Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford/Archive 3

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. . 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)
 * 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:


 * , but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material . 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.refCPR 1569-72, 3159, p. 450./ref

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: 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" . 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 . The IP merely added a qualifier to a wholly unacceptable sentence added by IP 71.191.5.24. 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 )

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)


 * I'd rather say it's preposterous to claim Dudley was "still a mere knight" in 1562. You overlook that, for example, he was also Master of the Horse, a Knight of the Garter, Constable of Windsor Castle, corresponded with Maitland of Lethington (Mary Stuart's prime minister, so to speak) about the interna of Scotttish politics, was referred to by Pope Pius V as "the Lord Robert", was the only homegrown candidate for the queen's hand, stood in high credit with the London city fathers in all senses of the word, etc., etc. He was the heir of his elder brother Ambrose, Earl of Warwick, who was childless. Wouldn't his brother the earl have been a much more suitable murder victim?
 * The piece you quote is from these sentences: "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, ..." In another article Adams say this was the first "real money" she gave him and that was in April 1560 (I guess he forgot the commas, so have your loophole here); it was a temporary grant pending a landed endowment with peerage proportions, which he got in 1563. Back in 1561, he had received a portion Yorkshire lands his father had held. This is in several books. Buchraeumer (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Buchraeumer, of course I said he was still a 'mere knight'. He had not yet been created Earl of Leicester. It's a statement of fact.  You keep going round and round your same argument about the wool licences without getting a copy of them, or even so much as a citation for them.  Are you interested in facts, or merely in arguing?  One can't make an argument concerning the contents of primary source documents without examining them.NinaGreen (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well you were arguing about wool licences, ignoring he had land and so on. I suspected an update about the context you put the "mere knight" in was necessary. It appears clearly that being a poor "simple knight" is central to your whole thesis, whatever you may say above. As a reminder, the act of parliament mentioned occurred under Mary I, and thus had nothing to do with the argument put forward here that Elizabeth supposedly couldn't reward him. (bold type by me for ease of reading) 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. Under these circumstances, the Queen could not shower largess upon Sir Robert Dudley without incurring criticism, particularly from members of the upper nobility. However, should Sir Robert Dudley suddenly become possessed of financial resources and status by his own means, additional preferments conferred on him by the Queen would not excite as much adverse comment, particularly if he were to come by those financial resources by way of an indenture in which he was joined as a party with one of the highest-ranking members of the nobility, Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk, as was the case with the 16th Earl’s indenture appointing Dudley and Norfolk as co-trustees. With these legal documents in place, and Dudley involved in all three of and positioned to benefit from them, the 16th Earl’s speedy demise would seem to have been inevitable. To put the matter bluntly, did Sir Robert Dudley think to himself that if the 16th Earl were dead and his son a ward, he could easily persuade the Queen to grant him the 16th Earl’s lands during the wardship, and that any public objection could easily be silenced by the fact that he been appointed by the 16th Earl as a supervisor of his will and one of the trustees in the indenture of 2 June 1562? Did Sir Robert Dudley, almost before the ink was dry on the 16th Earl’s will, arrange to have the 16th Earl "poisoned i’th’ garden for’s estate,” as Hamlet remarks in the play within the play?84 Subsequent events have made it clear that the 16th Earl’s death was disastrous for everyone directly affected by it with the notable exception of Dudley.''' The primary beneficiary – in fact almost the only real beneficiary – of the 16th Earl’s death was Sir Robert Dudley.85 Four hundred years have passed, and the truth will never be known. 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) 00:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Buchraeumer, you're wasting everyone's time. Is this the best you can do in finding factual errors in my article?  So far you've identified an error concerning whose parliament it was (Mary's not Elizabeth's), but the year is correct.  You haven't posted the citation for the wool licence from 1560 because you know, although you won't admit it, that there is something about the wording 'worth £6000 in 1560' which won't bear the interpretation you're seeking to put on it.  And as far as the circumstances mentioned above, certainly the Queen couldn't shower enormous largess on a mere knight just because he was her favourite.  The noblemen in her court would have been outraged.  It seems obvious to me that the only reason you've read my article is to try to find factual errors in it which you can then stack up against the errors in Alan Nelson and Daphne Pearson's books.  You're never going to be able to do that.  But by all means, keep on trying :-).NinaGreen (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please avoid speculation about personal motives at wikipedia. I didn't hide any citations from you; you know where you can find information on Dudley's financial situation and that the date (the year 1560) is the most important thing here, which you persistently ignore and which you can find in almost any book on Dudley, if you don't like Adams, as you don't like Nelson and Pearson. It was interesting, if shocking, to gain some insight into what, imo, is a classic case of a conspiracy theory. The complete disregard of historical fact and context in your article and our discussion here speak for themselves, and I can only conclude that Brief Chronicles is not what would be considered a publication on historical research.
 * Re this WP article on Oxford, I do not want to discourage your work on it but, like Tom did, would caution against putting in too much detail, at least of the financial sort. 95% of readers will have great difficulties understanding it, and in this case it would save much trouble. You might avoid figures at all, or you might consider to use Person's, writing "according to the research of Daphne Pearson" if you would like to "distance" yourself from her figures but still avoid using your own research for the sake of WP policies; there is also the technical possibility of footnotes (to include more detail there than in the main text). Buchraeumer (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The following makes clear that he was not poor Sir Robin. I am sure I am "wasting everyone's time", as you said, but it is not the case that "You haven't posted the citation for the wool licence from 1560 because you know, although you won't admit it, that there is something about the wording 'worth £6000 in 1560' which won't bear the interpretation you're seeking to put on it.", as you equally claimed above. Simon Adams (ed.), Household Accounts and Disbursement Books of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, 1558–1561, 1584–1586 Cambridge University Press, 1995, ISBN 0521551560 p. 116 says: "Received of Nycholas Culwerwell and the Company for the satisfacion of the first three thousands poundes due unto your lordship and them, suma}   MMDCCCCxxxiijli. vjs. viijd.
 * note 215 by Adams explains: "A licence for the export of 1000 sarplers of wool, granted on 12 April 1560 (CPR, 1558-60, 321). The importance of this grant for his finances needs no emphasis."
 * It was apparently greatly resented by the staplers. De Quadra had heard the queen had given him £12,000! (Archivo General de Simancas E 812 fo. 63). Chris Skidmore, using the same sources, says he made £5,833 6s 8d in one year "The profts to be had were enormous" (Death and the Virgin, 2010, p. 180). Btw., this wasn't just a case of "showering enormous largesse"; from 1559 onwards he entertained foreign princes and ambassadors, for example (which cost lots of money). He simply wasn't your criminally minded nobody. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Buchraeumer, at least you have finally gotten a citation. But in your comments above you have conveniently ignored the wording: 'Received of Nycholas Culwerwell and the Company for the satisfacion of the first three thousands poundes due unto your lordship and them]. Need I say more?NinaGreen (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop your patronizing attacks on me! You know exactly it's not me who interprets these things. I've given you three secondary sources (and there would be more) which interpret this as a cash income of many thousand pounds for Dudley; you conviently overlook, as you overlook everything else, that MMDCCCCxxxiijli. vjs. viijd. is an instalment of what he received directly into his pocket, it's from his household account. If you do not agree with the interpretions by leading experts on Elizabeth I, it's extremely uncivil to blame that on me. Please do not feel inhibited to work on this article. In my post this morning, I tried to give you some general ideas you might consider to work around unnessary trouble. I apologize if I disrupted constructive work on the article in any way. But I will not be treated like a naughty child, because you choose to ignore, or else are ignorant of, obvious historical facts everyone can glean from literature on the era. Buchraeumer (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Buchraeumer, I'm not in the least trying to be patronizing, and I would certainly have to ask who's attacking whom. :-) You've jumped on my article in Brief Chronicles like a ton of bricks.  But let's try to start over.  The quotation above says that the money was received for the Company and for Leicester.  It was not received for Leicester alone, and there's no indication as to what his share was. More later.NinaGreen (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Buchraeumer, I've now gotten hold of a copy of Simon Adams' edition of Leicester's account book from our local university library. The quotation you've quoted above is from p. 116.  On the previous page, p. 115, is this 'Received of Nicholas Culverwell and the Company [of Staplers] in money borrowed in July anno secundo Dominae Reginae CCiiijxxli [=£2420].  So Leicester was borrowing huge sums from the Company of Staplers as well as receiving huge sums from them.  Moreover the previous two pages are filled with entries for money borrowed by Leicester from all sorts of sources.  The first of these entries reads (on p. 113) 'received of William Bird, mercer, in money borrowed at sundry times for the payment of divers persons MMMDCCCCxxxli xs vd [=£3930 10s 5d]. There were obviously large amounts of money going out, and large amounts of money coming in.  But what was Leicester's net position in the first four years of Queen Elizabeth's reign?  That's the obvious question.  And it's not an easy one to answer because the first account book only runs from 1558-1561, while the second one runs from 1584-1586.  I don't have the time to undertake a detailed study of Leicester's finances.  In my article I cited a paper by Simon Adams, who is a recognized authority on Leicester.  It may be that there's more evidence which could be adduced on both sides of the argument.  If you'd like to undertake a detailed study and pass the results on to me, and they prove to establish something other than what I stated in my article, I'll change the statement in the article (which I assume can be readily done in an online journal).  There's so much other evidence in support of my thesis that it doesn't matter if Leicester's net financial position just prior to the 16th Earl's death was slightly better than I gathered it to be from the article by Simon Adams which I cited.  But nonetheless, with the huge borrowings recorded on pp. 114-116 of Leicester's account book, I'm not at all convinced that Leicester's net financial position by mid-1562 was better than what I gathered it to be from the article by Adams which I cited. NinaGreen (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I was certainly right in assuming that the RS noticeboard would turn out to be a kangaroo court. I just read what Buckraeumer wrote there.  He crows on the RS noticeboard as though he won the debate whereas he actually lost it (see above).  Firstly Buchraeumer withheld evidence from editors of this page concerning the 2 1/2 pages of borrowings by Leicester which precede the entry he quoted.  Secondly, he did not acknowledge that he was failing to take into consideration Leicester's net position, as though money merely came in to Leicester while nothing was expended and nothing borrowed.  And this is someone who weighs in as to whether Brief Chronicles should be considered a reliable source.  A kangaroo court indeed.  What's going on on the RS noticeboard page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. 205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:53, 1 December 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 . 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 1609. Only Oxfordians do that. Supporters of all other "main" candidates have no problem with the conventional dating of the plays. Despite the use of the third person, I don't believe anyone can honestly believe that the author of this was not an Oxfordian. 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 WP: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)
 * Tom, you're sounding a little confrontational, and I don't want to engage in confrontation. I've made it clear that I don't think it's necessary because it's already been done.  You see it differently, which is your prerogative, and I respect that.  But my position has nothing to do with what you've unfairly termed 'not conforming to Wikipedia standards' or 'not honouring an agreement'.  When something has already been discussed and no determination has been made against citing a source, that should be the end of it unless something new has come to light.  And so far nothing new has come to light.
 * And in fact, the very fact that a challenge was mounted to Brief Chronicles earlier strikes me on further reflection as bizarre, as do all the arguments against citing it in the earlier discussion on the RS noticeboard. You've taken the position that the earlier discussion was only in relation to citing Brief Chronicles on the SAQ page.  For heaven's sake, why wouldn't every editor have agreed that it could be cited on the SAQ page?  Why was there a challenge in the first place if that's all it was about?  If an Oxfordian publication can't be cited on the authorship issue (i.e. on the SAQ page), then how on earth is the Oxfordian position ever to be put forward?  Wikipedia policy clearly states that minority views must be put forward, and if an Oxfordian journal can't be cited on the SAQ page on the sole ground that the people on the editorial board are Oxfordians, then how are minority views to be put forward as per Wikipedia policy?
 * It seems to me that what I'm seeing here is uncomfortably close to outright censorship, and an attempt by some editors to totally stifle expression on Wikipedia of anything but the majority view on the Shakespeare authorship. I'm not here to argue the authorship issue.  I'm here to work on the Edward de Vere article (which of course I don't consider my 'personal web site'; what an absurdity!).  But I'm being forced into discussing the authorship issue because there really does seem to be censorship being imposed on the discussion by certain editors.  It always surprises me.  If the Stratfordian position is so strong, why is it that there is such an attempt to stifle expression of the minority position?  It doesn't sound like a position of strength to me.  If I were arguing for the Stratfordian position I wouldn't do so by trying to completely stifle the opposition. NinaGreen (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nina, we are not arguing authorship or censorship. We are trying to establish whether Brief Chronicles is a reliable source for this article according to Wikipedia policy. You have been given several reasons why it is not, yet you have not responded to those reasons except by your insistence that the educational qualifications of the editorial board and it being listed by PMLA trumps its fringe status, which smacks of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I know not what other editors think nor do I speak for them, but I am very happy you are working on the page and I hope you continue to do so, but you have to understand that the article has to be sourced according to Wikipedia policies. It has nothing to do with authorship whatsoever, except for the fact that Brief Chronicles is a journal that accepts and promotes the Oxfordian theory, and by doing so is considered a fringe publication and not suitable for use in an article of this type. If the statement you want to make has no other source except for your article in Brief Chronicles, then it does not belong in Wikipedia. That is not censorship; that is policy. Wikipedia is not all things to all people, nor does it purport to be. See WP:What Wikipedia is not.
 * As to censoring viewpoints, there are several articles about the SAQ on Wikipedia, 3 or 4 of them about the Oxfordian theory.
 * PS: When using colons to indent comments, you don't need to skip a line between paragraphs. Also all you need to use is one more colon than the comment above you. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, we really seem to be going around in circles. I don't know what further arguments could be advanced in a another debate on the RS noticeboard. The arguments were all made the first time around, and there was no determination that Brief Chronicles could not be cited.  What was the purpose of that challenge if the verdict isn't going to be accepted?  If a source is challenged on the RS noticeboard and there's no definitive decision made that the source can't be cited, why isn't that the end of the matter?  What was the purpose of the challenge in the first place if the verdict isn't going to be accepted?  And more to the point, as I asked earlier, what was the purpose of the challenge if it was only in relation to citation of Brief Chronicles on the SAQ page?  That simply doesn't make sense to me.  In essence the only real argument made in the earlier debate was that the members of the editorial board are Oxfordians.  That's a ridiculous argument if the challenge was confined only to citation on the SAQ page.  If Oxfordians can't be cited on the SAQ page, then how is the Wikipedia policy of representing minority views to be attained?  That's why in my view the earlier challenge can't have been solely about whether Brief Chronicles could be cited on the SAQ page, and had to have been about whether Brief Chronicles could be cited on Wikipedia, that is, whether the editorial board membership, the peer review process etc. met Wikipedia's standards for reliability.  And there was no determination made that Brief Chronicles didn't meet Wikipedia's standards.  So why is the issue now being revisited?


 * And in addition, there is this additional point to be added to the evidence that Brief Chronicles is widely accepted as a reliable source, i.e. that a number of the articles in Brief Chronicles are cited on Google Scholar. See:


 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Brief+Chronicles%22+shakespeare+authorship&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on


 * It seems to me that the editors of this page are aligned on one side of the issue, and the rest of the scholarly community is on the other side. NinaGreen (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Nina, Google Scholar is not the arbitrator of the scholarly consensus nor what passes for WP:RS. I'll file an opinion request shortly and we can get this sorted out. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, before you do that, please explain the ground rules to me. Exactly who is going to make the determination?  Is this going to be some sort of kangaroo court where it's me against a dozen Stratfordian editors?  I could not see any indication in the earlier debate that there was anyone in charge, and it was just a scrum.NinaGreen (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! What is your definition of a "Stratfordian" editor? Read the top of the page at WP:RS/N. Or you can ask your coach. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I got too busy this evening and I'm too tired, so I'll post an opinion request tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have posted a request for opinions about Brief Chronicles here. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

RS Noticeboard
I put this under my latest comment to Buchraeumer because it has reference to earlier comments under that thread, but I'm also starting this new thread because I think this sort of thing merits investigation by Wikipedia. There need to be some standards for the RS noticeboard so that it doesn't turn into a kangaroo court for special interests.


 * Well, I was certainly right in assuming that the RS noticeboard would turn out to be a kangaroo court. I just read what Buckraeumer wrote there. He crows on the RS noticeboard as though he won the debate whereas he actually lost it (see above). Firstly Buchraeumer withheld evidence from editors of this page concerning the 2 1/2 pages of borrowings by Leicester which precede the entry he quoted. Secondly, he did not acknowledge that he was failing to take into consideration Leicester's net position, as though money merely came in to Leicester while nothing was expended and nothing borrowed. And this is someone who weighs in as to whether Brief Chronicles should be considered a reliable source. A kangaroo court indeed. What's going on on the RS noticeboard page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. 205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Would someone please advise immediately to whom in the Wikipedia hierarchy I can complain about what is going on on the RS noticeboard? What is happening there is completely inappropriate.  A request for an opinion as to whether Brief Chronicles can be accepted as a reliable source by Wikipedia should not have so much as mentioned my name.NinaGreen (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nina, you are welcome to post a message there, and in fact that is where you should post your complaints above. Why you think your name should not have been mentioned I don't know; it is your cite that is being discussed. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The topic on the RS noticeboard should not be me or my article or my citation. The topic should be confined to whether Brief Chronicles is a reliable source. There are, as I understand it, criteria in place for discussion of that topic on the RS noticeboard, and those criteria are clearly not being adhered to. It would be pointless and inappropriate to direct my complaint to the RS noticeboard itself since it is the RS noticeboard which is in violation of Wikipedia policies. I would appreciate being directed to whatever layer of the Wikipedia hierarchy it is which handles complaints of that nature.NinaGreen (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You could raise it on the administrator's noticeboard, Administrators' noticeboard, but I doubt your complaint would be considered worth pursuing. Tom's phrasing of the problem is not obviously biassed and there is no rule against referring to specific articles or specific edits. Indeed, it is encouraged, since few publications are "reliable" in any absolute sense fotr all purposes. It all depends on context. Paul B (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At the top of the WP:RS/N page it states:
 * Before posting a question regarding the reliability of a source, please keep in mind that reliability is often dependent upon context. It helps others to respond to questions if you include:
 * 1. A full citation of the source in question. For example Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): 58--60.
 * 2. A link to the source in question. For example [www.webpage.com]
 * 3. The article in which it is being used. For example [ [article name] ]
 * 4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. For example text
 * 5. Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.
 * How to do that without mentioning the name of the editor would be problematic, IMO. Nevertheless, you can file a complaint at WP:AN/I if you feel the request was inappropriate. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you are being less than forthright here. This is how you began your query which initiated the earlier inconclusive discussion of Brief Chronicles:


 * Is the Oxfordian journal Brief Chronicles considered to be a reliable source for the Wikipedia Shakespeare authorship question article?

All you needed to initiate your latest query was this:


 * Is the Oxfordian journal Brief Chronicles considered to be a reliable source for the Edward de Vere article?

NinaGreen (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And you need to read my message above about what the RS/N page requires. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to get useful responses from a general purpose messageboard like RS/N, context is always a good idea. john k (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The information I'd like to have is where to complain about a matter involving general oversight of Wikipedia policy. The previous discussion of the reliability of Brief Chronicles as a source was a directionless free-for-all, and the current one borders on libellous (I'm referring to Buchraeumer's comments). If there are criteria for considering whether a source is reliable, those criteria are not being adhered to. There must be a branch of Wikipedia which deals with the tightening up of policy where tightening up is required. That's where I wish to direct my comments.NinaGreen (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You say they are not being adhered to, others say they are. There is no Ultimate Authority to appeal to. If you wish to change the actual policy you will have to debate it on the policy pages for sources: Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Paul B (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure there's an ultimate authority: Jimbo Wales. I suppose you can post a complaint there, Nina, it that's what you want to do. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In theory he isn't, but of course she's welcome to try him. Paul B (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you wrote:


 * You say they are not being adhered to, others say they are.

Essentially, I'm saying they're not being adhered to because they don't exist. What are the guidelines which govern these free-for-alls on the RS noticeboard? Spell them out, please. I haven't been able to find any.

All I can see that's relevant is this:


 * While we attempt to give a second opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. This is not the place for content disputes which should be directed to the article talk page or associated.

How can one determine whether Brief Chronicles is a reliable source when that's the policy?

Incidentally, I received a private message on my talk page from Buchraeumer complaining about my comment above. It is ironic that Buchraeumer feels he can attack both me personally and my article in Brief Chronicles on whichever Wikipedia page he chooses to do so, and yet feel that he is the injured party.NinaGreen (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nina, your talk page is not a private venue, so don't expect privacy. IMO Buchraemer is overreacting to your comment. You might want to take a look at this page, especially the sentence "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Tom Reedy (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'like to clarify that I've never attacked NinaGreen personally on this or any other page. What she considers as attacks on her article is left to her, but as a published author she has to live with criticism of her work or methods. I realize that WP is generally not the right place for this; still, I feel that a source's content/method has some bearing on its usability in a certain context, especially if clear fringe views are touched. I only referred to her in third person with her surname, before she outed herself to me as this person. That's her decision. As the above thread amply illustrates, she responded to me with ever more absurd contentions; I only kept responding because she increasingly ridiculed other authors or myself, and finally ridiculed me for the conclusions of these authors. She persistently ignored 90% of what I said and turned the rest on its ear. Perhaps too late, I tried to hint at a few possibilities to avoid unnecessary sourcing trouble in this Oxford article. Finally, in this section, she turned to making false allegations about my comment at the RS noticeboard. My RS comment does not contain anything she implies here. I found her continuing remarks about me in this section noteworthy because, as she must have understood, I was no longer in discussion with her, nor were her comments directed at me. Buchraeumer (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Buchrauemer,let's try to reach some sort of detente so we can all move on. I accepted your point about the 1558 Parliament being Queen Mary's rather than Queen Elizabeth's.  I debated your point about Leicester's financial situation just prior to the 16th Earl's death because, as I showed from Leicester's household book, which you cited as a source, that Leicester borrowed huge sums while he was receiving profits from the wool licence, leaving his net financial position looking, in my opinion, as I had portrayed it in my article.  Leicester was a big spender, and in the years prior to the 16th Earl's death he did not have landed income to underwrite large expenditures.  Coincidentally I put a document on my website yesterday which references Machyn's diary stating that on 19 October 1559 Leicester gave a 'great banquet' in honour of John, Duke of Finland, who had come to England to woo Queen Elizabeth for his brother, the King of Sweden.  This is the sort of thing which put his finances in the red.  And let's not forget that despite the Queen's enormous largess, Leicester died owing the crown £35,087 (see my article).  Are Leicester's finances an appropriate topic for discussion on a page whose stated purpose is to improve the article on Edward de Vere?  In the usual course of events, I think the answer would be a clear 'no'.  If you had been able to use the discussion of Leicester's finances to demonstrate that there was a significant error in my article, perhaps yes, although even then the discussion would have been peripheral to the stated purpose of this page.  So let's move on amicably. Agreed?NinaGreen (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * He died in hopeless debt because he financed her/his war in the Netherlands. Incidentally, don't you perhaps think Oxford poisoned him? He died very unexpectedly as well, and only three weeks after serving at the Armada. "The significant error" in your article is that you blame people of murders that didn't occurr in the first place. Re this article here, I'd say quoting Bossy and Peck plus the ambassador is a bit overkill for an undisputed fact. No-one denies that Leicester "turned" Oxford, so I'd suggest to concentrate on the Mendoza quote. It's important to avoid argumentative language in WP articles. Happy editing. Buchraeumer (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think Oxford poisoned Leicester. Have you read Leicester's Ghost? It's available on the Leicester page on my website. The author of LG says Leicester was poisoned, and that the party responsible was Sir Christopher Blunt, who later married Leicester's widow. Ironic, if true, n'est-ce pas? But I digress. I'll look into your suggestion that quoting Bossy and Peck and the ambassador is 'overkill'. I'm trying to keep my editing of the article neutral. But if you read p.250 in Nelson, you'll see that this is a relatively modern interpretation, and that Ward didn't draw attention to Leicester's role in 'turning' Oxford.NinaGreen (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Revert Wars Again
In the previous thread I wrote:


 * Paul, you wrote:


 * You say they are not being adhered to, others say they are.


 * Essentially, I'm saying they're not being adhered to because they don't exist. What are the guidelines which govern these free-for-alls on the RS noticeboard? Spell them out, please. I haven't been able to find any.


 * All I can see that's relevant is this:


 * While we attempt to give a second opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. This is not the place for content disputes which should be directed to the article talk page or associated.


 * How can one determine whether Brief Chronicles is a reliable source when that's the policy?

I still haven't received an answer to my question as to where the guidelines are which govern discussions on the RS Noticeboard.

Morover Wikipedia clearly states that 'answers on the RS Noticeboard are not Wikipedia policy'.

Nonetheless Tom has started a revert war by deleting two citations he personally considers 'not RS' without replacing them with factually accurate citations from sources he considers RS. And the fact of the matter is that there are no factually accurate citations for the information in both cases other than the ones Tom has deleted.

We can do better than this. Let's co-operate, not engage in counter-productive revert wars. NinaGreen (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nina, I didn't remove the sources because I "personally consider them 'not RS'". In the discussion about Brief Chronicles at WP:RS/N only one editor said it "might qualify", but after investigation he said "I don't think this publication clears the minimum bar to be a reliable source for even these mundane matters." And being a fringe publication The Oxfordian is certainly not RS, no matter if I added it, Nishidani added it, or Jimbo Wales himself added it.
 * Don't worry about the tags. I've seen them stay for years. Someone will come along and furnish a cite, reword the statement to fit the source, or delete it altogether. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, unfortunately that's just what you did, i.e. remove them because you personally consider them 'not RS'. I've twice stated the Wikipedia policy directly from the RS noticeboard page, which is that 'answers on the RS noticeboard are not Wikipedia policy'.  Since answers on the RS noticeboard are not Wikipedia policy, no determination has been made this time as to whether Brief Chronicles is a reliable source, just as no determination was made the first time, which is why I could not see any point in going through the process again.


 * Moreover, although I have asked twice on this page, I have not received an answer to my question as to what guidelines govern the free-for-alls on the RS noticeboard. I asked twice for the guidelines to be spelled out, and no-one has done so, because guidelines don't exist.  In the absence of guidelines for what goes on on the RS noticeboard (which means there are no guidelines for a determination there as to what is or is not a reliable source), and in light of the stated Wikipedia policy that answers on the RS noticeboard are 'not Wikipedia policy', removing the citation to my article was censorship, pure and simple.  Wikipedia's policy is that all editors are equal.  For an editor to remove another editor's citation under these circumstances is nothing but censorship. It seems that one or two editors of this page have decided what constitutes reliable sources for this page, and there are no Wikipedia criteria involved.  It is merely their own personal view that nothing any Oxfordian writes can or will ever be cited on Wikipedia if they can prevent it, which constitutes outright censorship. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, since it doesn't appear that you can be bothered to go to the page and read the header, I'm bringing it to you. Everything you want to know about reliable sources and the process of determining what one is for a particular article can be found either in the header or at a site it links to. Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header Tom Reedy (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (I have linked Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header above instead of transcluding it to avoid categorisation of this page. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Let me also make a further comment concerning reliable sources. I've cited Alan's book dozens of times in the editing I've been doing on the article because for some facts Alan's book can be relied on, and there's really no other source I can cite for those facts.  But Alan's book is not a reliable source in an overall sense.  One has to pick and choose carefully amongst the statements in his book.  Thus, reliability isn't an absolute, either for Alan's book or for other sources, which is why some leeway has to be allowed for specific factually accurate articles from Brief Chronicles and The Oxfordian.  Just by way of example, here's an egregious example I just noticed today while transcribing a letter from Edward Fitton to Lord Burghley dated 30 June 1578.  Alan's animosity towards Oxford has led him into a comically egregious error.  The John Passe mentioned in Edward Fitton's letter was a poor servant of Oxford's who lived in Cheshire on a 'mean farm of a mark rent by year'.  Yet on p. 179 of Monstrous Adversary, in connection with another letter from Fitton to Burghley mentioning John Passe, Alan erroneously calls him Lord Burghley's servant, and 'a notorious drunk'.  On p. 204, Alan repeats the same statements, again calling John Passe Lord Burghley's servant, and 'a notorious drunkard'.


 * Alan has drawn this ludicrous inference from Arundel's statement concerning Oxford on p. 204: 'and if I accounted otherwise of him than of John Passe, to whom I have most aptly often compared him'. Arundel's reference is not to John Passe, Oxford's poor servant in Chester, but to John Pace, jester to Henry VIII and the Duke of Norfolk.  All Arundel is saying is: 'and if I account otherwise of Oxford than of the court jester John Pace, to whom I have most aptly often compared him'.  For the jester John Pace, see the entry in the online DNB.


 * Can anyone find an egregious and ludicrous error of this nature in either my article in Brief Chronicles or Christopher Paul's article in The Oxfordian? I'm certain they cannot.  So what does this say about reliable sources? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the reference to Christopher Paul's article which Tom deleted was put there by Nishidani during his earlier revision of the article.NinaGreen (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected
All right, there are too many edit-warring IP's on this article, with too few users behind them. I have semi-protected it for two weeks. Nina, this means you won't be able to edit as an IP, but since I see above that you have figured out how to log in, you shouldn't have any trouble. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

Censorship
Tom, I'm starting a new thread because the old one is too cluttered with that page you imported into it. That page has already been cited several times, and it obviously doesn't answer my question at all. It merely states what needs to be included in a request when an opinion is sought on the RS noticeboard (which is irrelevant to the current discussion), and it also clearly states the point I've made so many times now already, that answers given on the RS noticeboard are 'not Wikipedia policy'. Ergo, since no determination by Wikipedia has yet been made that Brief Chronicles is not a reliable source, removing it from my edit was censorship. I come back to my question. Where are the Wikipedia policy rules which have allowed you to make a definitive determination that Brief Chronicles is not a reliable source? I have not seen any such rules. And frankly, it seems a bit disingenuous of you to keep stating that I will not look at the relevant Wikipedia rules, as you have done many times now, when the fact is that you cannot find any Wikipedia rules which support your unilateral actions. NinaGreen (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The more I think about it, the more sense it makes that Wikipedia states that it does not make definitive determinations that something is 'not a reliable source'. How could Wikipedia do that, and not risk being sued right, left and center for damages by books publishers and authors?NinaGreen (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Nina, Wikipedia can and does make black-and-white decisions about what publications are reliable to use as sources for its articles, as you would know if you had gone to WP:RS/N and read the discussions there. Every answer to your questions can be found at WP:RS}} and [[WP:V, but I'm tired of dealing with your supercilious attitude so you'll have to find them yourself.
 * If you had read those three pages (and understood them), you would know that
 * (1.) Brief Chronicles and The Oxfordian are not acceptable sources for this article, and
 * (2.) My action was not "unilateral" nor was it "censorship". Tom Reedy (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, Wikipedia policy is clear. The RS noticeboard page states unequivocally that answers on the RS noticeboard 'are not Wikipedia policy'.  You can try to get around that forever, but you can't get around it.  That is Wikipedia policy.  There has been no determination by Wikipedia that Brief Chronicles is not a reliable source.  There has only been a unilateral determination to that effect by you, and on the basis of your unilateral decision, you deleted Brief Chronicles as a source from my edit, which is censorship, plain and simple. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Answers on the RS board are not policy no; they are - or can be - consensus. Wikipedia cannot have written policy that would cover every permissible or impermissible use of every source. It would become an intolerable bureaucracy. So we have policies, guidelines and mechanisms for establishing consensus. It can be rather rough and ready and it can be inconsistent, but that's the way it works. Paul B (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, I question this statement:


 * So we have policies, guidelines and mechanisms for establishing consensus.


 * According to Wikipedia policy, the issue is not 'establishing consensus'. According to Wikipedia policy, the issue is verifiability.  That's what we need to focus on.NinaGreen (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Verifiability depends on sources and that depends on reliability and that depends on the relationship between various policies (WP:V; WP:RS; WP:FRINGE etc). The relationship between these is negotiated through consensus. If you stop speaking in abstractions we might be able to deal with issues more straightforwardly. What do you want to add that's at issue? Paul B (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul,

I am not speaking in abstractions in the slightest. I have asked that I be directed to the Wikipedia policy which supports Tom's deletion of two of the sources in my article. Neither you nor Tom has pointed me to that policy, from which I infer that there is no policy which supports his actions. I have stated that the focus needs to be on the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. What's abstract about that? Let's start a new thread. I'll quote the first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia policy on verifiability, and you show me how Tom's actions are supported by that policy, which is one of the three pillars of Wikipedia.NinaGreen (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No doubt about it, there is a tremendous amount of censorship on this page. None of the well-researched books and articles supporting the Oxfordian claim are listed as references, and when they are added, someone else deletes them. The only sources allowed by the censors are selected works that debunk De Vere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.0.23 (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There are no "neutral" points of view on this page. This page is dedicated to minimizing, belittling, and discrediting the notion the Edward de Vere wrote the "Shakespearean" plays. It accepts the traditional view as gospel and rubbishs any evidence that points the other way. All sources in the reference list are there because they do denigrate Edward de Vere and his claim. Any source, no matter how credible or well-researched that supports Edward De Vere is deleted, and all such sources are labeled as "not reliable". Even in the discussion section, supporters of the Stratford view had deleted sections that cast doubt on the traditional view. This is censorship in its purest form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.0.23 (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy states that mainstream views of the academy should be presented as the norm. The academy overwhelmingly rejects Oxfordian theory, along with all the other alternative author theories (about which, btw, you appear to know nothing whatever). Your edits are personal endorsements of a book that cannot be considered to be a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, and which is full of absurd non sequiturs. You appear to have made no effort to study the relevant rules regarding this. Of course Oxfordian theory should be described and discussed, but your edits are endorsements, and you even try to delete the consensus view. As far as I am aware no part of the discussion section has been deleted (if by that you mean this talk page). Paul B (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, Wikipedia policy also states that minority views are to be represented. But let's leave that aside because Wikipedia policies on the respective representation of mainstream and minority views are not the issue we're discussing.  The issue we're discussing is that certain editors of this page, principally Tom and you, continue to misrepresent Wikipedia policy concerning reliable sources. Wikipedia policy unequivocally states that answers on the RS noticeboard 'are not Wikipedia policy'.  In other words, it is not Wikipedia policy to create blacklists or an Index of Forbidden Books.  When individual editors of this page do create a blacklist, it constitutes outright censorship.  We need to get into a discussion of what Wikipedia policy on reliable sources actually is, and stop the propaganda that answers on the RS noticeboard constitute Wikipedia policy when Wikipedia itself clearly states that they are 'not Wikipedia policy'. NinaGreen (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the deal, Nina: I've given you ample links to the Wikipedia guidelines and policies for you to learn what those are. Given your statements above, it is apparent you haven't read them past what you continue to reiterate: that noticeboard opinions--which are tools to determine consensus--are not considered to be policy. Consequently you don't know enough about Wikipedia policy or about the encyclopedia to have a productive discussion, given your display of an attitude of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself. Those two sources are not WP:RS for this article, and if you think that's censorship go to the noticeboards and make your complaints. You asked who to appeal to and we gave you the proper forums: WP:ANI, WP:RS/N and Jimbo Wales.
 * I had hoped that you would be able to contribute to this article in a cooperative way and help to bring it up to WP:FA quality standards. It appears my hope is not to be fulfilled, at least not with your contributions, but that's OK; Nishidani will be back in February and his goal for the article is also to bring it up to FA standards. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, the issue is not that I need to 'learn' what the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies are. The issue is that you and Paul have been misrepresenting on this page what the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies are, and the reason the discussion is not productive is because you continue to misrepresent Wikipedia guidelines and policies in order to create your own personal blacklist and Index of forbidden books.  If there were any Wikipedia policy which supported what you and Paul are doing, both of you would have cited it here long ago.  Because there is no such policy which permits individual editors to create personal blacklists and Indexes of Forbidden Books, you and Paul both hide behind the false claim that I don't understand Wikipedia policy.  On the contrary, I understand Wikipedia policy very clearly.  Wikipedia policy concerns verifiability, not consensus, and Wikipedia policy clearly states that answers on the RS noticeboard, which you have been using as a vehicle to enforce your personal blacklist and Index of Forbidden Books, are 'not Wikipedia policy'.  What is happening here is censorship, pure and simple.  If you wish to engage in a productive discussion you need to cite the specific Wikipedia policy on which you claim to be relying in creating your personal blacklist.  So far you have not done so.NinaGreen (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No one has been misrepresenting anything. There is certainly room for different interpretations of policies and guidelines. No one will dispute that. That's why we have the board and why we rely on consensus. People do disagree, regularly. As for "blacklists" and "forbidden books", yes, we do in practice have both of those. Some websites, for example, are outright blacklisted because of their content. If you try to add them, the system will not allow you to do so. Other books and websites will not be considered Reliable Sources under any circumstance. Yet others may be acceptable in one article but not in others. There is nothing unusual about this. Editors refuse to accept or remove sources all the time. It's normal practice. As Tom says, you can raise this as an issue if you want to lodge a complaint as WP:ANI. It seems to me Nina, that your problem is that you think you should be able to "win" by arguments here, but Wikipedia policy against OR was designed to avoid precisely the problem that some editors will push and push for their interpretations and not accept other points of view. You insist, for example, that you "won" the debate with Buchraeumer. I see no evidence of that, but what I do see is that Buchraeumer and Tom  now both refuse to talk to you because you apparently refuse to see any position other than the one you want to see. Paul B (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Nina, you are the person doing the misrepresenting. You were long ago notified of this from 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."
 * Both Brief Chronicles and The Oxfordian fit that definition and are not usable for this article. Any further objections of yours about this need to be directed to a third party, not me. I will no longer respond to your complaint. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, again you are misrepresenting Wikipedia policy to create your own blacklist and Index of Forbidden Books. It has not been established that Brief Chronicles and The Oxfordian do not have 'any meaningful peer review'.  Both journals had from the outset, and continue to have, double-blind peer review, and in the case of Brief Chronicles the credentials of the members of the editorial board who conduct the peer reviews are available at the Brief Chronicles website for all the world to see.  All the members of the editorial board of Brief Chronicles have excellent academic credentials, and almost all of them teach at universities.  While you have university degrees, you do not have the academic qualifications they clearly have, and you do not teach at a university.  Yet you are imposing your own personal view of their credentials on Wikipedia in order to blacklist the journal and damage the reputations of respected members of the academic community.  Moreover you are not in the slightest a disinterested party in doing this.  You have been a vigorous opponent of the Oxfordian hypothesis for the past two decades.  That is your prerogative, of course, but it does not entitle you to misrepresent Wikipedia policy and exercise censorship on Wikipedia by creating a blacklist and an Index of Forbidden Books.


 * In addition, by citing the Wikipedia policy on peer review, you are once again jumping ahead of yourself and distracting attention from the Wikipedia policy which needs to be the focus of the discussion, i.e. the Wikipedia policy on verifiability, which is one of the three pillars of Wikipedia. Both you and Paul appear to want to avoid a discussion of the verifiability policy at all costs.NinaGreen (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nina and I would add the following two points. First, it is a FACT that the "What to accept. What to Delete" section of the discussion was deleted a couple of weeks or so ago. I had to restore it. If Paul doesn't believe this, he can check the record. It may take a little but it is there. Second, it may be fine to state that the vast majority of scholars believe a certain point of view, but you can delete references to others to hold other points of view. Mark Anderson's book was written after Nelson's book and is a fine piece of scholarship. If you want to say only a few people do not accept the traditional view, that is okay, but you can't delete a minority view just because it is a minority. When we say Mark Anderson has gathered a large circumstantial case in favor of Oxford, that is true. You may not agree with this circumstantial case, but there it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.5.233 (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been through the edits. It was never deleted. It was archived by MiszaBot, which is just a machine that puts sections in an archive if there hasn't been any discussion for a set period. It's an automatic mechanism to stop the page getting too long, and has nothing to do with censorship. No-one has censored your section. All sections with no recent contributions were automatically archived. Mark anderson's book is not a fine piece of scholarship at all. If you had any acquaintance with actual scholarship, you'd know that. But your personal opinion is really irrelevant. The rules of WP:RS are what matter here. The fact that it is (very slightly) more recent than Nelson is also irrelevant. Most its arguments are rehashes of discredited claims that go back decades. Paul B (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why it was archived so quickly. It was quite new. And then it disappeared. I'll have to investigate. I don't know who decides what a discredited claim is. If the majority view is what decides what a discredited claim is, then I doubt we would have gotten out of the Middle Ages in terms of scientific knowledge. Many intelligent people have examined the case for Stratford and Oxford and determined that the circumstantial case for Oxford is much more convincing. In fact, we have little hard evidence either way, but if you stack up all the parallels between Oxford and the plays, they are substantial. You can't find any such similarities between Stratford and the plays. We have 6 signatures from Stratford--that's the only proof that he wrote anything in his own hand. Three of those signatures may not even have been his. The record is clear to those people with an open mind who want to study it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.3.150 (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't, as I have already said, determine authorship by comparing the plots of plays to the lives of real people. If we did we'd be arguing that half of the Elizabethan/Jacobean playwrights were psychopaths. Playwrighting in that period was rather like film-making today. It was a commercial enterprise in which stories were chosen for their appeal to a wide audience. By your criterion we would disqualify John Ford as the director of the fiilms attributed to him because he was not a gunman in the wild west. I've already made this point about Ridley Scott. The same applies to Shakespeare. He was writing with the "genres" popular at the time. Why do you think we should have more signatures? People didn't collect autographs then. How many signatures of other playwrights from the time do you think exist? Not many is the answer. Paul B (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability and Meaningful Peer Review
Paul's comparison involving 'travel agents' at the end of the last thread was so off topic that I've started a new thread here.

Earlier I quoted the first two paragraphs of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability:


 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (The New York Times, Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.


 * The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

The Wikipedia policy of verifiability states that all significant minority views that have appeared in reliable published sources must be covered in Wikipedia articles. That leads into a discussion of what constitutes a reliable published source in which a minority view has appeared, and it is obvious that the reliability of the publication cannot be discounted solely on the ground that it holds a minority view because that would render the Wikipedia policy concerning the coverage of a minority view meaningless. The Wikipedia criteria by which the reliability of publications are to be judged are straightforward, and Brief Chronicles meets them. However Paul has added a criterion of his own invention, namely that a journal which deals with the Oxfordian hypothesis and the facts of Oxford's life must have peer reviewers who are all experts in the Elizabethan period for peer review to be meaningful. That is not Wikipedia policy. That is Paul's own criterion. And since it is Paul's own criterion, the burden of proof is on Paul to establish that that is Wikipedia's policy, and not merely his own criterion superimposed on Wikipedia policy.NinaGreen (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oxfordism is not a minority view; it is a well-recognised fringe theory. It is a notable fringe theory, and as such has its own article on Wikipedia, along with a few satellite articles.
 * As you stated above, this article is a biography, not a fringe theory. And fringe journals cannot be used as a source for any article except that particular fringe theory. I have already quoted all the relevant polices abut this, so I will not repeat them again.
 * Look at this diff from the old Shakespeare Authorship Page: You will see that the editor of Brief Chronicles, Roger Stritmatter, AKA BenJonson, added a link to the journal to the external link section under the category of "Oxfordian". That means it is an Oxfordian journal, and an Oxfordian journal is a journal about a fringe theory, so Brief Chronicles does not meet the test of a reliable source for any article except the article on Oxfordism. So you can now drop the subject.
 * You're welcome. Carry on. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, you wrote:


 * Oxfordism is not a minority view; it is a well-recognised fringe theory.

Please refer me to the Wikipedia arbitration case which made that determination.NinaGreen (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't "determine" that a certain field is a fringe theory; it reflects the current academic consensus, which can be found here. You can also search the WP:FT/N archives and find many confirmations of that, such as this one from 2007, where dab (𒁳) closes the discussion with the comment, "Shakespearean authorship question is a fringe topic. there's nothing wrong with debating fringe theories in articles dedicated to fringe theories. The problem with Smatprt seems to be that he prefers one flavour of fringe over another, that's a matter of WP:OWN, not WP:FRINGE (since the entire article is fringy)." Tom Reedy (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, the citations you've referred me to are all fairly out of date. In the past few years, particularly with Shapiro's Contested Will, the authorship controversy has become a minority view.NinaGreen (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You're getting very good at moving the goalposts, Nina. Have you always been this disingenuous or are you just channelling your coach?

But it doesn't really make any difference. Your Procrustean attempts to fit reality into your funhouse mirror-world only work for you, not the rest of us. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I don't have a 'coach'. I deduced all by myself from the prominence of Shapiro's Contested Will, from Roland Emmerich's soon to be released film 'Anonymous', and from Hardy Cook's request on the Shaksper list for strategies for an academic response to Anonymous that the authorship controversy has moved into the mainstream, and meets Wikipedia's standards for a minority view which must be represented. Sometimes the goalposts do move, and in this case, they have.NinaGreen (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, I should also have given credit to David Kathman, Terry Ross and you for moving the authorship issue into the mainstream. You can't have a website subtitled 'Dedicated to the Proposition that Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare' on the internet for years without eventually turning the majority view into a 'proposition' and elevating the status of the Oxfordian hypothesis to that of a credible minority view. The Shakespeare Authorship Page has made thousands of internet users aware of the authorship issue without being able to deliver a knockout blow to the Oxfordian hypothesis.  In the process it has helped turn the Oxfordian hypothesis into a credible minority view, which Wikipedia policy mandates must be represented.NinaGreen (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nina, more people believe in alien abduction than believe that Oxford (or any other alternative candidate) wrote Shakespeare. I admire your tenacious determination to try to make it a mainstream "minority" view, but I must warn you that in my experience after a while self-delusion has serious psychological consequences. Denial is the most corrosive defence-mechanism there is, and I see its effects every day in my job. DON'T BE A VICTIM! Tom Reedy (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's impossible - short of inventing a time machine - to deliver a knock-out blow to Oxfordianism, or for that matter Marlovianism or Derbyism or Whateleyism, because these theories are what Popper called "unfalsifiable". They depend on essentially inventing arguments by finding parallels and discovering secret ciphers. Some of the specific arguments may be falsifiable, but others are not - and new ones can always be created. Ultimately we can't prove that any actual author wrote the works attributed to them. Maybe Alexander Pope kept the real poet locked up in his grotto and forced him to write heroic couplets for rations of cheese and bread. It's impossible to disprove this. Paul B (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, I'm surprised that someone like you who is obviously seriously interested in the authorship issue doesn't realize that it's not the counter-theories themselves which prevent the knock-out blow from being delivered. It's the inherent weakness of the Stratfordian position.  That was made very clear on Hardy Cook's Shaksper list recently when he asked for suggested strategies for academics to employ when Roland Emmerich's film Anonymous is released.  The weak response astonished me.  No-one can authoritively prove the orthodox position on the authorship with any concrete evidence.NinaGreen (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Again you seem not to 'hear' what you read. Of course no one can "authoritively prove the orthodox position on the authorship with any concrete evidence". That's exactly what it said - assuming that by 'concrete' you mean 'absolutely undeniable'. There is of course an abundance of actual evidence. Short of inventing a time machine we can't prove that any author of the past wrote their works, including Pope. We can't prove that Socrates didn't write Euripides' plays or that Chaucer wrote Chaucer or that Francis Bacon didn't write all the works of Marlowe and Cervantes, as has been claimed. None of this can be proven. But we don't make historical judgements by inventing stories of what might have happened. Paul B (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, you're off topic. I don't know whether you're a member of Hardy Cook's Shaksper list.  I am, and the response by academics to Hardy Cook's request was weak.  It wasn't a matter of providing 'absolutely undeniable' evidence.  It was a matter of providing any really cogent evidence at all.  I expected academic participants on the list to jump in with concise summaries of all the really salient facts which establish that William of Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays.  That didn't happen.  Most of the suggestions by academics were along the lines of 'our best strategy is to mock Oxfordians'.  It's as I said above.  It's not the counter-theories themselves which prevent the knock-out blow from being delivered in the authorship controversy.  It's the inherent weakness of the orthodox Stratfordian position. The growing awareness in academia of the weakness of that position is causing concern of the sort that gave rise to Shapiro's book.  One doesn't title a book 'Contested Will' because it's some sort of fringe theory which everyone is brushing off.NinaGreen (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What people said on some webpage is trivial. Maybe they didn't come up with elaborate arguments because they thought it isn't worth doing so. The rest of your post is the same ol' fantasy that anti-Statfordians have had for well over a century. Our support is growing! We are on the edge of academic acceptance! We are criticised because our enemies are increasingly scared of us! You can read exactly the same confident assertions made by Baconians 100 years ago and Derbyites 50 years ago. And Oxfordians too. It comes from having marginal acquaintance with what's actually going on in modern Shakespeare studies. Paul B (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the ad hoc nature of the theories seems to be mirrored in the debate style of the advocates. But in any case, that is no matter to the writing of this article, since writing the biography of Oxford based on reliable sources has nothing to do with the Shakespeare authorship question.
 * I would like to put this to rest, since the talk page is not a place intended to debate the merits of fringe theories. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, much of what you've written above is completely off topic, so I won't respond. But I must remind you that it was you who made the claim that Brief Chronicles cannot be accepted as a reliable source because the authorship controversy is a fringe theory. It is therefore perfectly legitimate, and in fact necessary, to deal with your claim on this page. My position is a very reasonable one. Did Shapiro write Contested Will because of a fringe theory? Hardly. He wrote it because there is an authorship controversy which has become a mainstream issue. There is therefore a minority view on the authorship, and Wikipedia policy mandates that that minority view must be fairly represented. For that reason, and for all the other reasons mentioned thus far, including the excellent academic credentials of its editorial board and peer reviewers, its double-blind peer review process, etc., Brief Chronicles must be considered a reliable source.NinaGreen (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom and Paul, consider this article from the LA Times:


 * Emmerich's film is one more sign that conspiracy theories about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays have gone mainstream.


 * For the entire article, see http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/11/opinion/la-oe-shapiro11-2010apr11  NinaGreen (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So what? John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories have been mainstream for decades, and they're still fringe theories. Whether a topic is mainstream has no bearing on their acceptance by academe or the public. Child sexual abuse is mainstream; you can hardly pick up a newspaper without reading about it, but I hope you won't try to argue that it's a "minority" practice. And I would disagree with Shapiro: the SAQ has been mainstream since the 1880s.
 * The bottom line is that Oxfordism and all other alternative Shakespeare authorship theories are fringe theories, and no amount of assertion will change that fact, and Brief Chronicles is a fringe journal and not a reliable source for this article, and no amount of assertion by you or any other fringe theory believer will change that fact, so you might as well quit wasting your time on it. We don't have an infinite amount of time, you know. I doubt seriously that when you're on your deathbed you'll wish you had spent more time arguing for the acceptance of Brief Chronicles as a reliable source for the Oxford biography. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you are not stating Wikipedia policy. You are merely stating your own personal view. You are only one editor, as am I. If you want to argue with Shapiro, you can ask Wikipedia to arbitrate the issue.75.155.156.29 (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)NinaGreen (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Nina, you are the one trying to ramrod your personal view contrary to policy; nobody has agreed with you, and every statement I've made about this matter is based on Wikipedia policy, which you would know if you had read all the policies and guidelines to which I have furnished links. It is the burden of the person who wants to use a source when challenged to show that it is permissible by policy, not by quoting a newspaper article or referring to a web site or trying to make a case based on argument.
 * And why should I ask for arbitration "to argue with Shapiro"? You won't even go to the noticeboards to contribute to the discussion about the source. Instead you stubbornly insist that all other editors have to acknowledge your method of doing things. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't work the way your personal web site works, a point you obviously haven't been able to grasp in your monomaniacal obsession of willfully ignoring what people have been trying to tell you. You are a closed system; nothing from the outside penetrates, and you go round and round repeating yourself. I've had no problem with most of your edits, but you want everything 100 percent your way. That's not a realistic expectation on Wikipedia, and it won't happen, believe me, so quit wasting your time. The only thing you are accomplishing is the amusement of all the editors and admins watching this talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I am aware of Wikipedia policies, and I am following them. Nor do in the slightest want everything my way. Please stop making allegations which are untrue. I wanted to stay away from the authorship issue as my purpose in editing this page is to help to produce a factually accurate article on Edward de Vere's life. But you have now dragged the authorship issue into the discussion of whether Brief Chronicles is a reliable source by claiming that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory and that for that reason alone Brief Chronicles must be termed a fringe journal and cannot be considered a reliable source. That was not your earlier argument, nor was it your argument on the RS noticeboard, but it is your argument now. And you are wrong on that point. Shapiro is against you, by your own admission the website you are involved with is against you (it is dedicated to the 'proposition' that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, not to the 'fact' that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare), and a whole variety of other evidence is against you on your argument that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, including the fact that there are authorship studies programs offered at two universities. There has been no formal determination by Wikipedia that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory. That is merely your own personal opinion. And although you are certainly entitled to your own personal opinion, you cannot force your personal opinion on Wikipedia by claiming that your personal opinion is Wikipedia policy. If you want to turn your personal opinion into Wikipedia policy, you need to take the matter to arbitration. That's the only way you can turn your own personal opinion into Wikipedia policy.NinaGreen (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Did Shapiro write Contested Will because of a fringe theory? Hardly. He wrote it because there is an authorship controversy which has become a mainstream issue." That's simply not true, at least as far as Wikipedia's definition of 'mainstream' goes. I've no idea why he wrote the book, but he's not the first by a long chalk. There have been several books written by mainstream scholars on the history of SAQ, at least as far back as The Poacher from Stratford in 1958. As for the "mainstream" status of SAQ arguments, I'd say it got closest to that around the beginning of the twentieth century when cutting edge science seemed to support Baconism and many noted intellectuals came out in favour of anti-Stratfordian positions. Since then, the science has all gone the other way. Shapiro makes it quite clear in his book that scholarly consensus dismisses SAQ arguments completely. However he does mention that sites like Wikipedia make it more popularly known. But that's true of numerous fringe theories, such as the claim that Jews were responsible for 9/11 and that Obama is secretly a non-American and Muslim. Paul B (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, you're arguing with Shapiro about his own use of language. That's an argument which you need to take up with Shapiro, not with Wikipedia.  And let's be clear that no-one is arguing about what the majority view of the authorship is, as opposed to the minority view, or with the fact that the majority view must be clearly and fully presented on Wikipedia.  The argument is about presentation of the minority view.  If you and Tom want a determination from Wikipedia that the authorship controversy must be presented on Wikipedia as a fringe theory, you need to take the matter to arbitration to obtain a formal determination to that effect.


 * Also, could you and Tom would desist from using irrelevant analogies which merely serve to confuse the issue? Are there programs offered at two universities on the claim that the Jews were responsible for 9/11 or that Obama is secretly a non-American and Muslim?  We're all going to be very surprised if you answer 'yes'.  But are there Shakespeare authorship studies programs offered at two universities?  Yes, there are, one in the UK and one in the US.NinaGreen (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing with Shapiro about anything, though I do disagree with the book on some points (I think he's very unfair about Looney's politics), but that's neither here nor there. 'Mainstream' is just a normal word that can be used in many ways. What matters here is how it's used on Wikipedia. Shapiro did not use it to mean that SAQ theories have achieved any kind of scholarly acceptance - and you know that. I've no idea whether universities discuss such matters as Obama's religion, but such patently barmy ideas as melanin theory have been taught in US colleges. See Leonard Jeffries. Look at what Mary Daly taught. I know nothing about the course in the US, but the one in the UK adopts a kind of 'postmodern' slant and it is not taught by an expert. As it happens, I even used to teach SAQ myself when I had a course called Envisaging Shakespeare. Paul B (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, again you're using irrelevant analogies which only serve to confuse the issue. I asked:


 * Are there programs offered at two universities on the claim that the Jews were responsible for 9/11 or that Obama is secretly a non-American and Muslim? We're all going to be very surprised if you answer 'yes'.  But are there Shakespeare authorship studies programs offered at two universities?  Yes, there are, one in the UK and one in the US.


 * You evaded the question, but the clear answer is 'no', there are no university programs on the Jews being responsible for 9/11 or Obama being secretly a non-American and a Muslim. The fact that authorship studies programs are offered at two universities is the sort of criterion which distinguishes a minority view from a fringe theory. If you and Tom wish to hold the personal view that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, you have the right to do so, but your personal view is not Wikipedia policy, and you cannot turn your personal view into Wikipedia policy without taking the matter to arbitration.NinaGreen (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't evade the question, I said I don't know if the subjects are discussed in University programmes. I then went on to point out that the mere existence of a university course is not in itself evidence of the non-fringe character of a theory by giving examples I do happen to know of. Paul B (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, the question wasn't whether the Jews being responsible for 9/11 or Obama being secretly a non-American and a Muslim are 'discussed in University programmes'. The question was whether there are university programs on those subjects.  There are not.  But two universities do offer Shakespeare authorship studies programs, which is a criterion which clearly differentiates a minority view from a fringe theory.  Another criterion which clearly differentiates a minority view from a fringe theory is full-length books written by specialists in the field which deal with the minority view, as is the case with Shapiro's Contested Will and Scott McCrea's The Case For Shakespeare.


 * You and Tom are entitled to hold the view that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, but you can't turn your personal views into Wikipedia policy without taking the matter to arbitration.NinaGreen (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can take it to arbitration if you like. No-one is stopping you are they? It has been repeatedly discussed on the Fringe Theories board and the outcome has always been the same. The argument that it is somehow legitimised because there are books about it by academics is palpably false. There are many books about the Blood Libel against Jews for example. That does not make the theory that Jews abducted Christian children and drank their blood a legitimate "minority position" in academia. The argument about university courses has more merit, but the courses (at least the UK one) are not teaching the theory as a "truth", but as a cultural-historical phenomenon. It is not taught by a Shakespeare expert and is very very marginal. As for the US, it is possible to find many very weird theories taught in colleges, especially in the US, where all forms of fundamentalism thrive and commercialism rules in academia. Paul B (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, could you stay on point, and stop dragging all these red herrings and far-fetched analogies across the path? Do you think statements about the Jewish blood libel would be a convincing argument in a Wikipedia arbitration on the authorship controversy? If so, I wish you luck.NinaGreen (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am on point Nina. The analogy is designed to show the illogicality of your argument. That's the whole point of the reductio ad absurdum. It says "if you believe this, logically you must believe that too. You can't possibly believe that, therefore your argument does not make sense." If you don't get that, you don't get reasoning at all, and you certainly have no conception of what a red herring is. The reductio is a mechanism for making clearly visible flaws in logic. A red herring is a device for misdirecting or evading points. It's what you do all the time. Paul B (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * She won't start an arbitration because she knows what will happen; it's much easier to bloviate on the talk page and complain about how we're forcing our "personal views" on Wikipedia. She wouldn't even participate in the Brief Chonicles noticeboard discussion. Nina, isn't it time you started another section to go round and round again about what you repeated in the previous sections? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom and Paul, it's you who are making the assertion that Wikipedia must treat the authorship controversy as a fringe theory, not me. It's therefore your obligation to take it to arbitration if you want to make it Wikipedia policy. You've been making the assertion that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory everywhere on Wikipedia where you could find a forum, but so far it's merely your own personal opinion, albeit repeated endlessly. If you want to make it Wikipedia policy, take it to arbitration. If you were as sure of the outcome as you've claimed to be in every one of the countless assertions you've made, you'd be off to arbitration in a flash.NinaGreen (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Tom, I notice you've avoided comment on the fact that the website you're associated with is subtitled 'Dedicated to the Proposition that Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare'. I'm interested in knowing how you would explain to a Wikipedia arbitration board that in your view its only a 'proposition' that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare canon.NinaGreen (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll just have to start an arbitration to find out, won't you?
 * All this chit-chat is amusing, but it's basically a waste of time. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, I won't be doing that. No-one goes to arbitration when the status quo is in their favour.  Wikipedia has as yet made no determination that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, so the status quo is in my favour.  It's not a fringe theory until Wikipedia policy says it is, no matter how many times, or on how many different Wikipedia pages, you and Paul Barlow claim it is.  Incidentally, consider this paragraph from the opening page of Shapiro's Contested Will:


 * Since 1850 or so, thousands of books and articles have been published urging that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the plays. At first, bibliographers tried to keep count of all the works inspired by the controversy.  By 1884 the  list ran to 255 items; by 1949 it had swelled to over 4000.  Nobody bothered trying to keep a running tally after that. . . . Over time, and for all sorts of reasons, leading artists and intellectuals from all walks of life joined the ranks of the skeptics.  I can think of little else that unites Henry James and Malcolm X, Sigmund Freud and Charlie Chaplin, Helen Keller and Orson wells, or Mark Twain and Sir Derek Jacobi.


 * Doesn't sound like a fringe theory to me. Sounds like a minority view which Wikipedia policy mandates must be represented.NinaGreen (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Another quotation from Shapiro's Contested Will. Shapiro has just described the 1987 moot court trial of the authorship controversy before three Supreme Court Justices in which all candidates were ruled out apart from Shakespeare of Stratford and Oxford, and although the justices ruled for Shakespeare of Stratford on the basis of the evidence presented to them, Justice Stevens said that "if the author was not the man from Stratford then there is a high probability that it was Edward de Vere . . . I think the evidence against the others is conclusive'.  Shapiro writes (p.207):


 * The moot court proved to be a turning point in the decades-long struggle to promote Oxford's cause. More than anything else, the Supreme Court justices had provided legitimacy; the Oxfordians were no longer the "deviants" vilified by Schoenbaum (and one immediate effect of the moot court was that this harsh language was considerably toned down when Schoenbaum revised his Shakespeare's Lives in 1991).  If Supreme Court justices could take the Oxfordians seriously and deem them the only serious rivals to Shakespeare, so could others.

Looks like Tom and Paul didn't get the memo from either the Supreme Court justices or from Shapiro.NinaGreen (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Tom, I won't be doing that. No-one goes to arbitration when the status quo is in their favour.  Wikipedia has as yet made no determination that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, so the status quo is in my favour."
 * Sorry Nina, but you're wrong. The SAQ has long been deemed a fringe theory on Wikipedia, and its coverage is governed by WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. If you want to go to arbitration, just insert it in this or any other mainstream article in an unbalanced way and you'll quickly learn what I suspect you already know (I know well the strategy of trying to reframe the debate, but it didn't work for previous editors and it won't work for any others). As long as you refrain from that, you are free to believe anything you want about Wikipedia policy or Shakespeare. I really don't care.
 * Now would you please stop trying to debate this issue on this talk page? An article's talk page is not a forum for off-topic discussion or debate. I know I do so myself; I'll do my best to comply with the talk page guidelines. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote: 'The SAQ has long been deemed a fringe theory on Wikipedia'. 'Deeming' simply means you and Paul and Nishidani have 'deemed' it so. That does not make it Wikipedia policy. And because it is only you and Paul and Nishidani who have deemed it so, it is not true that 'its coverage is governed by WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT', as you keep contending. The only way to make it Wikipedia policy is for you and Paul and Nishidani to take it to arbitration and obtain a ruling. Then, and only then, will its 'coverage is governed by WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT'. Until then it is subject to the same rules as any other Wikipedia topic.

And please let me gently remind you that I did not bring this 'fringe theory' topic up. You did. And it is you who are keeping the discussion going by insisting that your view prevails over Wikipedia policy, and that merely because you and Paul and Nishidani have 'deemed' something to be so, it is so. There have to be some rules which govern editing, as you have so rightly insisted. And you and Paul and Nishidani are not following Wikipedia rules if you are merely 'deeming' something to be so, and then claiming that what you 'deem' to be so is now Wikipedia policy, and everyone else must abide by what you have 'deemed' to be so. There is a process on Wikipedia by which what you 'deem' to be so can be turned into Wikipedia policy. It's called arbitration.NinaGreen (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Earlier in this thread I wrote in response to Paul:


 * Paul, I'm surprised that someone like you who is obviously seriously interested in the authorship issue doesn't realize that it's not the counter-theories themselves which prevent the knock-out blow from being delivered. It's the inherent weakness of the Stratfordian position.


 * Shapiro confirms this repeatedly in his book, but perhaps nowhere more succinctly than on p. 223 at the beginning of his chapter The Evidence for Shakespeare:


 * It's one thing to explain how claims that others wrote the plays rest on unfounded assumptions; it's another to show that Shakespeare of Stratford really did write them.


 * Nothing could demonstrate more clearly that the authorship controversy is a minority view which must be fairly represented by Wikipedia than this admission by Shapiro that supporters of the orthodox position have difficulty in showing that Shakespeare wrote the plays.NinaGreen (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)