggestions regarding some of the legal points, and I incorporated them into the article. So in this case, I think the peer review was meaningful, and actually of a high standard. And of course the article isn't about the authorship issue. It concerns Oxford's finances. Also, as I understand it, Brief Chronicles has been indexed by the MLA International Bibliography and the World Shakespeare Bibliography, which should go a considerable way towards its acceptance by Wikipedia as a reliable source. In addition, one of the articles in the first issue has also been accepted for publication in a reference text next spring.

You wrote above:

If the only error in those sources you cited is in the figures, then all of that blow-by-blow narrative you included (which really bogs it down for no purpose I can see) should be summarised instead of being minutely detailed.

Daphne Pearson wrote an entire book about what you've just said I should 'summarize'. I think I've done pretty well getting it down to one brief paragraph. :-) On a more serious note, the reason it's important to understand exactly how deeply in debt Oxford was to the Court of Wards, and what a tangled web of debt obligations he had to enter into, is that this all took place before Oxford ever had access to a penny of his inheritance. There is a wide misapprehension that Oxford was a profligate wastrel. Perhaps he was extravagant in some respects, but he didn't inherit a huge fortune by a nobleman's standards and he was saddled from the outset with a huge debt to the Court of Wards. If those facts aren't in the article, it will present a misleading picture of the causes of Oxford's eventual financial downfall by omitting some of the most salient facts.

I will take the paragraph out if it can't be agreed that Brief Chronicles is a reliable source, but it seems to me that where reliable sources are thin on the ground, and on some topics non-existent, Wikipedia could accept a source which represents minority opinion, as Wikipedia policy states it can do (I don't have the exact policy at hand to quote as I write this). NinaGreen (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, you say "one of the two peer reviewers of my article was a lawyer." Is this lawyer a specialist on legal matters of the Elizabethan/Jacobean era? If not I would suggest that he or she is not really a peer reviewer as normally understood. A mopdern doctor cannot usefully peer review an article on mediaeval medical practice (unless he/she happens also to have researched that subject). A modern chemist cannot meaningfully comment on alchemical practices of the Early Modern era. A modern chef cannot judge the historical accuracy of a book about cookery in ancient Rome. Modern specialists may be able to bring useful knowledge which would help to examine historical practices in the light of modern assumptions, but that's quite different from the role of a peer reviewer. Paul B (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I don't know his area of specialty. The peer review process is double-blind, so he didn't know whose article he was reviewing, and I didn't know who he was. But the process of legal reasoning is somewhat independent of specialty areas anyway, and one of its hallmarks is the critical appraisal of evidence. NinaGreen (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Brief Chronicles, in this case Nina Green's article "The Fall of the House of Oxford" in Vol. I (2009), lives not up to accepted standards of historical scholarship, quite apart from any WP:RS policy consideration. So there is no reason to trust her word more than e.g. Pearson or Nelson (in the latest post here, she even says that her article was not peer-revieved by an historian):

Nina Green's argument is that Oxford did not spend his money himself, but that his father was murdered by Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester and that his family fortune was purposefully destroyed by the same afterwards. Dudley's motives were poverty and revenge.

Brief Chronicles, Vol. I, p. 58:

More importantly, however, the attainder and execution of Northumberland and the imprisonment of his sons which resulted in part from the 16th Earl’s support of Mary sowed seeds of animosity toward the house of Oxford on the part of Northumberland’s son, Sir Robert Dudley (1533-1588) [Green ahistorically calls him thus; he was universally known troughout the 1550s and early 1560s as Lord Robert], later Earl of Leicester and Queen Elizabeth’s favorite. Although Sir Robert Dudley gave few overt signs of his enmity, it seems clear from his lifelong opposition to de Vere’s interests that he bore the house of Oxford a bitter and long-standing grudge.footnote 54: During the attempt to put his sister-in-law, Lady Jane Grey, on the throne, Sir Robert Dudley, then a young man of 19, worked alongside his father, John, Duke of Northumberland. On 19 July 1553 he proclaimed Jane as Queen at King’s Lynn. As a result of his part in the effort to supplant Queen Mary, Dudley was arrested in July 1553 and imprisoned in the Tower until the autumn of 1554 (see MacCullough, 254, 296, 341).

It is noteworthy that neither Green's text nor her footnote gives any source for the claim of enmity and "a bitter and long-standing grudge".

Brief Chronicles, Vol. I, p. 64:

Nonetheless, within two months, the 16th Earl was dead, and the suspicion cannot be avoided that Dudley, who was so extensively involved in all the 16th Earl’s affairs that summer, had some ominous foreknowledge of the 16th Earl’s death which the 16th Earl himself did not have. It is therefore revealing to step back and view these three legal documents from the perspective of Sir Robert Dudley’s financial position in 1562. Dudley was already the favorite and reputed lover of Queen Elizabeth. However, he was still a mere knight, and his finances were in dire straits.82 It is not an exaggeration to state that when the 16th Earl died on 3 August 1562, Robert Dudley was impecunious. The Dudley lands had been forfeited on his father the Duke of Northumberland’s attainder and execution, and although Robert Dudley and his brothers were restored in blood in the first Parliament after Queen Elizabeth’s accession in 1558, it was on condition that they surrender any claim to Northumberland’s lands and offices.

The parliament in question occurred in January 1558, under Mary I; thus it was not "Elizabeth's first parliament" which lifted the Dudley attainders. About Dudley's true financial situation between 1558-1562 please read, e.g., this paragraph from the ODNB by Dr. Simon Adams:

For Dudley's companionship Elizabeth was prepared to pay well—though not immediately. He was elected to the Order of the Garter on 24 April 1559 and installed on 3 June. In November he was appointed lieutenant of Windsor Castle (constable in February 1562). However, no great estates followed Kew. Instead she granted him a licence to export wool free of customs worth £6000 in 1560, a further licence together with an annuity from the customs of London worth £1000 in 1562, and then a similar licence to export cloth, worth £6666, in 1563. (Simon Adams, ‘Dudley, Robert, earl of Leicester (1532/3–1588)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2008 [5])

Brief Chronicles, Vol. I, p. 75-76:

The Queen put the core de Vere lands into the hands of her favorite Dudley, who by all accounts was precisely this third type of purchaser. Although there is little direct evidence of his stewardship of the core de Vere lands, the blistering criticism in Leicester’s Commonwealth concerning the practices by which he stripped lands of their assets and left them worthless137 renders it likely that the core de Vere lands were badly mismanaged during his minority, and that the officers put in place by Dudley served his interests, not those of the young de Vere. A particularly revealing example of Dudley’s rapaciousness which also illuminates his attitude towards the de Vere family is afforded by his callous treatment of the 16th Earl’s widow, Margery Golding, when at Michaelmas 1563 he denied her rent corn for her household from the tenants of Colne Priory.

Pearson, p. 29, referring to the administration of Oxford's lands during his wardship, writes: "His lands appear to have been well maintained, ..." Typically, the only "source" for backing Green's accusations is Leicester’s Commonwealth, which is not a source. Pearson, p. 24, sees Marjorie Golding's letter of complaint to Cecil in a completely different light; in contrast to Green, Pearson is a disinterested party as regards Leicester.

Green's principal argument, on which her case against Dudley rests, is disproved by Dudley's financial situation in 1560–1562, which her article ignores completely. Instead it distorts the picture by detailing his situation in 1554. Green's article contends that his situation hadn't changed since 1554, which is preposterous. The contention (without citing any evidence whatsoever) that he acted out of revenge carries no conviction, since some of his best friends were people who had betrayed his father in July 1553, for example William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke and his son, Henry Herbert, 2nd Earl of Pembroke. Dudley also regarded William Cecil as a friend. Yet, the elder Pembroke and Cecil were much more important in deciding the issue between Mary and Lady Jane Grey in 1553 than the Earl of Oxford. And Dudley never revenged himself on the Earl of Arundel, the most important of them all.

Green's methods in her accusation of Dudley consist entirely of insinuation, suppressing evidence about Dudley's financial situation between 1555–1562, as well as complete disregard of political context (e.g., the potential attractivity of a highly influential favourite and possible consort-to-be for John De Vere as a business partner). The only "evidence" she uses against Dudley is Leicester's Commonwealth, a satirical Catholic propaganda libel of 1584 not considered as a serious source by historians. It is additionally noteworthy that Leicester's Commonwealth makes no mention whatsoever of the Earl Of Oxford or his father, so she can only use it for blanket accusations, which btw. are not born out by modern research in the least. The Br. Chronicles article does state that there is a parallel between Hamlet and Oxford concerning Leicester's wardship handling: p. 65:

However, the facts revealed by the historical documents alluded to in the foregoing paragraphs suggest that it would not have been unreasonable for de Vere to have entertained suspicions of foul play in the death of his father, nor, as Shakespeare, to have written a play about his suspicions, casting Dudley in the part of the usurper, King Claudius.

Buchraeumer (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for lending your expertise.

Regardless of Nina's shortcomings in the paper, even if it were perfect it would not be an acceptable cite for the reasons stated: it is a fringe journal with no meaningful peer review according to Wikipedia policies.

Another problem I alluded to is that the article is becoming jammed with detail that makes its context hard to determine for the average reader lacking an extensive background in the myriad social details of the era, which is the reason that historians write books. My stance for the moment is that it is better to have too much detail that can later be put into context and summarised than to have too little. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't yet know how to draw one of those lines which indicates that I'm responding to Buchraeumer's comments, so I'll just start here below Tom's. Buchraeumer, I note that you're something of an expert on Leicester, so a discussion with you is most welcome, and I'm flattered that you've read my article.

I think you're wrong about Leicester's finances at the time of the 16th Earl's death. The third licence wasn't even granted by the Queen until after the 16th Earl's death, so it can hardly be used as evidence of Leicester's financial situation before the 16th Earl's death, can it? And although the second licence was granted in 1562, Leicester could hardly have had much income from it prior to the 16th Earl's death on 3 August 1562, and in fact you don't state whether it was even granted prior to the 16th Earl's death on 3 August. On the side of my view of Leicester's finances is the source I quoted in the article itself.

You could be right about the Parliament at which the attainder was lifted being under Queen Mary. My source was the article on Leicester in the DNB, and I may have misinterpreted the date since it was in 1558, during which both Mary and Elizabeth reigned. If so, I stand corrected. And if you find any additional errors in my article, I'd be glad to hear about those as well. However at the moment you've only identified one error, which makes my batting average way better than Nelson's or Pearson's, does it not, particularly considering the mass of detail in my article?

Interestingly, you seem to be objecting to my interpretation of certain historical evidence. That's certainly your privilege. Readers of my article can make up their own minds about the evidence I've cited and the proper interpretation to be given to it. But your objection is misplaced. My article in Brief Chronicles is not a Wikipedia article in which interpretation of historical evidence is verboten. A principal feature of secondary sources is interpretation. Do you think Alan Nelson or Daphne Pearson don't interpret? Of course they interpret, and on virtually every page.

You also object that my article wasn't reviewed by a historian. But it's about legal issues, and it was written by someone with legal training and peer-reviewed by someone with legal training, which is certainly more than can be said of Nelson's and Pearson's books which deal with those same legal issues.

But the issue is not my article itself. It's about whether Brief Chronicles can be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. So far I've not heard any evidence that a journal which is peer-reviewed by people with Ph.D.s in various fields who are professors at universities, which is edited by someone with a Ph.D. who is a professor at a university, and which is indexed by the Modern Language Association and the World Shakespeare Bibliography, and which contains an article in its first issue which has been accepted for publication in a reference text next spring would or should be considered a 'fringe journal' by Wikipedia. I understand that feelings about the authorship issue run high, but Wikipedia has objective standards which stand apart from personal feelings about the authorship issue, no? There is also the Wikipedia policy that minority views must be represented, right? NinaGreen (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There was no Elizabethan parl. in 1558. I again quote Simon Adams/ODNB: "Instead she granted him a licence to export wool free of customs worth £6000 in 1560." From other of his articles I can see that this was April 1560, more than two years before John de Vere's demise. Even if he perhaps has the amount wrong, and it was less than £6000, amounts in that order would have surpassed anything milked out of the de Veres. He also got some of his Dad's former Yorkshire lands in 1561. And Dudley even brought enough money back from his St. Quentin campaign in 1557 to be able to pay back his considerable debts. Citing Leicester's Commonwealth as biographical evidence on Leicester is not regarded as particularly convincing, to put it mildly. Incidentally, I checked one of the Prof.s you're probably alluding to. One from Hertfordshire University, I think. He's an economist, giving as one of his private interests "Shakespeare"; it's near "sailing" or "football" or "cookery". Buchraeumer (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Buchraeumer, as you're aware, my source was also Simon Adams. See endnote 32 in my article:

Simon Adams states that the lands Northumberland had purchased for his son were lost in Northumberland’s attainder, and therefore on his release from prison in 1554 Robert Dudley was ‘propertyless’. He was unable even to inherit the fifty marks’ worth of land left to him under the terms of his mother’s will until Queen Mary waived her rights to the estate, which permitted the negotiation of a family agreement in November 1555 in which Robert Dudley is described as having been ‘left with nothing to live by’. The agreement permitted Robert Dudley to purchase the manor of Hales Owen from his mother’s estate, but according to Adams, ‘by the summer of 1557 parts of Hales Owen had been heavily mortgaged’. See Simon Adams, “The Dudley Clientele, 1553-1563,” in The Tudor Nobility, ed. G.W. Bernard (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992), 250.

So we have duelling Simon Adams citations. Also, the DNB article to which you're referring says that the Queen 'granted him a licence to export wool free of customs worth £6000 in 1560'. I'm not certain what 'worth £6000 in 1560' means. We need to see the licence. Do you have a citation for it? NinaGreen (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Buchraeumer,you wrote:

in contrast to Green, Pearson is a disinterested party as regards Leicester

Not so fast. :-) I know from personal correspondence with Daphne Pearson at the time she was researching and writing her thesis that she was in contact with Simon Adams. NinaGreen (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was my point in the first place: You only present half the evidence. Adams, as do other authors, states also that Dudley repaid his Hales Owen mortgage in late 1557; he also repaid bonds (to Forster, Byrd, etc.) in 1557 and 1560, for example. I am getting more and more surprised at the strange proportions of the Oxfordian world picture.

I just see Simon Adams, a truely superb scholar (btw. he is due to publish "Elizabeth I" in the Yale English Monarchs series), has also made it on to the index librorum prohibitorum! Buchraeumer (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire, you haven't at all demonstrated that I only present 'half the evidence'. I wasn't writing a detailed paper on Leicester's finances. I was making the point in my article that Leicester was not in the least a wealthy man just prior to the 16th Earl's death, and the evidence I've cited in that regard is both accurate and taken straight from Simon Adams' article (who, as you say, is a superb scholar, even though he can't seem to come to grips with the fact that his subject had more allegations of murder to his credit than any other individual in the Elizabethan period). As I said earlier, I don't know what the words 'worth £6000 in 1560' mean. Why don't you find a citation for the licence so we can have a look at it, since you're so determined that the phrase has a bearing on Leicester's wealth at the time? NinaGreen (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Final post, for the record. Nina, of course you leave out half the evidence: you always stop in the autumn of 1557, you always ignore the next five years of Dudley's life (which is much more than his finances). I can't help it if you cannot accept that April 1560 is before August 1562. Re Daphne Pearson, my point remains that she is more impartial to Leicester than you are, since the principal theme in your article is to reveal his supposed crimes against the Oxfords. You cannot deny that, even if you believe that having contact with Simon Adams, in this case Daphne Pearson, is engaging in a pro-Leicester conspiracy. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Final post on my part, Buchraeumer. You've made allegations but haven't supported them. If you get a copy of the 1560 licence so that we can all see what 'worth £6000 in 1560' actually means, I'm quite ready to discuss the matter further, and to modify my position if the evidence requires it. But on its face the idea that anyone other than the Queen herself had income of £6000 in 1560 seems preposterous, and it's therefore fruitless to discuss the question further without examining the actual licence.NinaGreen (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The editorial board of the journal are Oxfordian sympathisers who are, in several cases, attached to universities or colleges, but are not specialists in Early Modern England. Their expertise is typically as creative writers or performers, but there are other specialisms. We have articles on three of them (Sky Gilbert, Carole Chaski and Warren Hope). None, as far as I can see, have a significant track record as experts on the period, unless one counts "professional Oxfordian" Stritmatter, the editor. Paul B (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Nina's statement above, "So far I've not heard any evidence that a journal which is peer-reviewed by people with Ph.D.s in various fields who are professors at universities, which is edited by someone with a Ph.D. who is a professor at a university, and which is indexed by the Modern Language Association and the World Shakespeare Bibliography, and which contains an article in its first issue which has been accepted for publication in a reference text next spring would or should be considered a 'fringe journal' by Wikipedia.", I have already quoted WP:PARITY: "Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable." If any referees of that journal are not promoters of one of the various SAQ fringe theories, I await enlightenment. There are some very bright people who believe in fringe theories, the SAQ included, but that does not make the theories any less fringe. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Brief Chronicles

I've started a new thread on this. I've responded to several of the comments on the previous thread, but things were getting cluttered.

Here's the link to the biographies of the members of the editorial board of Brief Chronicles, who are also the peer reviewers:

http://www.briefchronicles.com/ojs/index.php/bc/about/editorialTeam

What fault can be found with their academic qualifications? NinaGreen (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure they are very well qualified in their field of expertise, but it's surprising that Elizabethan England doesn't seem to feature much. This is in the board of a journal devoted entirely to that period. Sure some of them "teach Shakespeare". So what? Thousands and thousands of people teach Shakespeare in one way and another. I teach Shakespeeare (well I used to) and I'm a Victorianist! Paul B (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina if you want to determine if Brief Chronicles can be used as a source you can post a query at WP:RS/N. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see why I should have to do that. The members of the editorial board have demonstrably excellent academic qualifications in a wide variety of disciplines, and most of them teach at universities. The members of the editorial board comprise the peer review panel. Each prospective article is subject to two double-blind peer reviews before it is accepted for publication. The journal has been indexed by the Modern Languages Association and the World Shakespeare Bibliography. One of the articles in the first issue has been accepted for publication in a reference text next spring. All of that constitutes a prima facie case that Brief Chronicles is not in the least a 'fringe journal'. I think the burden of proof is on those who would claim that it can't be cited as a reliable source. It seems to me that one would only need to get an opinion from Wikipedia if there were something about Brief Chronicles that triggered alarm bells. The only thing that triggers alarm bells is that people don't like the authorship controversy. But the fact that some people might not like the authorship controversy is not the standard by which Wikipedia judges the reliability of sources. Wikipedia's stated policy is that minority views are to be represented. Obviously minority views should not be represented on Wikipedia by 'fringe journals' put out by people with no academic qualifications and no meaningful peer review process. But when those putting out the journal have excellent academic credentials and there is a meaningful peer review process in place, and when the journal has been indexed by reputable organizations such as the Modern Language Association and the World Shakespeare Bibliography, then it seems to me it's a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.NinaGreen (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"With all due respect, I don't see why I should have to do that." Because that's the way it's done at Wikipedia? Is that a good enough reason? Otherwise your sources will be removed and then you'll put them back and then an edit war will ensue and another 10,000-word discussion will waste everyone's time again. If you want to edit at Wikipedia (and we want you to), it has to be done the way Wikipedia requires it to be done.

"I think the burden of proof is on those who would claim that it can't be cited as a reliable source." No, that's not correct. WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." We've already told you what the policy is. You disagree, so you need to take it to the noticeboard to get opinions from the wider community. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And whether people "like" or "don't like" the authorship controversy is immaterial: it is a fringe belief, and therefore comes under the policies and guidelines of WP:FRINGE. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No it is not good evidence. Being an expert in an unrelated - or marginally related - field does not make one a competent peer reviewer of an article on the Earl of Leicester's finances. As for indexing, I have no idea whether that is significant or not. An index is just a list. I don't know what "reference text" the articles have been accepted for; one would have to know what it is to assess its significance. Minority views can be and are represented by 'fringe journals', if the minority are unable to publish in mainstream journals. That's essentially what distinguishes a fringe view from a minority view. See WP:FRINGE. The very fact that Oxfordians have to create their own journal in order to get published is good evidence that they are generally unable to get published in the mainstream. Mainstream journals, by the way, regularly publish "minority" views. It's probably a minority view, for example, that Shakespeare did not write A Lover's Complaint, but it is not a fringe view. You say that " The only thing that triggers alarm bells is that people don't like the authorship controversy." Yes, indeed, that's exactly so. Oxfordianism, like all the other alternative author scenarios, is essentially a conspiracy theory, the 'evidence' for which is mostly either supposed secret messages or supposed biographical analogies between Oxford's life and events in plays. Also, Oxfordian writers quite regularly directly misrepresent evidence. This suggests its 'scholarship' is defined by ideology rather than unbiassed research. Paul B (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The point is that it's already been done. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58#Brief_Chronicles

The issue was thoroughly aired in a very lengthy discussion, and no determination was made that Brief Chronicles could not be cited as a reliable source. What would be the point of doing it all over again? The end result is that the prima facie case that Brief Chronicles meets Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source remains intact.NinaGreen (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS: "To obtain or provide community input on whether a source meets our reliability standards for a particular use, see the reliable sources noticeboard." The discussion you refer to concerned its use for the SAQ article. This use, being a biography, is a much different kettle of fish.

If you discount the usual opinions from the usual combatants in that discussion, you are left with a few opinions from uninvolved editors, which could be summarised from the last comment, "What it is a RS for, like everything, is for the opinion of its authors," which calls for an in-text citation, such as "according to Nina Green," which is not how hard facts should be represented. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If one reviews the discussion at the link above, one finds comments from uninvolved editors such as this one:

I agree with Smatprt that Brief Chronicles is a peer reviewed journal with high standards. The editorial board is made up entirely of people with credible academic credentials. Both the editor in chief and executive editor have impressive track records. Those bringing this challenge ignore the fact that the journal will be indexed by the Modern Language Association International Bibliography and the World Shakespeare Bibliography. The journal clearly meets RS requirements.

The debate has already taken place, and there was no determination that Brief Chronicles could not be cited as a reliable source, nor was there a determination made that if Brief Chronicles were cited its use would be restricted only to the SAQ. It's over. NinaGreen (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You quote one person's opinion. That person was an Oxfordian, whose sole interest in Wikipedia was to promote Oxfordianism. The person in question has no apparent knowledge of Wikipedia policy or of standards of scholarship. In other words, you are not summarising the view of an independent editor in the debate. Of course you must know this, since a genuinely independent editor wrote directly beneath the comment you quote that "With all due respect, Schoenbaum, you seem to be a new WP:SPA with few edits, all but one to the talk page of the authorship article." In fact all his edits have been on the same thing [6]. Paul B (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that Schoenbaum is an Oxfordian, and I don't know how you know. Perhaps you can fill me in.NinaGreen (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I know because of his edits. You can read them yourself. He spent some time trying to prove that "Shakespeare" was dead before 1604. Only Oxfordians do that. Supporters of all other "main" candidates have no problem with the conventional dating of the plays. Paul B (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Schoenbaum is far from being an uninvolved editor. I doubt any of his edits are still standing, they were so obviously tendentious.

Why are you so reluctant to post a query on the RS noticeboard, Nina? You're going to have to go by Wikipedia's dispute resolution process if you want to use it as a reference for this article. It's best to avoid a long, drawn-out dispute that serves only to cause other editors to question your good faith. If other uninvolved editors think it's an OK source, so be it, but the history of the dispute over it does not look good as far as using it for a biography. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I've made it clear why I don't think it's necessary for me to do that. The reliability of Brief Chronicles as a source was challenged on the RS noticeboard some time ago and debated at length, and no determination was reached that Brief Chronicles was not a reliable source. Why would it be any different the next time around? The same people would weigh in, and go round in the same circles. Frankly, I don't have time for that. I've spent several days working on the article (and am doing a great job, if I do say so myself :-), and have been neglecting my own work in the process. If someone else wants to challenge the reliability of Brief Chronicles again on the RS noticeboard, that's their prerogative. The matter will never be resolved against Brief Chronicles if Wikipedia policies are adhered to because the editorial board is just too well-qualified, a reliable peer-review process is in place, and the journal has been indexed by reliable organizations, all of which has been mentioned several times previously. NinaGreen (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's unlikely that the same people would weigh in. And the issue is different. There was no consensus last time, and the article subject was different. Determinations of reliability are different from article to article. The peer review board have almost no relevant qualifications as far as I can see. It's easy to find creationist journals stuffed with board members who have PhDs. Paul B (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of other things have been mentioned several times previously, all of which you chose to ignore, demonstrating yet again your intractability when it comes to conforming to Wikipedia policies. Since you don't want to compose the request to RS/N, I will do so. Either way, it's going to the community and you will have to take to time to respond. While we appreciate the work you've done on the article, this is not your personal web site and all editors--by the simple act of editing--agree to conform to Wikipedia standards. Why you wish to be placed in that group of editors who won't honor their agreement, I don't know. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)